Plaintiff Affidavit in Opposition to Venue Motion/ Locatelli vs Narconon Southern California and Joshua Hills:
Locatelli affidavit regarding Narconon request for change in venue, discusses applicable law and Narconon's placement information on their websites which give the impression to victims that they do business in your city or town or county. This affidavit also has lots of information on the nature of Narconon's fake referral sites and telephone scam,which should help other victims and plaintiffs.
Content
Plaintiff SARAH LOCATELLI In Pro Per (530) 274-8198 (phone/fax)
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF NEVADA ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. NARCONON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a ) ) California corporation, NARCONON ) JOSHUA HILLS, a California corporation, and ) DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ______________________________________ ) SARAH LOCATELLI, an individual, Case No. L75070 UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE DECLARATION OF SARAH LOCATELLI IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE Date: September 25, 2009 Time: 10:00 a.m. Date action filed: June 29, 2009 Trial Date: None yet
I, Sarah Vogel, declare: I stand by my Complaint and ask that the Court consider it while reading this DECLARATION presented to the Court as an incorporated document in support of the OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE. I never signed a written contract with any Narconon organization. The extent of the contract between the parties in this case is the telemarketing calls to and from and between fake referral help line phone number acting as a Narconon representative (Desiree Romero) and an employee of Narconon (Micki Allen) who took my credit card information when I agreed to purchase "Joshua Hills" rehabilitation services and later the 2 post dated checks made out to Narconon Southern California which I faxed copy of and then sent originals in the mail based upon what I was told to do. I never received a receipt
for the deposit monies I paid by credit card; I was never informed that my deposit was going to any other entity besides the fictitious " Joshua Hills" which I was told by the rep was the California equivalent of "St Jude's of Nebraska". I was never informed that it was a Narconon entity until after my deposit was taken and cleared via credit card transaction done over the telephone as I was told who to make the remaining post dated payments out to. I was promised many things over the phone by Narconon representatives and employees but I was never informed by the parties that the parties involved were in a collusion type of activity and that they were in violation of federal and state consumer and telemarketing law. I was never informed of any refund policy before or after my money was taken by DEFENDENTS. I was only informed after Daniel left the program and I called to get a refund of money back. To my knowledge, DEFENDENTS did not tape record the financial transaction nor provide financial receipts. This is in violation of When I asked for a receipt, my request was ignored. I was pregnant with a toddler at home during the transaction and during the whole of the pregnancy I attempted to get a refund to no avail, causing financial, emotional and physical distress. I suffered this in Nevada County where I live as I tried to unravel and rectify the situation by phone, email and fax. Defendants, NARCONON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (NNSC) and NARCONON JOSHUA HILLS (NN JH) are separate corporate entities with operations in various locations and in the state of California. Additionally, NARCONON SH has operations in Nevada and Colorado.
NNSC solicits customers via telephone, internet, via referral websites and 3rd party sellers throughout the United States and the State of California, including customers in Grass Valley, California, County of Nevada on their official website http://www.usnodrugs.com/California/Grass_Valley/17 , the site which is noted on their 990 tax returns ( www.usnodrugs.com.) As noted in the Complaint, the true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of Defendants named in this action as DOES 1 through 20, are unknown as of yet to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named defendants when they have been ascertained.
