Case 2:21-cv-07694 Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 1 of 117 Page ID #:5
`Case 2:21-cv-07694 Document1-1 Filed 09/27/21 Page1of117 PageID#:5
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07694 Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 2 of 117 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`MARCARIAN LAW FIRM
`A Professional Law Corporation
`ARMOND MARCARIAN, ESQ. (CBN 213883)
`armond@marcarianlaw.us
`MARC L. McCULLOCH, ESQ. (CBN 252526)
`marc@marcarianlaw.us
`KRISTINA N. MARKARIAN (CBN 330144)
`kristina@marcarianlaw.us
`21650 OXNARD STREET, SUITE 1980
`WOODLAND HILLS, CALIFORNIA 91367
`TELEPHONE: (818) 995-8787
`FACSIMILE: (818) 975-9999
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff AHCS – MENTAL HEALTH & WELLNESS, INC. dba BERRY &
`SWEENEY PHARMACY
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
` FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
`
`Case No.:
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`
`1. Conversion (Count I);
`
`2. Conversion (Count II);
`
`3. Conversion (Count III);
`
`4. Intentional Misrepresentation;
`
`5. Negligent Misrepresentation;
`
`6. Unfair Competition in Violation of
`California Business & Professions
`Code §§ 17200 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`AHCS – MENTAL HEALTH & WELLNESS,
`
`INC. d/b/a BERRY & SWEENEY
`
`PHARMACY, a California Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
` vs.
`
`
`
`THE LOCAL INITIATIVE HEALTH
`
`AUTHORITY FOR LOS ANGELES
`
`
`COUNTY d/b/a L.A. CARE HEALTH PLAN;
`and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`MARCARIAN LAW FIRM
`
`
`____________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT
`
`Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 05/27/2021 02:00 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Clifton,Deputy Clerk
`
`Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Richard Fruin
`
`21STCV19992
`
`Exhibit A, Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07694 Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 3 of 117 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Plaintiff, AHCS – MENTAL HEALTH & WELLNESS, INC. dba BERRY &
`SWEENEY PHARMACY, alleges as follows:
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`Plaintiff.
`AHCS – MENTAL HEALTH & WELLNESS, INC. dba BERRY & SWEENEY
`a)
`PHARMACY is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was, a corporation organized and
`existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business located at
`6241 Hetty Street, Fontana, California.
`Unless otherwise designated, AHCS – MENTAL HEALTH & WELLNESS, INC.
`b)
`dba BERRY & SWEENEY PHARMACY shall hereinafter be referred to as Plaintiff or
`“Pharmacy.”
`2.
`Defendants.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant THE
`a)
`LOCAL INITIATIVE HEALTH AUTHORITY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY d/b/a L.A.
`CARE HEALTH PLAN (“Defendant” or “LA CARE” or the “Plan”), is, and at all times relevant
`to this Complaint was, a publicly operated, managed health care service plan created by the State
`of California to provide health coverage to low-income Los Angeles County residents.
`3.
`LA CARE is subject to and regulated by the Knox-Keene Health Care Service
`Plan Act of 1975 (CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 1340 et seq. or “Knox-Keene Act”).
`4.
`Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or capacities of defendants sued herein as
`DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, and for that reason sues said defendants by such fictitious names.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named
`defendants is responsible in some manner for, and proximately caused, the harm and damages
`alleged herein below. Plaintiff will file and serve an amendment to this Complaint alleging the
`true names and capacities of said fictitiously named defendants if and when such true names and
`capacities become known to Plaintiff.
`5.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the defendants
`named herein acted as the employee, agent, partner, alter-ego and/or joint venturer of each of the
`
`1
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT
`
`MARCARIAN LAW FIRM
`
`Exhibit A, Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07694 Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 4 of 117 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`other defendants named herein, and, in doing the acts and in carrying out the wrongful conduct
`alleged herein, each of said defendants acted within the scope of said relationship and with the
`permission, consent and ratification of each of the other defendants named herein.
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`6.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that LA CARE provides
`prescription drug coverage to the Los Angeles County residents who are members of the Plan.
`7.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that LA CARE contracts
`with Navitus Health Solutions, LLC (“Navitus”), a pharmacy benefit manager (“PBM”), to act as
`its agent to manage the prescription drug coverage of the Plan.
