Preview
1 JOHN L. SUPPLE (SBN: 94582)
;supple@jsupplelaw.com ELECTRONICALLY
2 ROBERT R. DEERING (SBN: 258043)
rdeering@jsupplelaw.com F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
3 MADELEINE LOUGH-STEVENS (SBN: 323789) County of San Francisco
mlough-stevens@jsupplelaw.com
4 JSUPPLELAW 01/02/2020
Clerk of the Court
A Professional Corporation BY: ANGELICA SUNGA
5 990 Fifth A venue Deputy Clerk
San Rafael, CA 94901
6
Telephone: (415) 366-5533
7 Facsimile: (415) 480-6301
8 Attorneys for Defendants
DANIELLE LANE, M.D., MARK FAN, M.D., and
9 DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., INC. dba LANE
FERTILITY INSTITUTE
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
u ,-(
0 12 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
~ Q>0-1
~
~=""'
~ 0-1
<;...< 13
~ .ca.gov
SUM-100 (Rev. July 1, 2009]
MC-025
CASE NUMBER:
SHORT TITLE:
- Williams Rodriguez v. Danielle E. Lane, M.D., et al.
ATTACHMENT (Number): Summons
(This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.)
Notice to Defendants:
DANIELLE E. LANE, MD., an individual; MARK FAN, MD., an individual; DANIElLE LANE, M.D.,
INC, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORA'l1.ON, a Corporation; DANIELLE E. LANE, MD., INC. DBA LANE
FERTILITY INSTITUTE, a Corporation; and LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE, a Corporation; and DOES 1
to 50, inclusive
(ff the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this
Page 1 of 1
Attachment are made under penalty of peljury.)
(Add pages as required)
Form Al>Ploved for Optional Use .....v.c:oimlace Violenoe
Intellectual Property (19) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11} Elder/Dependent Adult
Professional Negffgence (25) Writ of Mandate (02) Abu.e
Legal MalpracUce Writ-Administrative Mandamus Election Contest
other Professional Malpractice Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Petition for Name Change
(not medical or legal) Case Matter Petition for Reffef From Lale
Other Non-PVPD/WD Tort (35) Writ-other Limited Court Case Claim
Employment Review Other Civil Petition
Wrongful Tenninatlon (36) Other Judicial Review (39)
other Employment {15} Review of Health Off1t1er Order
Notice of Appeal-labor
Commissioner Appeals
CM-010 IRev. July 1. 200n Page2of2
CNIL CASE COVER SHEET
1 NANCY HERSH (SBN 49091)
KATE HERSH-BOYLE (SBN 278864)
2 MONTANA BAKER (SBN 319491)
HERSH and HERSH
3 601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2080
San Francisco, CA 94102
4 Telephone: 1-415-441-5544
Facsimile: 1-415-441-7586 . (;.t.EBK ()~ THE CCt i;:;r
5 . . er.:... ~ .1.CL,llh)t\&.*~
6
~XrR1tkfwlitl~~ RODRIGUEZ and CLAUDIOUS WILLI~RODRIG~~~;:i ucr,,
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9
10 PATRICK WILLIAMS RODRIGUEZ and )
)
Case No.f' . ., r
· l;lv
- 'i-
C,,
- r::·
CLAUDIOUS WILLIAMS RODRIGUEZ,
11 individuals,
~ )) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES;
lfJ. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
12 )
~-;
Q) Plaintiffs, ) . 1. Negligence
1-- 1 13 ) 2. Failure To Obtain Informed
~ V. ) Consent
14 ) 3. Breach of Contract
o8 ) 4. Intentional Misrepresentation
~
15 DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., an individual; 5. Negligent Misrepresentation
,...~ MARK FAN, M.D., an individual; 6. Fraudulent Concealment
lfJ. 16 DANIELLE LANE, M.D., INC, A ) 7. Violations of Business and
~
f-=-1 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, a Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
~ 17 Corporation; DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D.,
1-i-J INC. DBA LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE, )
~ 18 a Corporation; and LANE FERTILITY )
INSTITUTE, a Corporation; and DOES 1 to )
19 50, inclusive, )
)
20 )
Defendants.
