Narconon Warner Springs 1
June 13, 2006
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, NORTH COUNTY DIVISION
>IN053391
Plaintiff: MELINDA MARTIN
Defendants: NARCONON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA dba NARCONON SAN DIEGO,
dba NARCONON WARNER SPRINGS; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive
Complaint for
1. Recision based on Fraud;
2. Recision based on Negligent Misrepresentation
3. Recision based on Mistake;
4. Money Had and Received
--------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
6. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Narconon is an organization
conducting business as a narcotics abuse recovery program. Plaintiff is
further informed and believes and thereon alleges that, Defendant is
run by or associated with the Church of Scientology.
7. In or about February 2006, Plaintiff contacted Narconon by phone
regarding the placement of her 25 year old son, Brian Martin, in Narconon's
in-patient narcotics abuse recovery program.
8. At the time Plaintiff contacted Narconon, she believed that she was
contacting the organization, "Narcotics Anonymous." At the time Plaintiff
did not know that Narconon was run by or associated with the Church
of Scientology.
9. Further, during her telephone conversations with a representative of
the organization, it was never disclosed to Plaintiff that Narconon was
affiliated with the Church of Scientology.
10. Plaintiff obtained Narconon's phone number during an internet search
for "meth rehab" which directed her to Narconon's website.
11. The only reason Plaintiff contacted Narconon was that the name
"Narconon" is deceptively siilar to "NarcAnon," which is the shortened
name of Narcotics Anonymous.
12. During her initial conversation with Narconon's representative,
Plaintiff was advised that the cost o the program would be $22,000.00
payable in advance. In order to initiate the process quickly, Plaintiff
authorized payment of this amount to be made by her credit card. Prior
to payment, Plaintiff was never provided a written contract or any other
information regarding Narconon or its financial policies.
13. On February 12, 2006, Brian Martin entered Narconon's "program" in
Newport Beach, California. Within three days, Brian Martin was transferred
to Narconon's inpatient facility located in Warner Springs, San Diego
County, California.
14. Shortly after his transfer to Warner Springs, Brian Martin contacted
Plaintiff and advised her that he had learned that Narconon was not the
organization "Narcotics Anonymous" but, rather, was run by the Church
of Scientology, using a program developed by its founder, L. Ron Hubbard.
Brian advised Plaintiff that he was afraid and requested that she
immediately pick him up and take him home.
15. After conducting research on both organizations, Plaintiff concluded
that Narconon was not the organization she had thought it was. Particularly
alarming was research she uncovered that Narconon was a "front" for
Scientology and was using dangerous and ineffective drug treatment
procedures. Plaintiff further discovered that Narconon used the program
to recruit people to Scientology, preying on their already addictive
personalities. Based on the information she obtained in her research,
Plaintiff immediately drove to Narconon's Warner Springs facility and
retrieved her son.
16. Plaintiff has made demands on narconon to return her money since
Brian did not complete the program. Any benefit Brian Martin gained by
his presence at Narconon's facility was negligible. Plaintiff further
seeks the return of her money on the grounds that she mistakenly
believed that Narconon was a different organization.
17. Despite her demands for the return of her money, at all times
Narconon has refused to return any amount of money.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Recision based on Fraud
AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
18. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of
paragraphs 1-17 above as though set forth fully herein.
19. Defendant entered into an oral contract for the benefit of Plaintiff's
son, a third-party beneficiary.
20. The terms of the oral contract provided that, in exchange for
payment from Plaintiff in the amount of $22,000.00, Defendant would
provide narcotics abuse recovery services.
21. Plaintiff seeks to rescind the contract between herself and
Defendant since Defendant fraudulently concealed that Defendant is
associated with the Church of Scientology and not associated with
Narcotics Anonymous ("NarcAnon".) Plaintiff contends that Defendant,
through its representative, intentionally failed to disclose that
Narconon was associated with the Church of Scientology.
