Tarr v. Narconon, Tarr's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
-
Upload
tony-ortega -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Tarr v. Narconon, Tarr's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
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
Ryan A. Hamilton
NEVADA BAR NO. 11587
HAMILTON LAW
5125 S. Durango Dr., Ste. C
Las Vegas, NV 89113
(702) 818-1818
(702) 974-1139
Attorney for the plaintiffs,
Cathy Tarr and Michael Tarr
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
CATHY TARR, a Virginia Citizen; and
MICHAEL TARR, a Florida Citizen,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
NARCONON FRESH START d/b/a RAINBOW
CANYON RETREAT; and DOES 1-100, ROE
Corporations I – X, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK
PLAINTIFFS’OPPOSTION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS COMPLAINT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, TO STRIKE OR
FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Defendant urges this Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint because Defendant claims it
cannot respond to allegations about its own treatment program. Without providing specific
examples, Defendant complains that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is fraught with editorial comments,
inflammatory language, impertinent allegations, and argument. The reality is less exciting: The
Complaint merely sets forth the factual allegations underlying Plaintiffs’ claims.
The Complaint is well within the federal pleading standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
Defendant’s Motion is a non-starter and should be denied. Accordingly, Plaintiffs oppose
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint or, In The Alternative, to Strike or for More Definite
Statement (“Defendant’s Motion”).
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 8 Filed 04/10/14 Page 1 of 14
2
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
DATED this 10th
day of April, 2014.
HAMILTON LAW, LLC
By: /s/Ryan A. Hamilton
Ryan A. Hamilton
NV Bar No. 11587
5125 S. Durango Ste., C
Las Vegas, NV 89113
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
This case involves a bizarre, elaborate fraudulent scheme. In April of 2013, Plaintiff Cathy
Tarr was searching the Internet for a drug treatment program for her son, Michael. After being
routed to a Narconon representative from someone she believed was an independent consultant,
the Narconon representative persuaded Ms. Tarr to send her son to Narconon. To persuade her, the
Narconon representative promised that Narconon had a 76% “success rate,” that Narconon had a
sauna program that was “scientifically proven” to eliminate drug cravings, that her son would
receive one-on-one counseling from qualified counselors, and that the program was secular.
Believing these claims, Ms. Tarr paid Narconon’s $33,000 fee and sent her son to the program.
When Michael entered Narconon, however, Narconon treated him only with teachings and
practices from the religion of Scientology. Each of the promises the Narconon representative made
to Ms. Tarr was false. Narconon staff never even spoke to Michael Tarr about his substance abuse,
let alone counsel him about it. In lieu of treatment, Narconon had Michael unwittingly study and
practice introductory Scientology in its eight course books written by L. Ron Hubbard. And, the
sauna program Narconon claimed eliminated drug cravings was nothing more than a dangerous
Scientology ritual known as the “Purification Rundown.”
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 8 Filed 04/10/14 Page 2 of 14
3
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
Plaintiffs filed suit on February 24, 20141, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for
fraud, negligence, and breach of contract. As required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), Plaintiffs’
Complaint pleads Narconon’s fraud with particularity, setting out the “time, place, and manner”
for each fraudulent representation Plaintiffs allege. In so doing, Plaintiffs make factual allegations
about the contents of the Narconon course materials Michael Tarr received. Plaintiffs must do this
to allege with particularity the “manner” of Defendant’s false representations that Narconon is a
secular program that would provide Michael Tarr addiction counseling.
Further, in support of Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages on their fraud claim,
Plaintiffs allege that Narconon knew that its promises to Ms. Tarr of a 76% “success rate” and a
sauna program proven to eliminate drug cravings were false. Plaintiffs allege that Narconon knew
these claims were false by quoting portions of deposition testimony from a prior case in which a
Narconon expert admitted they cannot back up these claims. As additional support for their prayer
for punitive damages, Plaintiffs allege that Narconon is being used to recruit members for the
Church of Scientology. To allege the requisite malice and oppression to support Plantiffs’ prayer
for punitive damages, Plaintiffs quote and attach Narconon’s own documents that suggest the
Narconon program is being used as a recruiting tool for Scientology. (Doc. 1, Exs. G, H).
Plaintiffs’ allegations in the Complaint are proper and comply with the requirements of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Defendant’s complaints that it cannot form a responsive pleading are
disingenuous. The majority of the paragraphs in Plaintiffs’ Complaint make basic allegations
about Narconon’s own program. The information to answer these allegations is uniquely and
necessarily within Narconon’s knowledge. Such allegations may answered easily by quick
reference to Narconon’s course materials, or in a phone call between counsel and client.
