NAFC vs. Narconon: Clark Carr Class Action Against NAFC

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 480-17 Filed in ED/OK on 11/13/14 Page 1 of 25
EXHIBIT 145
6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 480-17 Filed in ED/OK on 11/13/14 Page 2 of 25 SUM-100
SUMMONS .
FOR COURT USE ONLY

(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTI!)
(CITAC/ON JUDICIAL)
CONFORMED COPY
ORIGINAL m..ED
s~Co'ort OICal!fornl
r.ountf or
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AV/SO AL DEMANDADO):
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORENSIC COUNSELORS, INC., Nevada Corporation; NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FORENSIC COUNSELORS; AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CERTIFIED FORENSIC
COUNSELORS, INC. dba AMERICAN COLLOOE OF CERTIFIED FORENSIC COUNSELORS, a Nevada
Corporation; KARLA DEISLER TAYLOR; FRANCIS DEISLER, aka FRANK JOHN PALANI; and DOES I JO
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:

(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
Loo"""'..
OCT 06 2014
Sherri R. Carter, Executive OHicer/Clerk

By: Judi Lara, Deputy
CLARK CARR, on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly

situated persons
NOTICEI You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the Information
. below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
served on the plalntHf. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be In proper legal form If you want the court to hear your
case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more Information at the Callfomla Courts
Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to can an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
these nonprofit groups at the Callfomla Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcallfomla.Otg), the Californla Courts Online Self-Help Center
(www.courtlnfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
costs on any settlement or arbHratlon award of $10,000 or more In a civil case. The court's Hen must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
tA VISOI Lo han demandado. SI no responde dentro de 30 dlas, la corte puede decl<Jr en su contra sin escuchar su versi6n. Lea la lnfonnac/6n a
contlnuaci6n.
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO desp!Rs de que le entreguen esta cltacl6n y papeles legates para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
corte y hacer que se entregue una copia el demandante. Una carte o uns llamada telef6nfca no lo protegen. Su respuests por escrito liene qoo estar
en formato legs/ C011eCto sl dsssa qua procesen su caso en Is corte. Es posfbfs qua haya un formulsrlo qua usted pusds usar para su rospussta.
Puede encontrar estos formularfos de la COits y mds fnfomlscl6n en el Centro de Ayuda de las Colfes de Csllfomla (Www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la
blblioteca de /eyes de su condado o en la oorte que le quede m6s cerca. SI no puede pager ts cuots de presantaci6n, plda st secretsrlo de fa carte
que le d6 un formularlo de exencl6n de p'ego de cuotas. SI no presents su respuesta a tlempo, puede perder el caso por lncumpllmlento y ta corte le
podrtJ qultar su sueldo, dlnero y blenes sin m6s advertencfa.
Hay otros requlsitos legates. Es recomendable que /lame a un abogsdo lnmedlstamente. SI no conoce a un abogado, puede llsmar a un servlclo de
remisi6n a abogados. SI no puede pager a un abogado, es posib/e que cumpls con fos requlsitos para obtener servfclos legates gretultos de un
programs de servlclos legates sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sltlo web de California Legal Services,
(www.lawhelpcallfomla.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de Cs/lfom/s, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o ponl6ndose en contacto con Is corte o el
cotegio de abogadOs locales. AV/SO: Por fey, la corle Ilene derecho a reclsmar las cuotas y los costos exentos por lmponer un gravamen sobre
cualqufer racuparecl(Jn de $10, 000 6 mlis de valor recibida med/ante un acuerdo o una concesl6n de arbitre)e en un caso de derecllO civil. Tiena que
pager el gravamen de la carte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
CASE NUMBER:
The name and address of the court Is:
(Nllmero del CMo}:
tel aombre.Y. direc~/6n dua. @de es>:
LOS ANGBLES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - CENTRAL DISTRICT
111 N. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(cl nombro, la direccl6n y el mimero de telefono de/ abogado def demandante, o def demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
David C. Scheper (SBN 120174) William H. Forman (SBN 150477)
Telei.11one No.: (213)613-4655
Scheper Kim & Harris LLP 601 W. Fifth Street, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071
. \,~ Fax No.: (213)613-4656
DATE:
SHERRIR.CARJ'ER
Clerk, by
' ~~~
, Deputy
(Fecha)
(Secretario)
\
(Adjunto)
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (fonn POS-010).)
(Para prueba de entrega de esta citati6n use el fonnulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
!SEAL)
1. D
as an individual defendant.
2. D
as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
BCS59767
3.
CJ
on behalf of (specify):
under:
4.
Fonn Adopted for Mandaloly Use
Judiclal Coundl of California
SUM-100 (Rev. July 1, 2009)
D
D
D
CCP 416.10 (corporation)

CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
CCP 416.40 (association or partnership)
D
D
CCP 416.60 (minor)

CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
other (specify):
by personal delivery on (date):
Pa
SUMMONS
1Of1
Code of Civil PIOC8dure 412.20, 465
lexisNexis Automated California Judlcta1C'o~:J:
6:14-cv-00187-RAW
Document
Filed inCOUNTY
ED/OK on
Page 3 of 25
SUPERIOR
COURT 480-17
OF CALIFORNIA,
OF 11/13/14
LOS ANGELES
NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT - CLASS ACTION CASES
Case Number~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THIS .FORM IS TO BE SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLJ\ INT
Your case is as~~ncd for ullpu_!l!.oscs to tbcj udicl11I officer indicated below_iLocnl Rule 3.Jlc .
ASSIGNED JUDGE
DEPT
ROOM
Judge Kenneth Freeman
310
1412
Judge Jane Johnson
308
141 5
Judge Amy D. Hogue
307
1402
SC 6 5 9 7 6 7
; /cJge Elihu M. Berle
./Jv Judge William F. Highberger

Judge John Shepard Wiley, Jr.
OTHER
Instructions for handling Class Action Civil Cases
The following critical provisions of the Chapter Three Rules, as applicable in the Central District, are summarized for your assistance.
APPLICATION
The Chapter Three Rules were effective January I, 1994. They apply to all general ci''.{il cases.
!!_RIORITY OVER OTHER RULES
The Chapter Three Rules shall have priority over all other Local Rules to the extent the others are inconsistent.
CHALLENGE TO ASSIGNED JVDGE

A challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 must be made within 15 days after notice of assignment for all purposes to a
judge, or if a party has not yet appeared, within 15 days of the first appearance.
TIME STANDARDS
Cases assigned to the Individual Calendaring Court will be subject to processing under the following time standards:
COMPLAINTS: All complaints shall be served within 60 days of filing and proof of service shall be filed within 90 days of filing.
CROSS~COMPLAINTS: Without leave of court first being obtained, no cross-complaint may be filed by any party after their answer is
filed. Cross-complaints shall be served within 30 days of the filing date and a proof of service filed within 60 days of the filing date.
A Status Conference will be scheduled by the assigned Independent Calendar Judge no later than 270 days after the filing of the compl11int.
Counsel must be fully prepared to discuss the following issues: alternative dispute resolution, bifurcation, settlement, trial date, and expert
witnesses.
FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE

