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 Avenue Deputy Clerk
6
San Rafael, CA 94901
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
10 FERTILITY INSTITUTE
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
u .... 12 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
=
~
~ =. , .
Q;0\
~ ~ 0\ 13
< <...
..;i
<
u
~-=¢::
..;i
-~
Q; 14 PATRICK WILLIAMS RODRIGUEZ and Case No. CGC-19-580309
~ri;~ CLAUDIOUS WILLIAMS RODRIGUEZ, Reservation No. 012230127-02
~=~ 15 individuals,
:;;,
(ll
0\
...,
0\ =
~ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
(ll
16 Plaintiffs, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS
17
vs. DANIELLE LANE, M.D., MARK
18 FAN, M.D., AND DANIELLE E.
DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., an individual; MARK LANE, M.D., INC. DBA LANE
19 FAN, M.D., an individual; DANIELLE LANE, FERTILITY INSTITUTE TO
M.D., INC, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
20 a Corporation; DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., INC.
DBA LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE, a
21
Corporation; and LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE, Date: January 27, 2020
22 a Corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 302
23 Defendants. Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman
24
Complaint Filed: October 28, 2019
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS DANIELLE LANE, M.D., MARK
FAN, M.D., AND DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., INC. DBA LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 PAGE
3
4
5 I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
6 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OFF ACTS .......................................... 1
7 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT ............................................... .................... ... .................................. 3
8 A. Demurrer is Appropriate to Challenge a Legally Deficient Pleading ..................... 3
9 B. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: Plaintiff Have Not Pied Sufficient Facts
to State a Claim for "Failure to Obtain Informed Consent." .................................. 3
10
1. Plaintiffs' Cause of Action for "Failure to Obtain Informed
11 Consent" is Duplicative of their Negligence Cause of Action .. ................. 3
u .... 12 C. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: Plaintiffs Have Not Pied Sufficient Facts
~ ~
=
0'I
to State a Claim for Breach of Contract.. ................................................................ 5
~
~ =
as"""
0'I 13
<~<
...;i u D. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Plaintiffs Have Not Pied Sufficient Facts
~-=$:
...;i
-~~ 14 to State a Claim for Intentional Misrepresentation ................................................. 7
~ r......
~=~
;:i 15 E. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Plaintiffs' Have Not Pied Sufficient Facts
IZl
~
0'I
0'I=
= to State a Claim for Negligent Misrepresentation ................................................. 10
IZl
16
F. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege Sufficient
17 Facts to Support a Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment. ....................... 11
18 G. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Plaintiffs' Have Failed to Allege
Sufficient Facts to Support a Cause of Action for Violation ofB&P Code
19 § 17200, et. 13
al. ............................... .................. ...... .................................................
20 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-i-
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS DANIELLE LANE, M.D., MARK FAN, M.D., AND
DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., INC. DBA LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 PAGE
Cases
3
Acoustics Inc. v. Trepte Construction Co. (1971) 14 Cal. App. 3d 887 ......................................... 5
4 Ankeny v. Lockheed Missile & Space Co. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 531 ............................................ 3
Aron v. U-Haul Co. of California (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 796 .......... ........ ... .................... ......... 13
5 Beresford Neighborhood Assoc. v. City of San Mateo (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1180 ................ .... 3
Borrayo v. Avery (2015) 2 Cal.App.5th 304 ................................................................................... 3
6 Church of the Merciful Savior v. Volunteers ofAmerica (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 851 .................. 8
City ofAtascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445 ........... 8
7 Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229 ........................................................................................... 4,
5
Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197 ............. 7
8 Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189 ............... 6
Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150 ...................................... 8
9 Going v. Dinwiddie (1890) 86 Cal. 63 3 .......................................................................................... 3
Hall v. Time, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 847 .................................. .... ...................................... 13
10 Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 124 ................. 11
Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601 ................................... .............................................. 3
11 Hills Trans. Co. v. Southwest Forest Industries, Inc. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 702 ........................ 7
Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v.Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129
u ~
0 12 Cal.App.4th 1228 ............................................................................................................... .......
13
~ Q;0\
~
~
5="""
0\ 13
Lazar v. Superior Court (1996)
Marketing West, Inc. v.
