Our Story: The case against “Dr.” Stephen Cohen Henriques
Download Full Complaint (Case No 24SCTV06923)
DAVID ALLISON, individually and as private attorney general, Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHEN COHEN HENRIQUES, a/k/a “Dr.” Stephen H. Cohen, an individual; THE PARALLAX SOLUTION LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.
Plaintiff David Allison, individually and as private attorney general, for his Complaint against Defendants Stephen Cohen Henriques, The Parallax Solution LLC, and Does 1 through 100, alleges as follows:
Nature of Action
1. This is an action asserting myriad common law, statutory, and constitutional violations, seeking to prevent Stephen Cohen Henriques—who operates under aliases such as “Dr.” Stephen H. Cohen as well as through entities such as The Parallax Solution LLC—from continuing to habitually take advantage of vulnerable segments of the population, and to obtain restitution and disgorgement of money paid to Henriques under the false pretense that Henriques was a qualified, licensed, and credentialed therapist who sought to treat individuals with various mental health issues.
2. Henriques holds himself out to the public as “Dr. Stephen H. Cohen PhD ME.d CADC IV LADAC,” a “Licensed & Certified” “Mental Health Specialist” with two doctoral degrees, a Master in Education, and over 15 years’ experience providing counseling support.
3. In reality, Henriques is an unlicensed con man, whose education, work, and credential history is almost entirely fabricated.
4. Henriques used, and continues to use, his fabricated resumé to prey on individuals at their most vulnerable—when they are dealing with substance abuse problems or other psychological traumas—to defraud them into paying exorbitant fees for services he is unqualified to provide.
5. To exacerbate the issue, Henriques used, and continues to use, his power as a trusted counselor and ill-gotten insight into his patients’ mental states to his own benefit. Instead of assisting his patients to improve their lives, he instead manipulates them to ensure that their mental health issues remain or worsen, with the intent of ensuring that his patients will need to continue paying for Henriques’s services. He then uses threats and intimidation in an attempt to avoid having his victims speak out about Henriques’s wrongdoing.
6. And Henriques has a documented history of taking advantage of vulnerable members of our society. In In Matter of Maria Irma Luna, Ventura County Superior Court case number 56-2020-00546610-PR-CP-OXN, the court determined Henriques had improperly ingratiated himself into the life and estate of an elderly woman, issued rulings removing Henriques from residing with that woman, and revoked powers of attorney, trust amendments, and trust designations involving Henriques.
7. Through this action, on behalf of himself individually and as private attorney general, Plaintiff seeks to (i) enjoin Henriques from continuing to falsely and unlawfully advertise his services; and (ii) recover restitution, and actual and punitive damages caused by Henriques’s fraudulent, unlawful, unfair, and deceptive practices.
Jurisdiction and Venue
8. Jurisdiction in the courts of the State of California is proper pursuant to § 410.10 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
9. Venue for this action properly lies in Los Angeles Superior Court because at least one Defendant is located in this County, and at least some of the obligations of the relevant contract were to have been performed in this County.
Parties
10. Plaintiff David Allison is an individual residing in Los Angeles County, California.
11. Defendant Stephen Cohen Henriques is an individual residing at 3834 Orchid Lane, Calabasas, California. Henriques employs aliases, including “Dr. Stephen H. Cohen.”
12. Defendant The Parallax Solution LLC is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business at 1630 Wicklow Court, Westlake Village, California.
13. Through The Parallax Solution LLC, Henriques advertises therapist services to the public, including throughout Los Angeles County.
14. The true names and capacities of the defendants named as Does 1 through 100 are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues those defendants by fictitious names. On information and belief, some or all of Does 1 through 100 are and were agents, employees, parents, alter egos, or subsidiaries of the other defendants and are legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings alleged herein. Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the Doe defendants when ascertained.
15. At all relevant times, Henriques, The Parallax Solution, and each Doe defendant was acting as an agent, servant, employee, alter ego, or representative of each other, and, in so doing the things alleged in this Complaint, was acting within the course and scope of their agency, service, employment, alter ego, or joint venture.
16. On information and belief, Henriques is the alter ego owner of The Parallax Solution.
17. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Henriques dominates and controls, and at all times herein mentioned dominated and controlled The Parallax Solution, including by acting as The Parallax Solution’s legal, nominal, or de facto owner, member, manager, officer, and/or agent.
18. Plaintiff is informed and believes that there exists, and at all times herein mentioned there existed, such a unity of interest in ownership between Henriques and The Parallax Solution that any individuality and separateness of Henriques and The Parallax Solution has ceased.
19. Plaintiff is informed and believes that The Parallax Solution is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a mere shell and conduit for the business of Henriques.
20. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Henriques has hidden and hides behind The Parallax Solution to perpetrate frauds, circumvent statues, or accomplish other wrongful or inequitable purposes.
21. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Henriques derives actual and significant benefits by and through The Parallax Solution’s unlawful conduct.
22. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Henriques undercapitalized The Parallax Solution and failed to properly account for and pay the debts of The Parallax Solution.
23. Plaintiff is informed and believes that transfers of assets from The Parallax Solution to Henriques have been for the fraudulent purpose of escaping liability for The Parallax Solution’s debts.
24. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Henriques commingled his funds and assets with those of The Parallax Solution, and that he has used The Parallax Solution as a funding source for his own personal expenditures.
25. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Henriques and The Parallax Solution use the same agents and employees.
26. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Henriques disregards corporate formalities with respect to The Parallax Solution.
27. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Henriques fails to distinguish between himself and The Parallax Solution in dealings with third parties.
28. Plaintiff is informed and believes that adherence to the fiction of the separate existence between Henriques and The Parallax Solution would sanction fraud and promote injustice.
29. The corporate existence of The Parallax Solution should be disregarded in equity and for the ends of justice because such disregard is necessary to avoid fraud and injustice to Plaintiff.
30. Accordingly, Henriques is the alter ego and/or successor of The Parallax Solution.
31. At all relevant times, Henriques was acting as an agent of and on behalf of The Parallax Solution.
Factual Allegations
32. In or about April 2023, Plaintiff was dealing with a highly personal experience that caused him to seek the services of a psychologist.
33. After researching options, including getting recommendations from trusted, well-informed sources, Plaintiff became aware of Henriques.
I. Henriques fabricates his biography to lure vulnerable individuals.
A. Henriques’s name is not “Stephen H. Cohen.”
34. At all relevant times, including before Plaintiff hired Henriques, Henriques represented to Plaintiff that Henriques’s name was “Stephen H. Cohen.” Henriques presents “Stephen H. Cohen” as his real name in his advertising, including on his website, on LinkedIn, and on his business cards.[1]
35. Plaintiff believed Henriques’s name was “Stephen H. Cohen” when he hired Henriques. Among other things, Plaintiff reviewed both Henriques’s website and Henriques’s LinkedIn profile, and Henriques gave Plaintiff a copy of Henriques’s business card, before hiring Henriques.
36. In reality, and as Plaintiff learned after he had hired Henriques, Henriques’s real name is Stephen Cohen Henriques.
37. By falsifying his name, Henriques prevented Plaintiff and others similarly situated from adequately researching his background. For instance, there are numerous search hits disclosing negative information about “Stephen Cohen Henriques” that do not return, or do not return prominently, for a search of “Stephen Cohen” or “Stephen H. Cohen.” Henriques was trying to, and did, hide his true identity from Plaintiff until after Plaintiff had conducted his research on, hired, and had therapy sessions with Henriques.
B. Henriques is not a doctor or a Ph.D.
38. Among other places, Henriques advertises that he is a “Dr.”, and that he has a “Phd” [sic] or “PhD”, on his website,[2]
on his LinkedIn profile,[3]
and on his business cards.[4]
Henriques goes on to represent on his LinkedIn page that he received a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from both the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and The United States Naval Postgraduate School.[5]
39. Plaintiff was aware of these supposed degrees when he hired Henriques and believed the representations to be true. Among other things, Plaintiff reviewed both Henriques’s website and Henriques’s LinkedIn profile, and Henriques gave Plaintiff a copy of Henriques’s business card, before hiring Henriques.
40. In reality, and as Plaintiff learned after he had terminated Henriques’s services, Henriques does not have a Ph.D. from either UCLA or the Naval Postgraduate School. UCLA has no record of any degree awarded to Henriques.[6]
And the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School does not even offer a doctoral program in Clinical Psychology.[7]
On information and belief, Henriques does not hold a Ph.D. or any other doctoral degree of any kind.
C. Henriques does not have a Master of Education degree.
41. Among other places, Henriques advertises that he has an “M.E.d.” [sic] or “ME.d” [sic] on his website,[8] on his LinkedIn profile,[9] and on his business cards.[10] Henriques goes on to represent on his LinkedIn page that he received a “Master of Education – MEd” from Manhattanville College in 2012.[11]
42. Plaintiff was aware of this supposed degree when he hired Henriques and believed the representation to be true. Among other things, Plaintiff reviewed both Henriques’s website and Henriques’s LinkedIn profile, and Henriques gave Plaintiff a copy of Henriques’s business card, before hiring Henriques.
43. In reality, and as Plaintiff learned after he had terminated Henriques’s services, Henriques does not have a Master of Education from Manhattanville College.[12]
On information and belief, Henriques does not hold a Master of Education or any other master’s degree of any kind.
D. Henriques does not have a Bachelor’s degree from Clark University.
44. Among other places, Henriques advertises on his LinkedIn profile that he received a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Clark University in 1991.[13]
45. Plaintiff was aware of this supposed degree when he hired Henriques and believed the representation to be true. Among other things, Plaintiff reviewed both Henriques’s website and Henriques’s LinkedIn profile before hiring Henriques.