The Court will require the parties at a status conference not more than I 0 days before the trial to have timely filed and served all motions
in limine, bifurcation motions, statements of major evidentiary issues, dispositive motions, requested jury instructions, and speciaJ jury
instructions and special jury verdicts. These matters may be heard and resolved at this conference. At least 5 days before this conference,
counsel must also have exchanged lists of exhibits and witnesses and have submitted to the court a brief statement of the case to be read to
the jury panel as required by Chapter Eight of the Los Angeles Superior Court Rules.
SANCTIONS
The court will impose appropriate sanctions for the failure or refusal to comply with Chapter Three Rules, orders made by the Court, and
time standards or deadlines established by the Court or by the Chapter Three Rules. Such sanctions may be on a party or if appropriate on
counsel for the party.
This is not a complete delineation of the Chapter Three Rules, and adherence only to the above provisions is therefore not a guarantee against the imposition of
snnctions under Trial Court Delay Reduction. Careful rending and compliance with the actual Chapter Rules is absolutely imperative.
Given to the Plaintiff/Cross-Complainant/Attorney of Record on _O_C_T_

LACIV CCW 190 (Rev09/13}
LASC Approved 05--06
For Optical Use
4
0_6_Z_O_l_
SHERRl R. CARTER, Executive Officer/Clerk
B C j h =- - -- -'' Deputy Clerk
SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

2
3
4
5
DAVfD C. SCHEPER (State Bar No. 120174)

dscheper@scheperkim.com
WILLIAM I-I. FORMAN (State Bar No. 150477)
wforman@scheperkim.com
MARGARET DAYTON (State Bar No. 274353)
mdayton@scheperkim.com
60 I West Fifth Street, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2025
Telephone:
(213) 613-4655
Facsimile:
(213) 613-4656
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Clark Carr on his own behalf and on behalf of
a class of similal"ly situated persons
8
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
12
13
CLARK CARR, on his own behalf and

on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons,
14
15
Plaintiff,
16
vs.
17
18
19
20
21
22
C1
f)
LI"
t.~
23
24
NATIONAL ASSOCJATION OF
FORENSIC COUNSELORS, INC., a
Nevada Corporation; NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FORENSIC
COUNSELORS; AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF CERTIFIED
FORENSIC COUNSELORS, INC. dba
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF
CERTIFIED FORENSIC
COUNSELORS, a Nevada CorporationKARLA DEISLER TAYLOR;
FRANCIS DEISLER, aka FRANK
JOHN PALANI; and DOES 1-10
Case No.
8C559767
COMPLAINT FOR:
(l) CONSUMER FRAUD AND UNFAIR
COMPETITION, CAL. BUS. & PROF.
CODE 17200 et seq.
(2) FRAUDULENT AND FALSE
ADVERTISING, CAL. BUS. & PROF.
CODE 17500 and
(3)FRAUD
Defendants.
25
26
~ 27
~~
28
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Clark Carr ("Plaintiff'), on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
2
persons in the state of California ("Class," and defined more fully at paragraph 26),
alleges as follows:
4
5
NATURE OF THE ACTION

1.
Defendants are in the business of providing the service of certifying
alcohol and drug counselors in exchange for membership and renewal fees.
Defendants fraudulently represented and continue to represent to the Class of
California alcohol and other drug counselors ("AOD") that Defendants' certifications
are "nationally recognized." Defendants' certifications are not "nationally recognized."
10
Several states have declined to approve Defendants' certifications.
11
2005, only the certifying organizations specifically approved by the California
12
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (and its successor, the Department of
13
Health Care Services) may register and certify AOD counselors in California. The
14
Department never authorized any of the Defendants to certify AOD counselors.
15
Nevertheless, Defendants willfully continue to provide the service of certifying AOD
16
counselors in violation of the California regulations. Defendants concealed their
17
violation of California regulations to mislead putative class members into paying
18
annual fees for unlawful and worthless counselor certificates.
19
20
21
22
Since April 1,
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

2.
Plaintiff Clark Carr is an individual, and resident of Glassell Park,
California.
3.
Defendant National Association of Forensic Counselors, Inc. ("NAFC")
23
is a certifying organization incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada which
24
claims to be a non-profit organization.
25
continuously transacting business in the state of California by, among other things,
26
soliciting members and issuing certificates to California drug counselors in exchange
27
for membership fees and annual dues. NAFC has never registered with the Secretary
28
of State or designated an agent for service of process.
For at least 12 years, NAFC has been
1
COMPLAINT
4.
Defendants American Academy of Certified Forensic Counselors, Inc.
dba American College of Certified Forensic Counselors ("ACCFC") is a Nevada for-
profit corporation which is the certification commission of the NAFC. ACCFC receives
all of the income and pays all of the expenses for NAFC. According to the Defendants,
ACCFC develops the standards, requirements, certification development and period
review requirements for NAFC certifications. ACCFC has never registered with the
California Secretary of State or designated an agent for service of process.
5.
Defendant Karla Deisler Taylor ("Taylor") is the President and Chief
Executive Officer of NAFC and, on information and belief, the majority owner of
I0
NAFC.
11
business in California by personally directing, authorizing and conspiring to engage in
12
the unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices alleged herein.
13
6.
She is a resident of Indiana, but for at least 10 years she has been doing
On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Francis
14
Deisler, aka Frank John Palani, manages, directs, supervises and controls NAFC and
15
ACCFC with Taylor. The Defendants are the agents, partners and co-venturers with
16
each other to such an extent that it would be a fraud on the court to treat them as
17
separate persons or entities.
18
"Defendants."
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
19
20
NAFC, ACCFC, Taylor, and Deisler collectively are
7.
Up until the time Plaintiff began investigating the grounds for this
21
lawsuit, Plaintiff assumed that NAFC, its founder, and officers were legitimate and
22
trustworthy. However, only in the last several weeks did Plaintiff, through diligent
23
research, learn that NAFC was a fraudulent enterprise from its very beginning, and was
24
brought into being by a violent, convicted felon who repeatedly tried to conceal his past
25
and re-invent himself.
26
8.
In or about 1994, the National Association of Forensic Counselors was
27
established in Indiana by Francis Deisler as a non-profit corporation. In or about 1995,
28
another corporation named National Association of Forensic Counselors, Inc., was

