5 1131322512
E: r? 0 lit": L. 1221.5: me: cl?: Ila, CLERK
1E PARISH, 

IN THE 24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON

STATE OF LOUISIANA

HUMAN EMBRYO #4 HB-A, by and through 
Emma and Isabella Louisiana Trust o. 1, 
HUMAN EMBRYO #3 HB-A, by and through 
Emma and Isabella Louisiana Trust o. 1, 

EMMA AND ISABELLA LOUISIANA TRUST No. 1, 
and JAMES CHARBONNET, in his capacity 
as Trustee of Emma and Isabella 
Louisiana Trust o. 1, 

Plaintiffs, 

V- 


SOFIA VERGARA. 

Defendant. 



 

CASE .:

SECTION:

PETITION

El CI
ii

Plaintiffs HUMAN EMBRYO #4 HB-A or ?Plaintiff?), by and through Emma

and Isabella Louisiana Trust No._ 1 HUMAN EMBRYO #3 HB-A

or "Plaintiff?j, by and through Emma and Isabella Louisiana Trust No.

1, EMMA AND ISABELLA LOUISIANA TRUST NO. 1 or "Plaintiff'], and

JAMES CHARBONNET or "Plaintiff?J, in his Capacity as Trustee of I

Emma and Isabella Louisiana Trust No. 1, by their attorneys, Sound Legal Group,

PLLC, and James L. Arruebarrena, as and for their Complaint against Defendant

SOFIA VERGARA or "Defendant"], allege as follows:

1.

INTRODUCTION
In this action, EMMA and ISABELLA seek to remedy the prevention of their
expected inheritance from Emma and Isabella Louisiana Trust o. 1
("Trust"), which expected inheritance is currently being blocked by
refusal to allow them to be transferred to a uterus so they may
continue to develop and be born as was intended for them by both their
natural parents, Nick Loeb ("Loeb") and VERGARA, as is mandated by
Louisiana law, and as is in their best interests. Therefore, EMMA and
ISABELLA seek that they be entrusted to their natural father Loeb, who is
willing and desirous that they be born and become eligible to receive their
inheritance.


Plaintiff EMMA is a female human being at the embryonic stage of life, ?ve
days old developmentally, created using Loeb?s sperm and ovum,

who is cryopreserved at ART ReprodUctive Center, Inc. 450 North

Roxbury Drive, Suite 520, Beverly Hills, California 90210, in tank EMB
25,? well cane and labeled (white).
. Plaintiff ISABELLA is a female human being at the embryonic stage of life, ?ve
days old developmentally, created using Loeb?s sperm and ovum,
who is cryopreserved at ART ReprodUctive Center, Inc., 450 North Roxbury
Drive, Suite 520, Beverly Hills, California 90210, in tank EMB 25," well
cane and labeled (lime).
. Plaintiff EMMA AND ISABELLA LOUISIANA TRUST NO. 1 is a trust created in
the State of Louisiana to benefit EMMA and ISABELLA.
. Plaintiff and Trustee JAMES CHARBONNET is an individual who resides in

New Orleans, Louisiana.
. Defendant SOFIA VERGARA is an individual who resides in Los Angeles
County, California.

IURISDICTION AND VENUE

. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to LSA 
Const Art. 5 and (2).
. Venue is proper in this Parish because the acts or omissions giving rise to
liability in this case occurred in Jefferson Parish in the State of Louisiana,
where Loeb and VERGARA ended their relationship, in signi?cant part due to
delays in allowing EMMA and ISABELLA to be appropriately transferred so
they could continue to develop and be born, and which gave rise to
subsequent refusal to allow EMMA and ISABELLA to continue

their development and be born at all.


9. EMMA and ISABELLA were conceived November 16, 2013, via in vitro
- fertilization using Loeb?s sperm and ova.

10. Loeb and VERGARA haveipublicly identi?ed themselves as the natural father
and natural mother of EMMA and ISABELLA, including VERGARA through
counsel in a statement published April 17, 2015, by People magazine.

1 1. Loeb and intent for EMMA and ISABELLA was uterine transfer of
their embryonic for the purpose of the completion of their fetal
development, concluding in live birth.

12.However, from May 13, 2014, VERGARA has refused to consent to the
continued development of her daughters EMMA and ISABELLA, leaving them
suspended in a frozen?stasis of suspended animation.

13.EMMA and VERGARA were not the first embryos created by Loeb and
VERGARA via in vitro fertilization.

A. Loeb and VERGARA Begin a Relationship and Make Plans to Start a Family

14. Loeb, who lives in Delray Beach, Florida, is a ?nancially independent
businessman, as well as a volunteer police of?cer in Plaquemines Parish,
Louisiana. As a graduate of Tulane University, he has based one of his
businesses in Louisiana.

15. VERGARA is an actress and model.

16. Loeb and VERGARA met at the Sunset Tower Bar and Restaurant in West

Hollywood, California, on January 17, 2010, after the Golden Globe Awards.

17. Shortly after meeting, Loeb and VERGARA began a romantic relationship;
from the beginning, Loeb was explicit that his intent was to marry and start a -
family by having children, and VERGARA agreed. Both Loeb and VERGARA
stated that they wanted biological children, but VERGARA said that she knew
it was more important to Loeb.

18. Loeb is committed to protect his children and believes that life begins at
conception, at the moment an egg is fertilized by a sperm. Loeb and
VERGARA had frequent conversations in which they expressed their views
on this subject. VERGARA told Loeb that she was a devout Catholic and, like
Loeb, was committed to protect their children and believed that life begins at
conception and should not be destroyed.

19. On Iuly 10, 2012, in Mexico, Loeb and VERGARA were engaged be married
and began to make concrete plans to start a family.

20. In 2013 and 2014, Loeb and VERGARA lived in Louisiana for months at a
time, as VERGARA was working in Louisiana. adult son enrolled
at Tulane University during this time.

21. While in Louisiana, including in both Jefferson Parish and Orleans Parish,
Loeb and VERGARA often discussed their plans and made decisions about the
IVF-conceived both before and after their conception. They again
committed to protecting and parenting their children.

22. While Loeb and relationship was often turbulentthey remained,
committed to their plan-to have children together.

B. Loeb and First ?Round of IVF

23. Loeb and VERGARA consulted with physicians and staff at ART in Beverly
Hills, California, and decided to use in Vitro fertilization to create human
beings at the embryonic stage of life using Loeb?s sperm and ova,
and to have all resulting embryos transferred to a gestational surrogate to
complete the children's uterine development.

24. Loeb veri?ed that all resulting embryos would be transferred to a surrogate
due to his deeply held religious and moral beliefs and objection to
abandoning existing children to a frozen limbo state, and VERGARA promised
that all resulting embryos would in fact be transferred. In-reliance upon this
agreement and he and shared views on the sanctity of human
life, and with an understanding that they would bring all created embryos to
term via a surrogate, Loeb agreed to the IVF process as opposed to
traditional conception and childbirth. The intent of both Loeb and VERGARA
and their agreement based thereon was to create embryos solely for the
purpose of having them transferred to a surrogate and bringing them to
term. At no point prior to the creation of embryos did Loeb and VERGARA
discuss any other fate for the embryos.