1 Plaintiffs filed suit February 24, 2014, and served Narconon’s registered agent February 26,
2014. Pursuant to an extension, Narconon’s responsive pleadings was due April 8 and Narconon
filed the instant Motion April 8
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 8 Filed 04/10/14 Page 3 of 14
4
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
It is unsurprising that Narconon would rather not answer Plaintiffs’ Complaint. But the
instant Motion is wholly unfounded and should be denied in its entirety.
ANALYSIS
A. Ninth Circuit Precedent Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 provides, in relevant part:
(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must
contain:
…
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the
alternative or different types of relief.
…
(d) Pleading to Be Concise and Direct; Alternative Statements;
Inconsistency.
(1) In General. Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.
No technical form is required.
…
(e) Construing Pleadings. Pleadings must be construed so as to do
justice.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Thus, Rule 8 requires Plaintiffs to plead short and plain statements of their
claims showing that they are entitled to relief. Further, Plaintiffs are required to plead their
allegations in a simple, concise, and direct fashion, and those pleadings must be construed to do
justice.
The rule in the Ninth Circuit is that “verbosity or length is not by itself a basis for
dismissing a complaint based on Rule 8(a).” Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d
1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008). Instead, for dismissal, the complaint must suffer some deficiency such
as being “replete with redundancy and largely irrelevant,” or being “conclusory and confusing.”
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 8 Filed 04/10/14 Page 4 of 14
5
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
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.1996)(affirming dismissal and noting that only
“by months or years of discovery and motions [could] each defendant find out what he is being
sued for”); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir.1981)(affirming
dismissal of a 48–page complaint as “verbose, confusing, and conclusory”); Schmidt v. Herrmann,
614 F.2d 1221, 1223 (9th Cir.1980) (affirming dismissal of 30–page complaint because it was
“impossible to designate the cause or causes of action attempted to be alleged in the complaint”).
When faced with a complaint that suffers from one of these defects, a district court “should
first consider should first consider less drastic alternatives” than dismissal with prejudice.
McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178. Indeed, because dismissal with prejudice is such a harsh remedy, it
should be imposed as a sanction only where there is evidence of bad faith or deceptive conduct
that “relates to the matters in controversy in such a way as to interfere with the rightful decision of
the case.” Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep't, 530 F.3d 1124, 1132 (9th Cir. 2008).
B. Plaintiffs’ Complaint
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is well-organized and coherent. Further, as Narconon appears to
concede, Plaintiffs state viable causes of action for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence.
Narconon complains in a cursory fashion that Plaintiffs’ allegations are inflammatory, immaterial,
redundant, editorial, incoherent, and argumentative. On the contrary, Plaintiffs simply have
provided the factual allegations that underlie and directly relate to their claims. As such, Plaintiffs’
Complaint gives Narconon fair notice of what is being alleged and amply satisfies Rule 8’s
requirements.
Section III of the Complaint, “Factual Allegations,” contains the bulk of Plaintiffs’ factual
allegations and is the Section about which Narconon complains. Section III is divided into five
subsections covering different topics, “A” through “E.” Each subsection sets forth allegations on
which Plaintiffs’ base their claims.
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 8 Filed 04/10/14 Page 5 of 14
6
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
First, subsection A, “Michael’s Entry Into The Narconon Program” sets forth allegations
relating to how Narconon made false representations to Ms. Tarr to induce her to send her son to
Narconon and pay Narconon $33,000. As required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), Plaintiffs plead
these matters with particularity and allege the “time, place, and manner of the alleged fraud.”
Accordingly, Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Tarr was referred by an “independent consultant” to
Narconon representative, Josh Penn, after she contacted a 1-800 number on a website. (Doc. 1, ¶¶
6 – 7). Plaintiffs then allege the specific false representations Penn made to Ms. Tarr as well as the
false representations contained in the Narconon correspondence sent to her. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 8 – 13,
17). For instance, paragraph 17 sets forth false representations contained in the “Admission
Letter” that Ms. Tarr received on her son’s entry into the program. Specifically, the letter falsely
claimed that the Narconon program has a 70% success rate and that Narconon’s sauna program
has been “proven scientifically and medically” to “eliminate all future drug cravings.”
The remaining allegations in subsection A are basic factual allegations included simply to
describe what happened between the parties. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 14 – 16, 18 – 19).