2
COMPLAINT
formed in Indiana. This incarnation of NAFC was dissolved in August of 1999. In

2
July of 1998, Taylor incorporated in Nevada a for-profit National Association of
Forensic Counselors, and registered it to do business in Indiana through Taylor as its
President, with Deisler noted in the corporate records as a member of its board. Yet
another National Association of Forensic Counselors, this time a Nevada non-profit
corporation, was registered in May of 2014 to do business in Indiana. Plaintiff alleges
that these confusing and interlocking for-profit and non-profit corporations, with
overlapping directors and officers, are all the same entity, doing business as National
Association of Forensic Counselors, hereinafter referred to simply as HNAFC."
10
9.
Defendants Taylor and Deisler own, operate, and completely control
11
NAFC and ACCFC. Taylor and Deisler receive salaries, benefits, and other monetary
12
payments directly or indirectly through NAFC and ACCFC as a result of the fraudulent
13
and unlawful collection from Plaintiff and the Class of certification fees.
14
receives additional fraudulently-generated income through Forensic Training Institute
15
("FTI"), a corporation he founded. FTI charges fees to persons to provide "on-line
16
access"
17
(http://www.forensictraininginstitute.org). Such "certification training" is worth only
18
as much as the certificate acquired - in this case, nothing.
19
10.
to
''NAFC
curriculum
approved
certification
Deisler
training."
NAFC was established, and has operated smce its inception, as a
20
fraudulent enterprise, providing certifications for drug and alcohol counselors without
21
appropriate and required authorization from state agencies, and fraudulently and
22
intentionally concealing its lack of authority and government recognition from its
23
members/customers.
24
11.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants'
25
unlawful, fraudulent, deceptive and misleading conduct is part of a pattern and practice
26
of criminal conduct, misrepresentation and abuse.
27
28
12.
The NAFC letterhead has these three words immediately below the phone
and fax numbers: "Honesty-Competency-Integrity." The Defendants have exhibited

3
COMPLAINT
none of those qualities in connection with their dealings with the general public or the
Class. Although NAFC's own rules provide that "advertising is acceptable as long as
such advertisements are accurate and provide information necessary for potential
clients to make informed decisions," the Defendants conspired amongst themselves to
provide inaccurate and misleading statements that withheld material information
necessary for their clients to make informed decisions about whether to affiliate with
NAFC. In addition to concealing from the Class that the Department of Alcohol and
Drug Programs never approved NAFC to register and certify AOD counselors in the
state of California, the Defendants concealed from the Class the Defendants' criminal
10
history and lack of honesty, competency and integrity. Such concealment included:
11
a. In December 1972, Deisler and an accomplice were apprehended at
12
gunpoint in Kewaskum, WI, by patrolmen after an alleged kidnapping of
13
two female minors. Deisler was charged with armed bank robbery,
14
stalking, and rape. One of the victims was 14 years old. In November of
15
1973, Deisler was convicted in Milwaukee County of armed robbery and
16
rape, sentenced to 15 years in Wisconsin State Prison, and ordered to
17
undergo treatment as a sexual offender. However, in March of 1974,
18
Deisler escaped from a prison hospital. Local media noted, "Deisler has
19
been diagnosed an 'anti-social personality' and is considered dangerous.
20
His recent sentence which took place last November was for armed
21
robbery of a Milwaukee bank and for the rapes of women in Milwaukee
22
and Sheboygan. His record of arrests date back to 1956, and he reportedly
23
has served terms at the Attica and Sing Sing prisons in New York State."
24
A police and FBI manhunt captured Deisler in Milwaukee.
25
b. In March of 1984, Deisler created the "Life Skills Counseling Center" in
26
Indiana, allegedly treating juvenile delinquents.
27
license as a Clinical Social Worker by the Behavioral Health Board in
28
Indiana in 1993 and was similarly issued a license as "Master's Ltd.

4
COMPLAINT
Deisler received a
Psychologist" in Michigan. In the application for this license, Deisler
concealed his prior criminal convictions. As "professional experience,"
he cited the time he spent in his own Life Skills Counseling Center in
Fort Wayne, Indiana.
c. Deisler announced in 1994 that he would be opening a medium security
juvenile detention center under the auspices of the Life Skills Counseling
Center. Taylor became associated with this venture as the program
director. After this Center opened it became the subject of numerous
reports of abuse. There were charges that boys were beaten, not fed
10
properly, kept in leg irons, and subjected to other physical abuse.
11
Authorities investigated the detention center. An order was issued to
12
remove seven boys from the facility as the detention method endangered
13
the boys.
14
13.
In 1995, Deisler and Taylor then established the National Board of
15
Addiction Examiners, which was to become instrumental in future fraudulent activities.
16
In or about November of 1996, Deister began soliciting persons working in the field of
17
alcohol and drug dependence to acquire a new Certified Chemical Dependency
18
Counselor (CCDC) certificate that Deister and Taylor had created. Several months
19
later, in March of 1997, Deister claimed that the NAFC had 20,000 members
20
nationwide.
21
fraudulent business of NAFC as husband and wife.
22
14.
Deister and Taylor were married in 1997, and went forward in the
Deister and Taylor thereafter began an elaborate shell-game of filing and
23
dissolving several corporations in Indiana and Nevada using the name National
24
Association of Forensic Counselors, or National Association of Forensic Counselors,
25
Inc., both as for-profit and not for-profit entities. They used the same pattern of filing,
26
dissolving and refiling for the National Board of Addiction Examiners, which allegedly
27
provided the testing for NAFC certifications.
28
5
COMPLAINT
15.
In 1999, Deisler legally changed his name to Frank John Palani. As
noted by one judge in Indiana, Deisler had such an extensive criminal record that he
"could never be hired as a probation officer, a policeman or a teacher."
16.
In 2002, the state of Pennsylvania denied the petition of Taylor and
Deisler to be recognized to certify drug and alcohol counselors. Most importantly, they
falsely stated that NAFC certificates were recognized by the state of California.
17.
Despite having no authority from the state of California to do so, by 2002
NAFC began issuing, and continues to issue, certificates to California AOD counselors
in exchange for membership and renewal fees.
l0
11
Unless enjoined by this court,
Defendants will continue to act in violation of the California Code of Regulations.

