U1 MCMILLAN LAW GROUP Julian McMillan, 241937 2751 Roosevelt Rd. Suite 204 San Diego, Ca 92106 Phone: 619.795.9430 Fax: 619-241.8291 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIEES: RICHARD RODRIGUEZ JR. AND JAWLLE RODRIGUEZ I $999309 JAN 1 919999619 She By Shaunya Bolden?egu?w SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RICHARD RODRIGUEZ JR, an individual; and JAMILLE RODRIGUEZ, an individual, Plaintiffs, VS. RIFAAT SALEM M.D., an individual; RIFAAT SALEM M.D. IN C., a California Corporation; PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a California Corporation, DBA PACIFIC COAST REPRODUCTIVE CENTER and PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE WOMAN ?8 HEALTH SURGICAL CENTER INC, a California Corporation, DBA WOMAN HEALTH SURGICAL PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER, a Califomia Limited Partnership; FAST IVE, an entity of unknown form; NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY a California Corporation; SHALA SALEM M.D., an individual; SHARON MCKENZIE, an individual; and DOES 1?100. Defendant(s). Case No.: BC626618 FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT OR DAMAGES l. FRAUD 2. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 3. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 4. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 5. BATTERY 6. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES, BUSINESS PROPESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 7. CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD Plaintiffs RICHARD RODRIGUEZ IR. and IAMILLE RODRIGUEZ, by and through their attomeys, hereby complain and allege as follows: COMPLAINT GENERAL ALLEGATIONS l. Plaintiffs RICHARD RODRIGUEZ JR. and JAMILLE RODRIGUEZ (hereinafter at all times material hereto, were and are residents of the County of San Bernardino, State of California. At all times material hereto, PLAINTIFFS were and are legally married. 2. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief allege that Defendant RIFAAT SALEM, M.D., (hereinafter was and now is a physician duly licensed to practice medicine in the State of California with a Specialty in infertility. At all times material hereto, Defendant SALEM maintained professional of?ces located at 3720 Lomita Boulevard, Suite 100, Torrance, CA 90505, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and provided medical care and treatment to the PLAINTIFFS at said facility. 3. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief allege that Defendant SHALA SALEM, M.D., (hereinafter was and now is a physician duly licensed to practice medicine in the State of California with a Specialty in infertility. At all times material hereto, defendant SHALA SALEM maintained professional. of?ces located at both: 381 Corporate Terrace, Corona, CA 92879, in the County of Riverside, State of California, and 3720 Loniita Boulevard, Suite 100, Torrance, CA 90505, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and provided medical care and treatment to the PLAINTIFFS 4. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief allege that Defendant SALEM, MD. INC, (hereinafter was and now is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, maintaining its principal place of business in Torrance, California, and engaged in doing business in the county of Los Angeles. Among other things, Defendant SALEM CORP, through its subsidiaries, provides reproductive technologies, including assisted reproductive techniques, such as in vitro fertilization, and other infertility services to patients for compensation, as well as related surgical, clinical, pathological, diagnostic, nursing, skilled nursing, and other custodial care treatment. At all times -2- COMPLAINT material hereto, defendant SALEM CORP maintained professional offices located at 3720 Lomita Boulevard, Suite 100, Torrance, CA 90505, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and provided medical care and treatment to the PLAINTIFFS at said facility. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that Defendant SALEM CORP was created by Defendant SALEM solely for the purpose of creating corporate ownership of the THIRD, FOURTH and FIFTH listed Defendants 5. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief, allege that at all times material hereto, Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER or also known as PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE MEDICAL CENTER, INC, was and now is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, maintaining its principal place of business in Torrance, California, and engaged in doing business in the county of Los Angeles. At all times material hereto, defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE maintained professional offices located at 3720 Lomita Boulevard, Torrance, CA 90505, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and provided medical care and treatment to the PLAINTIFFS at said facility. Among other things, Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE provides reproductive technologies, including assisted reproductive techniques, such as in vitro fertilization, and other infertility services to patients for compensation, as well. as related surgical, clinical, pathological, diagnostic, nursing, skilled. nursing, and other custodial care treatment. Defendant SALEM is the Medical Director and Founder of Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE which is in turn owned by and operated by SALEM CORP. 6. At all times material hereto, defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE maintained professional offices located at 381 Corporate Terrace, Corona, CA 92879, in the County of Riverside, State of California, REPRODUCTIVE and provided medical care and treatment to the PLAIN TIFFS at said facility. 7. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief, allege that at all times material hereto, Defendant PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER was and is a hospital, medical center, clinic, surgical center, and/or A, COMPLAINT healthcare facility maintained pursuant to a license existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and/or authorized to do business and is doing business in the County of los Angeles, State of California. At all times material hereto, defendant PACIFIC SURGICAL maintained professional offices located at 3720 Lomita Boulevard, Torrance, CA 90505, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and provided medical care and treatment to the PLAINTIFFS at said facility. PLAINTIFF are further informed and believe and based thereon allege, that Defendant PACIFIC SURGICAL is owned, operated, and managed by Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE through Defendant SALEM CORP by Defendant SALEM. 8. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief, allege that at all times material hereto, Defendant HEALTH SURGICAL CENTER, INC. DEA WOMANS HEALTH SURGICAL CENTER was and is a hospital, medical center, clinic, surgical center, and/or healthcare facility maintained pursuant to a license existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and/or authorized to do business and is doing business in the County of los Angeles, State of California. At all times material hereto, defendant WOMANS CENTER maintained professional offices located at 3720 Lomita Boulevard, Torrance, CA 90505, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and provided medical care and treatment to the PLAINTIFFS at said facility. PLAINTIFFS are further informed and believe and based thereon. allege, that Defendant WOMANS CENTER is owned, operated, and managed. by Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE through Defendant SALEM CORP by Defendant SALEM. 9. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief allege that Defendant SHARON MCKENZIE, (hereinafter was and now is an agent or principal employed by PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER. At all times material hereto, defendant MCKENZIE maintained an office located at 3720 Lornita Boulevard, Suite 100, Torrance, CA 90505, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and provided financial counseling to the PLAINTIFFS at said facility. -4- COMPLAINT U10. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief, allege that at all times material hereto, Defendant NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY was and now is a California corporation, engaged in doing business in. the county of Los Angeles. At all times material hereto, defendant NORTHRIDGE maintained a primary retail outlet located at 18546 Roscoe Boulevard #102, Northridge, Ca 91324, and provided prescriptions and over the counter medications to the PLAINTIFFS in concert with Defendant SALEM and PACIFIC REPRODUCTION CENTER. 1 1. PLAINTIFF are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief, allege that at all times material hereto, Defendant FAST was and now is a United States corporation, engaged in doing business in the county of Los Angeles. At all times material hereto, defendant FAST provided prescriptions and over the counter medications to the PLAINTIFF in concert with Defendant SALEM and PACIFIC REPRODUCTION CENTER. 12. Since the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of the Defendants designated and sued herein as DOES 1-?100 inclusive, are unknown to PLAINTIFFS, those Defendants are designated by their fictitious names. PLAINTIFF allege on information and belief that each of the Defendants designated and sued as DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to herein, and legally caused the injury and damages to PLAINTIFF as herein alleged. PLAINTIFFS will ask leave of this Court to amend this pleading to insert the true names and capacities of these Defendants designated. by their fictitious names when those facts become known to PLAINTIFFS. 13. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants DOES 1-20, inclusive were technicians, laboratory facilities, or the owners or operators of such facilities engaged in and/or licensed to operate businesses maintaining and offering laboratory facilities to the general public and to the physicians and hospital herein and others involved in the rendition of ancillary services and facilities incidental to the operation of a hospital, clinic, or doctor?s office, and/or the provision of health services to the general public, and in particular to the PLAINTIFFS herein. -5- COMPLAINT all times mentioned herein, the Defendants DOES 21?50, inclusive, were and are now physicians, surgeons, nurses, medical and paramedical personnel, or other health care professionals, duly licensed to practice their business or profession, or engage in the practice of their profession, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 15. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants DOES 51?70, inclusive, were and now are corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, joint ventures, unincorporated associations, or some other business entities doing business in. the State of California, and duly organized and existing under, and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, each of which in some way, contracted to provide medical care and treatment or ancillary services to the general public, including the PLAINTIFFS. 16. Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE, at all times herein mentioned, owned, operated, managed, controlled, and administered. a surgical center and healthcare facility in Los Angeles County and held itself out to the public at large, and to PLAINTIFF in particular, as a properly equipped, fully accredited, competently staffed facility with quali?ed and prudent personnel, and. operating in compliance with the standard of care maintained in other properly operated and administered, accredited, healthcare facilities in the Southern California medical community, and offering full, competent and efficient, medical, surgical, laboratory, x?ray, anesthesia, pharmaceutical, paramedical, and other services for the general public and to PLAINTIFFS. PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE, administered, governed, controlled, managed, and directed all the necessary functions, activities, and operations of said healthcare facility, including its nursing care, and the activities of physicians, surgeons, medical, and paramedical personnel and technicians employed by, or acting within said facility. PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE, had a duty to select, review and periodically evaluate the competency of its employees, independent contractors, and staff physicians, including employees, independent contractors, and physicians involved in the care and treatment of PLAINTIFFS herein. At all times material hereto, Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE negligently or in some other manner, breached said duty. -5- COMPLAINT all times mentioned herein, the Defendants, DOES 71?100, and each of them, were the agents, servants, and employees of the remaining Defendants, and at all times mentioned herein, were acting within the course, scope and authority of their agency, service, employment, contract, and/or joint venture with said principal or employer, and that each and every defendant, as aforesaid, when acting as a principal, was negligent and reckless in the selection and hiring of each and every other defendant as an agent, servant, employee, assistant, and/or consultant. Each Defendant has also given prior approval and subsequent rati?cation for the conduct, acts, and or omissions of the other Defendants, and each of them. 18. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants DOES 1400, inclusive, and each of them, agreed to perform and undertook to perform for the PLAINTIFFS all services necessary for their case, including both medical and nonmedical services, which included, but were not limited to, observation, attention, examination, evaluation, diagnosis, care and treatment of the PLAINTIFFS herein, as well as related administrative and clerical management of their healthcare. In so doing, the Defendants, and each of them established a relationship with the PLAINTIFFS, giving rise to each Defendant?s duty to provide skillful management of the health conditions, medical, custodial, clerical, and administrative needs. 19. At all times mentioned herein, PLAINTIFFS were in the exclusive control of the Defendants, and each of them, and at no time prior to the events, conduct activity, care, and treatment as herein complained of did the Defendants, or one or more of them, obtain knowledgeable, informed consent for the care, treatment, or conduct as herein alleged, and that prior to the initiation or of performance of said care, treatment, procedure, or conduct, no opportunity was afforded to the PLAINTIFFS herein to exercise voluntary, knowledgeable, and informed consent to said care, treatment, procedure, or conduct. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20. The amount in controversy herein, exclusive of attorney?s fees, interest, and costs, exceeds the sum of $25,000.00. COMPLAINT b) 42the events and transactions hereinafter alleged, originated in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and occurred in the County of Los Angeles, County Of Riverside and County of San Bernardino. 22. Venue is proper in the Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 395(a), in that the injury to PLAINTIFFS occurred within Los Angeles County. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 23. In or about July of 2014, Plaintiffs Richard Rodriguez Jr. and amille Rodriguez, consulted with Defendant Dr. Shala SALEM at PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER located at 381 Corporate Terrace, Corona, CA 92879, because they were having dif?culty conceiving a child naturally and becoming pregnant. The plaintiffs paid a fee of $125.00 for this initial consultation and evaluation. Mr. Rodriguez?s sperm had been previously analyzed at an unrelated medical facility after which Mr. Rodriguez was informed that his sperm count was five million and of them, 1% appeared to be viable. Based on that analysis Plaintiffs were told that there was a very small chance that he would be able to produce enough viable sperm to contribute to a viable IVF fertilization and implantation procedure. The Rodriguez?s shared these ?ndings at the beginning of their consultation with Defendant SHALA SALEM. During the initial consultation, Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez was informed that she was two pounds over the established weight limit to have an implantation even if they were successful in obtaining a healthy sperm from Plaintiff Richard Rodriguez Jr. The Rodriguez?s were informed by one of the staff members that this finding, coupled with the evidence of Mr. Rodriguez?s low to almost non-existent sperm production was not good news for their chances. PLAINTIFF Richard Rodriguez Jr. had his sperm checked at Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER and was informed that his sperm count had dropped from ?ve million to three million with one percent viability. Defendant SHALA SALEM at ?rst seemed to confirm that the Rodriguez?s were not good candidates for IVF due to the issues both brought to her attention and based on her own ?ndings during the initial consultation. However, an employee -3- COMPLAINT the facility known now only as ?Leslie? and hereby designated DOE 21, informed the Rodriguez?s that Defendant SHALA co-defendant, her father, Defendant Dr. Riffat SALEM at the PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER location in Torrance would be performing the procedure even if they were accepted at the Corona location. Defendant SHALA SALEM did in fact refer the Plaintiffs to Defendant SALEM, claiming that Defendant SALEM had many years of experience and possessed a high level expertise as well as being an expert in the ?eld who employed pioneering and ground breaking specialized procedures and that he would be able to perform a successful IVF for the Plaintiffs even though the Plaintiffs were not good candidates. 24. The term ?low? when describing an abnormal sperm count refers to the actual sperm count and describes the number of sperm found. in each one milliliter of semen. It is derived through microscopic evaluation of the number of sperm seen on a specially designed glass slide. The slide contains a grid and sperm cells are counted within each of the squares on the grid. Based on the known size of each of the squares on the grid, the thickness of the layer of semen, and the known microscopic magni?cation being used, a mathematical calculation is used to determine the sperm count. According to established medical guidelines it would be reasonable to categorize a sperm count below 5 million/ml as extremely low. 25. On or about August 1, 2014, the PLAINTIFFS had an appointment with Defendant RIFAAT SALEM, MD. at the Terrence PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE. At that time the PLAINTIFFS presented Dr. SALEM with the results and findings from their initial consultation at the Corona location. Dr. SALEM discussed the process of IVF with the PLAINTIFFS, explaining how it offered hope to the PLAINTIFFS for successful fertilization and conception, despite the earlier diagnoses. Defendant SALEM claimed particular expertise in the type of situation the Plaintiffs found themselves in and made several assurances that he had the necessary experience to COMPLAINT obtain healthy sperm from Mr. Rodriguez and fertilize Mrs. Rodriguez?s eggs to obtain healthy viable embryos to implant in Mrs. Rodriguez. 26. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a procedure in. which a woman?s ovaries are stimulated with fertility medications to produce multiple mature eggs, which are then removed from her body and are fertilized in the laboratory with her partner?s sperm. The resulting viable embryos are cultured for three to five days and the best two or three are then transferred back into her uterus. A woman undergoing IVF is given in} ectable fertility drugs to enhance the growth of the ovarian follicles, the goal of which is to promote ovulation of several high quality egg cells per treatment cycle. Several medications are administered at different stages of a woman?s menstrual cycle. A woman?s eggs are retrieved. by needle aspiration with the guide of an ultrasound probe with the patient under light sedation. The egg retrieval process takes approximately 30?45 minutes. The eggs are observed under a microscope for maturity and quality, and are the transferred to a culture dish where they are incubated in a special culture medium. To complete the IVF process, a semen sample from the husband is obtained while the wife is undergoing the egg retrieval procedure. After being prepared the semen is the introduced to the eggs in the culture medium. Many of these eggs will fertilize and develop into embryos. A number of embryos are placed back in the woman?s uterus using a catheter through a procedure known as embryo transfer. 