25. Loeb and VERGARA selected a surrogate, a friend and employee of VERGARA,
and hired joint counsel to draft a Gestational Surrogate Parenting Agreement
to be entered into with the surrogate; the agreement confirmed that Loeb
and actions were driven by their "inten[t] to . . . have born to
them a Child? and "desire to have a Child biologically related to Intended

Parents, and to take into their home the Child as their own." This con?rmed

26.

27.

their agreement, intent, and consent to transfer any embryos they created

into a surrogate.
In spring 2013, Loeb and VERGARA underwent the steps-required for in Vitro
fertilization for the ?rst time. Loeb deposited sperm, eggs were

retrieved, and Loeb and VERGARA directed ART to attempt to fertilize each

of the retrieved eggs.

On March 4, 20 13, Loeb and VERGARA exchanged the folloWing messages:

VERGARA: "We have 5 embrios. She [the doctor] said she cant belive it"
Loeb: "Wow" 7

Loeb: "That's 5 lives"

VERGARA: never that that could happened"

VERGARA: "She always said maybe 2"

Loeb: "Now what" 

Loeb: "You can't keep 4 frozen lives forever or kill them, we will go to hell"

VERGARA: "We going to hell regardless?

28.1n the same exchange of messages regarding the IVF process, VERGARA

con?rmed to Loeb, "Im doing it because I want you to have a baby."

29. Two embryos, both female, ultimately survived to Viability. Loeb immediately

began considering names for the girls, and Loeb and VERGARA agreed to
immediately transfer those two female human beings at the embryonic stage

of life to a surrogate.

30.ln early 2013, one female embryo was transferred to their selected

surrogate. Unfortunately, the transfer was unsuccessful and did not result in

a Viable pregnancy.

31.ln April 2013, the second female embryo was transferred to the same

surrogate. Loeb was not asked to sign any document consenting to the

transfer of this embryo because both he and VERGARA had previously
provided their consent. Unfortunately, the second transfer was likewise
unsuccessful and did not result in a viable pregnancy.

32. Also in April 2013, VERGARA appeared on a television program and said, ?My
boyfriend Nick is three years younger than me, and he?s never had a son. I
have my son, Manolo, so it's not that import[ant] . . . you know, it's not like an
emergency for me to have another kid. For Nick, yes, because he's never had
a baby." VERGARA understood that the creation of embryos was for the
purpose of having children and that it was critically important to Loeb that
the embryos be brought to term immediately.

33. Loeb and VERGARA continued to desire children, and decided to again
attempt in vitro fertilization, With a different surrogate and immediately
transferring any resulting embryos.

C. Loeb and Second Round of IVF, Creating EMMA and ISABELLA

34. After the ?rst two attempts with a surrogate were unsuccessful, Loeb and
VERGARA agreed to undergo a second round of IVF.

35. Loeb and intent and agreement- in creating embryos the second
time was the same as the ?rst time: to immediately transfer them to a
surrogatefor the purpose of bringing them to term. Again, Loeb agreed to the
IVF process, as opposed to traditional conception and childbirth, in reliance
upon Loeb and shared View that life begins at conception and
with the understanding that Loeb and VERGARA would once again have any

embryos immediately transferred to asurrogate. VERGARA never gave any

36.

37.

38.

indication that she would consider withdrawing her consent to transfer the
embryos to a surrogate. If she had given such indication or if Loeb had any
idea that consent to immediately transfer the embryos to a
surrogate had or might be withdrawn, Loeb would never have agreed to
undergo the NF process a second time and create additional embryos.
Accordingly, prior to creating more embryos, Loeb and VERGARA
immediately began working with a professional agency to find a new
gestational surrogate candidate. According to the Surrogacy Program
Retainer Agreement signed by Loeb, VERGARA, and the agency, Loeb and
VERGARA "intend[] to have a child or children,? and the agency agreed to
locate and match potential women to act as surrogates on behalf of Loeb and
VERGARA.

The agency presented Loeb and VERGARA with two surrogacy candidates. On
June 24, 2013, VERGARA wrote an email to Loeb stating that she wished to
meet with both candidates in person. Later that day, Loeb wrote an email to
the agency stating that he and VERGARA planned to meet with the surrogacy
candidates in August, the next time he and VERGARA were scheduled to be in
California.

In fall 2013, Loeb and VERGARA prepared to undergo the steps required for
in vitro fertilization for the second time. VERGARA began the hormone

treatments required for egg retrieval for the IVF process. Loeb again

deposited sperm.

39. On November 16, 2013, Loeb and VERGARA met with staff at ART and signed
a General Informed Consent for Procedures Involved in In Vitro Fertilization
("General Informed Consent," attached hereto as EX. A), which is comprised
of a number of documents including the "Directive for Partners Regarding
the Storage and Disposition of CryoPreserved Materials Which May Include
Embryos? ("Form Directive") (EX. A, pp. 15-2 0).

40. Neither LOEB nor VERGARA nor any attorney for either Loeb or VERGARA
drafted the Form Directive. The Form Directive was a form document ?rst
presented to Loeb and VERGARA by ART on the same day they signed it. On
information and belief, the Form Directive was drafted by ART, for 
protection, and this exact same form is presented by ART to every patient
who elects to undergo IVF. Neither Loeb nor VERGARA was given an
opportunity to modify or include additional terms in the Form Directive, and
neither Loeb nor VERGARA was provided with or advised to consult with
legal counsel prior to signing the Form Directive.

41. The Form Directive did not provide Loeb and VERGARA with the opportunity
to make any decisions about what would happen to their future embryos,
except in the event of the death of either one or both of them. (EX. A, p. 16.)

42. The Form Directive failed to give Loeb and VERGARA an opportunity to plan
a future for any resulting embryos in the event of their separation before
death, nor did any physician or staff member at ART ever discuss this

possibility with them. Loeb would not have agreed to any arrangement that

10

43.

required mutual consent to the use of any in the event he and

Vergara separated.
Likewise, the Form Directive failed to give Loeb and VERGARA an
opportunity to plan a future for any resulting embryos if the embryos were

abandoned or if storage fees went unpaid.

44. The Form Directive allowed Loeb and VERGARA to choose from only three

45.

46.

options in the event of either or both Loeb and death: donate
the embryos to research; (2) thaw the embryos with no further action; or (3)
if one party died, allow the embryos to be used by the living partner. (EX. A, p.
16.) The Form Directive failed to give Loeb and VERGARA the option to
donate any resulting embryos to another couple or individual or to choose
any disposition for the embryos other than the three listed above. Loeb and
VERGARA were given no choice about what would happen to their embryos
under any other circumstances.

With no advance warning or discussion with Loeb, VERGARA wrote on the
Form Directive that in the event of the death of Loeb and/ or VERGARA, their
were to be "thawed with no further action taken," which would
result in their death. She initialed her choice and demanded that Loeb initial
as well.