22. Plaintiff did not know that Defendant was associated with the
Church of Scientology rather, she believed that it was an extension of
the well known alcohol abuse program known as "Alcoholics Anonymous."
23. Plaintiff alleges that because of the confusing similarity of the
names "Narconon" and "NarcAnon" that Defendant intended to deceive her
by concealing and leading her to believe that the program was
"Narcotics Anonymous."
24. Plaintiff contends that she reasonably relied on Defendants' deception
and was subsequently harmed when she provided $22,000.00 to Defendant
and placed her son in Defendant's care.
25. Defendant's concealment was a substantial factor in causing
Plaintiff's harm.
26. Defendant's actions were intentional, oppressive and malicious and
were done in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. As a result,
an award of exemplary damages is justified.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Recision based on negligent Misrepresentation)
AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
27. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of
paragraphs 1 through 26 as though set forth fully herein.
28. Defendant entered into an oral contract for the benefit of Plaintiff's
son, a third-party beneficiary.
29. The terms of the oral contract provided that, in exchange for
payment from Plaintiff in the amount of $22,000.000, Defendant would
provide narcotics abuse recovery services.
30. Plaintiff seeks to rescind the contract between herself and Defendant
since Defendant negligently concealed that Defendant is associated with
the Church of Scientology and not associated with Narcotics Anonymous
("NarcAnon".) Plaintiff contends that Defendant, through its representative,
intentionally and negligently failed to disclose that Narconon was
associated with the Church of Scientology.
31. Plaintiff did not know that Defendant was associated with the
Church of Scientology rather, she believed that it was an extension of
the well known alcohol abuse program known as "Alcoholics Anonymous."
32. Plaintiff alleges that because of the confusing similarity of the
names "Narconon" and "NarcAnon," that Defendant negligently deceived
her when it failed to advise her that the Narconon program was not the
program known as "Narcotics Anonymous," but rather, a different program
run by or associated with the Church of Scientology.
33. Plaintif contends that she reasonably relied on Defendant's negligent
misrepresentation and was subsequently harmed when she provided $22,000.00
and placed her son in Defendant's care.
34. Defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's
harm.
35. Plaintiff requests that the Court rescind the oral contract between
her and Defendant on the grounds that Defendant's misrepresentations, as
described above, were negligent.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Recision based on Mistake)
AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
36. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of
paragraphs 1 through 35 above as though set forth fully herein.
37. Plaintiff seeks recision of the contract alleged above since she
entered into the contract with Defendant based on her mistaken belief that
it was the narcotics recovery program known as "NarcAnon."
38. Plaintiff contends that Defendant knew that its name was confusingly
deceptive and similar to the name of "NarcAnon" yet failed to take any
steps to advise Plaintiff of the difference between the two organizations.
39. Plaintiff's mistake was not caused by her excessive carelessness
and, had she known about her mistake, she would have never entered into
the contract with Defendant, nor tendered any amount of money to Defendant.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Money Had and Received)
AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
40. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of
paragraphs 1 through 39 above as though set forth fully herein.
41. On or about February 12, 2006, Defendant became indebted to Plaintiff
in the sum of $22,000.00 for money had and received by Defendant for the
use and benefit of Plaintiff's son, Brian Martin.
42. Plaintiff has repeatedly demanded that Defendant return the money
received. The last demand was made in or about April, 2006. However
Defendant has refused, and continues to refuse, to return the money.