21
_______________ )
)
22
Plaintiffs PATRICK WILLIAMS RODRIGUEZ and CLAUDIOUS WILLIAMS
23
RODRIGUEZ ("Plaintiffs"), hereby file this Complaint and allege as follows:
24
THE PARTIES
25
1. Plaintiffs PATRICK WILLIAMS RODRIGUEZ and CLAUDIOUS WILLIAMS
26
RODRIGUEZ are individuals who, at all times relevant herein, were married and were residents of
27
Napa County, California
28
2. At all relevant times herein, Defendants DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D. ("Defendant
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 Dr. Lane") and MARK FAN, M.D. (collectively referred to herein as "The Defendant Doctors")
2 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, were and are physicians and surgeons
3 licensed to practice and practicing their professions in the State of California. At all relevant times,
4 Defendants DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D. and MARK FAN, M.D. are and were practicing their
5 professions in the City of San Francisco, State of California. Defendant DANIELLE E. LANE,
6 M.D., MARK FAN, M.D. and Defendants purported to specialize in care and treatment connected
7 with fertility, including, but not limited to, family planning with gestational carriers or surrogates,
8 In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), Intrauterine Insemination (IlJI), intracytoplasmic sperm injection
9 (ICSI), embryo cryopreservation and transfers, genetic screening of embryos through PGS/D, and
10 all consultations, advice, care and treatment related thereto. Said Defendants, including Defendants
11 DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D. and MARK FAN, M.D., were in the business of providing medical
r-0
00 12 and fertility services to the public and to Plaintiffs herein.
H
~ 3. . At all relevant times herein, Defendant DANIELLE LANE, M.D., INC, A
13
~ 14 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION and DOES 11 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, are
~ 15 and were businesses owned, operated and/or controlled by Defendant DANIELLE E. LANE,
""'H°
00 16 M.D., and which operated as fertility clinics, medical centers and medical businesses, operating
~ 17 under the laws of the State of California, in both San Francisco, California and Novato, California
~ -
18 . and which ·offered care and treatment connected with fertility treatment, including, but not limited
19 to, family planning with gestational carriers or surrogates, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), Intrauterine
20 Insemination (IUI), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), embryo cryopreservation and
21 transfers, genetic screening of embryos through PGS/D, and all consultations; advice, care and
22 treatment related thereto. At all relevant times, Defendant DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D. owned,
23 operated, controlled and/or was an employee or agent of DANIELLE LANE, M.D., INC, A
24 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION and, Defendant MARK FAN, M.D. and DOES 1 through 10,
25 were agents or employees of said entity, and said Defendants were acting as such in rendering care
26 and treatment to Plaintiffs herein. Defendant DANIELLE LANE, M.D., INC, A PROFESSIONAL
27 CORPORATION is and was in the business of providing fertility services as described
28 hereinabove to the public, including Plaintiffs herein.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 4. At all relevant times herein, Defendants DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., INC. DBA
2 LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE and LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE (collectively referred to
3 herein as "The LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE Defendants") and DOES 21 through 30,
4 inclusive, and each of them, are and were businesses, which operated as a fertility clinic known as
5 LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE, operating under the laws of the State of California, in both San
6 Francisco, California and Novato, California and which offered care and treatment connected with
7 fertility treatment and purported to specialize in care and treatment connected with fertility,
8 including, but not limited to, family planning with gestational carriers or surrogates, In Vitro
9 Fertilization (IVF), Intrauterine Insemination (JUI), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI),
10 embryo cryopreservation and transfers, genetic screening of embryos through PGS/D, and all
11 consultations, advice, care and treatment related thereto. At all relevant times, Defendant
~
(/)
12 DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D. owned, operated, controlled and/or was an employee or agent of The
H
Q..)
13 LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE Defendants and Defendant MARK FAN, M.D. and Defendant
~ 14 DOES 1 through 10 were employees or agents of The LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE
cS 15 Defendants, and, Defendants, and each of them, were acting as such in rendering care and
~
(/) 16 treatment to Plaintiffs herein. The LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE Defendants are and were in
H
Q..) 17 the business of providing fertility services as described hereinabove to the public, including
~ 18 Plaintiffs herein.
19 ·····-·· -5_ Defend"ants;-mcluding-'fhe·LA:NE-FERTltITY ·INS-'fl'fT:JPE-Elefendants;··on-its--·-- - - - -
20 website, marketed and promoted "Lane Fertility Institute, Dr. Danielle Lane [as] a leading provider
21 of fertility treatments," "committed to the success of our patients and to providing cost-conscious
22 care" and as providing "unparalleled care" with "exceptional physicians," an "exceptional team"
23 and "state of the art facilities."
24 6. At all relevant times herein, DOES 31 through 40, are and were physicians, nurses,
25 medical assistants, technicians, clinicians, or any other persons, including non-medical and non-
26 technical persons, rendering medical care, treatment and services to patients and clients, including
27 care and treatment associated with fertility services to Plaintiffs herein and were at all times
28 mentioned herein providing such care and treatment in the State of California.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 7. At all times relevant herein, DOES 41 through 50, are and were medical entitie_s,
2 medical businesses, non-medical entities, non-medical businesses, corporate entities, or other
3 entities which owned, operated, controlled, managed, or employed Defendants DANIELLE E.