Loeb was shocked that VERGARA had chosen tol<ill their in the.
event of her and/ or Loeb?s death. It contradicted everything she had ever
claimed about her Catholic faith and religious and moral beliefs regarding the

creation and protection of life. Loeb did not agree with VERGARA that their

11

 should be killed if he and/ or VERGARA died, and did not wish to

agree to unilateral decision. Loeb refused to initial his agreement

47.

48.

and sign the document, and told VERGARA that he did not want any of their
destroyed under any circumstances.

However, VERGARA insisted that Loeb initial and sign the document agreeing
to the destruction of any embryos in the event of Loeb and/ or 
death. Loeb was eventually coerced to sign by VERGARA, who put Loeb
under duress by verbally and emotionally abusing and berating him at ART
until he agreed to sign. behavior was typical in their relationship,
and in the past VERGARA had- physically abused Loeb on four separate
occasions: she punched him in the face on two occasions, kicked him, and
threw her phone at his head, along with ongoing verbal and emotional abuse
and bullying. Believing he had no other choice to stop the abuse, knowing
that VERGARA was already in pain from the hormone injections she had
already undergone in preparation for the egg retrieval process, and not
believing this provision would be ultimately applicable, as he and VERGARA
had agreed to immediately transfer all resulting embryos to a surrogate
before either of them was likely to die, Loeb did initial and sign the Form
Directive.

The Form Directive requires both parties to consent to uterine transfer and
continued development, continued cryopreservation, or. destruction and
death of EMMA and ISABELLA. The Form Directive provides that ?failure to

make a mutual decision about continued storage, use and disposition? of the

12

embryos ?will result in the abandonment? of the children to ART. (EX. A, p.
17.) "All authority and responsibility shall pass to and shall have
the right, permission and authority to dispose of or use? the children. (EX. A,
p. 17.) ART states that it would not use the children for procreative purposes
(EX. A, p. 16), so failure to agree de facto results in the children's destruction,
or use for research and then destruction.

49. Following the meeting with ART staff during which Loeb and VERGARA
signed the required paperwork, they met with the surrogacy agency to
review applicants.

50. On November 16, 2013, the same day as the execution of the General
Informed Consent, eggs were again retrieved, and Loeb and
VERGARA directed ART to use Loeb's deposited sperm to attempt to fertilize
each of the retrieved eggs.

51. Loeb and respective genetic material were in fact fused to
conceive and create unique, separate human beings. Two embryos, both
female, who were conceived ultimately survived to Viability: EMMA and
ISABELLA. Each is genetically unique in that each is comprised of unique raw
material that combined to create entirely new, identi?able human beings.

52. On November 26, 2013, VERGARA and Loeb corresponded about EMMA and
ISABELLA:

VERGARA: ?Now theres 2 she [the doctor] said. . . 

Loeb: "Only 
VERGARA: "2 girls"

13

53. Loeb. and VERGARA again agreed to immediately transfer EMMA and
ISABELLA to a surrogate to continue their development, leading to live birth.

54. However, Loeb and VERGARA had not yet selected a surrogate, so they
directed ART to temporarily freeze EMMA and ISABELLA so they could select
an appropriate surrogate.

55.ART declared EMMA and ISABELLA viable in November 2013. EMMA and
ISABELLA were then and remain frozen at facility. Provided that
EMMA and ISABELLA are still Viable when prepared for transfer, they are
capable of continuing their development in utero and being born alive.

D. Loeb and Relationship Ends and VERGARA Changes Her Mind

56. In May 2014, before EMMA and ISABELLA could be transferred to a
surrogate, Loeb and Vergara ended their romantic relationship.

57. Loeb and VERGARA had been working through issues including work
schedules, sensitivity, and surrogate selection for several months.

58. On May 12, 2014, in New Orleans, Louisiana, where VERGARA was Working,
Loeb and VERGARA again argued about their relationship issues.

59. On May 13, 2014, Loeb was scheduled to ?y out of Louisiana for business;
Loeb and VERGARA were in communication as he drove to the Louis
New Orleans International Airport, where they ended their
relationship.

60. Since the end of the relationship on May 13, 2014, at the Louis 
New Orleans International Airport, VERGARA has refused to allow her

daughters EMMA and ISABELLA to continue their development, and so they

14

6.1.

62.

63.

remain frozen in a tank awaiting uterine transfer, continued development,
and birth.

Subsequent to the end of the relationship, Loeb reminded VERGARA of their
intents and agreements, sending her messages such as "We still have those 2
frozen babys . . and reiterated to VERGARA his desire to allow EMMA and
ISABELLA to continue their development. Loeb repeatedly attempted to
discuss with VERGARA their existing children, EMMA and ISABELLA, and
plead with her on their behalf, but VERGARA was unwilling to consider
allowing them to continue life beyond their current frozen state. He told her
that,.although they had separated, nothing had changed for him regarding the
lives that they had created, that he still wanted to allow EMMA and ISABELLA
to be born, and that EMMA and ISABELLA deserved that.

Loeb has asked VERGARA to con?rm that EMMA and ISABELLA would not be
intentionally destroyed under any circumstances, but she has refused, saying
she wanted them destroyed. Loeb has asked VERGARA to agree, at least, that
if he or VERGARA should die, the surviving person should have custody of
EMMA and ISABELLA, but she refused even to respond. Loeb has also asked
VERGARA to allow him full custody of EMMA and ISABELLA, but she again
refused.

Leaving EMMA and. ISABELLA preserved inde?nitely is tantamount to their
destruction and death because it is unclear how long frozen embryos can
remain viable and, further, Loeb and VERGARA will eventually die, in which

case ART will kill EMMA and ISABELLA under the Form Directive.

15

64. Loeb was shocked that VERGARA did not intend to honor their agreements
and would prevent their daughters? continued development, as they had
created EMMA and ISABELLA for the speci?c purpose of continued
development and live birth, and EMMA and ISABELLA continue to be Loeb
and VERGARA's daughters regardless of their relationship status. 

65. While Loeb does not desire to create further children with VERGARA, he has
strong religious and moral objections to abandoning or destroying his
existing daughters EMMA and ISABELLA. Like the majority of Americans,
Loeb believes and af?rms that life begins at conception, which took place for
EMMA and ISABELLA on November 16, 2013; a recent YouGov poll found
that 52% of Americans agree with him. He objects to his daughters being
chronologically more than three years old, but developmentally only ?ve
days. From the time EMMA and ISABELLA were conceived, Loeb has
intended to bring his daughters to term in ful?llment of their own best
interests, as well as his own hopes of continued fatherhood. When Loeb and
VERGARA were creating EMMA and ISABELLA, Loeb relied upon 
representations that she was Catholic and believed that life begins at
conception, that she intended to immediately transfer their children to a
surrogate, and that she was doing this for the express purpose of helping
Loeb to have children and be a father.

66. Loeb af?rms that he is the father of EMMA and ISABELLA, and he Views them

as his daughters. Loeb has repeatedly expressed his desire to parent his

16

existing children. He has a strong emotional attachment to his daughters

EMMA and ISABELLA, and is concerned for their Welfare.