`8.
`In turn, Navitus provides a network of local pharmacies, including the Plaintiff, to
`provide prescription drugs and services to members of the Plan.
`9.
`Network pharmacies, including the Plaintiff, obtain Plan authorizations to fill and
`dispense prescriptions presented by Plan members and are then, subsequently, reimbursed by LA
`CARE.
`10.
`Typically, and in the case of the Plaintiff, LA CARE reimbursements for
`prescription drugs, dispensed to its members, flow through its PBM which disburses those
`reimbursements into a central payment account of the dispensing pharmacy.
`11.
`Typically, each health plan maintains a formulary, which is a list of prescription
`drugs authorized to be dispensed to its members without prior authorization, either with or
`without a co-pay.
`12.
`Typically, drugs that do not appear on the formulary (non-formulary drugs)
`require a prior authorization before they can be dispensed for reimbursement by the health plan.
`13.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that LA CARE requires
`health care providers to obtain a Prior Authorization (“PA”) before non-formulary drugs can be
`dispensed under the Plan.
`14.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that LA CARE has
`delegated the responsibility of managing its PAs to its agent, Navitus.
`///
`
`2
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT
`
`MARCARIAN LAW FIRM
`
`Exhibit A, Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07694 Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 5 of 117 Page ID #: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
`
`
`15.
`The drug INGREZZA®, prescribed to treat tardive dyskinesia, is a drug for which
`LA CARE required a Prior Authorization at all times relevant to this Complaint.
`16.
`It is standard practice for a pharmacy, such as Plaintiff, to initiate, facilitate, and
`procure Prior Authorizations on behalf of their patients and the prescriber.
`17. A Prior Authorization, procured and held by one pharmacy, may be transferred to
`another pharmacy of the patient’s choice (“Transferred PA”).
`18. During 2018 and 2019, Plaintiff dispensed 115 prescriptions of INGREZZA® to
`thirteen LA CARE patients pursuant to Transferred PAs procured by the patients’ previous
`pharmacies. The claims value of said prescriptions was $678,972.44 (“Transferred PA Claims”),
`which was reimbursed to Plaintiff by Defendant.
`19. During 2017, 2018, and 2019, Plaintiff dispensed 64 prescriptions of
`INGREZZA® to LA CARE patients pursuant to Prior Authorizations procured from the
`Defendant through Plaintiff’s submission of the INGREZZA® INBRACE Treatment Form. The
`claims value of said prescriptions was $369,225.30 (“INBRACE Claims”), which was
`reimbursed to Plaintiff by Defendant.
`20.
`CoverMyMeds® is an online portal used by pharmacies, such as the Plaintiff, to
`initiate, facilitate, track, and procure Prior Authorizations on behalf of their patients and the
`prescriber. CoverMyMeds® is Navitus’ preferred method for Prior Authorization requests.
`21. During 2017, 2018, and 2019, Plaintiff dispensed 75 prescriptions of
`INGREZZA® to LA CARE patients pursuant to Prior Authorizations procured from the
`Defendant through Plaintiff’s submissions of Prior Authorization requests via the
`CoverMyMeds® portal. The claims value of said prescriptions was $430,616.54
`(“CoverMyMeds Claims”), which was reimbursed to Plaintiff by Defendant.
`22.
`The total value of claims at issue in this matter is $1,478,814.28 (“Ingrezza
`Claims Amount”) including Transferred PA Claims, INBRACE Claims, and CoverMyMeds
`Claims.
`///
`///
`
`3
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT
`
`MARCARIAN LAW FIRM
`
`Exhibit A, Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07694 Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 6 of 117 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`23.
`Sometime in early 2020, unbeknown to Plaintiff, Defendant purportedly caused a
`form letter to issue, advising Plaintiff that it intended to reverse and recover the Ingrezza Claims
`Amount by a deduction from the Pharmacy’s future remittance(s) (“January 8th Letter”).
`The January 8th Letter stated the reversal/adjustment was related to “Prior
`24.
`authorization integrity;” was “in accordance with the agreement between Navitus and the
`pharmacy per section 3.04b;” and listed the claims comprising the Ingrezza Claims Amount.
`No other information was provided.
`The Defendant, or its agent, never served or otherwise provided the January 8th
`25.