43. No payment has been made by Defendant to Plaintiff and there is now
owing the sum of $22,000.00, with interest on that amount at the rate
of at least 10 percent per year, from February 12, 2006 to the present.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment as follows:
ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
1. For general damages of $22.000;
2. For interest on the principal sum at the rate of at least 10 percent
per year from February 12, 2006 to the present;
3. For costs of suit herein incurred; and
4. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
ON THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
1. For repayment of the sum of $22.000.00;
2. For interest on the principal sum at the rate of at least 10 percent
per year from February 12, 2006 to the present;
3. For costs of suit herein incurred; and,
4. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
ON THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
1. For repayment of the sum of $22.000.00;
2. For interest on the principal sum at the rate of at least 10 percent
per year from February 12, 2006 to the present;
3. For costs of suit herein incurred; and,
4. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
Dated June 13, 2006
Law offices of Gary D. Leasure, APC
Attorneys At Law
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Narconon Warner Springs II:
Plaintiff: Kevin Carter
Defendant: Narconon Southern, business entity, form unknown, Gerry Marshall
and Does 1 to 100
Kevin Carter alleges that Narconon Southern and Does 1 to 20 was the
legal (proximate) cause of damages to Plaintif. By the following acts
or ommissions to act, Defendant negligently caused the damage to Plaintiff
on July 8, 2002 or after
at Narconon facility at 17350 South Highway 79, Warner Springs CA
(Description of reasons for liability)
Plaintiff, KEVIN CARTER, at all times relevant, was an employee of
Defendants. NARCONON SOUTHERN and DOES 1 to 20. On or after July 8, 2002,
Plaintiff sustained injuries in the course and scope of her(sic) employment
at 17350 South Highway 79, Warner Springs, because of dangerous working
conditions on the premises and which caused him to injure himself.
Defendants NARCONON SOUTHERN and DOES 1 to 20, failed to provide Workers'
Compensation insurance coverage for Plaintiff and was not permissibly
self-insured pursuant to the California Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code,
Section 3700, et seq, including Labor Code section 3706, Plaintiff is
permitted to maintain this civil action against the above mentioned
Defendants, who were negligent in creating, permitting, failing
to correct or warn of the dangerous work conditions causing Plaintiff's
injuries and otherwise failed to maintain a safe workplace, all of which
was a legal cause of Plaintiff's complained of injuries. Pursuant to
the Labor Code, Plaintiff is also entitled to attorneys fees for the
prosecution of this action.
Plaintiff KEVIN CARTER sustained serious personal injuries at 17350
Highway 79, Warner Springs, as a result of dangerous conditions which
caused Plaintiff to sustain significant back injuries, improper and
dangerous methods of "drug abuse treatment" conducted at an unlicensed
facility causing injury and other negligent acts on Plaintiff, who at
the time was participating in one of defendant's "Ethics Cycles," where
he was required to engage in heavy labor for long hours, without adequate
assistance and tools, was denied assistance when requested and denied
adequate medical attention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff KEVIN CARTER, at all tiems relevant, was an employee
of defendants, NARCONON SOUTHERN and DOES 1 to 40, in the course and
scope of her (sic) employment. Defendant GERRY MARSHALL, was a managing
agent of Plaintiff's employer. On Memorial Day, May 27, 2002, Defendant
GERRY MARSHALL, in the course and scope of his employment, and as a
managing agent of Defendants NARCONON SOUTHERN and DOES 11 to 20,
assaulted and battered Plaintiff, including pushing and throwing
Plaintiff and other acts which placed Plaintiff in great fear of bodily
harm and in fact, caused personal injury to Plaintiff.
In addition, Defendant, NARCONON SOUTHERN and DOES 11 to 20, ratified
the acts of Defendant GERRY MARSHALL, and other managing agents of said
Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress by making him work
extremely long hours, coercing and threatening Plaintiff, yelling,
harassing and subjecting Plaintiff to humiliating and degrading mental,
emotional and physical abuse.
Plaintif alleges defendant was guilty of malice, oppression as defined
in Civil Code section 3294, and plaintiff should recover, in addition
to actual damages, damages to make an example of and to punish defendant.
The facts supporting Plaintiff's claim are as follows:
Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations contained on Page 7.