18.
Commencing in or about 2002 and continuing to the present, Defendants
12
NAFC, Taylor, and Deisler caused representations to be made to Plaintiff and the Class
13
that NAFC would issue Certified Chemical Dependency Counselor ("CCDC")
14
certifications in return for membership and renewal fees.
15
represented that the NAFC certifications are "nationally accredited" and "nationally
16
recognized." The National Commission for Certifying Agencies ("NCCA"), a private
17
non-governmental organization, accredited NAFC chemical dependency counselor
18
programs as meeting NCCA standards only. The NCCA rules for use of its name allow
19
an accredited program to state that "NCCA reviewed the program and found at the time
20
of the review that the program met the NCCA accreditation standards. The accredited
21
program may also point out that it submits annual reports to NCCA and must undergo
22
a reaccreditation every jive years.
23
NCCA accreditation must be accurate and truthful." Defendants intentionally used the
24
NCCA name in a misleading manner and omitted from its advertising that the only
25
"national recognition" which NAFC actually received was that the program met the
26
standards of the NCCA. Defendants intentionally omitted from their advertising and
27
other statements to the Class that NAFC is not recognized by any national
28
governmental body, that several states have specifically declined to recognize its AOD
Defendants falsely
All statements made by a program concerning
6
COMPLAINT
certifications, that California regulations required all certifying organizations to be
approved before the certifying organization could lawfully register and certify AOD
counselors, and that NAFC had not been approved. Defendants' representations and
advertising were false, deceptive, and likely to mislead. California never authorized,
approved, or licensed any of Defendants to issue CCDC certificates in California.
19.
The California Code of Regulations, Title 9, 13000 applies to all
organizations certifying AOD counselors in the state of California. As of April 1,
2005, the State approved ten organizations to register and certify AOD counselors.
NAFC was never one of the approved organizations. (See 13005 listing the approved
10
certifying organizations, attached as Exhibit 1). At this time, Deisler was President of
11
NAFC yet he nevertheless authorized NAFC to continue to make false representations
12
and/or material omissions about NAFC's inability to register and certify AOD
13
counselors in California. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
14
Defendants knew at all material times that NAFC was not approved by the relevant
15
state agency and that NAFC was acting in violation of 13035, and that Defendants
16
made a conscious and deliberate decision not to obtain approval, not to comply with the
17
regulations, and to affirmatively conceal both the regulations and their non-compliance
18
from Plaintiff and the Class. Plaintiff justifiably relied on Defendants to inform them
19
of the standards for certification in the state of California because, inter alia, Defendant
20
ACCFC, acting in concert with the other Defendants, developed and promoted its
21
expertise in the development and review of certification requirements and standards.
22
20.
Since 2004, Defendants have falsely advertised on the NAFC website and
23
in other publications that (a) "the certified practitioner from the NAFC and ACCFC
24
qualifies as an expert witness under the Federal Rules of Evidence"; and (b) that
25
membership benefits include "national credential & recognition." (See copy of web
26
pages attached as Exhibit 2).
27
certifications would understand this representation to mean that the "national credential
28
and recognition" means that the certifications are recognized as valid throughout the
The average ordinary consumer of Defendants'
7
COMPLAINT
entire United States and in each of the United States. Defendants concealed in their
advertising that NAFC is not approved as a certifying organization in the state of
California and that the NAFC certificates are unapproved, improper, and misleading to
its members and the general public.
attempts to force other states -- such as Pennsylvania and Ohio -- to recognize their
AOD certifications through litigation. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
alleges that NAFC certificates do not qualify the holder of the certificate as an expert
witness under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
21.
Defendants have concealed their unsuccessful
In reliance upon Defendants' false, misleading, deceptive, and fraudulent
1O
statements and omissions, Plaintiff and the Class paid to defendants $90 per year for
11
membership fees and renewals from 2002 to 2011. Plaintiff discovered the true facts in
12
2012 and ceased making payments to Defendants for their worthless certificates. On
13
information and belief, hundreds of other persons in the state of California paid
14
membership and renewal fees to the Defendants in response to Defendants' unlawful,
15
false, fraudulent and deceptive acts and advertising.
16
22.
Defendants misrepresented to Plaintiff and to the Class that the CCDC
17
certification would permit the possessor to lawfully perform drug and alcohol
18
rehabilitation counseling in the state of California.
19
23.
20
certification qualified the possessor to act as an expert witness in civil or criminal
21
litigation or other official proceedings.
22
23
24
25
24.
certification established "National Credential & Recognition."

25.
28
Based upon these misrepresentations, Plaintiff and other Class members
paid fees to Defendants.
26
27
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
26.
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 382, Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of himself and a class of persons defined as: all persons
8
COMPLAINT
providing or seeking to provide services as an AOD counselor in the state of California

2
who paid membership and/or renewal fees to Defendants in the four years prior to the
filing of this Complaint ("Class"). This includes but is not limited to all California
residents who were certified by the Defendants as Master Addictions Counselor,
Certified Chemical Dependency Counselor, Certified Forensic Addictions Specialist,
Certified Criminal Justice Addictions Specialist, Certified Co-Occurring Disorder
Specialist, and/or Baccalaureate Addictions counselor. Excluded from the class are
Defendants'(a) subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, and employees; (b) counsel,
and the immediate families of counsel, who represent Plaintiff in this action; (c) the
10 judge presiding over this action; and (d) jurors who are impaneled to render a verdict on
11
12
the claims alleged in this action.

27.
The Class is so numerous thatjoinder of all members is impracticable in
13
that there are, upon information and belief, hundreds of persons who fit within the
14
Class definition.
15
28.
Common questions of fact and law exist as to all members of the Class,
16
and these questions predominate over questions affecting only individual Class
17
members. The common questions include, but are not limited to:
18
(a)
19
Whether Defendants issued certifications to AOD counselors in violation

of California regulations;
20
(b)
Whether Defendants' conduct as described herein was unlawful;
21
(c)
Whether Defendants' conduct as described herein was fraudulent;
22
( d)
Whether Defendants' conduct as described herein, constitutes an unfair
23
24
business practice under Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq.;

(e)
25
26
Professions Code 17500 et seq.;

(f)
27
28
Whether Defendants' conduct, as described herein, violates Business and
Whether Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to a refund of the
money paid for membership and renewal fees ; and
(g)
Whether Plaintiff and the class are entitled to injunctive relief.

9
COMPLAINT
29.
Plaintiffs claims are typical of those of the members of the Class.
Plaintiff, like all Class members, paid money to Defendants for membership and
renewal fees due to Defendants' false and deceptive advertising.
30.
members.
handling class actions. Neither Plaintiff, nor his counsel, has any interests which
conflict with those of class members.
31 .
Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interest of other class
Plaintiffs counsel has more than 30 years of combined experience m
Certifying this case as a class action is the superior method for the fair
and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The injury sustained by Plaintiff and
10
each Class member is so small as to make the prosecution of individual actions
11
impractical.
12
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
13
For Violation of California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq.
14
15
16
32.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by this reference paragraphs 1
through 31, inclusive, as though they were set forth here in full.
33.
Defendants' conduct constitutes an unlawful, unfair and fraudulent
17
business practice, a deceptive business practice, an untrue business practice, and
18
misleading advertising in that, among other things:
19
a. NAFC is not, and has never been, authorized by the state of
20
California to register and certify AOD counselors pursuant to 9
21
CCR 13035(a);
22
b. In violation of 9 CCR 13035(a), NAFC issued worthless
23
certifications to Plaintiff and the Class to provide services as AOD
24
counselors in California;
25
26
27
28
c. Defendants misrepresented that NAFC was authorized to issue the