`Letter to the Plaintiff, yet quietly took the Ingrezza Claims Amount from the Plaintiff’s
`remittance account beginning on or after February 8, 2020.
`26.
` Sometime on or after August 7, 2020, the Plaintiff received a copy of the January
`8th Letter. Defendant, through its agent, acknowledged that the January 8th Letter had not been
`timely served or otherwise provided and extended Plaintiff’s appeal deadline to September 6,
`2020.
`
`27.
`Plaintiff served its appeal and objection to the Ingrezza Claims Amount reversal
`upon Defendant and its agent on August 28, 2020. To date, Defendant, or its agent, has not
`responded to said appeal.
`28. All of the claims represented by the Ingrezza Claims Amount are for prescriptions
`issued by licensed prescribers for patients with a legitimate medical need for INGREZZA®.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Conversion, Count I)
`Against Defendant and Does 1 through 20
`29.
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
`paragraphs 1 through 28 as if set forth in full herein.
`30. On more than one occasion during the period relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff
`was in possession of definite sums of money, capable of identification as the Transferred PA
`Claims and totaling $678,972.44.
`31. While Plaintiff was in possession of the Transferred PA Claims funds, Defendant
`substantially interfered with the Transferred PA Claims funds by knowingly and, or,
`
`4
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT
`
`MARCARIAN LAW FIRM
`
`Exhibit A, Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07694 Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 7 of 117 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`intentionally taking possession of the Transferred PA Claims funds in the form of an offset to
`future payments due, held by Defendant for the benefit of the Plaintiff.
`32.
`Each time that Defendant took possession of the Transferred PA Claims funds, it
`applied those funds to its own use.
`33. Defendant never provided any evidence that it was entitled to the Transferred PA
`Claims funds.
`34.
`Plaintiff never consented to Defendant’s possession of the Transferred PA Claims
`funds and was harmed as a result.
`35. Defendant’s intentional interference with Plaintiff’s possession of the Transferred
`PA Claims funds was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
`36. As a result of Defendant’s tortious interference with Plaintiff’s possession of the
`Transferred PA Claims funds, Plaintiff has suffered both economic damages and special
`damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`37.
`In interfering with the Plaintiff’s possession of the Transferred PA Claims funds,
`Defendant acted with malice, fraud and, or, oppression and Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary
`damages.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Conversion, Count II)
`Against Defendant and Does 1 through 20
`38.
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
`paragraphs 1 through 28 as if set forth in full herein.
`39. On more than one occasion during the period relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff
`was in possession of definite sums of money, capable of identification as the INBRACE Claims
`and totaling $369,225.30.
`40. While Plaintiff was in possession of the INBRACE Claims funds, Defendant
`substantially interfered with the INBRACE Claims funds by knowingly and, or, intentionally
`taking possession of the INBRACE Claims funds in the form of an offset to future payments due,
`held by Defendant for the benefit of the Plaintiff.
`///
`
`5
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`MARCARIAN LAW FIRM
`
`Exhibit A, Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07694 Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 8 of 117 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`41.
`Each time that Defendant took possession of the INBRACE Claims funds, it
`applied those funds to its own use.
`42. Defendant never provided any evidence that it was entitled to the INBRACE
`Claims funds.
`43.
`Plaintiff never consented to Defendant’s possession of the INBRACE Claims
`funds and was harmed as a result.
`44. Defendant’s intentional interference with Plaintiff’s possession of the INBRACE
`Claims funds was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
`45. As a result of Defendant’s tortious interference with Plaintiff’s possession of the
`INBRACE Claims funds, Plaintiff has suffered both economic damages and special damages in
`an amount to be proven at trial.
`46.
`In interfering with the Plaintiff’s possession of the INBRACE Claims funds,
`Defendant acted with malice, fraud and, or, oppression and Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary
`damages.
`
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Conversion, Count III)
`Against Defendant and Does 1 through 20
`47.
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
`paragraphs 1 through 28 as if set forth in full herein.
`48. On more than one occasion during the period relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff
`was in possession of definite sums of money, capable of identification as the CoverMyMeds
`Claims and totaling $430,616.54.