67. To that end, Loeb ?led a lawsuit against VERGARA and ART on August 29,

2014, in Los Angeles County, California ("California Lawsuit?), in order to

preserve his parental rights.

68. Loeb ?led a motion to drop the California Lawsuit on December 6, 2016, after

69.

70.

71.

being ordered to name in discovery two women he dated twenty or more
years ago who, outside of his wishes or control, chose to have elective
abortions, in order to protect the two women?s privacy rights and preserve
his own parenting rights.

Loeb is prepared physically, emotionally, and ?nancially to
father his existing daughters EMMA and ISABELLA.

Loeb has explicitly stated that he seeks nothing whatsoever from VERGARA,
would not expect VERGARA to assume any parenting or ?nancial
responsibility for the children, if she does not wish to, is willing to waive any
type of support, and is willing to have VERGARA declared an egg donor under
CAL. FAMILY CODE 7613(b) and 7650, with no legal obligations whatsoever, if
that is her preference.

EMMA, ISABELLA, TRUST, and CHARBONNET as Trustee of the Trust would
welcome involvement in the lives of EMMA and ISABELLA,

although to date VERGARA has taken no interest in their lives. and rights.

17

72. However, Plaintiffs do not seek to compel VERGARA to act as a parent to
EMMA and ISABELLA, or to contribute ?nancially to EMMA and ISABELLA in
any way.

73. The Trust was created in the State of Louisiana for the purpose of bene?tting
EMMA and ISABELLA.

74. The Trust is administered by Trustee CHARBONNET, who resides in Orleans
Parish, Louisiana.

75. EMMA and ISABELLA are scheduled to be the sole beneficiaries of the Trust.

76. The Trust is revocable until EMMA and ISABELLA are born alive, at which
time the Trust will become irrevocable.

77. When the Trust becomes irrevocable, the sole income and principal
bene?ciaries of the Trust will be EMMA and ISABELLA.

78. The Trust was created for EMMA and health, education,
maintenance, and support.

79. However, until the Trust becomes irrevocable, until EMMA and ISABELLA
are born alive, the Trust?s settlor is the sole bene?ciary, so EMMA and
ISABELLA must be born alive in order to receive the inheritance due them
from the Trust.

COUNT I: Declaratory Judgment Declaring Form Directive
Void and Unenforceable as Contract Between Loeb and VERGARA
80. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-79 as if fully

set forth herein.

18

81.At present, there exists an actual and justiciable controversy between

82.

83.

Plaintiffs and VERGARA. VERGARA refuses to consent to EMMA and
continued development despite her previous promises and
agreements, and wants EMMA and ISABELLA to be destroyed under certain
circumstances as provided, at a minimum, in the Form Directive. Plaintiffs
want and have an interest in EMMA and uterine transfer,
continued development, and live birth. Plaintiffs do not want EMMA and
ISABELLA to remain frozen for the foreseeable future or to be destroyed
under any circumstances.

The Form Directive was drafted, upon information and belief, in California,
and was signed in California.

There exists an actual and justiciable controversy between Plaintiffs and

VERGARA. Plaintiffs do not believe that the Form Directive is a binding

contract between Loeb and VERGARA regarding their respective rights and

obligations relating to EMMA and ISABELLA or the future and disposition of

EMMA and information and belief, VERGARA disagrees.

84. The California legislature has set forth strict requirements that must be

85.

complied with in order for partners to set forth, their wishes for the
disposition of their in a form provided by the fertility clinic.

CAL. HEALTH SAFETY CODE 125315 (the ?California Code") states, "[w]hen
providing fertility treatment, a physician and surgeon or other health care
provider shall provide a form to the male and female partner . . . that sets

forth advanced written directives regarding the disposition of embryos.?

19

86. The California Code expressly requires that the following choices be made

87.

available to the partners for the future and disposition of their in

the event of the partners' separation; Made available to the female

partner; Made available to the male partner; Donation for research

purposes; Thawed with no further action taken; Donation to another

couple or individual; or (D Other disposition that is clearly stated. The Code

further provides that the failure to provide this information to a patient.
constitutes unprofessional conduct.

In violation of the California Code, the Form Directive provided to Loeb and

VERGARA by ART did not provide them with any options at all for the future

and disposition of their embryos, EMMA and ISABELLA, in the event of
their separation, the present circumstance of Loeb and VERGARA. Loeb

would not have agreed to any arrangement that required-mutual consent to

the continued development of any embryos in the event of a separation.

88. Loeb and VERGARA have now separated, and therefore a circumstance has

arisen that is not contemplated under the Form Directive. 7

89. The California Code expressly requires that the following choices be made

available to the partners for the future and disposition of their in
the event of the death of either the male or female partner: made
available to the living partner; donation for research purposes; 
thawed with no further action taken; donation to another couple or

individual; or other disposition that is clearly stated.

20

90. In violation of the California Code, the Form Directive provided to Loeb and

91.

92.

93.

VERGARA by ART didnot provide them with the option to donate EMMA and
ISABELLA to another couple or individual or to specify some other
disposition in the event of the death of either Loeb or VERGARA.

Further, the California Code expressly requires that the following choices be
made available to the partners for the future and disposition of their
in the event of the death of both partners: donation for research
purposes; thawed with no further action taken; donation to another
couple or individual; or other disposition that is clearly stated.

In violation of the California Code, the Form Directive provided to Loeb and
VERGARA by ART did not provide them with the option to donate EMMA and
ISABELLA to another couple or individual or to specify some other
disposition in the event of the death of both Loeb and VERGARA.

Louisiana law provides that a "viable in vitro fertilized human ovum is a
juridical person which shall not be intentionally destroyed by any natural or

other juridical person or through the actions of any other such person." LA.

STAT. ANN. 9:129.

94. By allowing Loeb and VERGARA to choose to intentionally kill EMMA and -

?95

ISABELLA in the event of Loeb and/ or death, the Form Directive

violates Louisiana law.

. Plaintiffs respectfully request an order declaring the Form Directive void and

unenforceable as an agreement between Loeb and VERGARA requiring both

Loeb and VERGARA consent to either uterine transfer and continued

21

development, or destruction and death regarding the future and disposition
of EMMA and ISABELLA, because the Form Directive violates the mandatory
provisions of CAL. HEALTH SAFETY CODE 125315 and LA. STAT. ANN. 9: 129, and
for such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
COUNT II: Declaratory Judgment Declaring Form Directive Does Not Control
Decisions Regarding Future and Disposition of EMMA and ISABELLA
in the Event of Loeb and VERGARA's Separation

96. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-79 as if fully
set forth herein.

97. Plaintiffs contend that the Form Directive is not a binding contract between
Loeb and VERGARA. Upon information and belief, VERGARA disagrees.

98. If the Form Directive is found to be a binding contract between Loeb and
VERGARA, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Form Directive does not
control who may make decisions regarding the future and disposition of
EMMA and ISABELLA upon separation of Loeb and VERGARA, the present
circumstance of Loeb and VERGARA.

