Andrew Lee v. Church of Scientology |
The First LawsuitOn August 8, 1991, Andrew Lee sued the Church of Scientology and several individual Scientology representatives, listed as Does 1 through 10. The suit alleges breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith & fair dealing, fraud, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty.
JAMES C. BRIDGMAN
Aspelin & Bridgman
220 Montgomery Street, Suite 811
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel.: (415) 296-9812
Attorney for Plaintiff
Andrew Lee
ANDREW LEE
Plaintiff,
v.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY,
DOES I THROUGH X, inclusive
Defendants
NO. 935411
COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF
CONTRACT, BREACH OF COVENANT
OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR
DEALING, FRAUD
AND CONSPIRACY, BREACH OF
FIDUCIARY DUTY, ATTORNEY'S
FEES.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
1. Plaintiff ANDREW LEE is a residents of ths city and
county of San Francisco.
2. Defendant CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY has its principal
place of business in San Francisco, California.
3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and
capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES I through X inclusive
and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names.
Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and
capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe
and thereon alleges that each of these fictitiously named
Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein
alleged, and that Plaintiffs' damages as herein alleged were
proximately caused by their conduct.
4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon
allege that each Defendant is the agent, servant, and/or emploee
of each other Defendant, and that in so doing the things
hereinafter alleged, each Defendant was acting in the cause and
scope of said Defendant's agency and employment.
FACTS
4. On or about May 1989, Plaintiff contracted with
Defendant for the receipt of services from Defendant to consist of
a training course. Plaintiff paid Defendant $6,000 for said
services and commenced a course in June 1989. During the training
course, Plaintiff was given the impression that Defendant was a
"good, clean outfit" and was induced to work for Defendant,
discovering during the last week of July that he would be paid $30
to $50 a week.
5. Plaintiff was further influenced to pay $9,000 for
trianing materials on July 30, 1989 and $15,000 for processing
during the second week of August. After receiving some processing
Plaintiff paid an additional $12,000 to complete said processing
and to "go clear", a desired state among scientologists. He also
was induced to promise to pay an additional $5,000 at a later
date.
6. On or about August 1989, Plaintiff submitted a written
request for official work leave from Defendant. As a result of this
request Plaintiff was submitted to a "security check" which was
designed to insure that he was aware of any overt acts he committed
2
against scientology and not commit any overt acts in the against
scientology in the future.
7. Prior to leaving, Plaintiff decided to attempt to
obtain the return of the money kept in "his" account with
Defendant. Plaintiff was persuaded by Defendant to remain with
Defendant and refused to tell him was he needed to do to get his
money back.
8. Plaintiff was allowed to be "routed off" or not work for
Defendant but was persuaded to do "conditions" which resulted in
his staying with scientology. Plaintiff was then induced to join
SEA ORG during the second week in September. SEA ORG is a part of
Defendant, with a goal of promoting "ethics" throughout the world.
9. Plaintiff was persuaded not to inform his family of his
involvement with Defendant.
10. On or about October 1989, Plaintiff again asked for
leave for family reasons and was pressured into buying $15,000
worth of materials so that my request would go through. Plaintiff
finally could stand it no longer and left SEA ORG without official
leave on October 8, 1989.
11. Defendant continued to maintain a powerful hold over
Plaintiff such that he returned to Defendant on October 9, 1989 and
paid $5,000 to Defendant to fulfill his promise made during
August. Defendants continued to pressure Plaintiff such that he was
induced to sign up for an additional $32,000 worth of services.
Defendant promised to help Plaintiff find a job and not to ask for
more money.
12. However, they broke both promises and asked Plaintiff
again for money in November 1989. On the same day in November 1989,
3
one of Defendant's agents pulled Plaintiff's wallet out of his
pocket and took out his credit card. Plaintiff asked for his credit
card back and said not to charge anything on it. He was told that
Defendant was only checking his credit line. This was a lie. Two
charges showed up on Plaintiff's credit card, one for $1000 and
one for $500.
13. During the second week of October 1989, Plaintiff was
found by SEA ORG and attempted to leave several times. He did not
want to do "conditions" again because that is what kept him in
scientology the first time. Again he was persuaded into doing
"conditions" and required to go through another security check.