46. In reality, and as Plaintiff learned after he had terminated Henriques’s services, Henriques does not have a Bachelor of Arts, or any other degree, from Clark University.[14]
On information and belief, Henriques does not hold a bachelor’s degree from any institution.
E. Henriques does not have a license to practice psychology in California.
47. Among other places, Henriques advertises on his LinkedIn profile that he is “Licensed & Certified” to provide psychology services.[15]
48. Plaintiff was aware of this supposed license when he hired Henriques and believed the representation to be true. Among other things, Plaintiff reviewed Henriques’s LinkedIn profile before hiring Henriques.
49. Henriques also represented to Plaintiff, both before Plaintiff retained Henriques’s services and during the provision of those services, that Henriques was able to and would provide a bill for charges that would be valid for seeking insurance reimbursement for Henriques’s services, and that Plaintiff could submit Henriques’s bills to insurance for such reimbursement. Plaintiff would only have been able to seek reimbursement from insurance if Henriques was licensed to practice psychology. Thus, Henriques was again representing that he was a licensed psychologist, and Plaintiff understood Henriques to be making such a representation.
50. Henriques also represented, at the outset of Plaintiff’s first counseling session with Henriques, that Plaintiff’s conversations with Henriques would be privileged. Under California law, the sessions would only be privileged if (as relevant here) Henriques was (i) “A person licensed as a psychologist under Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 2900) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code,” (ii) “A person licensed as a marriage and family therapist under Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 4980) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code,” or (iii) “A person licensed as a professional clinical counselor under Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 4999.10) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code.” Cal. Evid. Code § 1010(b), (e), (m) (emphasis added). Thus, Henriques was again representing that he was a licensed psychologist, and Plaintiff understood Henriques to be making such a representation.
51. In reality, and as Plaintiff learned after he had terminated Henriques’s services, Henriques is not licensed by California to practice psychology. A License Search of the California Department of Consumer Affairs (https://search.dca.ca.gov/) reveals that the State has not issued any licenses to “The Parallax Solution,” or anyone named “Stephen Henriques.” And a search of the same site reveals no licenses issued by the California Board of Psychology or Board of Behavioral Sciences (the only two potentially applicable licensing bodies) to anyone named “Stephen Cohen.”
G. The Parallax Solution has only existed since 2020.
52. Among other places, Henriques advertises on his LinkedIn profile that he has been an “Addiction Recovery Coach” with The Parallax Solution since 2008, and an “Executive Recovery Specialist” with The Parallax Solution since 2009.[16]
53. In addition, Henriques made specific oral representations to Plaintiff before Plaintiff hired Henriques that conformed to the education and work experience details on Henriques’s LinkedIn profile.
54. Plaintiff was aware of this supposed longevity when he hired Henriques and believed the representation to be true. Among other things, Plaintiff reviewed Henriques’s LinkedIn profile before hiring Henriques.
55. In reality, and as Plaintiff learned after he had terminated Henriques’s services, The Parallax Solution did not even exist in 2008 or 2009. California Secretary of State Records (searchable at https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business) reveal that The Parallax Solution LLC was not organized until January 2020.[17]
G. Henriques was never the Executive Director of Life Ring Addiction Counseling.
56. Among other places, Henriques advertises on his LinkedIn profile that he was the Executive Director of Life Ring Addiction Counseling from 2008 to 2014.[18]
57. Plaintiff was aware of this supposed affiliation when he hired Henriques and believed the representation to be true. Among other things, Plaintiff reviewed Henriques’s LinkedIn profile before hiring Henriques.
58. In reality, and as Plaintiff learned after he had terminated Henriques’s services, Henriques never worked for Life Ring in any capacity. Life Ring has confirmed it has no record of Henriques.
H. Henriques is not “certified as a California State Certified Drug and Alcohol Counselor IV (CADAC IV).”
59. Among other places, Henriques advertises on his website that he is “certified as a California State Certified Drug and Alcohol Counselor IV (CADAC IV).”[19]
60. Henriques repeats the claim of being certified as either “CADAC IV” or “CADC IV” on his website[20]
on his LinkedIn profile,[21]
and on his business cards.[22]
61. Plaintiff was aware of this supposed credential when he hired Henriques and believed the representation to be true. Among other things, Plaintiff reviewed both Henriques’s website and Henriques’s LinkedIn profile, and Henriques gave Plaintiff a copy of Henriques’s business card, before hiring Henriques.
62. In reality, and as Plaintiff learned after he had terminated Henriques’s services, California does not recognize a “California State Certified Drug and Alcohol Counselor,” and only recognizes accreditation for “Certified Alcohol Drug Counselor” up to level II.[23] There is no record that Henriques has achieved either accreditation, or any similar accreditation, and on information and belief Henriques has none.
I. Henriques’s lies are too numerous to count.
63. Henriques represented he is licensed in New York. Plaintiff believed this to be true. New York has no record that Henriques is so licensed.