CCDC certification in the state of California;
d. Defendants misrepresented that the CCDC certification was a
"national certification" ;
10
COMPLAINT
e. Defendants misrepresented that the CCDC certification would

2
permit the possessor to lawfully perform drug and alcohol
rehabilitation counseling in the state of California;
f. Defendants' website and other advertising was and is likely to
mislead the class;
5
6
g. Defendants misrepresented that the CCDC certification qualified
the possessor to act as an expert witness in civil or criminal
litigation or other official proceedings;
h. Defendants misrepresented that the CCDC certification established

"National Credential & Recognition;" and
10
11
i.
12
13
Defendants misrepresented that the CCDC certification possessed

substantial value.
34.
Defendants continued to solicit renewal and payment for renewal of the
14
CCDC certification from Plaintiff and the Class, although they knew that the
15
statements above were false and that the certification was unapproved, unlawful and
16
worthless in California. Plaintiff and Class members are each entitled to restitution of
17
all fees paid to defendants, in an amount to be determined.
18
35.
Plaintiff requests entry of a declaratory judgment that Defendants have
19
violated section 17200, and a preliminary and permanent injunction which requires
20
Defendants to (a) cease and desist from issuing certificates to AOD counselors, (b)
21
disclose the names, addresses and telephone numbers of each of its AOD California
22
certificate holders, and (c) inform the AOD certificate holders of his/her rights and
23
responsibilities, that the NAFC certifications are not approved or authorized by law and
24
that they must register with an approved certifying organization within the time limits
25
set forth in CCR, Title 9 Section 13035(d)(l-4) [the section which applies to certifying
26
organizations that fail to comply with the requirements of this regulation.]
27
28
11
COMPLAINT
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2
For Violation of California Business and Professions Code 17500, et seq.
(Untrue or False Advertising)
4
5
6
36.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by this reference paragraphs 1
37.
Defendants, with the intent to induce Plaintiff and other Class members,
have made representations regarding the CCDC certification which they knew to be
untrue or misleading.
following:
10
Such misrepresentations include, but are not limited to the
a. That NAFC was authorized to issue the CCDC certification in the
11
state of California;
12
b. That the CCDC certification was a "national certification;"
13
c. That the CCDC certification would permit the possessor to lawfully
14
perform drug and alcohol rehabilitation counseling in the state of
15
California;
16
d. That the CCDC certification qualified the possessor to act as an
17
expert witness in civil or criminal litigation or other official
18
proceedings;
19
e. That the CCDC certification established "National Credential &
20
Recognition;" and
21
f. That the CCDC certification possessed substantial value.
22
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
23
Fraud
24
25
26
38.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by this reference paragraphs I
39.
Defendants
intentionally
misrepresented
and/or
omitted
material
27
information regarding the approval, sponsorship and certification of goods and services
28
respecting the CCDC certification.

12
COMPLAINT
40.
Plaintiff and the class justifiably relied upon Defendants' express and
implied representations, and material omissions, that the NAFC certificates were
nationally recognized, approved, and valid in the state of California.
5
6
7
41.
Plaintiff and the class paid money to Defendants m reliance on
Defendants' material misrepresentations and omissions.

42.
Defendants knew that Plaintiff and the Class would be misled by their
unlawful conduct and material misrepresentations and omissions.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
9
10
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

1.
A Certification of this case as a class action, and an appointment of
11
Plaintiff as class representative and his counsel as attorneys for the class and subclass
12
defined above;
13
2.
A Declaration that Defendants' conduct, as described herein, violates
14
California's False Advertising Laws, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500 et seq., and
15
California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq.
16
3.
A preliminary and permanent injunction to protect the interests of
17
Plaintiff and the members of the Class, including an order prohibiting Defendants from
18
engaging in the wrongful and unlawful acts described herein;
19
4.
Injunctive relief requiring Defendants to disclose the names, addresses
20
and telephone numbers of all putative class members and to disclose their obligations
21
to obtain proper certifications within the time limitations set forth in CCR, Title 9,
22
Section 13035(d);
23
5.
Restitution of all membership and renewal fees during the class period;
24
6.
Damages according to proof;
25
7.
Punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter and make an example
26
of the Defendants;
27
8.
Attorneys' fees and costs; and
28
9.
All other and further relief which the Court deems just and proper.
13
COMPLAINT
JURY DEMAND
2
3
Plaintiff hereby demands that this matter be set for trial by jury.
6
7
DATED: October 6, 2014

DA YID C. SCHEPER
WILLIAM H. FORMAN
MARGARET DAYTON
9
10
11
By:
David C. Scheper
Attorneys for Plaintiff ark Carr on his own
behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
COMPLAINT
U:r?{: - FIUNG'3
111 tL !-{ILL STF'EET
LO~~; ANr3ELES CA 90012
ttATE PAID: 10/0t-."14
04 ~ 1? Pt1
RECEIPT #: CCW520:37213'i
CIT/CA:::E:
PC5~i9767
LEJ:!/DEF#:
$435.00
310
CA:?H:
:to.oo
CHl4Nr5;.
CAF:O;
tJ.00
:to .oo
CM-0_10
[jTTORN.fY OR PARlY WTHOUT ATTORNEY (NBJr1$, Stele &tr numbef; lllld llddre:sa}:

FOR COURT USE ONt.Y
DAVID C. SCHEPER (State Bar No. 120174) /WJLLIAM H. FORMAN (State Bar No. I50477)
601 W. Fifth Stree~ 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012

(213)613-4655
ATTORNEY FOR (NemeJ: Plaintiff Clark Carr
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS
STREET ADDRESS:
111 N. Hill Street
CONFORMED COPY
ORIGINAL PILED
FAXN0.:(213)613-4656
mEPHONENO.:
s--'-Co\ntOfCalllornlr
w~;ittOff.N -~
ANGELES
MAILING ADDRESS:
Sherri R. Carter, Execullve umQ&rJCler~

By: Judi Lara. Deputy
Los Angeles, CA 90012

BRANCH NAME: Central District
c1TY ANo z1P coDE:
CASE NAME:
Clark Carr v. National Association of Forensic Counselors, Inc., et al.
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
Unlimited
(Amount
demanded
exceeds $25,000)
Complex Case Designation
Limited
(Amount
demanded is
$25,000 or less)
Counter
CASE NUMBER:
BC 5 5 9 7 6 7
Joinder
Filed with first appearance by defendant

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402)
JUDGE:
DEPT:
Items 1-6 below must be completed~ee lnstroctions on_p_age 21.