This process again persuaded Plaintiff to remain with scientology.
He was required to remain on the Estate Planning Force, which was
part of SEA ORG, which is responsible for cleaning duties, and to
live near Defendants place of business in Los Angeles. After three
and a half week he decided to leave but was again persuaded to stay
with Defendant and in the process was induced to give them $1500
from his credit card.
14. On or about November 20, 1989, Plaintiff was induced to give
his TRW stock to Defendant in order to go "clear". Fortunately,
Defendant was unable to cash the check made out to Plaintiff from
the sale of the stock. He was able to negotiate the return of most
of the money from the sale of the stock.
15. What finally allowed Plaintiff to regain control of his life
was that his sister accompanied him to Defendant's location and
made him realize that Defendant was controlling his life and taking
his money.
4
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT SCIENTOLOGY
Breach of Contract
16. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 of this complaint
as against Defendant.
17. Defendant entered into said contract with Plaintiff
knowing that it had a separate agenda, namely to induce Plaintiff
to give as much of his wealth as possible to Defendant. Plaintiff
received only a fraction of the services and material which he was
entitled to receive and was exposed to the constant pressure to
give Defendant money. Plaintiff was further subjected to what
amounted to "brain washing" so that Defendant could obtain
Plaintiff's money.
18. Defendant breached its obligations under the contract
to Plaintiff as described in paragraph 17 and in so doing caused
Plaintiff to be severely damaged both financially and emotionally.
Wherefore: Plaintiff claims judgment and damages as set
forth in his prayer for relief.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT SCIENTOLOGY
Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
19. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 18 of this complaint
as against Defendant.
20. Defendant's contract with Plaintiff raises an implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing which it broke repeatedly
in that it intentionally deceived Plaintiff into giving his money
5
and property to Defendant. He was psychologically handled such that
every time he gave money he was made to feel better. Plaintiff was
an indecisive person who was manipulated to obtain his money.
Wherefore: Plaintiff claims judgment and damages as set
forth in his prayer for relief.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT SCIENTOLOGY
Fraud and Conspiracy
21. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 20 of this complaint
as against Defendant.
22. Defendant intentionally, willfully and wantonly
engaged in the acts enumerated in paragraph 17 with the purpose of
deceiving Plaintiff and inducing himi to part with his money and
property.
23. Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary and punitive
damages for Defendant's fraudulent conduct in the sum of $100,000.
Wherefore: Plaintiff claims judgment and damages as set forth
in his prayer for relief.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
PLAINTIFF V. SCIENTOLOGY
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
24. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 18, and 20 through 23
of this complaint as against Defendant.
25. Defendant owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff and
breached that duty as set forth in paragraphs 17 of this
complaint. Not only did Defendant keep money in an account on
6
complaint. Not only did Defendant keep money in an account on
behalf of Plaintiff, without the intention of giving it back, its
did not give it back. Defendant supports its actions by claiming it
is a church. That in itself entails a confidential and fiduciary
relationship.
26. As a direct and proximate result of that breach of
duty, Plaintiff was damaged in a sum in excess of $15,000.
Wherefore: Plaintiff claims judgment and damages as
set forth in his prayer for relief.
PLAINTIFFS'
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore Plaintiff prays judgement and damages of each and
every Defendant jointly and severally as follows:
1. For the sum of $35,000 as against Defendant for
breach of contract, any damages in excess of that
amount to be proven at trial.
2. For a sum to be proven at trial as against Defendant
for the Second and Fourth Causes of action
as exemplary and punitive damages.
3. For interest on said sums at the legal rate of
interest.
4. For reasonable attorney's fees.
5. For costs of the suit.
6. For such other relief as this Court finds just and
equitable.
Dated: August 8, 1991
[signature]
JAMES C. BRIDGMAN
Aspelin & Bridgman
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
VERIFICATION I, ANDREW LEE, am the plaintiff in this action. I have read the foregoing document and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on APRIL 17, 1991, at San Francisco, California. [signature] ANDREW LEE
This page was last updated on May 13, 2001. |
|
|