27. At the time of the August 1, 2014 consultation, Defendant SALEM represented to the PLAINTIFFS that the CENTER had developed and re?ned techniques for producing viable embryos in circumstances where the male had poor sperm quality. He recommended that the PLAINTIFF proceed with. in vitro fertilization. As part of this discussion, Defendant SALEM told PLAINTIFFS he was a pioneer and that he could definitively tell the plaintiffs at that time whether or not he would be successful. Furthermore, at this initial consultation defendant SALEM represented to the plaintiffs that he in fact would be successful. The Plaintiffs informed Defendant -10- COMPLAINT SALEM at this time that the only way that they could pay for the treatments and the costs associated with them would be by taking out a mortgage loan on their home. The Plaintiffs again asked if Defendant SALEM, knowing how far they would have to go into debt, believed that he could be successful in the face of all the adverse medical data that indicated that Mr. Rodriguez had very low sperm production and that Mrs. Rodriguez was advanced in years and over weight for the procedure. Defendant SALEM once again touted his vast experience and cutting edge and highly advanced medically innovative methods for carefully selecting the best sperm and egg combinations to fertilize and implant and represented to the Plaintiffs that he was likely the only practitioner who could successfully perform the procedure do to his exacting protocols and pioneering techniques. Chief among them, according to Defendant SALEM, were the genetic testing procedure that he developed and would perform on the embryos prior to implantation. He explained these procedures in great detail to the Plaintiffs and how important that particular aspect of the procedure would be in not only producing a healthy, viable embryo to implant but that the resulting pregnancy would be free of birth defects or other genetic problems and that the Plaintiff? 8 could be assured of delivering a healthy baby at the end of the process. Defendant SALEM further represented to the Plaintiffs that he had a long record of success for individuals in the Plaintiffs? exact same position and it was precisely his work in the past with the exact same set of facts the Plaintiffs presented that made him not only an expert but the only viable choice for them if they wanted to conceive a child. Finally, Defendant SALEM informed the Plaintiffs that because there were so many negative factors he would have to overcome he could only represent, with certainty, his ability to succeed if the Plaintiffs immediately signed up and immediately began treatment with him. and his Defendant corporations before either of their conditions had an opportunity to worsen. 28. On or about October 7, 2014, PLAINTIFF Richard Rodriguez Jr. and PLAINTIFF amille Rodriguez each executed an eight page document presented to them by employees of COMPLAINT ?5.14PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE entitled ?Patient Financial Contract/ Agreement for IVF Treatment at One Time Reduced-Fee With No Refund For Woman 21?44 years of age: $13,400.00? (hereinafter This document authorized Defendant SALEM, or other physicians employed at PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE, to conduct all appropriate- and necessary medical procedures attendant to the medical procedure described as ?In~Vitro Fertilization?. The Financial Contract document set forth, among other things, the following: a general description of the steps involved in the need to obtain comprehensive medical information from both the male and female partners to determine Whether the patients are suitable candidates for the procedure; consent to the prescribing and taking of fertility drugs; consent to medical testing, including ultrasound examinations, blood sampling, and investigations of the quality of the male sperm; consent to aspiration of one or more mature eggs; consent to obtaining specimen of sperm from the male partner, including if necessary, testicular biopsy; consent to implantation of fertilized embryos, into the female partneris uterus; disclosure ofthe risks and complications of conception and multiple pregnancies and births; disclosure of the risks and discomforts associated with IVF and related procedures; procedures for the disposal of non?viable eggs, sperm, and un-transferred or non?Viable embryos; ,12, COMPLAINT disclaimer that the physicians cannot guarantee or warrant that a successful pregnancy will be achieved; (1) acknowledgement that any children born from the IVF process will be considered the partner?s natural child and legal dependent; and (In) agreement to pay in full. to the CENTER all of the costs set forth in the fee schedule, and agreement to pay all costs in advance if insurance reimbursement is not obtained or available. 29. The ninth and final page of the document contains an additional set of signatures by both plaintiffs. This final document is not executed by any party purporting to have an agency relationship with any of the named Defendants and contains contradictory language. 