1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort
Contract
Auto (22)
Breach of contracttwarranty (06)
Uninsured motorist (46)
Rule 3.740 collections (09)
Other Pl/PD/WD (Personal Injury/Property
Other collections (09)
Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort
Insurance coverage (18)
Asbestos (04)
Other contract (37)
Product liablllty (24)
Real Property
Medical malpractice (45)
Eminent domain/Inverse
Other PUPD/VVD (23)
condemnation (14)
Non-PIJPD/WD (Other) Tort
Wrongful eviction (33)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Provisionally Complex Civil LiUgaUon

(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
Business tort/unfair business practice (07)

Other reel property (26)
Civil rights (08)
Unlawful Detainer
Defamation (13)
Commercial (31)
[ ] ] Fraud {16)
Residential (32)
D
D
D
Intellectual property (19)

Professional negligence (25)
Other non-Pl/PD/WO tort (35)
~loyment
LJ
Wrongful termination (36)

Other employment (15)
LJ
Drugs (38)
Judlclal Review
Asset forfeiture (05)
Petlllon re: arbitration award (11)
Writ of mandate (02)
Otherjydlclal reviewj39}_
AnlitrusVTrade regulation (03)

Construction defect (10)
Mass tort (40)
Securities litigation (28)
EnvironmentaVToxlc tort (30)
Insurance coverage claims arising from the
above listed provisionally complex case
types (41)
Enforcement of Judgment
Enforcement of judgment (20)
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
D
D
RIC0(27)
Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
Miscellaneous Civil Petition

Partnership and corporate governance (21)
Other petition (not specified above) (43)
D
0
2. This case
Is
is not
complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
Large number of separately represented parties
d.
Large number of witnesses
b.
e.
c.
Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel

Issues that
be time-consuming to resolve
Substantial amount of documentary evidence
f.
Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts

in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
a.
will
3. Remedies sought (check all that apply}: a.[K) monetary
b.IJ[) nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief
c.
ULJ punitive
4. Number of causes of action (specify):Three: I.) 17200, 2.) 17250, 3.) Fraud
5. This case
Is
is not a class action suit.
6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You ma
Date:
October 6, 2014
David C. Scheper
{TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
NOTICE
Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims ses or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result
In sanctions.
File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.
If this case Is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding.
Unless this Is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onlv.
ffa e 1 of
Form Adopted for Mandatoty Use

Judiclal Council of Callfomla
CM.010 [Rev. July 1. 2007)
.-;~. -;:',.o::\ , :''... - ~tv'L CASE COVER SHEET
;~~Y\~;> '.f
ca1.Ru~~~s~~e:,~~~clin~:':~!i:;~
lexlsNexls Automated California Judlciaie;,::';;::

INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET
CM-010
To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must
complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile
statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1. you must check
one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1,
check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action.
To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover
sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party,
its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court.
To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money
owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in
which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort
damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of
attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general
time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections
case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740.
To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the
case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by
completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex. the cover sheet must be served with the
complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the
plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that
the case is complex.

Auto Tort
Auto (22)-Personal Injury/Property
Damage/Wrongful Death
Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the
case involves an uninsured
motorist claim subject to
arbitration, check this item
instead of Auto)
Other Pl/PO/WO (Personal Injury/

Property Damage/Wrongful Death)
Tort
Asbestos (04)
Asbestos Property Damage
Asbestos Personal Injury/
Wrongful Death
Product Liability (not asbestos or
toxic/environmental) (24)
Medical Malpractice (45)
Medical MalpracticePhysicians & Surgeons
Other Professional Health Care
Malpractice
Other Pl/PD/WO (23)
Premises Liability (e.g., slip
and fall)
Intentional Bodily Injury/PD/WO
(e.g., assault, vandalism)
Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress
Negligent Infliction of
Emotional Distress
Other Pl/PD/WO
Non-Pl/PD/WO (Other) Tort
Business Tort/Unfair Business
Practice (07)
Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination.
false arrest) (not civil
harassment) (08)
Defamation (e.g., slander, libel)
(13)
Fraud (16)
Intellectual Property (19)
Professional Negligence (25)
Legal Malpractice
Other Professional Malpractice
(not medical or legal)
Other Non-Pl/PD/WO Tort (35)

Employment
Wrongful Termination (36)
Other Employment (15)
CM-010 (Rev. July 1, 2007(
CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES

Contract
Breach of Contract/Warranty (06)
Breach of Rental/Lease
Contract (not unlawful detainer
or wrongful eviction)
Contract/Warranty Breach-Seller
Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence)
Negligent Breach of Contract/
Warranty
Other Breach of Contract/Warranty
Collections (e.g., money owed, open
book accounts) (09)
Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff
Other Promissory Note/Collections
Case
Insurance Coverage (not provisionally
complex) (18)
Auto Subrogation
Other Coverage
Other Contract (37)
Contractual Fraud
Other Contract Dispute
Real Property
Eminent Domain/Inverse
Condemnation (14)
Wrongful Eviction (33)
Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26)
Writ of Possession of Real Property
Mortgage Foreclosure
Quiet Title
Other Real Property (not eminent
domain, landlord/tenant. or
foreclosure)
Unlawful Detainer
Commercial (31)
Residential (32)
Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal
drugs, check this item; otherwise,
report as Commercial or Residential)
Judicial Review
Asset Forfeiture (05)
Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11)
Writ of Mandate (02)
Writ-Administrative Mandamus
Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court
Case Matter
Writ-Other Limited Court Case
Review
Other Judicial Review (39)
Review of Health Officer Order
Notice of Appeal-Labor
Commissioner Appeals
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal.

Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403)
AntitrusVTrade Regulation (03)
Construction Defect (10)
Claims Involving Mass Tort (40)
Securities Litigation (28)
Environmentalffoxic Tort (30)
Insurance Coverage Claims
(arising from provisionally complex
case type listed above) (41)
Enforcement of Judgment
Enforcement of Judgment (20)
Abstract of Judgment (Out of
County)
Confession of Judgment (nondomestic relations)
Sister State Judgment

Administrative Agency Awa rd
(not unpaid taxes)
Petition/Certification of Entry of
Judgment on Unpaid Taxes
Other Enforcement of Judgment
Case
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
RICO (27)
Other Complaint (not specified
above) (42)
Declaratory Relief Only
Injunctive Relief Only (n onharassment)
Mechanics Lien
Other Commercial Complaint
Case (non-tort/non-complex)
Other Civil Complaint
(non-tort/non-complex)
Miscellaneous Civil Petition

Partnership and Corporate
Governance (21)
Other Petition (not specified
above) (43)
Civil Harassment
Workplace Violence
Elder/Dependent Adult
Abuse
Election Contest
Petition for Name Change
Petition for Relief From Late
Claim
Other Civil Petition
Page 2of 2
lexisNexis Automated California Judicial Council Forms