64. Henriques represented he is credentialed as “LADAC,” CASAC,” and as having other credentials. Plaintiff believed this to be true. Such credentials either do not exist, are not held by Henriques, or both.
65. Plaintiff does not know how many other aspects of Henriques’s resumé he has fabricated. But on information and belief, and based on the foregoing, Plaintiff believes there are additional lies and fabrications that will be uncovered through the discovery process.
II. Plaintiff hires Henriques relying on Henriques’s false representations.
66. Had Plaintiff known that the foregoing representations were untrue, he would not have hired Henriques to provide counseling services and/or he would have discontinued those services at an earlier date.
67. Instead, Plaintiff hired, paid, and continued paying Henriques for months for services that were detrimental to his wellbeing, and he divulged personal and sensitive information to Henriques throughout that period.
68. In reliance on Henriques’s fraudulent representations, Plaintiff signed a contract to hire Henriques and/or The Parallax Solution as his therapist. He did so in person in the presence of Henriques. Once signed, Henriques took the contract, promising to provide Plaintiff a copy of the contract. Despite multiple requests, Henriques never provided Plaintiff a copy of the contract. Plaintiff does not know whether Henriques ever signed the contract himself.
69. The contract would have required Henriques to provide competent therapist services to Plaintiff and accurately charge Plaintiff at a rate of $375 per hour.
70. In reliance on Henriques’s fraudulent representations, Plaintiff signed a separate contract to hire Henriques and/or The Parallax Solution as a therapist for an acquaintance. He did so in person in the presence of Henriques. Once signed, Henriques took the contract, promising to provide Plaintiff a copy of the contract. Despite multiple requests, Henriques never provided Plaintiff a copy of the contract. Plaintiff does not know whether Henriques ever signed the contract himself.
71. The contract would have required Henriques to provide competent therapist services to Plaintiff’s acquaintance and accurately charge Plaintiff at a rate of $375 per hour.
72. Henriques never had any intention of fulfilling the promises he made in either contract. Indeed, Henriques knew at the time Plaintiff signed the contracts that it would have been impossible for Henriques to have performed the services required of him because he did not have the skills or experience to do so.
73. Had Plaintiff known Henriques never had the intention or ability to fulfill the contracts, Plaintiff would not have signed the contracts, would not have hired Henriques, and/or would have discontinued Henriques’s services earlier.
74. If either contract was assented to by both Plaintiff and Henriques/The Parallax Solution, Plaintiff’s assent was procured by fraud. Both contracts are, therefore void and/or voidable.
III. Henriques divulges patient confidences and exacerbates psychological issues for Plaintiff.
75. Once Plaintiff began counseling sessions with Henriques, Henriques used his influence over Plaintiff to his own advantage and to Plaintiff’s detriment.
76. Henriques intentionally provided Plaintiff bad advice, which Henriques knew would lead to a prolonged recovery or worsening of Plaintiff’s condition, thus requiring additional payments to Henriques.
77. Henriques divulged other patients’ confidential, private information to Plaintiff in order to detrimentally affect Plaintiff’s mental state and increase the amount of money Plaintiff would pay Henriques. On information and belief, Henriques likewise divulged Plaintiff’s confidential, private information to others.
78. Henriques refused to provide invoices itemizing the services Henriques was supposedly providing, falsely claiming that such invoices would be harmful to Plaintiff’s ability to heal. Henriques went so far as to falsely claim that his “ass[istan]t Becca Stein” had mailed Plaintiff a final invoice by “registered letter,” and further falsely claimed that Plaintiff had signed for receipt of this non-existent invoice.[24]
In reality, no such invoice was mailed, and Henriques withheld such information because he knew that, if Plaintiff had invoices, he would seek insurance reimbursement and more quickly learn of Henriques’s deceit. In particular, any reimbursable invoice would have required Henriques to provide a license and/or registration number, which would have been easily confirmed to be false or non-existent.
79. Henriques charged Plaintiff for services not performed, and overcharged Plaintiff for services that were performed.
80. Henriques attempted to drive wedges between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family members.
81. In or about August 2023, Plaintiff began to become concerned about the fact that Henriques was insisting that Plaintiff engage Henriques for an increasing number of meetings and therapy sessions, which Plaintiff did not feel were necessary or helpful. In or about September 2023, Henriques’s overtures became so overbearing that Plaintiff suggested pausing the sessions altogether. This led only to an escalation of Henriques’s desperate and harassing attempts to insist on Plaintiff purchasing additional services from Henriques.
82. Plaintiff made it clear at an October 2023 meeting with Henriques that he no longer wanted any services from Henriques and would pay for no future services from Henriques for either himself or his acquaintance.
83. In November 2023, Henriques claimed that his “practice” was to send invoice summaries “at the end of the calendar quarter that services were halted.” He also promised to send Plaintiff an invoice before the end of the fourth quarter of 2023 (i.e., before the end of December 2023)[25]:
Notably, Henriques made this claim—about promising to send an invoice in the future—after October 25, which he later claimed was the date that “Becca Stein” had already sent an invoice.