`49. While Plaintiff was in possession of the CoverMyMeds Claims funds, Defendant
`substantially interfered with the CoverMyMeds Claims funds by knowingly and, or, intentionally
`taking possession of the CoverMyMeds Claims funds in the form of an offset to future payments
`due, held by Defendant for the benefit of the Plaintiff.
`50.
`Each time that Defendant took possession of the CoverMyMeds Claims funds, it
`applied those funds to its own use.
`
`6
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`MARCARIAN LAW FIRM
`
`Exhibit A, Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07694 Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 9 of 117 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`51. Defendant never provided any evidence that it was entitled to the CoverMyMeds
`Claims funds.
`52.
`Plaintiff never consented to Defendant’s possession of the CoverMyMeds Claims
`funds and was harmed as a result.
`53. Defendant’s intentional interference with Plaintiff’s possession of the
`CoverMyMeds Claims funds was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
`54. As a result of Defendant’s tortious interference with Plaintiff’s possession of the
`CoverMyMeds Claims funds, Plaintiff has suffered both economic damages and special damages
`in an amount to be proven at trial.
`55.
`In interfering with the Plaintiff’s possession of the CoverMyMeds Claims funds,
`Defendant acted with malice, fraud and, or, oppression and Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary
`damages.
`
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Intentional Misrepresentation)
`Against Defendant and Does 1 through 20
`56.
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
`paragraphs 1 through 28 as if set forth in full herein.
`57. Defendant’s prior authorization of and payments under the Transferred PAs for
`INGREZZA® was a representation that the integrity of the Transferred PAs was intact.
`58. Defendant’s representation about the integrity of the Transferred PAs was false.
`59. Defendant knew that the representation was false when it made it, or Defendant
`made the representation about the integrity of the Transferred PAs recklessly and without regard
`for its truth.
`60. Defendant intended that Plaintiff rely on its representation.
`61.
`Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant’s representation and dispensed 115
`prescriptions under the Transferred PAs.
`62.
`Plaintiff was harmed.
`63.
`Plaintiff’s reliance on Defendant’s representation was a substantial factor in
`causing Plaintiff’s harm.
`
`7
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT
`
`MARCARIAN LAW FIRM
`
`Exhibit A, Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07694 Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 10 of 117 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`64.
`In misrepresenting that the integrity of the Transferred PAs was intact, Defendant
`acted with malice, fraud and, or, oppression and Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Negligent Misrepresentation)
`Against Defendant and Does 1 through 20
`65.
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
`paragraphs 1 through 28 as if set forth in full herein.
`66. Defendant’s prior authorization of and payments under the Transferred PAs for
`INGREZZA® was a representation that the integrity of the Transferred PAs was intact.
`67. Defendant’s representation about the integrity of the Transferred PAs was false.
`68. Defendant had no reasonable grounds for believing the representation about the
`integrity of the Transferred PAs was true when it made it.
`69. Defendant intended that Plaintiff rely on its representation.
`70.
`Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant’s representation and dispensed 115
`prescriptions under the Transferred PAs.
`71.
`Plaintiff was harmed.
`72.
`Plaintiff’s reliance on Defendant’s representation was a substantial factor in
`causing Plaintiff’s harm.
`
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Unfair Competition Pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.)
`Against Defendant and Does 1 through 20
`73.
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in
`paragraphs 1 through 28, 57 through 64, and 66 through 72 as if set forth in full herein.
`74.
`In taking the actions alleged herein, LA CARE has engaged in numerous unlawful
`violations of the Knox-Keene Act and the regulations that govern it, including, but not limited to
`the following:
`75.
`LA CARE violated California Health & Safety Code (“HSC”) section 1371 when
`it failed to contest the Ingrezza Claims Amount within 45 working days of receipt of the claims;
`failed to provide specific reasons for contesting the claims; and failed to pay interest at the rate
`
`8
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`MARCARIAN LAW FIRM
`
`Exhibit A, Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07694 Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 11 of 117 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`of 15 percent per annum for the time the claims remain unpaid after LA CARE reversed and
`recovered the reimbursement.
`76.
`LA CARE violated HSC section 1371.8 when it rescinded its authorizations of the
`Ingrezza Claims Amount after Plaintiff rendered the health care service in good faith and
`pursuant to the authorizations.
`77.