It is my belief and understanding, that DESIREE ROMERO, formerly known as DESIREE DANNER, has worked and continues to work for various NARCONON entities across the United States beginning in 2001, after having personally completed the Narconon Program herself in Oklahoma. http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=127115 Desiree Romero is a resident of the State of Texas and operates multiple "rehab referral" and "rehab hotline" websites. It is my belief that Desiree's priority placements and referrals are on behalf of the Narconon program, as evidenced by her high earnings records from the various Narconon 990 Tax forms of different Narconons from 2001-2006 Desiree Danner 2001 Narconon Arrowhead 990 Tax return highly compensated http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/corporate/person.php?person_id=247 Desiree Romero 2003-2006 mulitple locations 99o Returns highly compensated http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/corporate/person.php?person_id=19 and claims made about her in the New Mexico lawsuit: Luthy v Narconon Stone Hawk et al claiming fraud and deceptive trade practices of a similar nature. Point 12: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Stop-Narconon/StoneHawk/Luthy/complaint.pdf
Desiree Romero promotes herself by name and photograph on some of her referral sites http://www.drugrehabs.net/index.php/Contact-Us/ and is a Facebook friend to NNSC's Registered Agent Arthur Bruce Haddrill , http://www.facebook.com/people/Arthur-Bruce-Haddrill/1449810547 who is registered with the Michigan Bar Association as being in house counsel to Narconon Nevada, showing the address of the property owned by NNSC in Caliente, Lincoln County, NV. Arthur B. Haddrill - P30662 (active and in good standing) General Counsel Narconon PO Box 716 Caliente, NV 89008
Phone: (775) 726-3158 Fax: (775) 726-3159 e-Mail: [email protected] Michigan Licensed: 11/15/1979 http://www.michbar.org/memberdirectory/detail.cfm?ID=30631338%2D9643%2D18%2DDETAIL
Desiree uses the fictitious name "ADDICTION SOLUTIONS" and "SOLUTIONS" to provide these referral services to people in search of substance abuse and alcohol addiction help. In 2007, NNSC paid out over $400,000 in referral fees. to people and companies like Desiree and bBy deposition and interrogatory of the DEFENDENTS, it is suspected that there will be evidence of remuneration made to Desiree Romero or her company (s) because she is, in fact, an agent for the Narconon programs run by NNSC and NNJH and was the referral source for giving me Micki Allen's number for the supposed St Jude like program she and Micki called "Joshua Hills".
While denying Ms. Romero and Micki Allen had any authorization, neither NNSC nor NNJH have stated who in particular at either of the NNs was authorized and did sell to me the "Joshua Hills" program service over the phone during the time of the payment of the deposit transaction.After the credit crd information was provided, Ms. Allen instructed me to fax copies of the post dated checks to "Narconon Southern California" to a fax number belonging a staff member located in Newport Beach, Orange County, CA , The Newport Beach facility address was the registered business address for NNSC on record with the IRS (See 990 form 2007) and Secretary of State of California up until the fall of 2008, after registered agent Jon Stearman passed away and was replaced with Arthur Bruce Haddrill. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/233b2a16cbf71f41
Mr. Haddrill's qualifications to be a registered Agent in the state of California are questionable when this and other evidence from the MI Bar Association shows him to be a resident of Nevada and licensed by the Michigan Bar. http://www.michbar.org/memberdirectory/detail.cfm?ID=30631338%2D1616%2D78%2DDETAIL
Micki Allen said she was in Temecula, CA but she called me using a Nevada phone number. Ms. Allen is shown on the internet as an intake counselor for Narconon Nevada aka Rainbow Canyon in Nevada, http://www.usdrugrehabcenters.com/drug-rehab-centers/nevada-drug-rehab-centers/rainbow-canyonl13917/ Micki Allen's email address at that site is [email protected] and the ph # listed 866-6NODRUG can be found on the Narconon West US web site for Narconon Nevada, and the other Narconons listed on http://www.narcononcalifornia.com Essentially all the Narconons listed there are those listed in 990 tax forms for NNSC and as presumably managed by Narconon Southern California on behalf of Narconon WUS. There is no currently registered corporate entity or DBA filed in the state of NV or any state for that matter for "Narconon Nevada" aka "Narconon Rainbow Canyon". The last time "Narconon Nevada" was name reserved in that state was in 2004, which was revoked in 2005. That was last filed by Jon Stearman in CA.
