Dave Touretzky wrote:
> Fred and Phyllis Luthy of Albuquerque, New Mexico have sued Narconon
> Stone Hawk for fraud, deceptive trade practices, and unust enrichment.
> According to the complain, they sent their son John to Stone Hawk in
> August 2006. He lasted 5 days before being dumped at a motel.
> Narconon not only kept the $23,500 "tuition" charge, they even kept
> the $1,500 that had been placed on account to meet John's expenses
> during the 4-6 month program.
> You can Read the complaint online:
> http://Stop-Narconon.org/Stone_Hawk/Luthy/complaint.pdf
> Note that although Stone Hawk is located in Michigan, the lawsuit was
> filed in New Mexico. The Luthys are arguing for home state
> jurisdiction on the grounds that they were solicited by telephone
> multiple times at their home in Albuquerque. Assuming they are
> successful in keeping the lawsuit in New Mexico, this will bode well
> for others wishing to sue Narconon without having to go to the trouble
> of finding a Michigan attorney.
> The Luthys are seeking TRIPLE DAMAGES and PUNITIVE DAMAGES based on
> the deceptive trade practices charge. The complaint alleges that John
> Luthy received no treatment while at Narconon Stone Hawk; he was
> simply left to suffer through his withdrawal symptoms.
> At least they didn't ruin his liver with a niacin overdose.
> -- Dave Touretzky: "Just say 'no' to Narconon."
> http://Stop-Narconon.org
==
Here is the text version of the complaint, see on ABS the attached piece
with the OCRed pdf version
==
ENDORSED FILED IN MY OFFICE THIS
STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
JAN 09 2007
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
CLERK DISTRICT COURT
FRED LUTHY and PHYLLIS LUTHY,
Plaintiffs,
v. No. CV 2007 00228
NARCONON STONE HAWK REHABILITATION CENTER, INC.,
Defendant.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, UNFAIR OR
DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BREACH OF CONTRACT AND UNJUST
ENRICHMENT
1. Fred Luthy and Phyllis Luthy are residents of Bernalillo County, New
Mexico.
2.
Defendant Narconon Stone Hawk Rehabilitation Center, Inc. ("Narconon")
is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Battle
Creek, Michigan.
3.
The acts and events giving rise to this complaint occurred in
Bernalillo County, and the harm resulting occurred in Bernalillo County.
4. This court has jurisdictions over the subject matter and the parties,
and venue is
proper in this forum. General Allegations
5.
In early July, 2006, Fred Luthy contacted Narconon about the
possibility of Narconon providing treatment for Mr. Luthy's son, John
Luthy.
6.
Fred Luthy spoke with Doug McGarry ("McGarry"), who represented himself
as an intake counselor for Narconon. McGarry gave Mr. Luthy some general
information and took Mr. Luthy's phone number.
7.
In the weeks that followed, Fred Luthy and Phyllis Luthy ("the Luthys")
received no less than six (6) phone calls at their home in Albuquerque,
New Mexico, from McGarry.
8.
During these conversations with McGarry, he told the Luthys that he was
a former student of Narconon and represented it as an appropriate
treatment option for their son, John.
9.
The Luthys informed McGarry that John has a serious drug dependency
issue and was not a willing participant for the Narconon program.
Phyllis Luthy informed McGarry on several occasions that John would not
want to remain at Narconon and would be very difficult to control.
10.
McGarry assured the Luthys that Narconon could adequately address their
concerns and that if they could get John to the program in Michigan that
Narconon "knew exactly how to deal with" someone like John.
11.
On more than 5 occasions Phyllis Luthy reminded McGarry that John was
very difficult and would likely not want to remain at the Narconon
center. Each time McGarry assured Mrs. Luthy that once John was there
the Narconon staff could assure that John would stay and be treated.
12.
Also, the Luthys received no less than six (6) phone calls at their
home in Albuquerque, New Mexico, from a woman who identified herself as
Desiree, represented herself as former student of the Narconon center
and assured the Luthys that the Narconon program would be able to
effectively treat their difficult, drug addicted, son.
13.
Upon information and belief, Desiree received the Luthys' contact
information from, and was encouraged to call them by, a representative
of Narconon.
14.
The Luthys were repeatedly assured by representatives of Narconon that,
once John was received at the Narconon Center, it was a guarantee that
they would be able to treat
him.
15.
McGarry informed the Luthys that the "tuition" for the Narconon program
was $23,500.00 and that an account would be opened for John in which the
Luthys could deposit money for his incidentals while at the center.