`LA CARE violated HSC section 1371.37 and 28 CCR § 1300.71(a)(8)(T) and
`engaged in a demonstrable, unjust, and unfair payment pattern when it, on multiple occasions,
`denied complete and accurate claims represented by the Ingrezza Claims Amount and, in fact,
`reduced the amount of payment to zero.
`78.
`LA CARE violated 28 CCR § 1300.71(b)(5) when it requested and took
`reimbursement of portions of the Ingrezza Claims Amount beyond the 365-day time limit and
`without the notice required by the regulation.
`79.
`LA CARE’s conduct as alleged above constitutes unfair and unlawful business
`practices within the meaning of California Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.
`California Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. are designed to protect against
`unfair competition and allow persons who have suffered harm as a result of an unfair, unlawful,
`or fraudulent business practice to seek restitution.
`80.
`Plaintiff seeks restitution and disgorgement from LA CARE of the Ingrezza
`Claims Amount and the statutory interest due pursuant to HSC section 1371.
`81. Unless restrained, LA CARE will continue to commit the unfair and unlawful
`business practices alleged above. Plaintiff therefore seeks a preliminary and permanent
`injunction pursuant to California Business & Professions Code section 17203 to enjoin LA
`CARE from continuing to engage in unlawful business practices as alleged above.
`///
`///
`///
`///
`///
`
`9
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT
`
`MARCARIAN LAW FIRM
`
`Exhibit A, Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07694 Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 12 of 117 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`PRAYER
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial and judgment against Defendant,
`
`for the following:
`(1) FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Conversion, Count I)
`a) General damages in a sum according to proof;
`b) Special damages in a sum according to proof;
`c) Exemplary damages.
`(2) SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Conversion, Count II)
`a) General damages in a sum according to proof;
`b) Special damages in a sum according to proof;
`c) Exemplary damages.
`(3) THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Conversion, Count III)
`a) General damages in a sum according to proof;
`b) Special damages in a sum according to proof;
`c) Exemplary damages.
`(4) FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Misrepresentation)
`a) General damages in a sum according to proof;
`b) Special damages in a sum according to proof;
`c) Exemplary damages.
`(5) FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Misrepresentation)
`a) General damages in a sum according to proof;
`b) Special damages in a sum according to proof.
`(6) SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unfair Competition)
`a) For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and
`permanent injunction restraining Defendant and its agents and
`employees from continuing to commit unlawful, unfair and
`fraudulent practices in violation of Business & Professions Code
`sections 17200 et seq.;
`
`10
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`MARCARIAN LAW FIRM
`
`Exhibit A, Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07694 Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 13 of 117 Page ID #:17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b) For restitution, including statutory interest, to Plaintiff for those
`amounts that Defendant has wrongfully taken and, or, refused to pay.
`(7) ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
`a) For interest as allowed by law;
`b) For costs of suit;
`c) For reasonable attorney’s fees; and
`d) Any other and further relief that the Court deems proper.
`
`
`
` MARCARIAN LAW FIRM
` A Professional Law Corporation
`
`
`Date: May 27, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`______________________
`MARC L. McCULLOCH
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`11
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`
`MARCARIAN LAW FIRM
`
`Exhibit A, Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07694 Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 14 of 117 Page ID #:18
`
`SUMMONS
`(CITACION JUDICIAL)
`
`NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
`(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
`
`FOR COURT USE ONLY
`(SOLO PARA USO BE LA CORTE)
`
`SUM-100
`
`YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
`(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
`
`AHCS - MENTAL HEALTH & WELLNESS, INC. d/b/a BERRY &
`SWEENEY PHARMACY, a California Corporation
`
`NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the Information
`below.
`You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
`served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
`case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
`Online Self-Help Center {www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
`the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
`may be taken without further warning from the court.
`There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
`referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
`these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site {www.lawhelpcalifomia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
`{www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
`costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
`{AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versidn. Lea la informacidn a
`continuacion.
`Tiene 30 DfAS DE CALENDARIO despuds de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
`corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar
`en foimato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
`Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mds informacidn en el Centre de Ayuda de las Cortes de Califomia (www.sucorte.ca.govJ, en la
`biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mds cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacidn, pida al secretario de la corte
`que le de un formulario de exencidn de page de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le
`podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mds advertencia.
