Okorie Okorocha, Esq., SBN 226658
California Legal Team
117 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 465
Pasadena, CA 91105
Tel: (310) 871-3217
Email: Okorie@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
|
DEANDRA GRANT, an individual, OKORIE OKOROCHA, an individual Plaintiffs
v.
NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR DUI DEFENSE, a Washington Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive.
Defendants |
Case No. 12-CV-03255-GW-AGR
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Causes of Action
1. GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CIV.CODE § 52(a
(PLAINTIFF GRANT ONLY)
2. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES PURSUANT TO CAL.BUS & PROF.CODE § 17200UNFAIR AND ILLEGAL
3. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES PURSUANT TO CAL.BUS & PROF.CODE § 17500: FALSE ADVERTISING
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1. Comes plaintiff Deandra Grant (“Plaintiff Grant”) and Okorie Okorocha (“Plaintiff Okorocha”), altogether (“Plaintiffs”), who file this first amended complaint against National College For DUI Defendant and DOES 1 through 10 (collectively referred to as “Defendant(s)” or “Defendant Corporation” used interchangeably) for civil rights violations and unfair business practices.
I.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This court has diversity jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §1332. Plaintiff Grant is domiciled in the State of Texas. Plaintiff Okorocha is domiciled in the State of California. Defendant is a Washington Corporation with an “office” with a staff of one and no executives or proxies.
3. Defendant controls, conducts, and administers the only board certification for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) defense attorneys in the United States that is approved by the government and/or publicly funded AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (ABA).
4. The Defendant corporation is controlled and operated by the males it designates as “Regents” and “Fellows,” the majority of which are located within the State of California.
5. The majority of defendant corporation’s governing body located within California and thus is its “nerve center”, this court has personal jurisdiction over this defendant as their contacts in California are substantial, continuous and systematic pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10. Further, the majority of the harm suffered in this action, occurred in California, which has the most lawyers that are board certified by the Defendants’ pursuant to ABA accreditation.
II.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege that Plaintiffs are licensed attorneys in the State of Texas and California respectively, and specifically, at all times material hereto, specialize in criminal defense of driving under the influence (“DUI”) cases.
7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege that Defendant is responsible for granting Certification in DUI Defense Specialist to attorneys in the entire United States, and has the approval of the
American Bar Association (“ABA”).
8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief
allege that Defendant Corporation has always been governed and operated by a male group of “Good old Boys,” and has substantial underrepresentation of women.
9. There are no elections whatsoever, and any new individuals (males) that become the Defendant Corporation’s “Regents”, “Fellows” and/or Nationally Board Certified in DUI Defense (“Board Certified”), are Good Old Boys appointed by Good Old Boys, and the titles “Fellow”, “Regent”, “Dean” and “Board Certified” are used to imply grandeur, but lack substance.
10. The Good old Boys in charge also vote whether to gift each other, the honor of National Board Certification in DUI Defense.
11. Any woman who attempts to obtain the honor, prestige, gigantic marketing and business boost associated with Board Certification is given forms to fill out, asked to spend several thousand dollars, take a “Board Certification examination,” and then is arbitrarily told that they failed the exam.
12. Qualified women are not even allowed to take the examination.
13. All evidence of tests is immediately destroyed to cover up this fraudulent distinction and honor that is essentially based on being a Good old Boy, as opposed to anything germane to DUI defense other legal criteria.
14. Defendant has gifted and routinely gifted “Board Certification” to fellow Good Old Boys, all Males, without any qualifying, testing or costs.
15. In fact, the self-anointed “Board Certified” attorneys are generally the “Grand Poobahs”, “Regents” and “Fellows” that run the organization, have declared themselves Board Certified.
16. Further, the Good Old Boys do all the traveling, seminar attendance, wining, dining and gifting at corporate expense, no matter how tangential to Defendant Corporation’s purpose.
17. The Defendant Corporation, which refers to itself as a “college”, has “Deans”, “Winter Sessions”, “Summer Sessions”, and rents space at Harvard Law School, but Defendant Corporation has nothing do with Harvard Law School except for the renting of space. Defendant Corporation and the Good Old Boys often speak of “lecturing at Harvard”, “going to Harvard”, “having Harvard training”, “attending Harvard” and other misrepresentations. Nevertheless, Defendant Corporation is NOT an academic institution by any stretch, but more of an exclusive country club that abuses its power vested by the ABA.
18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege that Plaintiff Grant passed Defendant’s test and was denied certification because she was a woman.
19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief, allege that other female attorneys have applied for and tested for Defendant’s certification as a specialist in DUI defense, but have also been repeatedly denied.
20. The “exam” is a complete sham. The exam consists of a lot of scientific material relating to Blood and Breath testing in DUI cases, but is “graded” or “reviewed” by laypersons who are simply lawyers who attend seminars and deem themselves qualified to write and grade examinations.