SHORT TJTlE:
CASE NUMBER
Clark Carr v. National Association of Forensic Counselors, et al.
scs
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND

STATEMENT OF LOCATION
(CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION)
This form Is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.0 In all new clvll case filings In the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Item I. Check the types of hearing and fill In the estimated length of hearing expected for this case:
JURY TRIAL?
~ YES
CLASS ACTION?
YES LIMITED CASE?
Oves
TIME ESTIMATED FOR TRIAL
7_~D~H~O~U....B~S/-~~D~A-Y~S
Item II. Indicate the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps - If you checked umited Case", skip to Item Ill, Pg. 4):
Step 1 : After first completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet form, find the main Civil Case Cover Sheet heading for your
case in the left margin below, and, to the right In Column A, the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you selected.
Step 2: Check 2!!! Superior Court type of action In Column B below which best describes the nature of this case.
Step 3:
In Column C, circle the reason for the court location choice that applies to the type of action you have
checked. For any exception to the court location, see Local Rule 2.0.
Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (see Column C below)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Class actions must be liled In the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, cenlral dlstrlcl.
May be flied In central (other county, or no bodUy Injury/property damage).
Location where cause of action arose.
Location where bodily injury, death or damage occurred.
Location where perfonnance required or defendant resides.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1O.
Location of property or permanently garaged vehicle.

Location where petltloner resides.
Location wherein defendant/respondent functions wholly.
Location where one or more of the ~rtles reside.
Location of Labor Commissioner Ofllce
Step 4: Fill in the information requested on page 4 in Item Ill; complete Item IV.
,.
...
..
.. .
'
'
Civil case Cover Sheet

ca~8gory No.
..
.. :..
: ..
... . .-.~ ~-:
Auto(22)
Uninsured Motorist (46)
Asbeslos (04)
e.
:....
Sign the declaration.
TYJ>e of:ACtJon .
(Check O!lly cine}
..
..
:.Appllcable Reasons
:: ::. "::-8-:~ 'Sl8J> 3Above
D A7100 Motor Vehlde Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death
1., 2., 4.
A7110 Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death- Uninsured Motorist
1.,2.,4.
A6070 Asbestos Property Damage
2.
D A7221 Asbeslos Personal Injury/Wrongful Death
2.
Product liablllly (24)
A7260 Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental)
1., 2., 3 4.. 8.
Medical Malpracllce (45)
a
a
A7210 Medical Malpractice Physicians & Surgeons
1.. 4.
A7240 Other Professional Health Care Malpractice
1.,4.
D A7250 Premises Liability (e.g., slip and fall)