4 . LANE, M.D., MARK FAN, M.D., DANIELLE LANE, M.D., INC, A PROFESSIONAL
5 CORPORATION, DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., INC. DBA LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE and
6 LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE or other entities not yet named or referenced herein and
7 Defendants DOES 1 through 40.
8 8. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent or employee of
9 the remaining Defendants and were at all times acting within the scope and purpose of said agency
10 and employment and said acts were ratified and approved by said Defendants.
11 9. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
i-0
00 12 otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs,
H
==-_._"'-"""""I--J'------1
00 12 N He
~ Kate Hersh-Boyle
c:!.) Montana Baker
13
~ 14
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
o8 15
~
U) 16
~
c:!.) 17
~ 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
CASE NUMBER: CGC-19-580309 PATRICK WILLIAMS RODRIGUEZ ETAL VS. DANIELLE E.
NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF
A Case Management Conference is set for:
DATE: APR-01-2020
TIME: 10:30AM
PLACE: Department 610
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102-3680
All parties must appear and comply with Local Rule 3.
ICRC 3.725 requires the filing and service of a case management statement form CM-110 I
no later than 15 days before the case management conference. However, it would facilitate
the issuance of a case management order without an appearance at the case
management conference if the case management statement is filed, served and lodged in
iDepartment 610 twenty-five (25) days before the case management conference.
Plaintiff must serve a copy of this notice upon each party to this action with the summons and
complaint. Proof of service subsequently filed with this court shall so state. This case is
eligible for electronic filing and service per Local Rule 2.11. For more information,
please visit the Court's website at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org under Online Services.
[DEFENDANTS: Attending the Case Management Conference does not take the place
of filing a written response to the complaint. You must file a written response with the
court within the time limit required by law. See Summons.]
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS
I IT IS THE POLICY OF THE SUPERIOR COURT THAT EVERY CIVIL CASE SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN
MEDIATION, ARBITRATION, NEUTRAL EVALUATION, AN EARLY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, OR
OTHER APPROPRIATE FORM OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PRIOR TO A TRIAL.
(SEE LOCAL RULE 4)
Plaintiff must serve a copy of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Package
on each defendant along with the complaint. (CRC 3.221.) The ADR package may be
accessed at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/civil/dispute-resolution or you may request a
paper copy from the filing clerk. All counsel must discuss ADR with clients and opposing
counsel and provide clients with a copy of the ADR Information Package prior to filing
the Case Management Statement.
Superior Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Administrator
400 McAllister Street, Room 103-A
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 551-3869
See Local Rules 3.3, 6.0 C and 10 B re stipulation to judge pro tern.
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
Aiternative Dispute Resolution
Information Package
The plaintiff must serve a copy of the ADR Information Package on each defendant along
with the complaint. Cross-complainants must serve a copy of the ADR Information Package
on any new parties to the action together with the cross-complaint. (CRC 3.221(c).)
WHATISADR?
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) isthe term used to describe the various options available for
settling a dispute without a trial.
There are many different ADR processes, the most common forms of
which are mediation, arbitration and settlement conferences. In ADR, trained, impartial people decide
disputes or help parties decide disputes themselves. They can help parties resolve disputes without
having to go to trial.
WHY CHOOSE ADR?
It isthe policy of the Superior Court that every long cause, non-criminal, non-juvenile case should
participate either in an early settlement conference, mediation, arbitration, early neutral evaluation or
some other alternative dispute resolution process prior to trial. {Local Rule 4.)
ADR can have a number of advantages over traditional litigation:
• ADR can save time. A dispute often can be resolved in a matter of months, even weeks,
through ADR, while a lawsuit can take years.
• ADR can save money, including court costs, attorney fees, and expert fees.
• ADR encourages participation. The parties may have more opportunities to tell their story than
in court and may have more control over the outcome of the case.
• ADR Is more satisfying.For allthe above reasons, many people participatingin ADR have
reported a high degree of satisfaction.
"'"'Electing to participate in an ADR process does not stop the time period to
respond to a complaint or cross-complaint**
WHAT ARE THE ADR OPTIONS?
The San Francisco Superior Court offers different types of ADR processes for general civil matters. The
programs are described below:
1) MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES
Settlement conferences are appropriate in any case where settlement is an option. The goal of
settlement conferences is to provide participants an opportunity to reach a mutually acceptable
settlement that resolves all or part of a dispute. Mandatory settlement conferences are ordered by the
court and are often held near the date a case isset for trial,
although they may be held earlierif
appropriate. A party may elect to apply to the Presiding Judge for a specially set mandatory settlement
conference by filing an ex parte application. See Local Rule 5.0 for further instructions. Upon approval by
the Presiding Judge, the court will schedule the conference and assign a settlement conference officer.