84. Nevertheless, as of the filing of this Complaint, Henriques has continued to refuse to provide any invoice or summary of charges to Plaintiff for either services provided to Plaintiff or services provided to Plaintiff’s acquaintance. On information and belief, Henriques failed to track or failed to accurately track his time, and never had any intention of providing a full and accurate accounting of his time to Plaintiff.
85. In January 2024, Plaintiff became suspicious of Henriques’s motives and intentions. Despite Plaintiff clearly informing Henriques that Plaintiff wanted no further services from Henriques, Henriques continued to pressure Plaintiff to continue to pay for services.
86. When Plaintiff confronted Henriques about Plaintiff’s suspicions, Henriques began sending threatening and incoherent text messages to Plaintiff. For example, Henriques, despite supposedly being a licensed doctor charged with helping Plaintiff through mental trauma, told Plaintiff that his “pathology continues” and accused him of “superfluous and assumptive deflection.”
87. In the same message, Henriques tried to drive a wedge between Plaintiff and other members of his family by making fabricated allegations that Plaintiff was directed to “READ SOLO”[26]:
88. Once Plaintiff received this incoherent text message, he began investigating Henriques and discovered the unsettling pattern of fraud and deceit alleged above.
89. On information and belief, many other individuals have been similarly conned and harmed by Henriques, and have suffered similar injury. Henriques uses other members of the psychologist community to perpetuate his frauds. He relies on his falsified credentials and other lies to obtain referrals of clients under false pretenses. This has led to innumerable “patients” being taken advantage of by Henriques. On information and belief, these other “patients” have lost money and been harmed psychologically by Henriques.
90. Henriques, to this day, continues to try to defraud the most vulnerable members of our society. He is currently sponsoring—using his falsified credentials—at least one therapist seminar scheduled to take place April 17 through 19, 2024, which is charging $399 to attend[27]:
91. Through this case, Plaintiff seeks to end Henriques’s ability to take advantage of others in our community.
Count I: Fraud
92. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference every allegation contained in the remaining paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
93. Defendants made the false representations and false promises alleged above.
94. These representations and promises were false when they were made.
95. Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the representations and promises were false when made.
96. The representations and promises were material. Among other things, Plaintiff would not have hired, paid, or divulged information to Defendants had he known that the representations and promises were false.
97. Defendants intended to induce Plaintiff to rely on their misrepresentations and false promises.
98. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the misrepresentations and false promises by, for instance, hiring, paying, and divulging information to Defendants.
99. Plaintiff was harmed by the misrepresentations and false promises because he paid money to Defendants, divulged information to Defendants, and suffered psychological and other injuries as a result of Defendants’ supposed treatment.
100. Because Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and malice, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
Count II: Negligent Misrepresentation
101. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference every allegation contained in the remaining paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
102. Plaintiff believes Defendants acted with fraudulent intent in making the foregoing misrepresentations and false promises. In the alternative and in addition, however, Defendants made the representations and false promises without grounds for believing in their truth.
103. Defendants intended to induce Plaintiff to rely on their misrepresentations and false promises as alleged above.
104. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the misrepresentations and false promises as alleged above.
105. Plaintiff was harmed by the misrepresentations and false promises as alleged above.
106. Because Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and malice, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
Count III: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
107. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference every allegation contained in the remaining paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
108. Defendants’ conduct as alleged above was outrageous and so extreme to be beyond all bounds of decency tolerated by society.
109. Defendants’ conduct was directed at Plaintiff and others similarly situated.
110. Defendant acted with intent to inflict emotional distress on Plaintiff and others similarly situated or with reckless disregard to the probability of causing it.
111. Plaintiff suffered severe and enduring emotional distress.
112. Plaintiff suffered emotional distress injury as a result of Defendants’ acts.
113. Because Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and malice, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
Count IV: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
114. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference every allegation contained in the remaining paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
115. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff because Defendants assumed such duty, because such duty is imposed by law, and/or by virtue of a special relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants. Defendants voluntarily purported to provide health care services to Plaintiff.
116. Defendants breached that duty of care, as alleged above.
117. Plaintiff suffered severe and enduring emotional distress.
118. Plaintiff suffered emotional distress injury as a result of Defendants’ acts.
119. Because Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and malice, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
Count V: Breach of Fiduciary Duty
120. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference every allegation contained in the remaining paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
121. A fiduciary relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendants, and therefore owed Plaintiff a fiduciary duty.
122. Defendants breached that duty by, inter alia, acting in their own self-interest to the detriment of Plaintiff.
123. Plaintiff was harmed as a result of Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty by, for example, paying Defendants money and enduring psychological harm.