On the other hand, Narconon Southern California is currently doing business in the state of Nevada under a recently revoked NV nonprofit corporation registration : https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpDetails.aspx? lx8nvq=jfASfEXbyzsXRCrgowbDDw%253d%253d, yet is registered with Lincoln County NV Department of Labor as one of the top 10 employers in that county The below link to the letter complaint about Narconon in Nevada and NNSC, written by E Kemp of Washington State, shows that NNSC has been doing recent business in the state of Nevada and that Micki Allen was the intake counselor who sold him the services for which he has since received a refund. http://www.scribd.com/doc/17125312/Complaint-vs-Narconon-Nevada-Narconon-Southern-California2009
NNSC and NNJH are profitable and expanding businesses with over 8 million in assets at the end of the calender year 2007. Despite that, over the last 2 years, NNSC has had multiple complaints posted
on various internet sites and multiple lawsuits filed against it in various CA counties for, at minimum, breach of contract. These consumer lawsuits were begun when NNSC was registered with the Secretary of State as doing business at the registered address located in Newport Beach, Orange County, CA . The 990 corporation tax return for 2007 filed in Nov 2008 shows the Newport Beach, Orange County address as the entity place of business address and the address & place of business for the officers and highly paid executives, including Shannon Farnsworth, formerly known as Shannon Hicks. http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/corporate/990s.php?ntt=73
Not one of the 2007-2009 consumer filed Complaints was filed in Orange County or San Diego County where NNSC runs Narconon Vista Bay facility. In Riverside County only 1 case has been filed in the last many years, it concerning the breach of contract related to services not delivered in Colorado by NNSC as agreed. (Megargal v Narconon Southern California). To the best of my knowledge and belief, those cases filed against NNSC in Los Angeles County were filed by Los Angeles County residents, not due to jurisdiction and venue.
The issue of venue in the MOTION does not take into account that as the payer, I am the consumer in the transaction. It does not consider where I was during the transaction and where it took place primarily, which was over the phone from my home in Nevada County and eventually to the m,ail box to mail the balance of the cmonies. It also does not acknowledge that this was a telemarketing transaction related to the sale of services related to personal and family matters and that US and CA telemarketing and consumer laws are applicable because of type of transaction and the nature of the fraud claims. (Telemarketing Sales Rule 16 CFR Part 310, Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act 15 U.S.C Sec. 6101 et seq., .
Additionally, I am unable to afford the costs that will be associated with having to travel and stay in any of the counties named and requested in the MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE. I have children, an infant and a 3 year old, to care for, as well. I am already in debt , repaying the $22,000 plus high interest rates the money I borrowed which NNSC and NNJH never returned to me. As a Nevada
County CA consumer, I used the internet from the comfort of my home to seek help for my loved one and by choosing one of many Narconon related referral or information websites. I was coerced into purchasing the nonexistent services which I asked for and was told I was getting for my money, via telephone without the benefit of the above and below laws and regulations being met in part by DEFENDENTS, all to my detriment. I also believe it is my right to have this case heard in my home county for the benefit of the consumers in community because of the nature of the claims I have stated.
Recently there was a similar case concerning venue and consumer rights, the Opinion filed on June 10, 2009, which was certified for publication. The COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT; H FONTAINE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; CASHCALL, INC. et al., Real Parties in Interest. Case # H033811 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV 113767) states: " Fontaine opposed the motion on the ground that venue was proper in Santa Clara County under two exceptions to the general venue rule. First, Fontaine claimed that he had suffered physical and emotional injury in Santa Clara County due to defendants’ unlawful debt collection activities, and therefore the action could be tried in Santa Clara County pursuant to section 395, subdivision (a). Second, Fontaine asserted that venue was proper in Santa Clara County under section 395, subdivision (b)3 because the action arose from a loan that he had " Section 395, subdivision (a) provides in part, “Except as otherwise provided by law and subject to the power of the court to transfer actions or proceedings as provided in this title, the superior court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action. If the action is for injury to person or personal property or for death from wrongful act or negligence, the superior court in either the county where the injury occurs or the injury causing death occurs or the county where the defendants, or some of them reside at the commencement of the action, is a proper court for the trial of the action.” Section 395, subdivision (b) provides in part, “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 a proximate 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.” obtained primarily for personal, family or household purposes and he was a resident of Santa Clara County at the time the action was filed. Fontaine filed a declaration in support of his opposition, in which he also stated that he was financially unable to travel to the location of the Orange County Superior Court. " "We find that the plain language of section 395, subdivision (b) provides that an action arising from certain consumer transactions, including a loan or extension of credit intended primarily for personal, family or household use, must be tried in the superior court of the county where either (1) the buyer or lessee signed the contract; (2) the buyer or lessee resided at the time he or she entered into the contract; or (3) the buyer or lessee resided at the commencement of an action. There is nothing in the language of section 395, subdivision (b) that limits its application to collection actions brought against a consumer defendant. Therefore, whether the action is brought against a consumer defendant or by a consumer plaintiff, the venue provisions of section 395, subdivision (b) apply as long as the action arises from a consumer transaction specified in the statute."
