Case 2:14-cv-00167-JCM-CWH Document 6 Filed 03/21/14 Page 1 of 9

1 S. BRENT VOGEL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Nevada Bar No. 006858 Brent.Vogel@lewisbrisbois.com ALAYNE M. OPIE Nevada Bar No. 012623 Alayne.Opie@lewisbrisbois.com LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 702.893.3383 FAX: 702.893.3789 Attorneys for Defendant Narconon Fresh Start d/b/a Rainbow Canyon Retreat

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA CASE NO. 2:14-cv-00167-JCM-CWH DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT JURY DEMAND

11 DAVID WELCH, a Texas Citizen; STACY 13 14

vs. Plaintiffs,

WELCH, a Texas Citizen; and JACK WELCH, 12 a Texas Citizen,

15 NARCONON FRESH START d/b/a 17 18 19

RAINBOW CANYON RETREAT, a 16 California Corporation; and DOES 1-100, ROE Corporations I-X, inclusive, Defendants. COMES NOW, Defendant Narcanon Fresh Start dba Rainbow Canyon Retreat

20 (Defendant), by and through its attorneys, the law firm of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, 21 and in response to Plaintiffs Complaint (Complaint) on file herein, admit, deny and allege as 22 follows: 23 24
1. THE PARTIES Answering Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant is without

25 knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations 26 contained in said Paragraphs and on that basis deny same. 27
2. Answering Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant admits the allegations

LEWIS

28 contained therein.
4834-5053-1353.1

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Case 2:14-cv-00167-JCM-CWH Document 6 Filed 03/21/14 Page 2 of 9

1 2
3.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE Answering Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant is without

3 knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations 4 contained in said Paragraphs and on that basis deny same. 5 6
4. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Answering Paragraphs 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 22, 27, 35, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 47,

7 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 58, 62, 67, 68 and 75 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant is without knowledge or 8 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in said 9 Paragraphs and on that basis deny same. 10
5. Answering Paragraphs 8, 9, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 44, 46, 48, 53, 56, 57,

11 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, 72, 73, 74 and 77 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant denies the allegations 12 contained therein. 13 15 17
6. Answering Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs Complaint Defendant admits Penn explained

14 that the fee for the program would be $33,000, and Defendant denies the remaining allegations.
7. Answering Paragraphs 15, 16, 33, 38 and 41 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant

16 admits the allegations contained therein.

8. Answering Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint Defendant admits the Contract

18 provides The Narconon Program is secular (NON-RELIGIOUS) in nature and the program does 19 not include in any participation in any religious studies of any kind. Defendant denies the remaining 20 allegations. 21 23
9. Answering Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs Complaint Defendant admits Jack was

22 transported to Caliente but Defendant denies the remaining allegations.

10. Answering Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs

24 allegations calls for a legal conclusion and as a result they are without knowledge or information 25 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations and on that basis deny same. 26
11. Answering Paragraph 54 of Plaintiffs Complaint Defendant admits it employs

27 concepts of Overts and Withholds and Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient

LEWIS

28 to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in said Paragraph and
4834-5053-1353.1

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Case 2:14-cv-00167-JCM-CWH Document 6 Filed 03/21/14 Page 3 of 9

1 on that basis deny same. 2

12. Answering Paragraph 60 of Plaintiffs Complaint Defendant admits L. Ron Hubbard

3 quotes are displayed at the Narconon facility in Caliente, Nevada but Defendant denies the remaining 4 allegations. 5
13. Answering Paragraph 69 of Plaintiffs Complaint Defendant is without knowledge or

6 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations that on an occasion 7 while Jack was undergoing the sauna program, he became unable to speak and had a constant tremor 8 for a period of two hours, and on that basis deny same. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in 9 said Paragraph. 10
14. Answering Paragraph 71 of Plaintiffs Complaint Defendant admits Narconon

11 represented to the Welches that its sauna program is medically safe, and Defendant denies the 12 remaining allegations as worded. 13
15. Answering Paragraph 76 of Plaintiffs Complaint Defendant is without knowledge or

14 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations that the following 15 day, Jacks father, David, flew to Las Vegas, Nevada and then drove to the facility in Caliente, Nevada, 16 and on that basis deny same. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in said Paragraph. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
4834-5053-1353.1

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract) 16. Answering Paragraph 78 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant hereby repeats, realleges

and incorporates by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 77, supra, as though fully set forth herein. 17. Answering Paragraph 79 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs

allegations calls for a legal conclusion and as a result they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations and on that basis deny same. 18. Answering Paragraphs 80 and 81 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant denies the

allegations contained therein.