ADR-11 0118 Page 11
Z) MEDIATION
Mediation is a voluntary, flexible,and confidential process inwhich a neutral third party facilitates
negotiations. The goal of mediation is to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement that resolves allor
part of a dispute after exploring the interests, needs,and priorities of the
parties in light of relevant
evidence and the law.
(A) MEDIATION SERVICES OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO (BASF), in cooperation
with the Superior Court, is designed to help civil litigants resolve disputes before they incur substantial
costs in litigation. While it is best to utilize the program at the outset of litigation, parties may use the
program at any time while a case is pending. Experienced professional mediators work with parties to
arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. The mediators provide one hour of preparation time and the
first two hours of mediation time. Mediation time beyond that is charged at the mediator's hourly rate.
BASF pre-screens all mediators based upon strict educational and experience requirements. Parties can
select their mediator from the panels at www.sfbar.org/mediation or BASF can assist with mediator
selection. BASF staffhandles conflict checks and full case management. The success rate for the
program is 67% and the satisfaction rate is 99%. BASF charges an administrative fee of $295 per party.
The hourly mediator fee beyond the firstthree hours will vary depending on the mediator selected.
Waivers of the fee are available to those who qualify. For more information, call 415-982-1600 or email
adr@sfbar.org.
(B) JUDICIAL MEDIATION PROGRAM provides mediation with a San Francisco Superior Court judge
for civil cases, which include but are not limited to,
personal injury, construction defect, employment,
professional malpractice, insurance coverage, toxic torts and industrialaccidents. Parties may utilize
this program at any time throughout the litigationprocess. Parties interested in judicialmediation
should file a Stipulation to Judicial Mediation indicating a joint request for inclusion in the program.
A
preference for a specific judge may be indicated. The court will coordinate assignment of cases for the
program. There is no charge. Information about the Judicial Mediation Program may be found by
visiting the ADR page on the court's website: www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/civil/dispute-resolution
{C) PRIVATE MEDIATION: Although not currently a part of the court's ADR program, parties may
select any private mediator of their choice. The selection and coordination of private mediation is the
responsibility of the parties. Parties may find mediators and organizations on the Internet. The cost of
private mediation will vary depending on the mediator selected.
{D) COMMUNITY BOARDS MEDIATION SERVICES: Mediation services are offered by Community
Boards (CB),a nonprofit resolution center, under the Dispute Resolution Programs Act. CB utilizesa
three-person panel mediation process inwhich mediators work as a team to assistthe parties in
reaching a shared solution. To the extent possible, mediators are selected to reflect the demographics of
the disputants. CB has a success rate of 85% for parties reaching a resolution and a consumer
satisfaction rateof 99%. The fee is $45-$100 to open a case, and an hourly rate of $180 for complex
cases. Reduction and waiver of the fee are available. For more information, call 415-920-3820 or visit
communityboards.org.
ADR-1 10/18 Page 12
3) ARBITRATION
An arbitrator is a neutral attorney who presides at a hearing where the parties present evidence through
exhibits and testimony. The arbitrator applies the faw to the facts of the case and makes an award based
upon the merits of the case.
(A) JUDICIAL ARBITRATION
When the court orders a case to arbitration it is called "judicial arbitration". The goal of arbitration is to
provide parties with an adjudication that is earlier, faster, less formal, and usually less expensive than a
trial. Pursuant to CCP 1141.11, all civil actions in which the amount In controversy is $50,000 or less, and
no party seeks equitable relief, shall
be ordered to arbitration. (Upon stipulation of allparties, other
civilmatters may be submitted to judicial arbitration.)An arbitrator ischosen from the court's
arbitration panel. Arbitrations are generally held between 7 and 9 months after a complaint has been
filed. Judicial arbitration is not binding unless all parties agree to be bound by the arbitrator's decision.
Any party may request a trial within 60 days after the arbitrator's award has been filed. local Rule4.1
allows for mediation in lieu of judicial arbitration,
so long as the parties file a stipulation
to mediate
after being assigned to judicial arbitration. There is no cost to the parties for judicial arbitration.
(8) PRIVATE ARBITRATION
Although not currently a part of the court's ADR program, civil disputes may also be resolved through
private arbitration.Here, the parties voluntarilyconsent to arbitration.If all
parties agree, private
arbitration may be binding and the parties give up the right to judicial review of the arbitrator's decision.
In private arbitration,the parties select a private arbitrator and are responsible for paying the
arbitrator's fees.
HOW DO I PARTICIPATE IN ADR7
litigants may elect to participate in ADR at any point in a case. General civil cases may voluntarily enter
into the court's or court-affiliated ADR programs by any of the following means:
• Filing a Stipulation to ADR: Complete and file the Stipulation form (attached to this packet and
available on the court's website); or
• Indicating your ADR preferences on the Case Management Statement (available on the court's
website); or
• Contacting the court's ADR Department (see below}, the Bar Association of San Francisco's ADR
Services, or Community Boards.