Next, subsection B, “The Narconon Program,” sets forth basic allegations about the
program that Narconon put Michael through and how the program operated. And, more
specifically, subsection B sets forth allegations underlying Plaintiffs’ claim that Narconon tricked
Michael into unwittingly studying and practicing Scientology in lieu of treatment. Plaintiffs make
these allegations, in part, by pointing out that the same Scientology concepts and practices found
in the book Narconon credits as being the inspiration for its program, “Scientology: The
Fundamentals of Thought,” are found throughout and comprise Narconon’s course materials.
Doc. 1, ¶¶ 20 – 41).
For example, paragraph 30 of the Complaint alleges that the Scientology concept known as
the “Eight Dynamics of Existence” is both discussed in “Scientology: The Fundamentals of
Thought” and taught in Book 6 of the Narconon program course materials. To respond to this
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 8 Filed 04/10/14 Page 6 of 14
7
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
allegation, Narconon would only need to quickly reference Book 6 of its course materials or
counsel could just ask the client. (Of course, Narconon is not required to respond as to the contents
of “Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought.”)
Similarly, paragraph 24 provides, in relevant part, that “…[Training Routine] 3 from Book
1 of the Narconon program is used to teach students about the ‘Cycle of Communication.’ The
‘Cycle of Communication’ is a concept found early on in ‘Scientology: The Fundamentals of
Thought, the book Narconon credits as being the inspiration for its program. Again, to ascertain
whether Book 1 of the Narconon program teaches about the “Cycle of Communication,” counsel
would need only to reference the book or ask the client.
Subsection B also includes allegations about Narconon’s sauna program that Michael went
through, what Narconon calls the “New Life Detoxification” program. Id. at ¶ 42. Plaintiffs allege
that Narconon’s sauna is also a Scientology practice known as the “Purification Rundown.” Id. at
¶ 43. Narconon falsely claimed to Ms. Tarr that its sauna program was proven scientifically and
medically to eliminate all future drug cravings. Id. at ¶¶ 9, 17.
Plaintiffs then allege the basis for their belief that Narconon’s claims about its sauna
program are false: in a prior litigation, Narconon’s own medical expert admitted there was no
scientific basis to support those claims. Id. at ¶ 50. Plaintiffs quoted the expert’s relevant
testimony in their Complaint and attached the transcript of the deposition as Exhibit D to
Complaint. Plaintiffs’ purpose in quoting Narconon’s expert’s testimony and attaching his
deposition transcript is to support Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages in this case. That is,
Plaintiffs allege the basis for their belief that Narconon knew the claims about its sauna program
were false when making them to Ms. Tarr.
In Subsection C, “Narconon’s Fraudulent Business Practices,” Plaintiffs set forth
allegations about Narconon’s methods of inducing persons to enter their program, or to send a
loved one to it. These methods, such as promising a false 70% “success rate,” are the same
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 8 Filed 04/10/14 Page 7 of 14
8
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
methods Plaintiffs allege Narconon used to ensnare Ms. Tarr. Id. at ¶¶ 55 – 60. Plaintiffs again
quote the deposition testimony of Narconon’s own medical expert from a prior litigation who
admitted he “did not have a clear idea where that 70 – 70-something [success rate] number came
from.” Id. ¶ 59. Once again, Plaintiffs’ purpose in quoting Narconon’s expert is to provide
Plaintiffs’ basis for believing that the success rate Narconon claimed to Ms. Tarr was false, and
that Narconon knew it was false at the time.
Likewise, in paragraph 60, Plaintiffs provided another basis for their belief that the success
rate Narconon claimed to Ms. Tarr was false. Plaintiffs quote an internal email at Narconon,
obtained from a prior litigation, in which Narconon employees discuss how to handle a Better
Business Bureau Complaint. In the email, a Narconon employee states Narconon “do[es] not have
scientific evidence” for its claimed success rate. (Doc. 1, Ex. D).
The remainder of subsection C further sets forth other allegations that underlie Plaintiffs’
fraud claim. For example, Narconon promised Ms. Tarr that her son would receive extensive one-
on-one counseling from qualified counselors in a safe environment. Paragraphs 64 through 67 of
the Complaint allege that this promise was false because Narconon counselors are not certified in
addiction counseling (¶ 64), patients such as Michael Tarr do not receive any addiction
counseling, but only L. Ron Hubbard materials (¶ 65), Narconon has no on-site medical
professionals (¶ 66), and most Narconon staff members’ only qualification is that they completed
the Narconon program themselves. (¶ 67).