99. When Loeb and VERGARA signed the Form Directive, they were involved in a
romantic relationship. They were never advised that the Form Directive
would control who could make decisions regarding the future and

disposition of their EMMA and ISABELLA, if and when their

relationship ended.

22

100. The California legislature has set forth strict requirements that must
be complied with in order for partners to set forth their wishes for the
disposition of their in a form provided by the fertility clinic.

101. The California Code expressly requires that the following choices be
made available to the partners for the future and disposition of their
in the event of the partners' separation: Made available to the
female partner; Made available to the male partner; Donation for
research purposes; Thawed with no further action taken; Donation to
another couple or individual; or (D Other disposition that is clearly stated.
The Code further provides that the failure to provide this, information to a
patient constitutes unprofessional conduct.

102. In violation of the California Code, the Form Directive provided to
Loeb and VERGARA by ART did not provide them with any options at all for
the future and disposition of their embryos, EMMA and ISABELLA, in the
event of their separation, the present circumstance of Loeb and VERGARA.
Loeb would not have agreed to any arrangement that required mutual
consent to the continued development of any embryos in the event of a
separation.

103. The Form Directive fails to set forth Loeb and intent
regarding who could make decisions regarding the future and disposition of
EMMA and ISABELLA if Loeb and VERGARA were to separate.

104. Loeb and VERGARA have now separated, and therefore a

circumstance has arisen that is not contemplated under the Form Directive.

23

105. Plaintiffs respectfully request an order declaring that the Form
Directive does not control who may make decisions regarding the future and
disposition of EMMA and ISABELLA in the event of the separation of Loeb
and VERGARA, the present circumstance of Loeb and VERGARA, and for such
other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT Rescission of the Form Directive (Duress)

106. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-79 as if
fully set forth herein.
107. Plaintiffs contend that the Form Directive is not a binding contract

between Loeb and VERGARA. Upon information and belief, VERGARA
disagrees. I

108. If the Form Directive is found to be a binding contract between Loeb
and VERGARA, the Form Directive should be rescinded.

109. Although Loeb signed a document providing that EMMA and
ISABELLA would be thawed, destroyed, and die in the event of Loeb and/ or
death, Loeb signed that portion of the Form Directive under
duress. VERGARA verbally and emotionally abused and berated Loeb in the
ART of?ce, and Loeb believed he had no choice but to comply with
demands to sign that portion of the Form Directive in order to
appease VERGARA and escape further abuse.

110. Further, Loeb was not represented by counsel at the time the Form
Directive was signed, and was not advised of the advisability of reviewing the

Form Directive with counsel.

24

111. Loeb provided VERGARA with prompt notice of his intention to
rescind the Form Directive through their exchanges subsequent to the end of
their relationship.

112. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order
rescinding the Form Directive, and for such other relief as the Court deems

just and equitable.

COUNT IV: Rescission of the General Informed Consent (As Against Public

Policy)
113. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-79 as if
fully set forth herein.
114. Plaintiffs contend that the Form Directive is not a binding contract

between Loeb and VERGARA. Upon information and belief, VERGARA
disagrees.

115. If the Form Directive is found to be a binding contract between Loeb
and VERGARA requiring both Loeb and consent before EMMA
and ISABELLA may continue to develop in the present circumstances, the

I General Informed Consent should be declared unconscionable and therefore
void and rescinded as being against public policy.

116. On information and belief, the General Informed Consent was drafted

by ART, for ART's protection, and the same form was presented to every

patient electing to undergo IVF. Within the General Informed Consent, the

Form Directive purports to set forth what will happen to Loeb and

children EMMA and ISABELLA. Loeb and VERGARA had no

25

opportunity to modify the General Informed Consent, including the Form

Directive, to make their own decisions about what should happen to their

Female Embryos, except in the limited circumstance of one or both of their

deaths. The Form Directive was presented to Loeb and VERGARA with a

constricted set of take?it-or-leave-it dispositional options that did not enable

them to provide an advance directive in the event of their separation, the
circumstance in which they now find themselves. Loeb was given no
meaningful choice regarding what would happen to his children EMMA and 

ISABELLA. Further, Loeb was neither represented by counsel nor advised to

consult with counsel when he signed the Form Directive.

. 117. Further, the General Informed Consent treats IVE?conceived embryos
as property rather than as persons, by stating that IVE-conceived
embryos may be used to "create a child" (EX. A, p. 17), rather than already
being human by describing the process of "discard[ing] any excess
embryos" (Ex. A, p. 18], and by providing the option to kill any IVF-conceived
embryos that are projected to have potential disabilities for the purpose of
research (Ex. A, pp. 

118. Louisiana law and policy provides that IVE-conceived embryos such,
as EMMA and ISABELLA are each ?human being[s] LA. STAT. ANN. 106 1:8.

119. In the case of EMMA and ISABELLA, conception has already occurred,
more than three years ago. Loeb and VERGARA made the conscious decision
to become parents and did in fact become parents throughtheir November

16, 2013, procreation, resulting in these two existing children.

26

120. As human beings, EMMA and ISABELLA have intrinsic rights,
including the right to life. See, LA. STAT. ANN. 1061:8; LA. STAT. ANN. 9:126.

12 1. "An in Vitro fertilized human ovum is a biological human being which
is not the property of . . . the donors of the sperm and ovum." LA. STAT. ANN. 
9:126.

122. Rather, in Vitro fertilized human ovum is a juridical person
which cannot be owned by the in Vitro fertilization patients who owe it a high
duty of care and prudent administration." LA. STAT. ANN. 9: 130.

123. Louisiana, like California, has a compelling interest in the lives of
unborn children, as well as in their future. "[T]he longstanding policy of this
State is to protect the right to life of the unborn child from conception," LA.
STAT, ANN. 1061:8; see also LA. STAT. ANN. (9), which for EMMA and
ISABELLA occurred on November 16, 2013, with the fusing of Loeb?s human
spermatozoon with human ovum. See LA. STAT. ANN. 

124. "The use of a human ovum fertilized in Vitro is solely for the support
and contribution of the complete development of human in utero
implantation.? LA. STAT. ANN. 9:122.

125. viable in Vitro fertilized human ovum is a juridical person which
shall not be intentionally destroyed by any natural or other juridical person
or through the actions of any other such person." LA. STAT. ANN. 9:129.

126. The Form Directive requires both Loeb and VERGARA to consent to
uterine transfer and continued development, continued cryopreservation, or

destruction and death of EMMA and ISABELLA. The Form Directive provides

27

that "failure to make a mutual decision about continued storage, use and
disposition" of the "will result in the abandonment" of the children
to ART. (EX. A, p. 17.) "All authority and responsibility shall pass to and
shall have the right, permission and authority to dispose of or use" the
children. (EX. A, p. 17.) ART states that it would not use the children for
procreative purposes (EX. A, p. 16), so failure to agree de facto results in the
children?s destruction, or use for research and then destruction.

127. Only because EMMA and ISABELLA are human in Vitro,
rather than in utero, is VERGARA able to make any credible argument that
they should not continue their development, leading to live birth.

