Estrada v. Narconon: Answer

Attorneys for Defendant, NARCONON
FRESH- SHART DIB/A SUNSHINE

SUMMIT LODGE
UNITED STA1ES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTY ESTRADA, a New Mexico
Citizen; and BRANDED CHAVEZ, a
New Mexico Citizen,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
NARCONON FRESH START d/b/a
SUNSHINE SUMMIT LODGE;
ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER
LIVING AND EDUCATION
INTERNATIONAL; NARCONON
INTERNATIONAL and DOES 1-100,
ROE Corporations I-X, inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-00586-LAB-KSC
ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL
The Hon. Larry Alan Burns,
Courtroom 14A
COMES NOW, defendant NARCONON FRESH START, DBA SUNSHINE
SUMMIT LODGE (hereinafter "Fresh Start"), and answering plaintiffs' complaint
on file herein for itself alone, and for no other defendant, admits, denies and alleges
as follows:
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
GEORGE E. NOWOTNY 8B# 150481
JUDITH M.
E-Mail: g.eoTge.nowotnytillewisbrisbois.com
TISHICOFF, # 138375
E-Mail: judith.tishkoff@lewisbrisbois.com
221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: 213.250,1800
Facsimile: 213.250.7900
THE PARTIES
1. Answering paragraph 1 of plaintiffs' complaint, Fresh Start lacks
sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny said allegations, and on that
basis denies them.
4833-6941-3147.1
3: 4-CV-00586-LAB-K SC
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SMITH IP
ArTORIETS AT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:14-cv-00586-LAB-KSC Document 15 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 20

LEWIS
BRISBOIS
MSGAARD
& SMITH UP
AILOLLPRI AT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2. Answering paragraph 2 of plaintiffs' complaint, Fresh Start admits the
allegations contained therein.
sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny said allegations and on
that basis denies them.
4. Answering paragraph 4 of plaintiffs' complaint, Fresh Start denies the
allegations contained therein.
sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations
pertaining to the business relationship between Narconon International and ABLE,
and on that basis denies them. Fresh Start denies the remaining allegations in this
paragraph.
sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations
pertaining to the business relationship between Narconon International and ABLE,
and on that basis denies them. Fresh Start denies the remaining allegations in this
paragraph.
sufficient knowledge or information as to where ABLE may be served with process
or whether ABLE conducts business in California through Narconon International,
and on that basis denies those allegations. Fresh Start denies the remaining
allegations in the paragraph.
4833-6941-3147.1
3:14-CV-00586-LAB-KSC


LEWIS
BRISBOIS
131$ GAARD
&SAM LLP
AtTaW1L'a AS LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10.
Answering paragraph 10 of plaintiffs' complaint, Fresh Start lacks
14. Answering paragraph 14 of plaintiffs' complaint, Fresh Start admits
that Christy discussed sending her son Branden to Fresh Start for treatment. Fresh
Start denies the remaining allegations in the paragraph.
that plaintiffs were charged $ 33,000 for the program. With respect to the remaining
allegations of the paragraph, Fresh Start lacks sufficient knowledge or information
to either admit or deny said allegations and on that basis denies them.
that the website at the time described a 76% success rate. As to the remaining
allegations of this paragraph, Fresh Start lacks sufficient knowledge or information
4833-6941-3147.1
3:14-CV-00586-LAB-KSC

LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BCGAARD
Si V EH LIP
ATICAZNVeS ATIAW
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

to either admit or deny said allegations and on that basis denies them.
allegations set forth therein.
that it is a secular program. Fresh Start lacks sufficient knowledge or information to
either deny or admit the remaining allegations of the paragraph and on that basis
denies them.
24. Answering paragraph 24of plaintiffs' complaint, Fresh Start lacks
that it sent Christy Estrada the Responsible Party Payment Agreement that is
attached as a part of Exhibit "A." Fresh Start lacks sufficient knowledge or
4833-6941-3147.1
3: / 4-CV -00586-LAB-KSC

information to either admit or deny the remaining allegations of the paragraph and
on that basis denies them.
allegations set forth therein
35 Answering paragraph 35 of plaintiffs' complaint, Fresh Start denies the
4833-6941-3147.1
5
3:14-CV-00586-LAB-KSC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LEWIS 28
BRISBOIS
ENSGAARD
&SIMIWILIP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
&SMITH IP
A17OPW6 AI LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

that it denies that the program is intended to be the first step to converting people to
Scientology. Fresh Start lacks sufficient knowledge or information to either admit
or deny the remaining allegations and on that basis denies them.
4833-6941-3147.1
3: I 4-CV-00586-LAB-KSC