For more information about ADR programs or dispute resolution alternatives, contact:
Superior Court Alternative Dispute Resolution
400 McAllister Street, Room 103-A, San Francisco, CA 94102
415-551-3869
Or, visit the court's ADR page at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/civilL_dJ,
Preview
1 JOHN L. SUPPLE (SBN: 94582) ;supple@jsupplelaw.com ELECTRONICALLY 2 ROBERT R. DEERING (SBN: 258043) rdeering@jsupplelaw.com F I L E D Superior Court of California, 3 MADELEINE LOUGH-STEVENS (SBN: 323789) County of San Francisco mlough-stevens@jsupplelaw.com 4 JSUPPLELAW 01/02/2020 Clerk of the Court A Professional Corporation BY: ANGELICA SUNGA 5 990 Fifth A venue Deputy Clerk San Rafael, CA 94901 6 Telephone: (415) 366-5533 7 Facsimile: (415) 480-6301 8 Attorneys for Defendants DANIELLE LANE, M.D., MARK FAN, M.D., and 9 DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., INC. dba LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA u ,-( 0 12 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ~ Q>0-1 ~ ~=""' ~ 0-1 <;...< 13 ~ .ca.gov SUM-100 (Rev. July 1, 2009] MC-025 CASE NUMBER: SHORT TITLE: - Williams Rodriguez v. Danielle E. Lane, M.D., et al. ATTACHMENT (Number): Summons (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) Notice to Defendants: DANIELLE E. LANE, MD., an individual; MARK FAN, MD., an individual; DANIElLE LANE, M.D., INC, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORA'l1.ON, a Corporation; DANIELLE E. LANE, MD., INC. DBA LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE, a Corporation; and LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE, a Corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive (ff the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Page 1 of 1 Attachment are made under penalty of peljury.) (Add pages as required) Form Al>Ploved for Optional Use .....v.c:oimlace Violenoe Intellectual Property (19) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11} Elder/Dependent Adult Professional Negffgence (25) Writ of Mandate (02) Abu.e Legal MalpracUce Writ-Administrative Mandamus Election Contest other Professional Malpractice Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Petition for Name Change (not medical or legal) Case Matter Petition for Reffef From Lale Other Non-PVPD/WD Tort (35) Writ-other Limited Court Case Claim Employment Review Other Civil Petition Wrongful Tenninatlon (36) Other Judicial Review (39) other Employment {15} Review of Health Off1t1er Order Notice of Appeal-labor Commissioner Appeals CM-010 IRev. July 1. 200n Page2of2 CNIL CASE COVER SHEET 1 NANCY HERSH (SBN 49091) KATE HERSH-BOYLE (SBN 278864) 2 MONTANA BAKER (SBN 319491) HERSH and HERSH 3 601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2080 San Francisco, CA 94102 4 Telephone: 1-415-441-5544 Facsimile: 1-415-441-7586 . (;.t.EBK ()~ THE CCt i;:;r 5 . . er.:... ~ .1.CL,llh)t\&.*~ 6 ~XrR1tkfwlitl~~ RODRIGUEZ and CLAUDIOUS WILLI~RODRIG~~~;:i ucr,, 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 9 10 PATRICK WILLIAMS RODRIGUEZ and ) ) Case No.f' . ., r · l;lv - 'i- C,, - r::· CLAUDIOUS WILLIAMS RODRIGUEZ, 11 individuals, ~ )) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; lfJ. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 12 ) ~-; Q) Plaintiffs, ) . 1. Negligence 1-- 1 13 ) 2. Failure To Obtain Informed ~ V. ) Consent 14 ) 3. Breach of Contract o8 ) 4. Intentional Misrepresentation ~ 15 DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., an individual; 5. Negligent Misrepresentation ,...~ MARK FAN, M.D., an individual; 6. Fraudulent Concealment lfJ. 16 DANIELLE LANE, M.D., INC, A ) 7. Violations of Business and ~ f-=-1 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, a Professions Code § 17200, et seq. ~ 17 Corporation; DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., 1-i-J INC. DBA LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE, ) ~ 18 a Corporation; and LANE FERTILITY ) INSTITUTE, a Corporation; and DOES 1 to ) 19 50, inclusive, ) ) 20 ) Defendants. 21 _______________ ) ) 22 Plaintiffs PATRICK WILLIAMS RODRIGUEZ and CLAUDIOUS WILLIAMS 23 RODRIGUEZ ("Plaintiffs"), hereby file this Complaint and allege as follows: 24 THE PARTIES 25 1. Plaintiffs PATRICK WILLIAMS RODRIGUEZ and CLAUDIOUS WILLIAMS 26 RODRIGUEZ are individuals who, at all times relevant herein, were married and were residents of 27 Napa County, California 28 2. At all relevant times herein, Defendants DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D. ("Defendant COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 Dr. Lane") and MARK FAN, M.D. (collectively referred to herein as "The Defendant Doctors") 2 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, were and are physicians and surgeons 3 licensed to practice and practicing their professions in the State of California. At all relevant times, 4 Defendants DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D. and MARK FAN, M.D. are and were practicing their 5 professions in the City of San Francisco, State of California. Defendant DANIELLE E. LANE, 6 M.D., MARK FAN, M.D. and Defendants purported to specialize in care and treatment connected 7 with fertility, including, but not limited to, family planning with gestational carriers or surrogates, 8 In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), Intrauterine Insemination (IlJI), intracytoplasmic sperm injection 9 (ICSI), embryo cryopreservation and transfers, genetic screening of embryos through PGS/D, and 10 all consultations, advice, care and treatment related thereto. Said Defendants, including Defendants 11 DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D. and MARK FAN, M.D., were in the business of providing medical r-0 00 12 and fertility