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H033811.PDF I believe that my complaint was filed in the appropriate venue and I ask that you deny the Motion to Change Venue. The above is true and the best of my knowledge under penalty of perjury of law. _____________________ Sarah Locatelli
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF NEVADA ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. NARCONON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a ) ) California corporation, NARCONON ) JOSHUA HILLS, a California corporation, and ) DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ______________________________________ ) SARAH LOCATELLI, an individual, Case No. L75070 UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE DECLARATION OF SARAH LOCATELLI IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE Date: September 25, 2009 Time: 10:00 a.m. Date action filed: June 29, 2009 Trial Date: None yet
I, Sarah Vogel, declare: I stand by my Complaint and ask that the Court consider it while reading this DECLARATION presented to the Court as an incorporated document in support of the OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE. I never signed a written contract with any Narconon organization. The extent of the contract between the parties in this case is the telemarketing calls to and from and between fake referral help line phone number acting as a Narconon representative (Desiree Romero) and an employee of Narconon (Micki Allen) who took my credit card information when I agreed to purchase "Joshua Hills" rehabilitation services and later the 2 post dated checks made out to Narconon Southern California which I faxed copy of and then sent originals in the mail based upon what I was told to do. I never received a receipt
for the deposit monies I paid by credit card; I was never informed that my deposit was going to any other entity besides the fictitious " Joshua Hills" which I was told by the rep was the California equivalent of "St Jude's of Nebraska". I was never informed that it was a Narconon entity until after my deposit was taken and cleared via credit card transaction done over the telephone as I was told who to make the remaining post dated payments out to. I was promised many things over the phone by Narconon representatives and employees but I was never informed by the parties that the parties involved were in a collusion type of activity and that they were in violation of federal and state consumer and telemarketing law. I was never informed of any refund policy before or after my money was taken by DEFENDENTS. I was only informed after Daniel left the program and I called to get a refund of money back. To my knowledge, DEFENDENTS did not tape record the financial transaction nor provide financial receipts. This is in violation of When I asked for a receipt, my request was ignored. I was pregnant with a toddler at home during the transaction and during the whole of the pregnancy I attempted to get a refund to no avail, causing financial, emotional and physical distress. I suffered this in Nevada County where I live as I tried to unravel and rectify the situation by phone, email and fax. Defendants, NARCONON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (NNSC) and NARCONON JOSHUA HILLS (NN JH) are separate corporate entities with operations in various locations and in the state of California. Additionally, NARCONON SH has operations in Nevada and Colorado.
NNSC solicits customers via telephone, internet, via referral websites and 3rd party sellers throughout the United States and the State of California, including customers in Grass Valley, California, County of Nevada on their official website http://www.usnodrugs.com/California/Grass_Valley/17 , the site which is noted on their 990 tax returns ( www.usnodrugs.com.) As noted in the Complaint, the true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of Defendants named in this action as DOES 1 through 20, are unknown as of yet to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named defendants when they have been ascertained.
It is my belief and understanding, that DESIREE ROMERO, formerly known as DESIREE DANNER, has worked and continues to work for various NARCONON entities across the United States beginning in 2001, after having personally completed the Narconon Program herself in Oklahoma. http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=127115 Desiree Romero is a resident of the State of Texas and operates multiple "rehab referral" and "rehab hotline" websites. It is my belief that Desiree's priority placements and referrals are on behalf of the Narconon program, as evidenced by her high earnings records from the various Narconon 990 Tax forms of different Narconons from 2001-2006 Desiree Danner 2001 Narconon Arrowhead 990 Tax return highly compensated http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/corporate/person.php?person_id=247 Desiree Romero 2003-2006 mulitple locations 99o Returns highly compensated http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/corporate/person.php?person_id=19 and claims made about her in the New Mexico lawsuit: Luthy v Narconon Stone Hawk et al claiming fraud and deceptive trade practices of a similar nature. Point 12: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Stop-Narconon/StoneHawk/Luthy/complaint.pdf
Desiree Romero promotes herself by name and photograph on some of her referral sites http://www.drugrehabs.net/index.php/Contact-Us/ and is a Facebook friend to NNSC's Registered Agent Arthur Bruce Haddrill , http://www.facebook.com/people/Arthur-Bruce-Haddrill/1449810547 who is registered with the Michigan Bar Association as being in house counsel to Narconon Nevada, showing the address of the property owned by NNSC in Caliente, Lincoln County, NV. Arthur B. Haddrill - P30662 (active and in good standing) General Counsel Narconon PO Box 716 Caliente, NV 89008
Phone: (775) 726-3158 Fax: (775) 726-3159 e-Mail: [email protected] Michigan Licensed: 11/15/1979 http://www.michbar.org/memberdirectory/detail.cfm?ID=30631338%2D9643%2D18%2DDETAIL
Desiree uses the fictitious name "ADDICTION SOLUTIONS" and "SOLUTIONS" to provide these referral services to people in search of substance abuse and alcohol addiction help. In 2007, NNSC paid out over $400,000 in referral fees. to people and companies like Desiree and bBy deposition and interrogatory of the DEFENDENTS, it is suspected that there will be evidence of remuneration made to Desiree Romero or her company (s) because she is, in fact, an agent for the Narconon programs run by NNSC and NNJH and was the referral source for giving me Micki Allen's number for the supposed St Jude like program she and Micki called "Joshua Hills".