128. Finally, the Form Directive is embedded in a series of forms that deal
with a different subject matter entirely, the details and risks of the WP
process. Accordingly, the Form Directive speci?cally is unconscionable.

129. The provisions of the General Informed Consent are in direct
contradiction to the ethics and protections of IVF-conceived children
provided by Louisiana law.

130. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order declaring
the General Informed Consent unconscionable and void, rescinding the.
General Informed Consent, and for such other relief as the Court deems just
and equitable.

COUNT V: Rescission of the Form Directive (Fraud and Misrepresentation)

131. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-79 as if

fully set forth herein.

28

132. Before Loeb and VERGARA signed the Form Directive, VERGARA
promised Loeb that EMMA and ISABELLA would be transferred to a
surrogate in an attempt to bring them to term. At the time VERGARA made
this promise, VERGARA was aware of Loeb?s commitment to create and
protect their children, of his belief that life begins at the moment of
fertilization, and of the fact that Loeb wanted to create embryos for the sole
purpose of their continued development and live birth. VERGARA also
speci?cally told Loeb that she was committed to create and protect their
children and believed that life began at fertilization. VERGARA knew that
Loeb would not otherwise consent to the process. Loeb and VERGARA
understood that they were setting life into motion and that each of them was
granting the other the right of parenthood.

133. Relying upon promise to transfer EMMA and ISABELLA to
a surrogate, Loeb consented to conceive EMMA and ISABELLA. Had Loeb
known that his relationship with VERGARA would end mere months later,
that VERGARA would not consent to allow EMMA and continued
development in the event of her separation from Loeb, and that VERGARA
wanted EMMA and ISABELLA to ultimately be destroyed [whether through
inde?nite preservation and eventual death upon the death of Loeb and/ or
VERGARA, or through thawing with no further action), Loeb would not have
agreed to conceive EMMA and ISABELLA.

134. Loeb relied upon promise to the detriment of EMMA and

ISABELLA, who are now alive but prevented from continued development

29

and facing ultimate death without any further development, to the detriment
of the TRUST created for their bene?t, and to the detriment of Loeb, who
jointly conceived his daughters EMMA and ISABELLA, but is prevented from
parenting them.

135. Justice requires that VERGARA stop denying Loeb the ability to
transfer EMMA and ISABELLA so they may continue their development.

136. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an order declaring
that the Form Directive be rescinded due to misrepresentation and fraud, an
order declaring that VERGARA may no longer prevent EMMA and

I ISABELLA's transfer and continued development, and for such other relief as
the Court ?nds just and equitable.
COUNT VI: Declaratory Judgment

(Prohibiting Consent to EMMA and Destruction and Death)

137. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-79 as if
fully set forth herein.
138. If the Form Directive is found either to be a binding contract between

Loeb and VERGARA or to in some way control who may make decisions
regarding the future and disposition of EMMA and ISABELLA upon
separation of Loeb and VERGARA, Plaintiffs seek an order prohibiting
VERGARA from consenting to EMMA and destruction.

139. EMMA and ISABELLA are each "human being[s]" and are "entitled to

the right to life . . . under the laws and Constitution of this State." LA. STAT. ANN.

1061:8.

30

140. ?[T]he judicial standard for resolving . . . disputes [over IVE-conceived
embryos such as EMMA and is to be in the best interest of the

[IVE-conceived embryos]." LA STAT. ANN. 9: 13 1.

141. IVE-conceived embryos may not be intentionally destroyed. LA. STAT.
ANN. 9: 129.
142. EMMA, ISABELLA, the TRUST, and CHARBONNET as Trustee of the

Trust have an interest in EMMA and continued cryopreservation
pending uterine transfer, continued development, and live birth.

143. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order
prohibiting VERGARA from consenting to destroy, kill, EMMA and
ISABELLA, and for such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT VII: Declaratory Judgment
(Mandating VERGARA Release EMMA and ISABELLA for

Uterine Transfer, Continued Development, and Live Birth)

144. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-79 as if
fully set forth herein.
145. If the Form Directive is found either to be a binding contract between

Loeb and VERGARA or to in some way control who may make decisions
regarding the future and disposition of EMMA and ISABELLA upon
separation of Loeb and VERGARA, Plaintiffs seek an mandating VERGARA

release EMMA and ISABELLA for uterine transfer, continued development,

and live birth.

31

146. The Form Directive requires both parties to consent to uterine
transfer and continued development, continued cryopreservation, or
destruction and death of EMMA and ISABELLA. The Form Directive provides
that ?failure to make a mutual decision about continued storage, use and
disposition? of the embryos "will result in the abandonment" of the children
to ART. (EX. A, p. 17.] "All authority and responsibility shall pass to and
shall have the right, permission and authority to dispose of or use? the
children. (EX. A, p. 17.) ART states that it would not use the children for
procreative purposes (EX. A, p. 16), so failure to agree de facto results in the

children?s destruction, or use for research and then destruction.

147. Abandoning EMMA and ISABELLA at ART is tantamount to killing
them.
148. EMMA and ISABELLA are each "human being[s]" and are ?entitled to

the right to life . . . under the laws and Constitution of this State." LA. STAT. ANN.

106 1:8.
149. ?[T]he judicial standard for resolving . . . disputes [over IVE-conceived

embryos such as EMMA and is to be in the best interest of the

[IVE-conceived embryos]." LA. STAT. ANN. 9: 13 1.

150. IVE-conceived embryos may not be intentionally destroyed. LA. STAT.
ANN. 9: 129.
151. EMMA, ISABELLA, the TRUST, and CHARBONNET as Trustee of the

Trust have an interest in EMMA and uterine transfer, continued

development, and live birth.

32

152. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order
mandating VERGARA release EMMA and ISABELLA for uterine transfer,
continued development, and live birth, and for such other relief as the Court

deems just and equitable.

COUNT Breach of Oral Contract

153. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-79 as if
fully set forth herein.
154. When Loeb and VERGARA ?rst conceived embryos during the ?rst

round of IVF they underwent, and before they signed the Form Directive,
they entered into both an oral and written agreement whereby they agreed
to create human setting life in motion, and that the embryos would
be transferred to a surrogate so that the children would have the ability to
continue their development and be born, Loeb?s deeply held religious and
moral beliefs would be adhered to, andLoeb would have the opportunity to
parent his children. Shortly after those embryos were created, they were
transferred to a surrogate, but did not result in viable pregnancies. Loeb did
not sign any further consent forms or other documentation at the time the
embryos were transferred.

155. When Loeb and VERGARA conceived EMMA and ISABELLA, they
continued their oral agreement and/ or entered into a new oral agreement
whereby Loeb and VERGARA agreed that EMMA and ISABELLA would be
immediately be transferred to a surrogate so that EMMA and ISABELLA

would have the ability to continue their development and be born, Loeb?s

33

deeply held religious and moral beliefs would be adhered to, and Loeb would
have the opportunity to parent his children. This agreement was consistent
With Loeb and prior course of conduct, in which they conceived
embryos and then quickly transferred them to a surrogate without any
further consent forms required.