21. The Good Old Boys who purport to be science educators have zero relevant formal education, but deem themselves leading authorities because they attend seminars. These are their own seminars that are generally taught by their fellow Good Old Boys.
22. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege that the Defendant’s get their certification for DUI Defense approval from the ABA.
23. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege that Plaintiff Deandra Grant was denied the following rights as required by the ABA Standards for Specialty Certification Programs For Lawyers Guide– the required rules for certification programs. Rule 4.04 – Uniform Applicability of Certification Requirements and Nondiscrimination, which provides:
(A) The Applicant’s requirements for certifying lawyers shall not be arbitrary and be clearly understood and easily applied. The organization may only certify those lawyers who have demonstrably met each standard. The requirements shall be uniform in all jurisdictions in which the Applicant certifies lawyers, except to the extent state or local law or regulation imposes a higher requirement.
In the case of Defendant Corporation, the requirements are fully arbitrary, or insurmountable if you are a female.
(B) Membership in any organization or completion of educational programs offered by any specific organization shall not be required for certification, except that this paragraph shall not apply to requirements relating to the practice of law which are set out in statutes, rules and regulations promulgated by the government of the United States, by the government of any state or political subdivision thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.
Defendant Corporation not only requires membership in Defendant Corporation, it requires you also be a member of the Good Old Boys’ Group of Males.
(C) Applicants shall not discriminate against any lawyers seeking certification on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or age. This paragraph does not prohibit an Applicant from imposing reasonable experience requirements on lawyers seeking certification or recertification.
Females are not only precluded from Board Certification, female lawyers and their supporters are constantly berated and besmirched by the Good Old Boys and their confederates.
24. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege that ABA Standards for Specialty Certification Programs For Lawyers, Rule 4.17 provides that “The Applicant shall maintain a formal policy providing lawyers who are denied certification an opportunity for review by an impartial decision maker.”
25. The Defendant Corporation NEVER allows this impartial review and instead destroys all evidence that a test was even taken.
26. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege that the Plaintiff was denied, and women are systematically denied, all of the above rights, policies, rules and requirements.
27. Defendant Corporation wholly violates the required ABA Standards for Specialty Certification Programs For Lawyers by only granting Certification to Good Old Boy males, and in an arbitrary and capricious manner by gifting out the Certification to Good Old Boys.
28. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege that the ABA Certification Rules serve as an expression of public policy to protect the public. See Ames v. State Bar, 8 Cal.3d 910, 917 (1973).
29. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege that the Defendant’s California “Regents” and “Fellows” make the arbitrary and capricious decisions to deny Board Certification and/or the opportunity to take the Certification exam, to lawyers who are not Good Old Boys.
30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege that Plaintiff Grant was arbitrarily and capriciously denied Certification because of her gender. Plaintiff Grant has been refused review of the denial of her application for Certification by an impartial decision maker as opposed to the Good Old Boys who destroy all evidence that a test even happened.
31. The above fraud gives the Good Old Boys a substantial and unfair advantage in competing in the open market for business, clients and reputation in the DUI Defense practice of law.
32. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege that at the Defendant’s website regarding certification as a DUI Defense Specialist,
Rule 1.3 APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OR RECERTIFICATION, it states, “As is the policy of the NCDD, the certification process shall not directly or indirectly discriminate against any applicant for reason of race, color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, marital status, sexual orientation, parental status, military discharge status, or income status.” available at http://www.ncdd.com/rulesgoveringboardcert.php
33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege that at the Defendant’s website re certification as a DUI Defense Specialist,
Rule 7.0 DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATION OR RECERTIFICATION, it states, “… The matter being appealed shall be referred to an Appeals Panel consisting of an odd number of at least three members appointed by the Dean of the NCDD, and drawn from the Board of Regents, Fellows of the NCDD, or Board Certified Founding or Sustaining Members of the College… If the matter is reviewed by the Board of Regents, its decision shall be final, and the person aggrieved by the original action shall be notified in writing of that decision.” Available at http://www.ncdd.com/rulesgoveringboardcert.php.
34. The Defendant’s violated their own Rules Governing Board Certification, Rules 1.3, APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OR RECERTIFICATION, Rule 7.0 DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATION OR RECERTIFICATION, and
10.0 APPEALS PROCEDURE. In the Defendant’s violating their own rules, they also violate ABA Standards for Specialty Certification Programs For Lawyers Rules 4.04 and 4.07, and falsely advertise their Certification process, non-discriminatory certification standards, and review of denial of Certification procedures.
III.
CAUSES OF ACTION
1.
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CIV.CODE § 52(a)
(Plaintiff Grant Only)
35. Plaintiffs reallege all facts as stated in paragraphs 1-34, inclusive, as if alleged and incorporated herein.
36. The Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff Grant by refusing to grant Plaintiff certification as a DUI defense specialist despite her meeting the Defendant’s exam prerequisites and actually and truly passing the exam. Further, because she is a female, she was denied the independent review required by law which she requested in writing.
