Anda di halaman 1dari 5

Plaintiff SARAH LOCATELLI

In Pro Per

(530) 274-8198 (phone/fax)

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


COUNTY OF NEVADA

SARAH LOCATELLI, an individual, ) Case No. L75070


)
) UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE
Plaintiff, )
vs. )
PLAINTIFF MEMORANDUM IN
NARCONON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a ) OPPOSITION TO DEFENDENTS'
)
California corporation, NARCONON ) MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE
JOSHUA HILLS, a California corporation, and )
DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, ) Date: September 25, 2009
)
) Time: 10:00 a.m.
Defendants. ) Trial Date: None yet
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

This is a complaint for BREACH OF CONTRACT, CONVERSION, FRAUD IN THE


INDUCEMENT, FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
AND VIOLATION OF BUSINESS PROFESSIONS CODE §17200 et seq.

It is Plaintiff's belief, as noted SARAH LOCATELLI AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION


TO CHANGE OF VENUE attached to this Reply in Opposition, that Narconon Southern California
(NNSC) was unlicensed to do business and operate as a drug rehabilitation residential facility in
Riverside County nor in any county as the entity known as "Narconon Joshua Hills." Narconon Joshua
Hills, Inc (NNJH) is a separate corporate entity which began doing business in August 2007 according
to their Federal Tax Return which Plaintiff believed was a part of Narconon Southern California when
it isn't. It is legally described in the Affidavit of Sarah Vogel. The NNSC contract that was received in
the mail after the services were canceled, after Daniel had returned home, after a refund was asked for,
went unsigned.

Venue is proper because "a substantial portion of the transaction occurred" via internet, telephone, fax
and mail from my home in Grass Valley after being solicited and sold services in a fraudulent manner
or scheme by known and not yet known, employees, agents and representatives of the Narconon
program on behalf of Narconon Southern California. (Telemarketing Sales Rule 16 CFR Part 310
Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act 15 U.S.C Sec. 6101 et seq. 1670.6.- "A
contract with a consumer located in California for the purchase of a good or service that is made in
connection with a telephone solicitation made in or from outside of California and is primarily for
personal, family, or household use, is unlawful if, with respect to that telephone solicitation, the
telemarketer is in violation of Section 310.4(a)(6)(i) of, or has not complied with Section 310.5(a)(5)
of, the Federal Trade Commission's Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 310), as published in the
Federal Register, Volume 68, Number 19, on January 29, 2003. This section shall apply only to those
entities subject to, and does not apply to any transaction exempted under Section 310.6 of, the
Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 310), as published in the Federal Register, Volume 68,
Number 19, on January 29, 2003. " )

The points of the complaint concern the deceptive trade practices and federal telemarketing violations
(CCC Secs 1750-1780C) and practices perpetuated against Plaintiff while in her residence, via
telephone, is in this county. Defendants NARCONON SC and NARCONON JH, through their agents
and representatives (sued herein as DOES 1 through 20), actively solicited Plaintiff 's business and does
so of other consumers in this county, and the liability alleged in this complaint arises directly from acts
committed via telephone in this county by Defendants causing injury to Plaintiff.
The references for this request and the AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT BY SARAH VOGEL include:

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1750 et seq known as the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
section 1780 (a) & (c) state " Any consumer who suffers any damage as a result of the use or
employment by any person of a method, act, or practice declared to be unlawful by Section 1770 may
bring an action against such person to recover or obtain any of the following:
• (1) Actual damages, but in no case shall the total award of damages in a class action be
less than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
• (2) An order enjoining such methods, acts, or practices.
• (3) Restitution of property.
• (4) Punitive damages.
• (5) Any other relief which the court deems proper.

Section 1780(c) An action under subdivision (a) or (b) may be commenced in the county in which the
person against whom it is brought resides, has his or her principal place of business, or is doing
business, or in the county where the transaction or any substantial portion thereof occurred.
If within any such county there is a municipal or justice court, having jurisdiction of the subject matter,
established in the city and county or judicial district in which the person against whom the action is
brought resides, has his or her principal place of business, or is doing business, or in which the
transaction or any substantial portion thereof occurred, then such court is the proper court for the trial
of such action. Otherwise, any municipal or justice court in such county having jurisdiction of the
subject matter is the proper court for the trial thereof.

In any action subject to the provisions of this section, concurrently with the filing of the complaint, the
plaintiff shall file an affidavit stating facts showing that the action has been commenced in a county or
judicial district described in this section as a proper place for the trial of the action. "

" 1670.6. A contract with a consumer located in California for the purchase of a good or service that is
made in connection with a telephone solicitation made in or from outside of California and is

primarily for personal, family, or household use, is unlawful if, with respect to that telephone
solicitation, the telemarketer is in violation of Section 310.4(a)(6)(i) of, or has not complied with

Section 310.5(a)(5) of, the Federal Trade Commission's Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 310),
as published in the Federal Register, Volume 68, Number 19, on January 29, 2003. This section
shall apply only to those entities subject to, and does not apply to any transaction exempted under
Section 310.6 of, the Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 310), as published in the Federal

Register, Volume 68, Number 19, on January 29, 2003."

The CLRA states that venue is proper “in the county in which . . . or in the county where the transaction or any

substantial portion thereof occurred.” Civ. Code § 1780(c).

California Code Of Civil Procedure Section 395

(b) Subject to the power of the court to transfer actions or proceedings as provided in this title, in an
action arising from an offer or provision of goods, services, loans or extensions of credit intended
primarily for personal, family or household use, other than an obligation described in Section 1812.10
or Section 2984.4 of the Civil Code, or an action arising from a transaction consummated as
approximate result of either an unsolicited telephone call made by a seller engaged in the business of
consummating transactions of that kind or a telephone call or electronic transmission made by the
buyer or lessee in response to a solicitation by the seller, the superior court in the county where the
buyer or lessee in fact signed the contract, where the buyer or lessee resided at the time the contract

was entered into, or where the buyer or lessee resides at the commencement of the action is the proper
court for the trial of the action. In the superior court designated in this subdivision as the proper court,
the proper court location for trial of a case is the location where the court tries that type of case that is
nearest or most accessible to where the buyer or lessee resides, where the buyer or lessee in fact signed
the contract, where the buyer or lessee resided at the time the contract was entered into, or where the
buyer or lessee resides at the commencement of the action. Otherwise, any location of the superior
court designated as the proper court in this subdivision is a proper court location for the trial. The court
may specify by local rule the nearest or most accessible court location where the court tries that type of
case. (c)....."
CONCLUSION
The proper venue is where the bulk of contract transaction for purchasing this personal family related
service, where the consumer was deceived. I also allege violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
Civil Code § 1750 et seq. The CLRA is to be interpreted liberally to protect consumers against unfair and
deceptive business practices. Civ. Code § 1760.

_______________________________________
Sarah Locatelli, Pro Se