156. In breach of her agreement with Loeb, VERGARA now hopes to
prevent EMMA and continued development and birth. However,
VERGARA consented and agreed to EMMA and transfer even
before they were created.

157. Loeb has performed all obligations under his agreement with
VERGARA and/ or was excused from such performance.

158. The Trust was created for the express purpose of bene?tting EMMA
and ISABELLA and providing for their-health, education, maintenance, and
support. I

159. EMMA and ISABELLA are scheduled to be the sole bene?ciaries of the
Trust, at such time as they are born alive.

160. However, until EMMA and ISABELLA are born alive, the Trust?s settlor
is the sole bene?ciary.

161. EMMA and ISABELLA must be born alive in order to receive the
inheritance due them from the Trust.

162. EMMA and ISABELLA, by being prevented from continued
development, birth, and inheritance, have suffered damage as a result of

breach of the oral agreement and through this action seek

34

speci?c performance of the terms of oral agreement with Loeb.
Plaintiffs respectfully request speci?c performance because the legal remedy,
such as an action for damages, is inadequate because there is no adequate
amount of money that could remedy the loss of life of EMMA and ISABELLA,
two unique human beings. Additionally, Plaintiffs respectfully request that
the Court enter an order declaring that Loeb has the right to transfer EMMA
and ISABELLA for their continued development, and for such other relief as
the Court ?nds just and equitable.
COUNT IX: Tortious Interference with Inheritance

163. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-79 as if
fully set forth herein.

164. VERGARA has a duty of care toward EMMA and ISABELLA through
her relationship with them as their expressed natural mother. VERGARA has
all the rights and duties of the expressed and identi?ed natural parent of NF-
conceived human LA. STAT. ANN. 9:123, and is required to provide
for their care and prudent administration, ILA. STAT. ANN. 9:123. She, with
Loeb, is responsible for EMMA and very existence, the sole goal
of which under Louisiana law and by agreement with Loeb is to complete
their development culminating in live birth, LA. STAT. ANN. 9:123. Under
Louisiana law, such IVE-conceived embryos may not be intentionally
destroyed. LA. ANN. 9: 129.

165. Since May 13, 2014, VERGARA has breached her duty to her 

EMMA and ISABELLA by preventing their birth when the sole goal of their

35

creation under Louisiana law and by agreement with Loeb was to
immediately transfer them to a surrogate where they could complete their
development, culminating in live birth. LA. STAT. ANN. 9: 123.

166. VERGARA is the sole cause of the prevention of EMMA and
uterine transfer, continued development, and live birth. ART has
determined that EMMA and ISABELLA are both Viable. Loeb has repeatedly,
publicly advocated for their right to life, including continued development
and life birth. Only consent stands in the way of the completion
of their plan for EMMA and ISABELLA, which VERGARA has singlehandedly
aborted over Loeb?s protests. VERGARA knows that her refusal to allow
EMMA and ISABELLA to be released from ART and be transferred to a
woman?s uterus is the only thing preventing EMMA and uterine
transfer and chance at continued development and live birth.

167. Not only has VERGARA wrongfully prevented EMMA and 
birth, she has caused and continues to cause them ?nancial harm.

168. The Trust was created for the express purpose of bene?tting EMMA
and ISABELLA and providing for their health, education, maintenance, and
support.

169. EMMA and ISABELLA are scheduled'to be the sole beneficiaries. of the
Trust, at such time as they are born alive.

170. However, until EMMA and ISABELLA are born alive, the Trust?s settlor

is the sole bene?ciary.

36

171. EMMA and ISABELLA must be born alive in order to receive the
inheritance due them from the Trust.

172. Since May 13, 2014, EMMA and ISABELLA have been thwarted from
uterine transfer, continued development, and live birth, and from their right
to support from the Trust and from Loeb, by retaliation towards
Loeb by refusing to provide current consent to their longstanding plan for
EMMA and ISABELLA.

173. If VERGARA had not interfered and had consented to EMMA and
uterine transfer, continued development, and live birth as
planned and had not interfered with their birth and inheritance, EMMA and
ISABELLA could already be bene?tting from their contractual relationship
with the Trust and from their bene?cial property rights in and expected
inheritance from the Trust, in which they have an interest.

174. refusal has caused damage to EMMA and ISABELLA in the
amount of, at a minimum, the interest that would have accrued and been due
to EMMA and ISABELLA from the date of the creation of the Trust to the date
they are subsequently born alive.

175. By neglecting EMMA and ISABELLA, VERGARA has tortiously
interfered with their expected inheritance. She has prevented EMMA and
ISABELLA from receiving the Trust to which they would otherwise be

entitled, as sole beneficiaries, upon their live birth.

37

176. VERGARA is therefore liable to EMMA, ISABELLA, the TRUST, and
CHARB ONNET as Trustee of the Trust for the loss of EMMA and 
inheritance.

177. While this Court is unable to restore the expected Trust bene?ciaries
EMMA and ISABELLA to the positions they would have occupied had
VERGARA not neglected them and tortiously interfered with their expected
inheritance, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order
requiring VERGARA to cease her opposition and permit EMMA and
uterine transfer, continued development, and live birth, and
further, enter an order requiring VERGARA to reimburse to the TRUST the
interest that would have accrued and been due to EMMA and ISABELLA from
the date of the creation of the Trust to the date they are subsequently born
alive, if they do not die prior to live birth.

COUNT X: Appointing Loeb as Curator of EMMA and ISABELLA

178. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1?79 as if
fully set forth herein.
179. Loeb and VERGARA agreed to conceive EMMA and ISABELLA for the

sole purpose of having children, and VERGARA told Loeb that she was
undergoing IVF to help him have children.

180. Since Loeb and VERGARA separated, he has continued to advocate for
EMMA and ISABELLA's rights and has expressed his desire to have custody
over them so he may allow them to continue their development. However,

VERGARA, despite her earlier consent and agreement that EMMA and

38

ISABELLA should be allowed to continue their development, has changed her
mind and Withdrawn her consent, and wants to prevent EMMA and
continued development. Instead, VERGARA now wants EMMA
and ISABELLA to ultimately be destroyed, whether through inde?nite
preservation and eventual destruction after her or Loeb?s death, or through
thawing with no further action.

181. "If the in vitro fertilization patients express their identity, then their
rights as parents as provided under the Louisiana Civil Code will be
preserved." LA. STAT. ANN. 9: 126.

182. Loeb has expressed his identity as the natural parent of EMMA and
ISABELLA. He has repeatedly expressed his desire to father them both;
protect their rights; provide for their health, education, maintenance, and
support; and ensure that they are able to access their expected inheritance
from the Trust. He has ?led a lawsuit to protect the fullness and ful?llment of
his parental rights.

183. An IVE-conceived embryo?s natural father may petition a court to
appoint a curator "to protect the in Vitro fertilized human ovum's rights." LA.
STAT. ANN. 9:126.