16.
On, or about, August 25, 2006, Fred Luthy's bank wired $25,000.00 to
Narconon for the cost of the tuition and $1,500.00 for John's account.
17.
On, or about, August 25, 2006, John Luthy arrived at the Narconon
center to begin treatment.
18.
Upon information and belief from August 25, 2006 until August 30, 2006,
John Luthy received no treatment and was merely housed at the center as
he became increasing uncomfortable, irritated and impatient while
undergoing the symptoms of drug withdrawal and craving.
19. Upon information and belief on, or about, August 30, 2006, John
demanded that
he be released from the center and Narconon had him driven to a nearby
motel and left him
there.
20. The Luthys were informed that John was terminated from the program
for "violating the rules contained in the student handbook" and that,
despite the fact that they provided him no treatment and merely housed
him for four days, Narconon would be retaining the entire $23,500.00
tuition.
21. Despite several demands Narconon has refused and failed to return
any portion of
the tuition and has further refused to return the $ 1,500.00 deposited
into John's account.
COUNT I
(Fraud in the Inducement)
22. The Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-21 of their complaint.
23.
Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Defendant to provide drug
treatment services for their son.
24.
Plaintiffs' willingness to assent to the terms of the agreement, and
the agreement itself, was caused by the material fraudulent
misrepresentations of Defendant and its agents.
25. Plaintiffs have been damaged by the Defendant's actions.
26. Defendant's conduct was malicious, fraudulent, oppressive and/or
recklessly committed, with wanton disregard of Plaintiffs' rights.
COUNT II
(Breach of Contract)
27. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 -26 of their complaint.
28. The agreements and representations made by the parties formed a
valid contract between the Plaintiffs and Defendant.
29.
Plaintiffs performed all of their obligations under the contract.
30.
Defendant breached the contract.
31.
Plaintiffs have been damaged by the Defendant's breach.
32.
Defendant's conduct was malicious, fraudulent, oppressive and/or
recklessly
committed, with wanton disregard of Plaintiffs' rights.
COUNT III
(Unjust Enrichment)
33.
Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-32 of their complaint.
34.
Defendant has been knowingly benefited at Plaintiffs' expense.
3 5. Allowance of Defendant to retain the benefit would be unjust under
the
circumstances.
36. Defendant's conduct was malicious, fraudulent, oppressive and/or
recklessly committed, with wanton disregard of Plaintiffs' rights.
COUNT IV
(Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices)
37- Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-36 of their complaint.
3 8. Defendant offers drug treatment services in the regular course of
its business.
39.
Defendant offered drug treatment services to the Plaintiffs, in the
State of New Mexico, in the regular course of its business.
40.
Defendant's actions are g6verned by the Unfair Trade Practices Act,
§57-12-1 NMSA, et seq..
41.
Defendant's actions violated the provisions of the Unfair Trade
Practices Act including, but not limited to: §57-12-2(D)(7) NMSA,
§57-12-2(D)(14) NMSA, §57-12-2(D)(17) NMSA, §57^12-2(E)(1) NMSA, and
§57-12-2(E)(2) NMSA.
42. Defendant willfully engaged in these violations of the Unfair Trade
Practices Act.
43. Defendant's conduct was malicious, fraudulent, oppressive and/or
recklessly committed, with wanton disregard of Plaintiffs' rights.
44. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover actual or statutory damages,
trebled.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Fred Luthy and Phyllis Luthy request that this
court enter judgment in their favor and against the defendant Narconon
Stone Hawk Rehabilitation Center Inc, and award Plaintiffs:
(a) Actual or statutory damages, trebled, for violations of the Unfair
Trade Practices
Act, §57-12-1 NMSA, el seq.,
(b) Actual damages and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
trial for the malicious, fraudulent, oppressive and/or recklessly
committed breach of the contract.
(c) Damages sufficient to alleviate any unjust enrichment of Defendant.
(d) Reasonable attorney fees and costs, and
(e) Such other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Kelley-Streubel LLC
Donald F. Kochersberger III 315 Fifth Street N.W. Albuquerque, NM 87102
(505)
848-8581
(505)
848-8593
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW MEXICOCOUNTY OF BERNALILLO ) ) ) ss.
I, Fred Luthy, state that I have read the Verified Complaint for Fraud
in the Inducement, Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices, Breach of
Contract and Unjust Enrichment, and that the same is true and correct to
the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
By
Fred Luthy
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3d day of January, 2007, by Fred
Luthy.
ALICIA M. LAPADO
Notary Public