LEWIS

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Case 2:14-cv-00167-JCM-CWH Document 6 Filed 03/21/14 Page 4 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
21. 19.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud) Answering Paragraph 82 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant hereby repeats, realleges

and incorporates by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 81, supra, as though fully set forth herein. 20. Answering Paragraphs 83, 84, 85 and 86 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant denies

the allegations contained therein. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence) Answering Paragraph 87 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant hereby repeats, realleges

10 and incorporates by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 86, supra, as though fully set 11 forth herein. 12
22. Answering Paragraph 88 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs

13 allegations calls for a legal conclusion and as a result they are without knowledge or information 14 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations and on that basis deny same. 15
23. Answering Paragraphs 89 and 90 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant denies the

16 allegations contained therein. 17 CONCLUDING ANSWER TO ALL ALLEGATIONS 18

14. All allegations not specifically addressed above due to the nature of the language and

19 construction of the allegations, or for any other reason, are specifically denied. 20 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 21
1. Plaintiffs Complaint on file herein fails to state a claim against Defendants upon

22 which relief can be granted. 23 2. Plaintiffs Complaint on file herein is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 24
3. The injuries, if any, allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs as set forth in their Complaint were

25 caused in whole or in part by the negligence of a third party or third parties over which Defendants 26 had no control. 27
4. The damages, if any, alleged by Plaintiffs were not the result of any acts of omission,

LEWIS

28
4834-5053-1353.1

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Case 2:14-cv-00167-JCM-CWH Document 6 Filed 03/21/14 Page 5 of 9

1 commission, or negligence, but were the result of a known risk, which was consented to by Plaintiff. 2 4
5. Pursuant to NRS 41A.110, Defendants are entitled to a conclusive presumption of

3 informed consent.
6. The damages, if any, incurred by Plaintiff were not attributable to any act, conduct, or

5 omission on the part of the Defendants. Defendants deny that they were negligent or otherwise 6 culpable in any matter or in any degree with respect to the matters set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint. 7
7. That it has been necessary for Defendants to employ the services of an attorney to

8 defend this action and a reasonable sum should be allowed Defendants for attorneys fees, together 9 with costs of suit incurred herein. 10 12
8. Pursuant NRS 41A.035 Plaintiffs non-economic damages, if any, may not exceed

11 $350,000.
9. Defendants are not jointly liable with any other entities that may or may not be named

13 in this action, and will only be severally liable for that portion of Plaintiffs claim that represents the 14 percentage of negligence attributable to Defendants, if any. 15 16 18 20 21 22
10. 11. Plaintiffs damages, if any, were not proximately caused by Defendants. Plaintiffs injuries and damages, if any, are the result of forces of nature over which

17 Defendants had no control or responsibility.

12. Plaintiffs are barred from asserting any claims against Defendants because the alleged

19 damages were the result of one or more unforeseeable intervening and superseding causes.
13. 14. 15. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages, if any. Plaintiffs failed to allege facts in support of any award of pre-judgment interest. The incident alleged in the Complaint, and the resulting damages, if any, to Plaintiffs,

23 was proximately caused or contributed to by the Plaintiffs own negligence, and such negligence was 24 greater than the negligence, if any, of Defendants. 25
16. Pursuant to FRCP 11, as amended, all applicable Affirmative Defenses may not have

26 been alleged herein insofar as sufficient facts were not available after reasonable inquiry upon the 27 filing of Defendants Answer and, therefore, Defendants reserve the right to amend their Answer to 28 allege additional Affirmative Defenses if subsequent investigation warrants.
4834-5053-1353.1

LEWIS

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Case 2:14-cv-00167-JCM-CWH Document 6 Filed 03/21/14 Page 6 of 9

1 2 4 6 8

17. 18.

Plaintiff failed to substantively comply with NRS 41A.071. The facts alleged by Plaintiff are insufficient to state a cause of action for punitive

3 damages.
19. Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages are limited or prohibited by Nevada law and by

5 the Constitution of the United States.

20. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants acted reasonably and in good faith with

7 regard to the acts and transactions which are the subject of this lawsuit.
21. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference those affirmative defenses enumerated in

9 FRCP 8 as if fully set forth herein. In the event further investigation or discovery reveals the 10 applicability of such defenses, Defendants reserve the right to seek leave of the court to amend this 11 Answer to assert the same. Such defenses are incorporated herein by reference for the purpose of not 12 waiving the same. 13
22. Defendants avail themselves to all affirmative defenses and limitations of actions as set

14 out in NRS 41.085, 41A.035, 41A.045, 41A.061, 41A.071, 41A.097, 41A.100, 42.005, 42.021, 41.141, 15 and all applicable subparts. 16
23. No award for damages against these Answering Defendants may exceed the

17 provisions as set forth in NRS Chapters 41 and 41A, including, but not limited to NRS 41A.035. 18 Defendants are otherwise entitled to all protections, benefits, and set offs available to Defendant in 19 medical malpractice actions under NRS Chapters 41A and 42. 20 22
24. NRS Chapters 41 and 41A limit damages that may be collectable against these

21 Answering Defendants.
25. To the extent Plaintiffs have been reimbursed from any source for any special

23 damages claimed to have been sustained as a result of the incidents alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint, 24 these Answering Defendants may elect to offer those amounts into evidence and, if this Answering 25 Defendant so elect, Plaintiffs special damages shall be reduced by those amounts pursuant to NRS 26 42.021. 27
26. All risks and dangers involved in the factual situation described in the Complaint were

LEWIS

28 open, obvious and known to Plaintiffs, and said Plaintiffs voluntarily assumed said risks and dangers.
4834-5053-1353.1

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Case 2:14-cv-00167-JCM-CWH Document 6 Filed 03/21/14 Page 7 of 9

1 2 4

27. 28.

Any claim of Plaintiffs is barred by laches of Plaintiffs in pursuing such claim. Defendants allege that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the claim of Plaintiffs

3 and further alleges that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this action.
29. Plaintiffs, with full knowledge of all the facts connected with, or relating to, the

5 transaction alleged in the Complaint, ratified and confirmed in all respects the acts of Defendant by 6 accepting the benefits to Plaintiffs accruing from such acts. 7 9 10 11 13 15 16
30. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs are estopped from pursuing any claim against

8 Defendants.
31. 32. 33. The doctrine of unclean hands prevents any recovery by Plaintiffs herein. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs have waived any right of recovery from Defendants. Defendants allege that the contract under which Plaintiffs claims indemnification is

12 made invalid by the fraud of Plaintiffs.

34. Defendants allege that the Plaintiffs failed to name a party necessary for full and

14 adequate relief essential in this action.

35. 36. Plaintiffs Complaint herein constitutes an abuse of process. Plaintiffs have failed to allege a prima facie claim for fraud, breach of contract or

17 negligence against Defendants. 18 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment as follows: 19 20 21 22 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / /

4834-5053-1353.1

1. 2. 3. 4.

That Plaintiffs take nothing by way of the Complaint on file herein; For reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit incurred herein; For trial by jury, and; For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper in the

23 premises.

LEWIS

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Case 2:14-cv-00167-JCM-CWH Document 6 Filed 03/21/14 Page 8 of 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 26 27 28
4834-5053-1353.1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Demand is hereby made by Defendant, for trial by jury in the above-entitled action. DATED this 21st day of March, 2014 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
LLP

By

/s/ S. Brent Vogel S. BRENT VOGEL Nevada Bar No. 006858 ALAYNE M. OPIE Nevada Bar No. 012623 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 Attorneys for Defendant Narconon Fresh Start d/b/a Rainbow Canyon Retreat

LEWIS

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Case 2:14-cv-00167-JCM-CWH Document 6 Filed 03/21/14 Page 9 of 9

1 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to FRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &

st 3 SMITH LLP and that on this 21 day of March, 2014, I did cause a true copy of the foregoing

4 DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT to be served via the CM/ECF 5 electronic system to all parties on the service list. 6 Ryan A. Hamilton
HAMILTON LAW 7 5125 S. Durango Dr., Ste. C Las Vegas, NV 89113 (702) 818-1818 8 Telephone: Facsimile: (702) 974-1139 Email: ryan@hamiltonlawlasvegas.com 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
4834-5053-1353.1

/s/ Nicole Etienne By: ______________________________________ An Employee of LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

LEWIS

BRISBOIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

BISGAARD & SMITH LLP