services to the public and to Plaintiffs herein. H ~ 3. . At all relevant times herein, Defendant DANIELLE LANE, M.D., INC, A 13 ~ 14 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION and DOES 11 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, are ~ 15 and were businesses owned, operated and/or controlled by Defendant DANIELLE E. LANE, ""'H° 00 16 M.D., and which operated as fertility clinics, medical centers and medical businesses, operating ~ 17 under the laws of the State of California, in both San Francisco, California and Novato, California ~ - 18 . and which ·offered care and treatment connected with fertility treatment, including, but not limited 19 to, family planning with gestational carriers or surrogates, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), Intrauterine 20 Insemination (IUI), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), embryo cryopreservation and 21 transfers, genetic screening of embryos through PGS/D, and all consultations; advice, care and 22 treatment related thereto. At all relevant times, Defendant DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D. owned, 23 operated, controlled and/or was an employee or agent of DANIELLE LANE, M.D., INC, A 24 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION and, Defendant MARK FAN, M.D. and DOES 1 through 10, 25 were agents or employees of said entity, and said Defendants were acting as such in rendering care 26 and treatment to Plaintiffs herein. Defendant DANIELLE LANE, M.D., INC, A PROFESSIONAL 27 CORPORATION is and was in the business of providing fertility services as described 28 hereinabove to the public, including Plaintiffs herein. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 4. At all relevant times herein, Defendants DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., INC. DBA 2 LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE and LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE (collectively referred to 3 herein as "The LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE Defendants") and DOES 21 through 30, 4 inclusive, and each of them, are and were businesses, which operated as a fertility clinic known as 5 LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE, operating under the laws of the State of California, in both San 6 Francisco, California and Novato, California and which offered care and treatment connected with 7 fertility treatment and purported to specialize in care and treatment connected with fertility, 8 including, but not limited to, family planning with gestational carriers or surrogates, In Vitro 9 Fertilization (IVF), Intrauterine Insemination (JUI), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), 10 embryo cryopreservation and transfers, genetic screening of embryos through PGS/D, and all 11 consultations, advice, care and treatment related thereto. At all relevant times, Defendant ~ (/) 12 DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D. owned, operated, controlled and/or was an employee or agent of The H Q..) 13 LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE Defendants and Defendant MARK FAN, M.D. and Defendant ~ 14 DOES 1 through 10 were employees or agents of The LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE cS 15 Defendants, and, Defendants, and each of them, were acting as such in rendering care and ~ (/) 16 treatment to Plaintiffs herein. The LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE Defendants are and were in H Q..) 17 the business of providing fertility services as described hereinabove to the public, including ~ 18 Plaintiffs herein. 19 ·····-·· -5_ Defend"ants;-mcluding-'fhe·LA:NE-FERTltITY ·INS-'fl'fT:JPE-Elefendants;··on-its--·-- - - - - 20 website, marketed and promoted "Lane Fertility Institute, Dr. Danielle Lane [as] a leading provider 21 of fertility treatments," "committed to the success of our patients and to providing cost-conscious 22 care" and as providing "unparalleled care" with "exceptional physicians," an "exceptional team" 23 and "state of the art facilities." 24 6. At all relevant times herein, DOES 31 through 40, are and were physicians, nurses, 25 medical assistants, technicians, clinicians, or any other persons, including non-medical and non- 26 technical persons, rendering medical care, treatment and services to patients and clients, including 27 care and treatment associated with fertility services to Plaintiffs herein and were at all times 28 mentioned herein providing such care and treatment in the State of California. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 7. At all times relevant herein, DOES 41 through 50, are and were medical entitie_s, 2 medical businesses, non-medical entities, non-medical businesses, corporate entities, or other 3 entities which owned, operated, controlled, managed, or employed Defendants DANIELLE E. 4 . LANE, M.D., MARK FAN, M.D., DANIELLE LANE, M.D., INC, A PROFESSIONAL 5 CORPORATION, DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., INC. DBA LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE and 6 LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE or other entities not yet named or referenced herein and 7 Defendants DOES 1 through 40. 8 8. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent or employee of 9 the remaining Defendants and were at all times acting within the scope and purpose of said agency 10 and employment and said acts were ratified and approved by said Defendants. 11 9. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or i-0 00 12 otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, H ==-_._"'-"""""I--J'------1 00 12 N He ~ Kate Hersh-Boyle c:!.) Montana Baker 13 ~ 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs o8 15 ~ U) 16 ~ c:!.) 