Defendants, GERRY MARSHALL, a managing agent of defendant NARCONON
SOUTHERN, and DOES 11 to 20, and further alleges that the malicious and
oppressive acts of defendants, and each of them, in pushing and throwing
Plaintiff and other acts of mental, emotional and physical intimidation
and harassment with the intent to vex, injur and annoy Plaintiff constituted
oppression and malice as herein above set forth in detail.
-------------------------------------------------------
Provide a brief statement of the case, including any damages...
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED AS A RESULT OF AN ALTERCATION AS WELL AS A WORK
INJURY TO HIS NECK AND BACK. PLAINTIFF FILED FOR WORKERS COMPENSATION,
HOWEVER, DEFENDANT DID NOT CARRY WORKERS COMPENSATION SO HE WAS UNABLE
TO RECOVER FROM HIS FILING. ADDITIONALLY PLAINTIFF WAS SEVERLY(sic)
BEAT BY THE MANAGER AT THE FACILITY. (Narconon Warner Springs, San Diego)
(Notes and update on this case)
Witnesses to the beating(s) were Staff Ethics Officer Pat lucarelliz,
Kathy Dion, Frank Riedel (spelling?), Quaid Gore, Daniel Klesh, Brian Hartman
and Gerry Marshal himself.
Plaintiff Carter stated in Interragatory, answer #62, that (as a result of the physical abuse he suffered
at Narconon Warner Springs from incidents of 5/27/02 and 7/8/2002), that he had:
"pain in left arm, shoulder, back spasms, cramping, depression,
general discomfort, numbness in legs, can't sit for any length of time. Some days can't tie shoes.
Mental agression, dependancy through my entire body.
He also claimed a "lumbar epidurmal, need surgery on back."
Plaintiff's attorney was Richard N. Bashara (CA Bar Association #97405)
Narconon's attorney was Daniel C. Carlton.
Narconon had the case dismissed on Nov 15, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Narconon Newport Beach
Filed
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
APR 02 2007
Plaintiff: Ozelle M. Keil
Defendant Narconon Southern California; Narconon, Narconon Newport Beach
and Does 1 to 50
COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Other Damages
ACTION IS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $25,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHORT TITLE
KEIL V. NARCONON et al.
-----------------------------------------------------
Does 1 to 50
was the legal (proximate) cause of damages to Plaintiff. By the following
acts or omissions to act, defendant negligently caused the damage to Plaintiff
On October 4, 2006
at 1810 W. Oceanfront, Newport Beach CA 92663
(description of reasons for liability):
The defendants and each of them so negligently, carelessly and/or
recklessly provided money to Plaintiff's son who was in Defendants'
custody and care for intervention related services which is a
breach of a duty of due care and violates all standards of care or
industry standards enabling Plaintiff's son to leave Defendants' facility
and program to return to the streets and drugs all to Plaintiff's damage
in an amount to be proven at time of trial.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The essential terms of the agreement are as follows
That Plaintiff would pay $25,000 (plus incidental expenses) to defendants
for drug intervention related services for Plaintiff's son "Gabe."
That defendant would not under any circumstances give money to Gabe
as it was foreseeable that if the defendants gave money to Gabe he
would leave the defendant's facility, "return to the streets" to a life
of drugs, and Plaintiff would lose her investment of $25,000 (plus
incidental expenses.)
On or about October 4, 2006
defendant breached the agreement by the following acts
By giving money to Plaintiff's son Gabe without Plaintiff's permission
in complete contradiction to the agreed upon promises and protocol;
whereupon Gabe took the money, left defendant's facility/program,
bought a bus ticket to Colorado and returned to the streets and drugs.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff suffered damages legally (proximately) caused by defendant's
breach of the agreement as follows
a) $25,000 contract payment to defendants
B) Incidental expenses related to defendants' intervention related
services of approximately $3,297.00
Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees by an agreement or a statute
Interest of the date of defendants' breach, to wit: On or about
October 4, 2006
CAUSE OF ACTION-Breach of Contract