`Hay otros requisites legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de
`remisidn a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisites para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un
`programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucre. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucre en el sitio web de California Legal Services,
`(www.lawhelpcalifornia.orgJ, en el Centre de Ayuda de las Cortes de Califomia, (www.sucorte.ca.govJ o poniendose en contacto con la corte o el
`colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
`cualquier recuperacion de $10,000 6 m^s de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que
`pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
`
`The nanne and address of the court is:
`(El nombre y direccidn de la corte es): Los Angeles Superior Court
`
`CASE NUMBER:
`(Numem del Caso):
`
`111 North Hill Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90012
`The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
`(El nombre, la direccidn y el numero de teldfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
`Armond Marcarian - Marcarian Law Firm - 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 1980, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
`
`DATE: May 27, 2021
`Clerk, by
`(Fecha)
`(Secretario)
`(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)
`(Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
`NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
`I
` I as an individual defendant.
`as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
`
`1.
`2.
`
`[SEAL]
`
`, Deputy
`(Adjunto)
`
`3. □□ on behalf of (specify):
`|
`under: CZH COP 416.10 (corporation)
`|
`I
` I COP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
`I
` I OOP 416.40 (association or partnership) |
`I
` I other (^spec//yj;
`I by personal delivery on (date):
`
`4. I
`
`Fonm Adopted for Mandatory Use
`Judicial Council of Califomia
`SUM-100 [Rev. July 1,2009]
`
`SUMMONS
`
`|
`|
`|
`
`COP 416.60 (minor)
`COP 416.70 (conservatee)
`COP 416.90 (authorized person)
`
`Page 1 of 1
`Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20,465
`www.courtinfo.ca.gov
`
`Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 05/27/2021 02:00 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Clifton,Deputy Clerk
`
`21STCV19992
`
`Exhibit A, Page 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-07694 Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/21 Page 15 of 117 Page ID #:19
`
`ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Barnumber, and address):
`— Armond Marcarian fSBN 213883^
`iMarcarian Law Firm, P.C.
`21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 1980
`Woodland Hills, California 91367
`FAX NO.: (818)975-9999
`TELEPHONE NO.: ^18) 995-8787
`ATTORNEY FOR (Name): r laiiitiff AHCS — Mciital Hcaltli & Wellncss, Inc.
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LoS AngclcS
`STREET ADDRESS: ] ] J Noith Hill StrCCt
`MAILING ADDRESS: 1 1 1 NOlth Hill StrCCt
`CITY AND ZIP CODE: Los Angclcs, CA 90012
`BRANCH NAME: CcHtral Dlstrlct
`CASE NAME:
`
`FOR COURT USE ONLY
`
`CM-010
`
`I
`
`Complex Case Designation
`
`CASE NUMBER:
`
`JUDGE:
`
`Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation
`(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
`□ Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)
`I
` I Construction defect (10)
`□ Mass tort (40)
`□ Securities litigation (28)
`□ Environmental/Toxic tort (30)
`□ Insurance coverage claims arising from the
`above listed provisionally complex case
`types (41)
`Enforcement of Judgment
`□ Enforcement of judgment (20)
`Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
`□ RICO (27)
`□ Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
`Miscellaneous Civil Petition
`□ Partnership and corporate governance (21)
`I
` I Other petition (not specified above) (43)
`
`Judicial Review
`
`□□□□□□
`
`2.
`
`d. I
`e. I
`
`I Large number of witnesses
`I Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
`in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
`I Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
`f. I
`b.| / I nonmonetary: declaratory or injunctive relief
`
`c. I / I punitive
`
`CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
`1 / 1 Unlimited
`1
`1 Limited
`1 Joinder
`1
` 1 Counter
`1
`(Amount
`(Amount
`Filed with first appearance by defendant
`demanded
`demanded is
`exceeds $25,000)
`$25,000 or less)
`(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402)
`DEPT:
`Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).
`1. Check one box below for the case type that
`best describes this case:
`Contract
`Auto Tort
`□ Breach of contract/warranty (06)
`Auto (22)
`□ Rule 3.740 collections (09)
`Uninsured motorist (46)
`□ Other collections (09)
`Other PI/PDA/VD (Personal Injury/Property
`□ Insurance coverage (18)
`DamageA