17 ~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL CASE NUMBER: CGC-19-580309 PATRICK WILLIAMS RODRIGUEZ ETAL VS. DANIELLE E. NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF A Case Management Conference is set for: DATE: APR-01-2020 TIME: 10:30AM PLACE: Department 610 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-3680 All parties must appear and comply with Local Rule 3. ICRC 3.725 requires the filing and service of a case management statement form CM-110 I no later than 15 days before the case management conference. However, it would facilitate the issuance of a case management order without an appearance at the case management conference if the case management statement is filed, served and lodged in iDepartment 610 twenty-five (25) days before the case management conference. Plaintiff must serve a copy of this notice upon each party to this action with the summons and complaint. Proof of service subsequently filed with this court shall so state. This case is eligible for electronic filing and service per Local Rule 2.11. For more information, please visit the Court's website at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org under Online Services. [DEFENDANTS: Attending the Case Management Conference does not take the place of filing a written response to the complaint. You must file a written response with the court within the time limit required by law. See Summons.] ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS I IT IS THE POLICY OF THE SUPERIOR COURT THAT EVERY CIVIL CASE SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN MEDIATION, ARBITRATION, NEUTRAL EVALUATION, AN EARLY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FORM OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PRIOR TO A TRIAL. (SEE LOCAL RULE 4) Plaintiff must serve a copy of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Package on each defendant along with the complaint. (CRC 3.221.) The ADR package may be accessed at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/civil/dispute-resolution or you may request a paper copy from the filing clerk. All counsel must discuss ADR with clients and opposing counsel and provide clients with a copy of the ADR Information Package prior to filing the Case Management Statement. Superior Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Administrator 400 McAllister Street, Room 103-A San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 551-3869 See Local Rules 3.3, 6.0 C and 10 B re stipulation to judge pro tern. Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Aiternative Dispute Resolution Information Package The plaintiff must serve a copy of the ADR Information Package on each defendant along with the complaint. Cross-complainants must serve a copy of the ADR Information Package on any new parties to the action together with the cross-complaint. (CRC 3.221(c).) WHATISADR? Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) isthe term used to describe the various options available for settling a dispute without a trial. There are many different ADR processes, the most common forms of which are mediation, arbitration and settlement conferences. In ADR, trained, impartial people decide disputes or help parties decide disputes themselves. They can help parties resolve disputes without having to go to trial. WHY CHOOSE ADR? It isthe policy of the Superior Court that every long cause, non-criminal, non-juvenile case should participate either in an early settlement conference, mediation, arbitration, early neutral evaluation or some other alternative dispute resolution process prior to trial. {Local Rule 4.) ADR can have a number of advantages over traditional litigation: • ADR can save time. A dispute often can be resolved in a matter of months, even weeks, through ADR, while a lawsuit can take years. • ADR can save money, including court costs, attorney fees, and expert fees. • ADR encourages participation. The parties may have more opportunities to tell their story than in court and may have more control over the outcome of the case. • ADR Is more satisfying.For allthe above reasons, many people participatingin ADR have reported a high degree of satisfaction. "'"'Electing to participate in an ADR process does not stop the time period to respond to a complaint or cross-complaint** WHAT ARE THE ADR OPTIONS? The San Francisco Superior Court offers different types of ADR processes for general civil matters. The programs are described below: 1) MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES Settlement conferences are appropriate in any case where settlement is an option. The goal of settlement conferences is to provide participants an opportunity to reach a mutually acceptable settlement that resolves all or part of a dispute. Mandatory settlement conferences are ordered by the court and are often held near the date a case isset for trial, although they may be held earlierif appropriate. A party may elect to apply to the Presiding Judge for a specially set mandatory settlement conference by filing an ex parte application. See Local Rule 5.0 for further instructions. Upon approval by the Presiding Judge, the court will schedule the conference and assign a settlement conference officer. ADR-11 0118 Page 11 Z) MEDIATION Mediation is a voluntary, flexible,and confidential process inwhich a neutral third party facilitates negotiations. The goal of mediation is to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement that resolves allor part of a dispute after exploring the interests, needs,and priorities of the parties in light of relevant evidence and the law. (A) MEDIATION SERVICES OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO (BASF), in