While denying Ms. Romero and Micki Allen had any authorization, neither NNSC nor NNJH have stated who in particular at either of the NNs was authorized and did sell to me the "Joshua Hills" program service over the phone during the time of the payment of the deposit transaction.After the credit crd information was provided, Ms. Allen instructed me to fax copies of the post dated checks to "Narconon Southern California" to a fax number belonging a staff member located in Newport Beach, Orange County, CA , The Newport Beach facility address was the registered business address for NNSC on record with the IRS (See 990 form 2007) and Secretary of State of California up until the fall of 2008, after registered agent Jon Stearman passed away and was replaced with Arthur Bruce Haddrill. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/233b2a16cbf71f41
Mr. Haddrill's qualifications to be a registered Agent in the state of California are questionable when this and other evidence from the MI Bar Association shows him to be a resident of Nevada and licensed by the Michigan Bar. http://www.michbar.org/memberdirectory/detail.cfm?ID=30631338%2D1616%2D78%2DDETAIL
Micki Allen said she was in Temecula, CA but she called me using a Nevada phone number. Ms. Allen is shown on the internet as an intake counselor for Narconon Nevada aka Rainbow Canyon in Nevada, http://www.usdrugrehabcenters.com/drug-rehab-centers/nevada-drug-rehab-centers/rainbow-canyonl13917/ Micki Allen's email address at that site is [email protected] and the ph # listed 866-6NODRUG can be found on the Narconon West US web site for Narconon Nevada, and the other Narconons listed on http://www.narcononcalifornia.com Essentially all the Narconons listed there are those listed in 990 tax forms for NNSC and as presumably managed by Narconon Southern California on behalf of Narconon WUS. There is no currently registered corporate entity or DBA filed in the state of NV or any state for that matter for "Narconon Nevada" aka "Narconon Rainbow Canyon". The last time "Narconon Nevada" was name reserved in that state was in 2004, which was revoked in 2005. That was last filed by Jon Stearman in CA.
On the other hand, Narconon Southern California is currently doing business in the state of Nevada under a recently revoked NV nonprofit corporation registration : https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpDetails.aspx? lx8nvq=jfASfEXbyzsXRCrgowbDDw%253d%253d, yet is registered with Lincoln County NV Department of Labor as one of the top 10 employers in that county The below link to the letter complaint about Narconon in Nevada and NNSC, written by E Kemp of Washington State, shows that NNSC has been doing recent business in the state of Nevada and that Micki Allen was the intake counselor who sold him the services for which he has since received a refund. http://www.scribd.com/doc/17125312/Complaint-vs-Narconon-Nevada-Narconon-Southern-California2009
NNSC and NNJH are profitable and expanding businesses with over 8 million in assets at the end of the calender year 2007. Despite that, over the last 2 years, NNSC has had multiple complaints posted
on various internet sites and multiple lawsuits filed against it in various CA counties for, at minimum, breach of contract. These consumer lawsuits were begun when NNSC was registered with the Secretary of State as doing business at the registered address located in Newport Beach, Orange County, CA . The 990 corporation tax return for 2007 filed in Nov 2008 shows the Newport Beach, Orange County address as the entity place of business address and the address & place of business for the officers and highly paid executives, including Shannon Farnsworth, formerly known as Shannon Hicks. http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/corporate/990s.php?ntt=73
Not one of the 2007-2009 consumer filed Complaints was filed in Orange County or San Diego County where NNSC runs Narconon Vista Bay facility. In Riverside County only 1 case has been filed in the last many years, it concerning the breach of contract related to services not delivered in Colorado by NNSC as agreed. (Megargal v Narconon Southern California). To the best of my knowledge and belief, those cases filed against NNSC in Los Angeles County were filed by Los Angeles County residents, not due to jurisdiction and venue.