12 Cal.4th 631 .............................................................................. 7
Sanyo Fisher (USA) Corp. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 603 ............................ 11
<;;. <
~< u< Plaintiffs baldly allege, without factual support, that Defendants "knew" that CF was ineligible to
..;i
~ ..c...:- 14 be a carrier and that this alleged concealment constituted fraud. As with the other inadequately
¢::
..;i a;
~s~
~o~ 15
:;;,
0\
11'.l
0\ = pled causes of action, Plaintiffs' allegations fall woefully short. Again, Plaintiffs rely on the
~
~ 11'.l
16 judgment of two subsequent fertility clinics, who were of the opinion that CF was not an
17 appropriate gestational carrier. This determination by subsequent healthcare providers does not
18 render the clinical workup performed by Defendants, and the medical judgment exercised by Dr.
19 Lane, to be fraudulent or reckless. Just as two neurosurgeons may have a difference in opinion as
20 to the appropriate surgical approach for a particular injury, so too may fertility specialists have a
21 difference of opinion with regard to surrogate candidacy. This is an everyday reality in the practice
22 of medicine. Fundamentally, a difference of opinion does not suggest a fraudulent intent.
23 Here, there is no allegation as to how Defendants allegedly concealed or suppressed
24 information from Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also fail to allege any specific acts of concealment: who
25 concealed something from them, what was concealed, when it occurred, etc. Mere conclusionary
26 allegations that the Defendants "concealed" facts for the purpose of defrauding and deceiving
27 plaintiffs and inducing them to pay for fertility services are insufficient to meet this pleading
28
-12-
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS DANIELLE LANE, M.D., MARK FAN, M.D., AND
DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., INC. DBA LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
1 standard. Thus, this cause of action is subject to demurrer and is appropriately dismissed without
2 leave to amend.
G. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Plaintiffs' Have Failed to Allege Sufficient
3 Facts to Support a Cause of Action for Violation ofB&P Code §17200, et. al.
4 The Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"; Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) is a consumer
5 protection statute that provides remedies for unlawful, fraudulent, or unfair business practices that
6 threaten competition. (See Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th
7 638, 648.) Proposition 64, approved by voters in 2004, changed the standing requirements for
8 asserting an Unfair Competition lawsuit due to the rampant "frivolous unfair competition lawsuits"
9 that clogged the courts, which were filed "behalf of the general public without any accountability
10 to the public and without adequate court supervision." (Hall v. Time, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th
11 847,852, 854, citing Prop.64, § 1, subd. (b)(l)-(4); subd. (c).) Proposition 64 therefore developed
u ...
= 12 the following two-pronged test: an individual has standing to bring a UCL claim only if that
~
~ =°''
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 Avenue Deputy Clerk 6 San Rafael, CA 94901 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 10 FERTILITY INSTITUTE 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA u .... 12 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO = ~ ~ =. , . Q;0\ ~ ~ 0\ 13 < <... ..;i < u ~-=¢:: ..;i -~ Q; 14 PATRICK WILLIAMS RODRIGUEZ and Case No. CGC-19-580309 ~ri;~ CLAUDIOUS WILLIAMS RODRIGUEZ, Reservation No. 012230127-02 ~=~ 15 individuals, :;;, (ll 0\ ..., 0\ = ~ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND (ll 16 Plaintiffs, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS 17 vs. DANIELLE LANE, M.D., MARK 18 FAN, M.D., AND DANIELLE E. DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., an individual; MARK LANE, M.D., INC. DBA LANE 19 FAN, M.D., an individual; DANIELLE LANE, FERTILITY INSTITUTE TO M.D., INC, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 20 a Corporation; DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., INC. DBA LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE, a 21 Corporation; and LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE, Date: January 27, 2020 22 a Corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 302 23 Defendants. Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman 24 Complaint Filed: October 28, 2019 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS DANIELLE LANE, M.D., MARK FAN, M.D., AND DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., INC. DBA LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE 3 4 5 I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 6 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OFF ACTS .......................................... 1 7 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT ............................................... .................... ... .................................. 3 8 A. Demurrer is Appropriate to Challenge a Legally Deficient Pleading ..................... 3 9 B. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: Plaintiff Have Not Pied Sufficient Facts to State a Claim for "Failure to Obtain Informed Consent." .................................. 3 10 1. Plaintiffs' Cause of Action for "Failure to Obtain Informed 11 Consent" is Duplicative of their Negligence Cause of Action .. ................. 3 u .... 12 C. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: Plaintiffs Have Not Pied Sufficient Facts ~ ~ = 0'I to State a Claim for Breach of Contract.. ................................................................ 5 ~ ~ = as""" 0'I 13 <~< ...;i u D. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Plaintiffs Have Not Pied Sufficient Facts ~-=$: ...;i -~~ 14 to State a Claim for Intentional Misrepresentation ................................................. 7 ~ r...... ~=~ ;:i 15 E. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Plaintiffs' Have Not Pied Sufficient Facts IZl ~ 0'I 0'I= = to State a Claim for Negligent Misrepresentation ................................................. 