184:. The appropriate Venue for the purposes of litigation regarding this
Trust and the harms caused to EMMA and ISABELLA by the prevention of
their access to its bene?ts is in Louisiana. I

185. The major decisions by Loeb and VERGARA regarding the future and

disposition of EMMA and ISABELLA took place in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

39

186. The termination of Loeb and romantic relationship, which
is the cause of continuing refusal to allow EMMA and ISABELLA
to continue to develop and be born, took place in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

187. The Trust created for the express bene?t of EMMA and ISABELLA was
created in Louisiana; and the only thing preventing its ful?llment is the
breakup and subsequent retaliation towards Loeb, stealing from
Loeb his most cherished hopes and dreams, that took place in Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana.

188. EMMA and interests will best be served under the care
and curatorship of Loeb, who is their only natural parent concerned for their
rights, health, education, maintenance, and support.

189. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request that this Court enter an order
appointing Loeb as curator for EMMA and ISABELLA and conferring upon
him full custody and authority to release them for transfer, continued
development, and birth so that he may protect their rights; provide for their
health, education, maintenance, and support; and ensure that they are able to
access their expected inheritance from the Trust

COUNT XI: Declaring VERGARA to Be an Egg Donor

with Regard to EMMA and ISABELLA

190. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-79 as if
fully set forth herein.
191. For over two years and six months as of the date of this ?ling,

VERGARA has taken no interest in her daughters or their continued

40

development, and has actively worked to prevent their continued
development and live birth.

192. Moreover, since EMMA and conception, they have been
abandoned to perpetual frozen suspension rather than allowed to continue
their development due in whole to the refusal of VERGARA to release them
for transfer.

193. Through actions and inactions, she has become, in
essence, an egg donor.

194. CAL. FAMILY CODE 7613(b) provides that "[t]he donor of semen
provided to a licensed physician and surgeon or to a licensed sperm bank for
use in assisted reproduction of a woman other than the donor's spouse is
treated in law as if he were not the natural parent of a child thereby
conceived, unless otherwise agreed to in a writing signed by the donor and
the Woman prior to the conception of the child."

195. CAL. FAMILY CODE 7650 provides that mother and child relationships
should be determined in the same manner as father and child relationships.
Therefore, 7613(b) may be used to declare a woman an egg donor in the
same way that a man is declared a sperm donor.

196. In November 2013, eggs were retrieved and fertilized
with Loeb?s sperm, conceiving EMMA and ISABELLA. Loeb and VERGARA
were not married, and are not presently in a romantic relationship. This was
done for the express purpose of allowing Loeb to become a father. Loeb does

in fact seek to allow EMMA and ISAB continued development in utero.

4-1

197. Plaintiffs do not seek to prohibit VERGARA from being involved in
their lives if she desires to be involved. However, from 
statements, actions, and inactions, it is clear that she does not wish to be
involved in the lives of EMMA and ISABELLA, takes no interest in their lives,
and even advocates for their harm and eventual demise. Therefore, Plaintiffs
seek to have VERGARA declared and classi?ed as an egg donor pursuant to
CAL. FAMILY CODE 7613(b) and 7650, treated in law as if she were not the
natural parent of EMMA and ISABELLA, and relieved of any parental and/0r
?nancial responsibility towards EMMA and ISABELLA.

198. Plaintiffs respectfully request an order declaring VERGARA an egg
donor pursuant to CAL. FAMILY CODE 7613(b] and 7650, unless VERGARA
decides that she does want to take an interest and have some level of
involvement in the lives of her children, and for such other relief as the Court
?nds just and equitable.

COUNT XII: Terminating Parental Rights

With Regard to EMMA and ISABELLA

199. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-79 as if
fully set forth herein.
200. VERGARA owes EMMA and ISABELLA "a high duty of care and

prudent administration." LA. STAT. ANN. 9: 130.
201. However, VERGARA has repeatedly stated to Loeb, to a court of law in
California, and to the press that her intent is to abandon EMMA and

ISABELLA to perpetual frozen suspension rather than to allow their uterine

42

transfer, continued development, and live birth as mandated by LA. STAT. ANN. 
9: 122 ("The use of a human ovum fertilized in Vitro is solely for the support
and contribution of the complete development of human in utero
implantation").

202. For over two years and six months as of the date of this ?ling,
VERGARA has taken no interest in her daughters or their continued
development, and has actively worked to prevent their continued
development and live birth.

203. LA. CHILD. CODE ANN. art. 1015 provides for the termination of parental
rights in cases of chronic neglect (art. 1015(4)(i)) and abandonment (art.
1015(5)).

204. By leaving EMMA and ISABELLA in a tank at a medical clinic for more
than three years and refusing to consent to their development or care,
VERGARA has effectively abandoned and chronically neglected EMMA and
ISABELLA.

205. In the interests of EMMA and ISABELLA, their continued development,
their appropriate rearing, and their ability to access their inheritance,
Plaintiffs respectftu request that this Court enter an order terminating
parental rights with regard to EMMA and ISABELLA, unless
VERGARA decides that she' does want to take an interest and have some level
of involvement in the lives of her children, and for such other relief as the
Court deems just and equitable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

43

Plaintiffs pray that the Court grants the following relief:

1.

Enter an order declaring the Form Directive void and unenforceable as an
agreement between Loeb and VERGARA requiring both Loeb and VERGARA
consent to either uterine transfer and continued development, or destruction
and death regarding the future and disposition of EMMA and ISABELLA,
because the Form Directive violates the mandatory provisions of CAL. HEALTH 
SAFETY CODE 125315;

If the Form Directive is considered a binding agreement, enter an order
declaring that it does not control who may make decisions regarding the
future and disposition of EMMA and ISABELLA in the event of the separation
of Loeb and VERGARA, the present circumstance of Loeb and 

If the Form Directive is considered a binding agreement, enter an order
rescinding it as an agreement between Loeb and VERGARA due to duress;
Enter an order rescinding the General Informed Consent as against public
Policy;

Enter an order rescinding the Form Directive due to misrepresentation and
fraud;

Enter an order prohibiting VERGARA from consenting to destroy, kill,
EMMA and 

Enter an order mandating VERGARA permit EMMA and uterine
transfer, continued development, and live birth;

Enter an order mandating speci?c performance of the terms of Loeb and .

oral agreement;

44

10. Enter an order naming Loeb. as sole curator of EMMA and ISABELLA and
conferring upon him full custody and authority to release them for transfer,
continued development, and birth;

11. Enter an order declaring VERGARA an egg donor pursuant to CAL. FAMILY
CODE 7613(b) and 7650, unless VERGARA decides that she does want to
take an interest and have some level of involvement in the lives of her
children;

12. Enter an order terminating parental rights With regard to EMMA
and ISABELLA, unless VERGARA decides that she does want to take an
interest and have some level of involvement in the lives of her children;

13. Enter an order awarding Plaintiffs their costs of suit; and

14. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

45

46

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES L. ARRUEBARRENA, L.L.C.

?es/l4 ArVruEb arrena

AMES L. ARRUEBARRENA, L.L.C.

    

SOUND LEGAL GROUP, PLLC

 

Attorneys for Petitioners and
Plaintiffs

Dated: December 7, 2016