cooperation with the Superior Court, is designed to help civil litigants resolve disputes before they incur substantial costs in litigation. While it is best to utilize the program at the outset of litigation, parties may use the program at any time while a case is pending. Experienced professional mediators work with parties to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. The mediators provide one hour of preparation time and the first two hours of mediation time. Mediation time beyond that is charged at the mediator's hourly rate. BASF pre-screens all mediators based upon strict educational and experience requirements. Parties can select their mediator from the panels at www.sfbar.org/mediation or BASF can assist with mediator selection. BASF staffhandles conflict checks and full case management. The success rate for the program is 67% and the satisfaction rate is 99%. BASF charges an administrative fee of $295 per party. The hourly mediator fee beyond the firstthree hours will vary depending on the mediator selected. Waivers of the fee are available to those who qualify. For more information, call 415-982-1600 or email adr@sfbar.org. (B) JUDICIAL MEDIATION PROGRAM provides mediation with a San Francisco Superior Court judge for civil cases, which include but are not limited to, personal injury, construction defect, employment, professional malpractice, insurance coverage, toxic torts and industrialaccidents. Parties may utilize this program at any time throughout the litigationprocess. Parties interested in judicialmediation should file a Stipulation to Judicial Mediation indicating a joint request for inclusion in the program. A preference for a specific judge may be indicated. The court will coordinate assignment of cases for the program. There is no charge. Information about the Judicial Mediation Program may be found by visiting the ADR page on the court's website: www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/civil/dispute-resolution {C) PRIVATE MEDIATION: Although not currently a part of the court's ADR program, parties may select any private mediator of their choice. The selection and coordination of private mediation is the responsibility of the parties. Parties may find mediators and organizations on the Internet. The cost of private mediation will vary depending on the mediator selected. {D) COMMUNITY BOARDS MEDIATION SERVICES: Mediation services are offered by Community Boards (CB),a nonprofit resolution center, under the Dispute Resolution Programs Act. CB utilizesa three-person panel mediation process inwhich mediators work as a team to assistthe parties in reaching a shared solution. To the extent possible, mediators are selected to reflect the demographics of the disputants. CB has a success rate of 85% for parties reaching a resolution and a consumer satisfaction rateof 99%. The fee is $45-$100 to open a case, and an hourly rate of $180 for complex cases. Reduction and waiver of the fee are available. For more information, call 415-920-3820 or visit communityboards.org. ADR-1 10/18 Page 12 3) ARBITRATION An arbitrator is a neutral attorney who presides at a hearing where the parties present evidence through exhibits and testimony. The arbitrator applies the faw to the facts of the case and makes an award based upon the merits of the case. (A) JUDICIAL ARBITRATION When the court orders a case to arbitration it is called "judicial arbitration". The goal of arbitration is to provide parties with an adjudication that is earlier, faster, less formal, and usually less expensive than a trial. Pursuant to CCP 1141.11, all civil actions in which the amount In controversy is $50,000 or less, and no party seeks equitable relief, shall be ordered to arbitration. (Upon stipulation of allparties, other civilmatters may be submitted to judicial arbitration.)An arbitrator ischosen from the court's arbitration panel. Arbitrations are generally held between 7 and 9 months after a complaint has been filed. Judicial arbitration is not binding unless all parties agree to be bound by the arbitrator's decision. Any party may request a trial within 60 days after the arbitrator's award has been filed. local Rule4.1 allows for mediation in lieu of judicial arbitration, so long as the parties file a stipulation to mediate after being assigned to judicial arbitration. There is no cost to the parties for judicial arbitration. (8) PRIVATE ARBITRATION Although not currently a part of the court's ADR program, civil disputes may also be resolved through private arbitration.Here, the parties voluntarilyconsent to arbitration.If all parties agree, private arbitration may be binding and the parties give up the right to judicial review of the arbitrator's decision. In private arbitration,the parties select a private arbitrator and are responsible for paying the arbitrator's fees. HOW DO I PARTICIPATE IN ADR7 litigants may elect to participate in ADR at any point in a case. General civil cases may voluntarily enter into the court's or court-affiliated ADR programs by any of the following means: • Filing a Stipulation to ADR: Complete and file the Stipulation form (attached to this packet and available on the court's website); or • Indicating your ADR preferences on the Case Management Statement (available on the court's website); or • Contacting the court's ADR Department (see below}, the Bar Association of San Francisco's ADR Services, or Community Boards. For more information about ADR programs or dispute resolution alternatives, contact: Superior Court Alternative Dispute Resolution 400 McAllister Street, Room 103-A, San Francisco, CA 94102 415-551-3869 Or, visit the court's ADR page at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/civilL_dJ,