LEWIS
BRISBO1S
BISGAARD
& SNAPH UP
ATTORNEYS
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4833-6941-3147.1
3:14-CV-00586-LAB-KSC


LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
SMIN UP
ATionq m AT LAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ALTER EGO LIABILITY
59.
Answering paragraph 59 of plaintiffs' complaint, Fresh Start repeats,
re-alleges and incorporates by reference its response to paragraphs 1 through 58 as
though fully set forth herein.
61.
Answering paragraph 61 of plaintiffs' complaint, Fresh Start denies the
62.
Answering paragraph 62 of plaintiffs' complaint, Fresh Start denies the
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract)
65. Answering paragraph 65 of plaintiffs' complaint, Fresh Start repeats,
that it contracted with Christy Estrada to provide a residential drug and alcohol
treatment program and that the program is secular. Fresh denies the remaining
allegations.
4833-6941-3147.1
3:14-CV-00586-LAB-KSC

LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SM I11-11.1P
Al LI,TINEY5 AT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud)
72. Answering paragraph 72 of plaintiffs' complaint, Fresh Start denies
that it made false statements to Christy. Fresh Start is without knowledge or
information to either admit or deny said allegations and on that basis denies them.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negli gence)
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intenti onal Infli cti on of Emoti onal Di stress)
4833-6941-3147.1
3: 14-CV-00586-LAB-KSC


LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SIM M -I LIP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negli gent Mi srepresentati on (i n the alternati ve))
84. Answering paragraph 84of plaintiffs' complaint, Fresh Start denies the
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unfai r Competi ti on Law Clai ms Based on Fraudulent Busi ness Practi ces, Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et. seq.)
4833-6941-3147.1
10
3: 14-C V-00586-LAB-KSC

91 Answering paragraph 91 of plaintiffs' complaint, Fresh Start denies the
SEV ENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Ci vi l RICO for Mai l and Wi re Fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1964(c)
re-alleges and incorporates by reference its response to paragraphs I through 91 as
the allegations set forth therein.
4833-6941-3147.1
11
3:14 -C V-00586- LA13 -MC

LEWIS
BR IS BOIS
BISGAARD
& SVIIIH UP
An ontus,a AT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of i mpli ed Covenant of good Fai th and Fai r Deali ng)
AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Concludi ng Answer to all Allegati ons of the Complai nt)
105. All allegations not specifically addressed above due to the nature of the
language and construction of the allegations, or for any other reason, are specifically
denied.
SECOND AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Fai lure to State a Clai m)
106. The complaint, in whole or in part, fails to allege facts sufficient to
constitute a claim upon which relief may be granted as to Fresh Start.
THIRD AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Plai nti ffs' Comparati ve Negli gence)
107. At the time of the incidents referred to in plaintiffs' complaint,
plaintiffs, and each of them, were negligent or at fault and failed to use that degree
of care and caution which a reasonably prudent person would have used under the
4833-6941-3147.1
12
3:14-CV-00586-LAB-KSC
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& WM LIP
RTICFENt"r3 At lAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