The issue of venue in the MOTION does not take into account that as the payer, I am the consumer in the transaction. It does not consider where I was during the transaction and where it took place primarily, which was over the phone from my home in Nevada County and eventually to the m,ail box to mail the balance of the cmonies. It also does not acknowledge that this was a telemarketing transaction related to the sale of services related to personal and family matters and that US and CA telemarketing and consumer laws are applicable because of type of transaction and the nature of the fraud claims. (Telemarketing Sales Rule 16 CFR Part 310, Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act 15 U.S.C Sec. 6101 et seq., .
Additionally, I am unable to afford the costs that will be associated with having to travel and stay in any of the counties named and requested in the MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE. I have children, an infant and a 3 year old, to care for, as well. I am already in debt , repaying the $22,000 plus high interest rates the money I borrowed which NNSC and NNJH never returned to me. As a Nevada
County CA consumer, I used the internet from the comfort of my home to seek help for my loved one and by choosing one of many Narconon related referral or information websites. I was coerced into purchasing the nonexistent services which I asked for and was told I was getting for my money, via telephone without the benefit of the above and below laws and regulations being met in part by DEFENDENTS, all to my detriment. I also believe it is my right to have this case heard in my home county for the benefit of the consumers in community because of the nature of the claims I have stated.
Recently there was a similar case concerning venue and consumer rights, the Opinion filed on June 10, 2009, which was certified for publication. The COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT; H FONTAINE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; CASHCALL, INC. et al., Real Parties in Interest. Case # H033811 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV 113767) states: " Fontaine opposed the motion on the ground that venue was proper in Santa Clara County under two exceptions to the general venue rule. First, Fontaine claimed that he had suffered physical and emotional injury in Santa Clara County due to defendants’ unlawful debt collection activities, and therefore the action could be tried in Santa Clara County pursuant to section 395, subdivision (a). Second, Fontaine asserted that venue was proper in Santa Clara County under section 395, subdivision (b)3 because the action arose from a loan that he had " Section 395, subdivision (a) provides in part, “Except as otherwise provided by law and subject to the power of the court to transfer actions or proceedings as provided in this title, the superior court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action. If the action is for injury to person or personal property or for death from wrongful act or negligence, the superior court in either the county where the injury occurs or the injury causing death occurs or the county where the defendants, or some of them reside at the commencement of the action, is a proper court for the trial of the action.” Section 395, subdivision (b) provides in part, “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 a proximate 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.” obtained primarily for personal, family or household purposes and he was a resident of Santa Clara County at the time the action was filed. Fontaine filed a declaration in support of his opposition, in which he also stated that he was financially unable to travel to the location of the Orange County Superior Court. " "We find that the plain language of section 395, subdivision (b) provides that an action arising from certain consumer transactions, including a loan or extension of credit intended primarily for personal, family or household use, must be tried in the superior court of the county where either (1) the buyer or lessee signed the contract; (2) the buyer or lessee resided at the time he or she entered into the contract; or (3) the buyer or lessee resided at the commencement of an action. There is nothing in the language of section 395, subdivision (b) that limits its application to collection actions brought against a consumer defendant. Therefore, whether the action is brought against a consumer defendant or by a consumer plaintiff, the venue provisions of section 395, subdivision (b) apply as long as the action arises from a consumer transaction specified in the statute."
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H033811.PDF I believe that my complaint was filed in the appropriate venue and I ask that you deny the Motion to Change Venue. The above is true and the best of my knowledge under penalty of perjury of law. _____________________ Sarah Locatelli