124. Because Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and malice, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
Count VI: Violation of California’s False Advertising Law
125. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference every allegation contained in the remaining paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
126. Defendants disseminated untrue and misleading advertising, including materially misleading omissions, as defined by California Business and Professions Code § 17500, by engaging in the acts and practices alleged above with the intent to induce consumers to purchase their services.
127. Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions deceived, have a tendency to deceive, and unless enjoined by the Court will continue to deceive the general public and consumers including Plaintiff.
128. The misrepresentations and omissions disseminated and caused to be disseminated by Defendants alleged herein include those specifying the price and substance of the services provided, and are the type of representations and omissions that are regularly considered to be material, i.e., a reasonable person would attach importance to them and would be induced to act on the information in making purchase decisions.
129. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants’ false advertising in purchasing services from Defendants, and had Plaintiff known the truth he would have acted differently, including by not paying Defendants.
130. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been injured in fact and lost money or property, and is entitled to injunctive relief and restitution.
131. Defendants continue to falsely advertise their services, including by advertising degrees, licenses, credentials, and affiliations that are untrue.
132. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to engage in untrue, deceptive, and misleading advertising, as alleged above, in violation of California Business and Professions Code §17500, et seq.
133. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and the public, a permanent injunction containing the prohibitions and mandates pleaded in the Prayer for Relief below, including prohibiting Defendants from continuing to falsely and misleadingly advertising its services as alleged herein.
Count VII: Violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Injunctive Relief Only)
134. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference every allegation contained in the remaining paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
135. Defendants are each a “person,” as defined by California Civil Code § 1761(c).
136. Plaintiff is a “consumer,” as defined by California Civil Code § 1761(d).
137. The counseling services advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiff were for personal use, and constitute “services” as defined by California Civil Code § 1761(b).
138. Venue is proper under California Civil Code § 1780(d) because Defendants do business in Los Angeles County and because a substantial portion of the transactions at issue occurred in Los Angeles County. An affidavit stating facts showing that this Court is a proper place for the trial of the action is being concurrently filed with this Complaint.
139. Defendants engaged in the following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices that resulted in the sale of services to Plaintiff in violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.:
a. In violation of Section 1770(a)(1), Defendants passed off their services as those of another, namely “Dr. Stephen H. Cohen”;
b. In violation of Section 1770(a)(2), Defendants misrepresented the source, sponsorship, approval, and certification of their services;
c. In violation of Section 1770(a)(3), Defendants misrepresented the affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification of its services by another;
d. In violation of Section 1770(a)(4), Defendants used deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with their services;
e. In violation of Section 1770(a)(5), Defendants represented that a person has sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that the person does not have;
f. In violation of Section 1770(a)(7), Defendants misrepresented that their services were of a particular standard, quality, and/or grade when they were of another;
g. In violation of Section 1770(a)(9), Defendants advertised their services with an intent not to sell them as advertised;
h. In violation of Section 1770(a)(14), Defendants misrepresented that their services conferred or involved rights, remedies, or obligations that they did not have or involve or that are prohibited by law;
i. In violation of Section 1770(a)(16), Defendants represented that the subject of a transaction had been supplied in accordance with a previous representation when it had not; and
j. On information and belief, in violation of Section 1770(a)(19), Defendants inserted an unconscionable provision in the contracts they offered to and entered into with consumers including Plaintiff.
140. Defendants’ misrepresentations and nondisclosures regarding their services alleged herein include those specifying the price and substance of the services provided and are the type of representations and omissions that are regularly considered to be material, i.e., a reasonable person would attach importance to them and would be induced to act on the information in making purchase decisions.
141. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants’ material misrepresentations and nondisclosures in purchasing services from Defendants, and had Plaintiff known the truth he would have acted differently, including by not paying Defendants or paying them less.
142. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ material misrepresentations and nondisclosures, Plaintiff has been injured in fact and lost money.
143. Unless enjoined and restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to engage in unfair and deceptive practices as alleged above, in violation of California Civil Code § 1750, et seq.
144. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and the public, a permanent injunction containing the prohibitions and mandated pleaded in the Prayer below.
Count VIII: Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law
145. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference every allegation contained in the remaining paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
146. Defendants engaged in the acts and practices herein alleged while doing business, and such acts and practices were done in the course of selling their services to consumers, including Plaintiff, in California.
147. Defendants’ practices, misrepresentations, and omissions alleged herein constitute unlawful business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
148. Defendants’ practices, misrepresentations, and omissions alleged herein constitute unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
149. Defendants’ practices, misrepresentations, and omissions alleged herein constitute fraudulent business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
150. The misrepresentations and omissions by Defendants alleged herein include those specifying the price and substance of the services provided and are the type of representations and omissions that are regularly considered to be material, i.e., a reasonable person would attach importance to them and would be induced to act on the information in making purchase decisions.
151. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon Defendants’ material misrepresentations and omissions in purchasing Defendants’ services.
152. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been injured in fact and has lost money or property, including fees paid to Defendants, and is entitled to restitution.
153. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and the general public are entitled to injunctive relief.
154. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to engage in unfair, deceptive, and unlawful conduct, as alleged above, in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., harming Plaintiff and the general public.
155. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and the public, a permanent injunction containing the prohibitions and mandates pleaded in the Prayer below, including prohibiting Defendants from engaging in unfair, deceptive, and unlawful conduct, in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., as alleged above.
Count IX: Negligence
156. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference every allegation contained in the remaining paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
157. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff.
158. Defendants breached that duty.
159. Defendants’ breach caused harm to Plaintiff as alleged above.
160. Because Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and malice, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
Count X: Intrusion Into Private Matters
161. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference every allegation contained in the remaining paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
162. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy covering the psychological issues and events that were weighing on him at the time he engaged Defendants’ services.
163. Defendants, by fraudulently causing Plaintiff to engage Defendants’ counseling services, intruded into Plaintiff’s private affairs, over which Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
164. Defendants’ intrusion was intentional.
165. Defendants’ intrusion was done in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person inasmuch as it was done by calculated deceit.
166. As a result of Defendants’ intrusion into Plaintiff’s private affairs, Plaintiff suffered injury.
167. Because Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and malice, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
Count XI: Violation of California Constitutional Right to Privacy
168. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference every allegation contained in the remaining paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
169. Plaintiff had a legally protectable privacy interest in the issues and situations he was dealing with when seeking counseling.
170. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy over those issues, events, and information.
171. On information and belief, Defendants disclosed private facts about Plaintiff.
172. Such disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and constituted a serious invasion of privacy.
173. There was no legitimate reason for Defendants to make such disclosures.
174. As a result of Defendants’ disclosure of private facts, Plaintiff suffered injury.
175. Because Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and malice, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
Count XII: Breach of Contract
176. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference every allegation contained in the remaining paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
177. Plaintiff believes that any contracts between Plaintiff and Defendants are void or voidable In the alternative, however, to the extent any contract is valid and enforceable, there exists at least one valid and enforceable contract between Plaintiff and Defendants.
178. Defendants breached any such contract(s) by, for example, failing to provide competent services, failing to accurately charge Plaintiff, and breaching the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
179. Plaintiff performed all his required obligations in any such contract, or was excused from doing so.
180. Plaintiff was harmed as a result by, for instance, overpaying Defendants and suffering mental injury from substandard services.
Jury Trial Demand
181. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all aspects of the case so triable.
Prayer
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
A. For public injunctive relief, whereby Defendants are immediately, permanently, and finally enjoined and restrained from engaging in any unfair, fraudulent, or unlawful practices, including without limitation any of the following:
a. Representing or advertising that Henriques’ name is “Dr. Stephen H. Cohen” or “Stephen H. Cohen”;
b. Conducting business under any name other than his true legal name, or the true legal name of a valid entity ;
c. Representing or advertising that Henriques has obtained a Doctor of Philosophy degree;
d. Representing or advertising that Henriques has obtained a Master of Education degree;
e. Representing or advertising that Henriques has obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree and/or that Henriques has obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree from Clark University;
f. Representing or advertising that Henriques is licensed to practice psychology in California, New York, and/or anywhere else;
g. Representing or advertising that The Parallax Solution existed before 2020;
h. Representing or advertising any false educational history;
i. Representing or advertising any false employment history;
j. Representing or advertising any false military record;
k. Representing or advertising any false credentials;
l. Charging consumers for counseling, therapy, or other psychological services;
m. Refusing to provide consumers to copies of purported contracts with Defendants; and
n. Charging consumers for goods and services Defendants do not perform.
B. For restitution of all profits and unjust enrichment that Henriques obtained from Plaintiff as a result of his unlawful, unfair, and deceptive practices as alleged herein, no less than $138,350.00;
C. For disgorgement of all profits and unjust enrichment that Henriques obtained from any other person as a result of his unlawful, unfair, and deceptive practices as alleged herein;
D. For compensatory damages, including actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
E. For general and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
F. For punitive and exemplary damages;
G. For prejudgment interest;
H. For attorneys’ fees to the extent allowed by law;
I. For the Court to retain jurisdiction to police Henriques’s compliance with the permanent injunctive relief; and
J. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, including without limitation temporary and preliminary injunctive relief.
Respectfully submitted,
BEFFA LAW
Darin T. Beffa
Counsel for Plaintiff David Allison
Dated: March 18, 2024
_____________________
Download Full Complaint (Case No 24SCTV06923), including Exhibits referenced below.
[1] Exhibit 5 at 1 (“Dr. Stephen H. Cohen” business card).
[2] Exhibit 2 at 2, The Parallax Solution | About Stephen H. Cohen | SoCal & NYC, at https://theparallaxsolution.com/about-recoverycoach/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024).