Subsection D, “Connection to the Church of Scientology,” sets forth factual allegations
that are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim that Narconon provided Michael Tarr Scientology in lieu of
drug treatment. For example, paragraph 71 alleges that Narconon pays a licensing fee to the
Church of Scientology and the L. Ron Hubbard library to use the Church’s doctrine, or what is
known as its “technology” in Narconon’s course materials.
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 8 Filed 04/10/14 Page 8 of 14
9
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
Next, paragraphs 72 and 74 make allegations related to Narconon documents that underlie
Plaintiffs’ claim that Narconon provided Michael Tarr Scientology in lieu of drug treatment. (Doc.
1, Exs. G, H). These Narconon documents contemplate Narconon as being a source of recruitment
for the Church of Scientology. Plaintiffs’ allegations in paragraphs 72 and 74, and the exhibits
related to these allegations, are directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim that Narconon falsely
promised them its program was secular. Further, they support Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive
damages.
Similarly, Plaintiffs allege facts in paragraphs 76 through 79 that show the intimate
connection between Narconon and Scientology. Plaintiffs allege that prominent members of the
Church of Scientology promote Narconon (¶ 76), and that Narconon proponents believe strict
application of L. Ron Hubbard’s technology alone should be used to treat drug addiction. (¶¶ 77 -
78). These allegations also underlie Plaintiffs’ claim that Narconon provided Michael Tarr only
Scientology and that the Narconon program is not secular in nature.
Lastly, in subsection E, “Harm to Plaintiffs,” Plaintiffs allege, as required for each of their
claims, how Narconon’s conduct damaged them. Narconon takes specific exception to paragraph
82 in which Plaintiffs allege that a Narconon Ethics Officer attempted to use Scientology doctrine
to show Michael Tarr how to avoid a common cold. Plaintiffs included this allegation because it
exemplifies how pervasive Scientology doctrine was during Michael’s time at Narconon and the
manner in which Narconon purported to “treat” Michael.
C. Plaintiffs’ Complaint Satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 8
And The Court Should Deny Narconon’s Motion In Its Entirety
Applying Ninth Circuit precedent to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, it becomes clear that Plaintiffs’
Complaint easily satisfies Rule 8. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is well-organized, coherent, and states
viable causes of action. Each allegation in the Complaint is directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims.
As such, the Complaint plainly satisfies Rule 8.
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 8 Filed 04/10/14 Page 9 of 14
10
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
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124,
1127 (9th Cir. 2008), is instructive. In Hearns, the Ninth Circuit held the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing the plaintiff’s 68-page amended complaint with prejudice under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b). There, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that although the complaint “set forth excessively
detailed factual allegations, they were coherent, well-organized, and stated legally viable claims.”
Id. Accordingly, the Hearns Court concluded that neither the amended complaint, nor the 81-page
original complaint, violated Rule 8(a). Id. at 1130.
The Hearns decision teaches that Rule 8 is easily satisfied so long as the complaint is well-
organized and coherent. Indeed, the Hearns Court concluded that the plaintiff’s complaint satisfied
Rule 8’s requirements despite having a 42-page “Factual Background” section. Id.
If the complaint in Hearns satisfied Rule 8, there is no question Plaintiffs’ Complaint does
as well.
The decision in Hinchey v. Horne, CV-13-0260 PHX DGC, 2013 WL 1664704 (D. Ariz.
Apr. 17, 2013), is instructive as well. In Hinchey, the defendants sought to strike the plaintiff’s 72-
page complaint with ten exhibits as a violation of Rule 8(a)(2). Id. at *1. Quoting Hearns, the
district court denied the motion in full:
[T]he complaint at issue here was not “replete with redundancy and
largely irrelevant.” Cf. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. It set out more
factual detail than necessary, but the overview was relevant to
Plaintiff's causes of action .... Nor was it “confusing and
conclusory.” Cf. Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 674. The complaint is logically
organized, divided into a description of the parties, a chronological
factual background, and a presentation of enumerated legal claims,
each of which lists the liable Defendants and legal basis therefor.
The [allegations] contain excessive detail, but are intelligible and
clearly delineate the claims and the Defendants against whom the
claims are made.... Here, the Defendants should have no difficulty in
responding to the claims with an answer and/or with a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss.
Hinchey v. Horne, CV-13-0260 PHX DGC, 2013 WL 1664704 (D. Ariz. Apr. 17, 2013)(quoting
Hearns, 530 F.3d at 1132.