same or similar circumstances.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Acti ons of Thi rd Parti es)
108. The damages sustained by plaintiff, if any, were proximately caused by
the acts, omissions, negligence, fraud and/or breach of obligations directed toward
plaintiff and/or their representatives by persons other than Fresh Start and beyond
Fresh Start's supervision or control
FIFTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Statute of Li mi tati ons)
109. The plaintiffs' action is barred in whole or in part by the applicable
statute of limitations.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Ci vi l Code, Secti on 1714.8)
110. Fresh Start is entitled to the benefits of the statutory immunities
provided by Civil Code, Section 1714.8, because the damages and losses incurred
by plaintiffs were the result of and/or caused by the natural course of a disease or
condition and/or was the natural or expected result of reasonable treatment rendered
for that disease or condition.
SEV ENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Proposi ti on 51)
111. The liability, if any, of Fresh Start is further limited by the provisions
of Proposition 51, as set forth in California Civil Code sections 1431, 1431.1,
1431.2, 1431.3, 1431.4, and 1431.5.
EIGHTH AFFIMATIV E DEFENSE
(Plai nti ff's Consent)
112. That all care and services rendered to plaintiffs by Fresh Start was with
the express and implied consent of plaintiffs and/or plaintiffs' representatives.
4N33-6941-3147.1
13
3:14-C V-00586-LAB-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LEWIS
28
BR ISBOIS
BISGAARD
&SiMilli Lip
AtIORNEYSAT LAW
NINTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Assumpti on of the Ri sk)
113. That plaintiffs had knowledge of the risks and hazards involved in the
activity at the time and place of the alleged incident and in voluntarily engaging
therein, thereby assumed the risks and hazards thereof
TENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Supersedi ng Cause)
114. Any injury, loss, or damage allegedly sustained by plaintiffs was the
result of superseding and/or intervening cause by persons or entities other than Fresh
Start over whom Fresh Start had neither control nor right of control.
ELEV ENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Fai lure to Mi ti gate)
115. Plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence to mitigate any alleged
damages and said conduct was the legal cause of any injuries or damages.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Substanti al Factor)
116. The complaint and each cause of action contained therein must fail as
Fresh Start's conduct was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff s alleged
injuries.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Plai nti ffs Suscepti bi li ty to Emoti onal Di stress)
117. At all times pertinent to plaintiffs' complaint, Fresh Start did not have
any knowledge of any peculiar susceptibility of plaintiffs to damage or injury for
emotional distress. Any claims for damages for injuries for emotional distress are
those which a reasonable person, would and/or should have been able to adeq uately
cope.
4833-6941.-3147.1
14
3:14-C V -00586-LAB -KSC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LENS
28
BRIsBas
BISGAARD
&SMIN UP
AZT OMENS AT LAW
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Lack of Standi ng to Sue)
118. Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the claims contained their complaint
against Fresh Start.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Not Part of a Conspi racy or Common Purpose)
119. Plaintiffs' claims against Fresh Start are barred in whole or in part
because Fresh Start was not a part of the alleged conspiracy or common purpose,
nor do they exist.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Absence of Indi spensable Parti es)
120. Plaintiffs' claims against Fresh Start are barred in whole or in part due
to the absence of parties necessary for full and adeq uate relief.
SEV ENTEENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Good Fai th)
121. At all times herein mentioned Fresh Start acted in good faith, without
malice, at all times and in all actions or omissions which are the subject of this
litigation.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(No Puni ti ve Damages)
122. The complaint and each cause of action contained therein fails to state
facts sufficient to warrant the imposition of punitive, treble and/or exemplary
damages and/or injunctive relief against. Fresh Start or to show that Fresh Start was
guilty of any malice, oppression or fraud.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(No Unlawful or Fraudulent Representati ons)
123. Fresh Start did not engage in any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent
representations to plaintiff and/or their representatives in connection with the
4 8 3 3 - 6 9 4 1- 3 14 7 . 1
]5
3:14-CV-00586-LAB-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LEWIS
28
BRISBOIS
BISSAARD
St IAN LIP
ATTORNES AT LAW
admission of plaintiff and/or the care and treatment plaintiff would receive.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(No Rati fi cati on or Authori zati on)
124. Fresh Start did not ratify or authorize any type of wrongful conduct
toward plaintiff by anyone employed by it in any capacity.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIMATIV E DEFENSE
(Unconsti tuti onal Puni ti ve Damage Clai m)
125. The claim for punitive damages is barred because any award of
punitive damages in this case would violate Fresh Start's constitutional rights under
provisions of the United States Constitution and applicable state constitutions.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
126. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by plaintiffs' unclean
hands and ineq uitable conduct.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Wai ver)
127. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of
waiver.
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
estoppel.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Ladi es)
laches.
4833-6941-3147.1
16
3:14-CV-00586-LAB-KSC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LEWIS
28
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
&SIVIIIH UP
ATIVUEiS AT LAW
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(No Equi table Reli ef)
130. Plaintiffs are not entitled to recovery of eq uitable relief including any
relief req uested pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200 because
of the existence of an adeq uate remedy at law.
TWENTY-SEV ENTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Fai r Busi ness Acti vi ti es)
131. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole and in part, because each of Fresh
Start's activities was privileged or otherwise justified, as such activities were proper,
fair legitimate business activities and/or due to business-related reasons which were
neither arbitrary, capricious nor unlawful.
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Plai nti ffs' Acceptance)
132. Plaintiffs, with full knowledge of all the facts connected with, or
relating to, the transaction alleged in the complaint, ratified and confirmed in all
respects the acts of Fresh Start by accepting the benefits to plaintiffs accruing from
such acts.
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Indemni ty)
133. Fresh Start is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that it is
entitled to a right of indemnification by apportionment against all other parties and
persons whose negligence contributed proximately to the happening of the claimed
incident or the alleged injuries.
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Contri buti on)
134. Fresh Start is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that it is
entitled to a right of contribution from others or any person whose negligence
proximately contributed to the happening of the claimed incident or alleged injuries
4833-6941-3147.1
17
3: 14-CV-00586-LAB -KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LEWIS
28
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
&W WI UP
ATIORFIEY3 AT LAW
if plaintiff should receive a verdict against it.
THIRTY-FIRST AFFIMRATIV E DEFENSE
(Plai nti ffs' Fraud)
135. The contract under which plaintiffs claim recovery is made invalid by
the fraud of plaintiffs.
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE
(Reservati on of Ri ght to Assert Addi ti onal Defenses)
136. Fresh Start cannot fully anticipate all affirmative defenses that may be
applicable to this action based upon the conclusory, general and uncertain terms
used in the complaint. Accordingly, Fresh Start expressly reserves the right to assert
additional defenses as applicable.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
137. Fresh Start herby demands a trial by jury in the above entitled action.
WHEREFORE, Fresh Start prays:
1. That plaintiffs take nothing by the Complaint herein;
2. Dismissal of Fresh Start from this action.
3. For reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit herein;
4. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
proper.
DATED: June 30, 2014
GEORGE E. NOWOTNY
JUDITH M. TISHKOFF
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
By: Is! Judith M. Tishkoff
Judith M. Tishkoff
Attorneys for Defendant, NARCONON
FRESH SHART D/I3/A SUNSHINE
SUMMIT LODGE
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
B1SGAARD
&SNIHUP
ATICRNEYS Al LAW
4 8 3 3 - 16 9 4 1- 3 14 7 A
18
3:14-CV-00586-LAB-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FEDERAL COURT PROOF OF SERVICE
Estrada v. Narconon Fresh Start, etc., et al. - File No. 6234.10205
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to the action.
My business address is 221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA
90012. I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose
direction the service was made.
On June 30, 2014, I served the following document(s): ANSWER TO
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
I served the documents on the following persons at the following addresses
(including fax numbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable):
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
The documents were served by the following means:
El (BY COURT'S CM/ECF SYSTEM) Pursuant to Local Rule, I electronically
filed the documents with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system,
which sent notification of that filing to the persons listed above.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on June 30, 2014, at Los Angeles, California.
Is! Debbie Stephenson
Debbie Stephenson
LEWIS
BR1SBOIS
BISGAARD
&SM ITH OF
ATTa m p a AT LAN
4833-6941-3147.1
3:14-CV-00586-LAB-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Christy Estrada
and Branden Chavez
3:14-CV-00586-LAI3-KSC
SERV ICE LIST
Estrada, et al. v. Narconon Fresh Start, etc., et al.
3:14-CV -00586-LAB-KSC
Ryan A. Hamilton, Esq .
HAMILTON LAW
5125 S. Durango Drive, Suite C
Las Vegas, NV 89113
(702) 818-1818/FAX (702) 974-1139
rvanahamiltonlawlasveaas.com
Arthur W. Curley, Esq .
Kevin M. Smith, Esq .
BRADLY, CURLEY, ASIANO,
BARRABEE, ABEL
& KOWALSKI, P.C.
1100 Larkspure Landing Circle, Ste. 200
Larkspur, California 94939
(415) 464-8888/FAX (415) 464-8887
4833-6941-3147.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LEWIS 28
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
& SMITH LIP
ATTORNEYS Ar LAW

Estrada v. Narconon: Answer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estrada v. Narconon: Answer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attorneys for Defendant, NARCONON

FRESH- SHART DIB/A SUNSHINE

3:14 -C V-00586- LA13 -MC

3:14-C V -00586-LAB -KSC

You might also like