37. The Defendant Corporation’s motivating reason for the discrimination was Plaintiff Grant’s female gender and Plaintiff Grant was harmed as a result of the discriminatory acts perpetrated against her and continues to be harmed and the Defendant Corporation is facilitating the Good Old Boys and their confederates ongoing harassment, defamation and libel, which is the same treatment applied to anyone who supports a female member.
38. Plaintiff Grant was harmed as a result of the Defendant’s discrimination and
the Defendant’s discriminatory conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff Grant’s harm.
39. Upon proof at trial, Plaintiff Grant is entitled to punitive damages.
40. Upon prevailing, Plaintiff Grant is entitled to a civil penalty of $25,000 pursuant to Civ.Code § 52 (b)(2).
41. Upon prevailing at trial, Plaintiff Grant is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Civ.Code § 52.
2.
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES PURSUANT TO
CAL.BUS & PROF.CODE § 17200; UNFAIR AND ILLEGAL
42. Plaintiff s reallege all facts as stated in paragraphs 1-41, inclusive, as if alleged and incorporated herein.
43. The practice of law in California is a business practiced by only those who have passed a State Bar exam.
44. The Defendant’s violations of their own Certification rules, fraudulently gifting certification, and fraudulently misrepresenting the Good Old Boys as the only qualified DUI Defense lawyers, is illegal and constitutes an unfair business practice in violation of Cal.Bus.&Prof. Code § 17200.
45. Plaintiff Grant and Plaintiff Okorocha have both suffered an actual injury due to the Defendant’s violation of ABA Standards for Specialty Certification Programs For Lawyers Rules 4.04 and 4.07 through an actual loss of monetary income from business in their DUI Defense law practices to the Defendant’s Good Old Boys class of lawyers whom they grant Certification for DUI Defense Specialists.
46. The Plaintiffs together seek declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the Defendant’s violations of ABA Standards for Specialty Certification Programs For Lawyers Rules 4.04 and 4.07, and stop the unfair advantage they take against lawyers that are qualified for, but are denied such DUI Defense Specialist Certification and gifting the right to be Board Certified for purposes or racketeering, misleading the public, creating unfair competition and running a monopoly.
47. Because the Defendant’s are carrying out enforcement of the public policy inherent in ABA Rules to protect the public, they are entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Code Civ.Proc. §1021.5.
3.
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES PURSUANT TO
CAL.BUS & PROF.CODE § 17500: FALSE ADVERTISING
48. Plaintiff s reallege all facts as stated in paragraphs 1-47, inclusive, as if alleged and incorporated herein.
49. The Defendant’s statements on their website generally and specifically, falsely advertise express and implied compliance with ABA Standards for Specialty Certification Programs For Lawyers Rules 4.04 and 4.07, available at http://www.ncdd.com/rulesgovering boardcert.php.
50. The Defendants knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have
known, that the statements mentioned above and other representations regarding their Certification of DUI Defense Specialists were untrue or misleading, and misled both Plaintiff Grant and Plaintiff Okorocha and their potential for clients in California (Okorocha) and Texas (Grant).
51. The public at large and attorneys at large are likely to be mislead by the false statements on the Defendant’s website and in their publications and Plaintiff Okorocha has personal knowledge of many potential clients being misled by Defendant Corporation’s materials.
52. Because the Defendants are carrying out enforcement of the public policy inherent in ABA Rules to protect the public, they are entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Code Civ.Proc. §1021.5.
53. Defendants rebuffed all of the Plaintiffs attempts to discuss the above issues, let alone resolve them.
IV.
CAUSE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
54. Defendants tortious acts involves despicable conduct of fraud, malice and oppression in misrepresenting Plaintiff Grant’s true score on Defendant’s exam, and not complying with their own Certification rules or the ABA Rules as to both Plaintiffs, keeping from the Plaintiffs what they are entitled to under Defendant’s rules, and harming them in their profession as attorneys; altogether, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages pursuant to Civ.Code § 3294.
V.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
a) For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof;
b) For general damages in an amount according to proof;
c) For non-economic damages for emotional distress;
d) For a civil penalty of $25,000 pursuant to Civ.Code § 52 (b)(2);
e) For punitive damages pursuant to Civ.Code § 3294 or treble damages pursuant to Civ.Code § 52 (a);
f) For a declaration establishing the Defendant’s unfair business practices;
g) For an injunction preventing the Defendant’s from engaging in their
illegal and unfair business practices;
h) For attorney’s fees pursuant to Civ.Code § 52 (a) and Code Civ.Proc. §1021.5;
i) For any other such relief as the court deems proper.
VI.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs hereby demands a trial by jury on all of the above causes of action.
Dated this 20th day of April, 2012
Okorie Okorocha, Esq. Plaintiff and Attorney for Plaintiff Deandra Grant
LOS ANGELES (CN) -