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 8 Filed 04/10/14 Page 10 of 14
11
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
The Hinchey Court also dismissed defendants’ arguments that the complaint contained
superfluous factual details and exhibits. The court reasoned that although the additional details
may not have been necessary they did make the plaintiff’s claim more plausible. Hinchey, 2013
WL 1664704, at *3. Accordingly, the additional details did not make the complaint “replete with
redundancy and largely irrelevant.” McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. In addition, the court ruled that the
plaintiff’s ten exhibits constituting 150 pages also did not violate Rule 8 because defendants need
only answer allegations in the complaint itself. Id.
This situation here is similar to Hinchey and Hearns. Defendants claim Plaintiffs’
Complaint contains unnecessary factual detail. Although Plaintiffs contend that all of the factual
allegations in their Complaint are necessary and directly relevant, Hearns and Hinchey make clear
that even if defendants are correct it is of no moment. As in Hinchey, the factual allegations in
Plaintiffs’ Complaint relating to what Narconon’s program consists of and Narconon’s intimate
connection to Scientology make Plaintiffs’ claims more plausible. And, as the Hinchey Court
ruled, this does not amount to a Rule 8 violation.
Tellingly, Narconon does not cite the Hearns case in its Motion despite the fact that the
decision discusses nearly every other case Narconon cites. Instead, Narconon places principal
reliance on McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir.1996), and other cases that are wholly
inapposite. In McHenry, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint with
prejudice because it was fifty-three pages and mixed allegations of “relevant facts, irrelevant facts,
political argument, and legal argument.” Id. at 1174. After reading the plaintiffs’ complaint, the
McHenry Court was still unclear which legal claims plaintiffs were raising against which of the
multiple defendants. Id. at 1180. This is a far cry from Plaintiffs’ Complaint here.
Narconon characterizes Plaintiffs’ allegations in paragraphs 21 through 54 as editorial
“editorial comments.” Defendant’s Motion at 5 – 6. To the contrary, these are factual allegations
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 8 Filed 04/10/14 Page 11 of 14
12
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
about the treatment program Narconon put Michael through. These allegations are at the heart of
this case.
Narconon also asserts that the undersigned is attempting to garner media attention with
Plaintiffs’ Complaint. In support of this assertion, Narconon points out that the undersigned
advertises for cases like this on his firm’s website and has filed three other cases similar to this
one.
Of course, there is nothing unusual or improper about an attorney advertising for cases on
a website. Nor is at all strange that an attorney might have multiple cases against the same
defendant. Narconon’s argument is frivolous.
Finally, Narconon’s request for a More Definite Statement and its claim that it cannot
respond to Plaintiffs’ allegations is wholly disingenuous. It bears repeating that the most of the
allegations relate to what is contained in Narconon’s own treatment program. Thus, the
information to answer these allegations is uniquely and necessarily within Defendant’s
knowledge.
For example, Plaintiffs allege in paragraph 20 that “[t]he Narconon ‘Treatment’ Program
consists of two components: (1) course materials consisting of eight books by L. Ron Hubbard;
and (2) a sauna and vitamin program known as the ‘New Life Detoxification Program.’” Similarly,
paragraph 31 alleges that Narconon has students demonstrate their understanding of a Scientology
concept known as the Eight Dynamics of Existence by making clay sculptures. There is no reason
Narconon should have any difficulty responding to these basic allegations about its own program.
And, of course, Narconon is free to deny the allegations in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(b)(2).
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 8 Filed 04/10/14 Page 12 of 14
13
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
Requiring a defendant to answer basic allegations about its own program is hardly
unreasonable or burdensome. It does not violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, nor is it good grounds for a
motion to strike or for a more definite statement.
For all these reasons, the Court should deny Narconon’s Motion in its entirety.
DATED this 10th
day of April, 2014.
Respectfully submitted,
HAMILTON LAW, LLC
By: /s/Ryan A. Hamilton
Ryan A. Hamilton
NV Bar No. 11587
5125 S. Durango Ste., C
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 8 Filed 04/10/14 Page 13 of 14
14
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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I am an employee of Hamilton Law, LLC, and that on the 10th
day of April,
2014, I caused a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Complaint or, In the Alternative, to Strike or for More Definite Statement to be served via
the CM/ECF electronic system to all parties on the service list:
S. Brent Vogel
Alayne M. Opie
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Ste. 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89118
/s/Ryan A. Hamilton
Case 2:14-cv-00283-GMN-NJK Document 8 Filed 04/10/14 Page 14 of 14