Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death/elder abuse case and its proceedings.)
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ORGAN DONOR ASSOCIATION’S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
For sake of brevity, Plaintiff will not repeat all the facts alleged in the complaint. Defendants wilfully misled Plaintiff about the condition of her son, and fraudulently obtained her consent to donate his organs. Defendants ignored Robert Lee’s doctors, who said he should not be a candidate for organ donation, and then violated California law and illegally injected him with lethal doses of drugs in an effort to hasten his death. Defendant David Hill has been charged with three felony counts by the Sacramento County District Attorney. This civil action is filed against all those who are responsible for what happened to Robert Lee.
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.
PLAINTIFF’S CAUSES OF ACTION AND RELATED FACTS ARE SUFFICIENTLY PLED
In a valiant effort to leave no stone unturned, Defendant ODA demurrers to literally every single cause of action contained in Plaintiff’s complaint. Each argument made by Defendant to each cause of action shares something in common; they all lack merit. Defendant’s demurrer should be overruled in its entirety.
Defendant’s demurrer on grounds of uncertainty lacks merit. First, Plaintiff’s complaint pleads numerous specific facts and allegations. [S]pecificity in the pleadings is not required because any doubts are more properly resolved through discovery. (Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 608.) Further, any specificity requirements are relaxed when, as here, the defendants necessarily have superior knowledge of the facts. (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc v. General Foods Corp (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 213-214.)
Defendant’s demurrer on grounds that the complaint contains allegations of intentional conduct and negligence on the same facts wholly lacks merit. In general, a plaintiff is entitled to plead alternative theories and even inconsistent allegations (See Adams v. Paul (1995) 11 Cal.4th 583, 593.) (See Part 2 of 11.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.