Other
Personal Injury
Property Damage
Wrongful Death
(23)
~~~
(;" . ?;. !j
l~.
A7270 Intentional lnntctlon of Emotional Distress
A7220 Olher Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM

AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION
LAc1v 109 (Rev. 03111)

LAsc Approved 03-04
,...- .
A7230 Intentional Bodily Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (e.g.,

assaull, vandallsm, elc.)
r: ".\
...
~ ..._- :,~ .
,, ..../
:' ! ''"'~1
,~
fil
.,
1.,4.
1.,4.
1., 3.
1.,4.
Local Rule 2.0

Page 1 of4

SHORT TITLE:
CASE N UMBER
-_ A-.
I.
_
-c-
- --
--.
Ci'vucase.c6vaJ'.-Sheef - L
,_ ' Category- No . .-_-.-_ _ :,
.
- --- _,
~"""~
=.
Business Tort (07)
,_
f ypeof-Action
, .. .
22-.:.:.c
-_
' '
(Checkonly-one)
-.:::..
Applicable Reasons See Step 3 Above
A6029 Other Commercial/Business Tort (not fraud/breach of contract)
1., 3.
D A6005 Civil Rights/Discrimination
1., 2., 3.
Defamation (13)
A6010 Defamation (slander/libel)
1., 2., 3.
Fraud (16)
A6013 Fraud (no contract)
1., 2., 3.
A6017 Legal Malpractice
1., 2., 3.
A6050 Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal)
1., 2., 3.
Other (35)
A6025 Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort
2. ,3.
Wrongful Termination (36)
A6037 Wrongful Termination
1., 2., 3.
A6024 Other Employment Complaint Case
1., 2.. 3.
A6109 Labor Commissioner Appeals
10.
A6004 Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful

eviction)
2., 5.
A6008 Contract/Warranty Breach -Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence)
A6019 Negligent Breach of ContracVWarranty (no fraud)
Other Employment (15)
Breach of ContracV Warranty

(06)
(not insurance)
--..-
.-.-
Civil Rights (08)
Professional Negligence (25)
2., 5.
1., 2., 5.
1., 2., 5.
A6028 Other Breach of ContracVWarranty (not fraud or negligence)
A6002 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff
2., 5.. 6.
A6012 Other Promissory Note/Collections Case
2., 5.
A6015 Insurance Coverage (not complex)
1., 2., 5., 8.
A6009 Contractual Fraud
1., 2., 3., 5.
A6031 Tortious Interference
1., 2., 3., 5.
A6027 Other Contract Dispute(not breach/insurance/fraud/negligence)
1., 2., 3., 8.
Eminent Domain/Inverse
Condemnation (14)
A7300 Eminent Domain/Condemnation
Wrongful Eviction (33)
A6023 Wrongful Eviction Case
2., 6.
A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure
2.. 6.
A6032 Quiet Title
2., 6.
A6060 Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure)
2., 6.
Unlawful Detainer-Commercial
(31)
A6021 Unlawful Detainer-Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction)
2., 6.
Unlawful Detainer-Residential
(32)
A6020 Unlawful Detainer-Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction)
2. , 6.
Unlawful DetainerPost-Foreclosure (34)
A6020F Unlawful Detainer-Post-Foreclosure
2., 6.
Unlawful Detainer-Drugs (38)
A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs
2., 6.
~
c
..
.C
---- ------_-
-.
Collections (09)
Insurance Coverage (18)
Other Contract (37)
Other Real Property (26)
LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11)

LASC Approved 03-04
Number of parcels___

2.
Local Rule 2.0

Page 2 of4

CASE NUMBER
SHORT TITLE:

-:-
;_:.
, , ,-.
' .' .
. Civil, Ga_s~cti~~(sheet
. ..... ca_t~!1otyNo) :.<>
"
-:cc
Jc ~ - ~
". C
.
.....:
...:
' Applicable Reasons see Step~Jibcive

> ...
Asset Forfeiture (05)
A6108 Asset Forfeiture Case
2., 6.
Petition re Arbitration ( 11)
A6115 Petition to Compel/ConfirmNacate Arbitration
2., 5.
A6151 Writ - Administrative Mandamus
2., 8.
Writ of Mandate (02)
A6152 Writ - Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter
2.
A6153 Writ - Other Limited Court Case Review
2.
A6150 Other Writ /Judicial Review
2., 8.
Other Judicial Review (39)
:.cc_
..
Antitrust!Trade Regulation (03)
D A6003 Antllrust!Trade Regulation
1., 2., 8.
O>
Construction Defect (10)
A6007 Construction Defect
1., 2., 3.
~
0..
Claims Involving Mass Tort

(40)
A6006 Claims Involving Mass Tort
1., 2., B.
5
E
0
(,.)
..?;-
~0
:12?
Cl..
Securities Litigation (28)
D A6035 Securities Litigation Case
1., 2., 8.
Toxic Tort
Environmental (30)
A6036 Toxic Tort/Environmental
1., 2., 3., 8.
Insurance Coverage Claims

from Complex Case (41)
A6014 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only)
1., 2., 5., 8.
Enforcement
of Judgment (20)
RICO (27)
Other Complaints
(Not Specified Above) (42)
Partnership Corporation
Governance (21)
Other Petitions
(Not Specified Above)
(43)
LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11)

LASC Approved 03-04
D A6141 Sister State Judgment
2., 9.
A6160 Abstract of Judgment
2., 6.
A6107 Confession of Judgment (non-domestic relations)
2., 9.
D A6140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes}
2., 8.
2., 8.
A6114 Petition/Certificate for Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Tax
D A6112 Other Enforcement of Judgment Case
2., 8., 9.
1., 2., 8.
A6033 Racketeering (RICO) Case
D A6030 Declaratory Relief Only
1., 2., 8.
A6040 Injunctive Relief Only (not domestic/harassment}
2., 8.
A6011 Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex)
1., 2., 8.
A6000 Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex)
1., 2., 8.
A6113 Partnership and Corporate Governance Case
2., 8.
A6121 Civil Harassment
2., 3., 9.
A6123 Workplace Harassment
2., 3., 9.
D A6124 Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Case
2., 3., 9.
A6190 Election Contest
2.
A6110 Petition for Change of Name
2., 7.
A6170 Petition for Relief from Late Claim Law
2., 3., 4., 8.
A6100 Other Civil Petition
2., 9.

Local Rule
2.0
Page 3 of 4

SHORT TITLE:
CASE NUMBER
Item Ill. Statement of Location: Enter the address of the accident, party's residence or place of business, performance, or other
circumstance indicated in Item 11., Step 3 on Page 1, as the proper reason for filing in the court location you selected.
ADDRESS:
REASON: Check the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown

under Column C for the type of action that you have selected for
this case.
Class action brought on behalf of similarly situated persons in California, by

Clark Carr, 4652 Hollywood Blvd.
0 1. 02. 03. 04. 05. 0 6. 07. 08. 09. 010.

CI TY:
STATE:
Los Angeles
CA
ZIP CODE:
90027
Item IV. Declaration of Assignment: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct and that the above-entitled matter is properly filed for assignment to the Stanley Mosk
courthouse in the
_C_e_n_tr_a_I_ _ _ _ _ District of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc .. 392 et seq., and Local
Rule 2.0, subds. (b}, (c) and (d)).
Dated:
PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY
COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE:
1. Original Complaint or Petition.

2.
If filing a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk.
3. Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-010.

4.
Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev.
03/11 ).
5.
Payment in full of the filing fee, unless fees have been waived.
6.
A signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, Judicial Council form CIV-010, if the plaintiff or petitioner is a
minor under 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue a summons.
7.
Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum
must be served along with the summons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case.
LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11)

LASC Approved 03-04

Local Rule 2.0

Page 4 of 4

NAFC vs. Narconon: Clark Carr Class Action Against NAFC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

NAFC vs. Narconon: Clark Carr Class Action Against NAFC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 480-17 Filed in ED/OK on 11/13/14 Page 1 of 25

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 480-17 Filed in ED/OK on 11/13/14 Page 2 of 25 SUM-100

FOR COURT USE ONLY

YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:

Sherri R. Carter, Executive OHicer/Clerk

CLARK CARR, on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly

CCP 416.10 (corporation)

CCP 416.60 (minor)

Code of Civil PIOC8dure 412.20, 465

lexisNexis Automated California Judlcta1C'o~:J:

Judge Kenneth Freeman

Judge Jane Johnson

Judge Amy D. Hogue

; /cJge Elihu M. Berle

./Jv Judge William F. Highberger

CHALLENGE TO ASSIGNED JVDGE

FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE

Given to the Plaintiff/Cross-Complainant/Attorney of Record on _O_C_T_

SHERRl R. CARTER, Executive Officer/Clerk

B C j h =- - -- -'' Deputy Clerk

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 480-17 Filed in ED/OK on 11/13/14 Page 4 of 25

SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP

DAVfD C. SCHEPER (State Bar No. 120174)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CLARK CARR, on his own behalf and

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 480-17 Filed in ED/OK on 11/13/14 Page 5 of 25

NATURE OF THE ACTION

Defendants are in the business of providing the service of certifying

Defendants fraudulently represented and continue to represent to the Class of

are "nationally recognized." Defendants' certifications are not "nationally recognized."

Several states have declined to approve Defendants' certifications.

2005, only the certifying organizations specifically approved by the California

Department never authorized any of the Defendants to certify AOD counselors.

Nevertheless, Defendants willfully continue to provide the service of certifying AOD

counselors in violation of the California regulations. Defendants concealed their

violation of California regulations to mislead putative class members into paying

annual fees for unlawful and worthless counselor certificates.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

Plaintiff Clark Carr is an individual, and resident of Glassell Park,

Defendant National Association of Forensic Counselors, Inc. ("NAFC")

claims to be a non-profit organization.

soliciting members and issuing certificates to California drug counselors in exchange

of State or designated an agent for service of process.

For at least 12 years, NAFC has been

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 480-17 Filed in ED/OK on 11/13/14 Page 6 of 25

Defendants American Academy of Certified Forensic Counselors, Inc.

dba American College of Certified Forensic Counselors ("ACCFC") is a Nevada for-

ACCFC develops the standards, requirements, certification development and period

California Secretary of State or designated an agent for service of process.

Defendant Karla Deisler Taylor ("Taylor") is the President and Chief

business in California by personally directing, authorizing and conspiring to engage in

the unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices alleged herein.

On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Francis

separate persons or entities.

NAFC, ACCFC, Taylor, and Deisler collectively are

and re-invent himself.

In or about 1994, the National Association of Forensic Counselors was

established in Indiana by Francis Deisler as a non-profit corporation. In or about 1995,

another corporation named National Association of Forensic Counselors, Inc., was

6:14-cv-00187-RAW Document 480-17 Filed in ED/OK on 11/13/14 Page 7 of 25

formed in Indiana. This incarnation of NAFC was dissolved in August of 1999. In