[3] Exhibit 3 at 1, Dr. Stephen H. Cohen PhD ME.d CADC IV LADAC | LinkedIn — Personal, at https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-stephen-h-cohen-phd-me-d-cadc-iv-ladac-933549b/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024)
[4] Exhibit 5 at 1 (“Dr. Stephen H. Cohen” business card).
[5] Exhibit 3 at 3, Dr. Stephen H. Cohen PhD ME.d CADC IV LADAC | LinkedIn — Personal, at https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-stephen-h-cohen-phd-me-d-cadc-iv-ladac-933549b/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024); Exhibit 4 at 1, Education | Dr. Stephen H. Cohen PhD ME.d CADC IV LADAC | LinkedIn — Personal, at https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-stephen-h-cohen-phd-me-d-cadc-iv-ladac-933549b/details/education/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024).
[6] Exhibit 6 at 1 (National Student Clearinghouse DegreeVerify Certificate).
[7] Exhibit 9 at 1, Programs – Office of Admissions – Naval Postgraduate School, at https://nps.edu/web/admissions/programs (last visited Mar. 18, 2024).
[8] Exhibit 2 at 2, The Parallax Solution | About Stephen H. Cohen | SoCal & NYC, at https://theparallaxsolution.com/about-recoverycoach/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024).
[9] Exhibit 3 at 1, Dr. Stephen H. Cohen PhD ME.d CADC IV LADAC | LinkedIn — Personal, at https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-stephen-h-cohen-phd-me-d-cadc-iv-ladac-933549b/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024); Exhibit 4 at 1, Education | Dr. Stephen H. Cohen PhD ME.d CADC IV LADAC | LinkedIn — Personal, at https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-stephen-h-cohen-phd-me-d-cadc-iv-ladac-933549b/details/education/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024).
[10] Exhibit 5 at 1 (“Dr. Stephen H. Cohen” business card).
[11] Exhibit 4 at 1, Education | Dr. Stephen H. Cohen PhD ME.d CADC IV LADAC | LinkedIn — Personal, at https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-stephen-h-cohen-phd-me-d-cadc-iv-ladac-933549b/details/education/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024).
[12] Exhibit 7 at 1 (National Student Clearinghouse DegreeVerify Certificate).
[13] Exhibit 4 at 1, Education | Dr. Stephen H. Cohen PhD ME.d CADC IV LADAC | LinkedIn — Personal, at https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-stephen-h-cohen-phd-me-d-cadc-iv-ladac-933549b/details/education/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024).
[14] Exhibit 8 at 1 (National Student Clearinghouse DegreeVerify Certificate).
[15] Exhibit 3 at 2, Dr. Stephen H. Cohen PhD ME.d CADC IV LADAC | LinkedIn — Personal, at https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-stephen-h-cohen-phd-me-d-cadc-iv-ladac-933549b/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024).
[16] Exhibit 3 at 2, Dr. Stephen H. Cohen PhD ME.d CADC IV LADAC | LinkedIn — Personal, at https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-stephen-h-cohen-phd-me-d-cadc-iv-ladac-933549b/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024).
[17] Exhibit 10 at 1, LLC Registration – Articles of Organization for The Parallax Solution LLC, available at https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/api/report/GetImageByNum/ 244093217211023184126225216136254026241123021107 (last visited Mar. 18, 2024).
[18] Exhibit 3 at 2, Dr. Stephen H. Cohen PhD ME.d CADC IV LADAC | LinkedIn — Personal, at https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-stephen-h-cohen-phd-me-d-cadc-iv-ladac-933549b/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024).
[19] Exhibit 1 at 1, The Parallax Solution | Certified Addiction and Recovery Coach | NYC, LA, at https://theparallaxsolution.com/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024).
[20] Exhibit 2 at 2, The Parallax Solution | About Stephen H. Cohen | SoCal & NYC, at https://theparallaxsolution.com/about-recoverycoach/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024).
[21] Exhibit 3 at 1, Dr. Stephen H. Cohen PhD ME.d CADC IV LADAC | LinkedIn — Personal, at https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-stephen-h-cohen-phd-me-d-cadc-iv-ladac-933549b/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024)
[22] Exhibit 5 at 1 (“Dr. Stephen H. Cohen” business card).
[23] Exhibit 11, Counselor Certification Organizations, at https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/provgovpart/Pages/CounselorCertificationOrganizations.aspx (last accessed Mar. 12, 2024).
[24] Exhibit 13 at 1 (January 2024 text messages between Plaintiff and Cohen Henriques).
[25] Exhibit 12 at 1 (October–November 2023 text messages between Plaintiff and Cohen Henriques).
[26] Exhibit 14 at 1 (January 2024 text messages between Plaintiff and Cohen Henriques).
[27] Exhibit 15 at 2, Therapist Spotlight | Emerging Themes in Behavioral Health, at https://emergingthemesinbehavioralhealth.com/therapist-spotlight/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2024).