10 IZl 16 F. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege Sufficient 17 Facts to Support a Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment. ....................... 11 18 G. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Plaintiffs' Have Failed to Allege Sufficient Facts to Support a Cause of Action for Violation ofB&P Code 19 § 17200, et. 13 al. ............................... .................. ...... ................................................. 20 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -i- AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS DANIELLE LANE, M.D., MARK FAN, M.D., AND DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., INC. DBA LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 PAGE Cases 3 Acoustics Inc. v. Trepte Construction Co. (1971) 14 Cal. App. 3d 887 ......................................... 5 4 Ankeny v. Lockheed Missile & Space Co. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 531 ............................................ 3 Aron v. U-Haul Co. of California (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 796 .......... ........ ... .................... ......... 13 5 Beresford Neighborhood Assoc. v. City of San Mateo (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1180 ................ .... 3 Borrayo v. Avery (2015) 2 Cal.App.5th 304 ................................................................................... 3 6 Church of the Merciful Savior v. Volunteers ofAmerica (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 851 .................. 8 City ofAtascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445 ........... 8 7 Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229 ........................................................................................... 4, 5 Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197 ............. 7 8 Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189 ............... 6 Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150 ...................................... 8 9 Going v. Dinwiddie (1890) 86 Cal. 63 3 .......................................................................................... 3 Hall v. Time, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 847 .................................. .... ...................................... 13 10 Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 124 ................. 11 Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601 ................................... .............................................. 3 11 Hills Trans. Co. v. Southwest Forest Industries, Inc. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 702 ........................ 7 Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v.Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 u ~ 0 12 Cal.App.4th 1228 ............................................................................................................... ....... 13 ~ Q;0\ ~ ~ 5=""" 0\ 13 Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) Marketing West, Inc. v. 12 Cal.4th 631 .............................................................................. 7 Sanyo Fisher (USA) Corp. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 603 ............................ 11 <;;. < ~< u< Plaintiffs baldly allege, without factual support, that Defendants "knew" that CF was ineligible to ..;i ~ ..c...:- 14 be a carrier and that this alleged concealment constituted fraud. As with the other inadequately ¢:: ..;i a; ~s~ ~o~ 15 :;;, 0\ 11'.l 0\ = pled causes of action, Plaintiffs' allegations fall woefully short. Again, Plaintiffs rely on the ~ ~ 11'.l 16 judgment of two subsequent fertility clinics, who were of the opinion that CF was not an 17 appropriate gestational carrier. This determination by subsequent healthcare providers does not 18 render the clinical workup performed by Defendants, and the medical judgment exercised by Dr. 19 Lane, to be fraudulent or reckless. Just as two neurosurgeons may have a difference in opinion as 20 to the appropriate surgical approach for a particular injury, so too may fertility specialists have a 21 difference of opinion with regard to surrogate candidacy. This is an everyday reality in the practice 22 of medicine. Fundamentally, a difference of opinion does not suggest a fraudulent intent. 23 Here, there is no allegation as to how Defendants allegedly concealed or suppressed 24 information from Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also fail to allege any specific acts of concealment: who 25 concealed something from them, what was concealed, when it occurred, etc. Mere conclusionary 26 allegations that the Defendants "concealed" facts for the purpose of defrauding and deceiving 27 plaintiffs and inducing them to pay for fertility services are insufficient to meet this pleading 28 -12- AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS DANIELLE LANE, M.D., MARK FAN, M.D., AND DANIELLE E. LANE, M.D., INC. DBA LANE FERTILITY INSTITUTE TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 1 standard. Thus, this cause of action is subject to demurrer and is appropriately dismissed without 2 leave to amend. G. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Plaintiffs' Have Failed to Allege Sufficient 3 Facts to Support a Cause of Action for Violation ofB&P Code §17200, et. al. 4 The Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"; Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) is a consumer 5 protection statute that provides remedies for unlawful, fraudulent, or unfair business practices that 6 threaten competition. (See Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 7 638, 648.) Proposition 64, approved by voters in 2004, changed the standing requirements for 8 asserting an Unfair Competition lawsuit due to the rampant "frivolous unfair competition lawsuits" 9 that clogged the courts, which were filed "behalf of the general public without any accountability 10 to the public and without adequate court supervision." (Hall v. Time, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 11 847,852, 854, citing Prop.64, § 1, subd. (b)(l)-(4); subd. (c).) Proposition 64 therefore developed u ... = 12 the following two-pronged test: an individual has standing to bring a UCL claim only if that ~ ~ =°''