30. Additional. costs for medication, examinations, pre?cycle workups, fertility drugs, additional pharmaceuticals, and ?cryopreservation?, or freezing of embryos were excluded from the billing and services plan. The genetic testing that Defendant SALEM indicated would be extremely important to the procedure was an ?ala cart? addition as well. The Plaintiffs were informed that the fertilized embryos would be tested at a rate of $3,750.00 up to ten. 31. Plaintiffs were presented with the Financial Contract by defendant MCKENZIE at PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER where Defendant MCKENZIE held herself cut as a financial counselor. At this initial meeting Defendant MCKENZIE pushed a number of different banks on the Plaintiffs claiming that defendant SALEM had business relationships at all of them and that the loan of?cers at those banks would push through. a mortgage on the Plaintiffs home to secure funding more quickly that the Plaintiffs would be able to on their own. Defendant MCKENZIE reiterated Defendant representation that ?time was of the essence? and that the Plaintiffs needed to sign the documents and obtain funding immediately if they wanted to be -13.. COMPLAINT Jsuccessful. Based on this further representation from Defendant MCKENZIE the Plaintiffs signed all the forms and made the initial plan payment of $13,800.00 on their credit card 32. DEFENDANT MCKENZIE overcharged the Plaintiff? 5 credit card after their initial meeting in the amount of $1 ,72500, for a total of $15?525.00. When Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez questioned DEFENDANT MCKENZIE about this charge several days later she was given some vague answer and told that it would be applied to any future expenses that Plaintiff would incur at the Defendant facilities. This first act of ?nancial deception began a calculated pattern of conduct by Defendant MCKENZIE working in concert with Defendant SALEM. designed solely for the purpose of extracting money from the Plaintiffs by exploiting their desire to have children. This pattern of conduct is simply a newer version of the classic con?dence scam. The fact that Defendant SALEM holds a valid license to practice medicine allows him to exploit a vulnerable sub?class of the population and grift greater amounts of money from his victims than he mi have been able to otherwise. Defendant SALEM is a modern day snake oil salesman. Every facet of his operation is carefully designed to extract the maximum amount of money from each of his marks. Unsatisfied with simply bringing his patients to the brink of emotional and financial ruination, Defendant SALEM then uses these unwitting pawns to access hugely fraudulent insurance gains. The entire structure of his organization is designed for this purpose and is done on behalf and at the behest of Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER through Defendant SALEM CORP by Defendant SALEM for the unjust enrichment of himself and his various corporate entities, board members, and business associates in the community, including, but not limited to: FAST IVF, NORTHRIDG-E PLAZA PHARMACY, and various ?nancial institutions yet to be determined. 33. On or about October 16, 2014, PLAINTIFF lamille Rodriguez commenced the first cycle of IVP treatment at PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE under the care and supervision of Defendant SALEM. PLAINTIFF were provided with written instructions regarding the IVF process and the -14- COMPLAINT 4; sochnm use and administration of the required fertility drugs. Plaintiffs were directed to procure medications from FAST IVF and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY, exclusively. The required treatment included injections of the fertility drugs, Menopur (HMG provided at first by DEFENDANT NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY and later by defendant FAST IVF), among others, at prescribed times during the menstrual cycle. On information and belief, there is a ?nancial relationship between Defendant SALEM sand NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY and FAST IVF. Discovery on this is still ongoing. PLAINTIFF Jamille Rodriguez was regularly monitored at PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE for blood hormone levels and underwent periodic ultrasound measurements of her ovaries to determine how the eggs were maturing. On or about October 18, 2014, PLAINTIFF Jamille Rodriguez underwent the procedure to extract her mature eggs. PLAINTIFF amille Rodriguez was informed and believes that a total of eight eggs were harvested from her. This procedure, which lasts approximately one hour, was performed by Defendant SALEM, at PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE in Torrence. 34. On or about October 23, 2014, five days after the extraction of egg cells from Jamille Rodriguez, Plaintiffs returned to PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE for the implantation of embryos into Mrs. Rodriguez?s uterus. Immediately before the implantation procedure began, DEFENDANT DOE 22, an embryologist was introduced to the PLAINTIFFS by Defendant SALEM as the technician who had worked on and produced the embryos. At that time, Defendants SALEM and. DOE 22 showed the Plaintiff Richard Rodriguez Jr. microscopic images of three purportedly viable embryos, claiming that while only one of the embryos was, ?perfect? and ready for implantation, Defendant SALEM indicated that they would implant all three. One of the embryos was deemed to be, .. a little behind? and the third was termed, ?compacted?. After Plaintiff Richard Rodriguez ?nished ?inspecting? images of the embryos, all three were captured into a single syringe. *15- COMPLAINT GOOQCE 35. Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez was concerned. that no genetic testing was done and yet one of the embryos was deemed perfect by Defendant SALEM. Conversely, two of the three embryos were not deemed perfect and they were both going to be implanted without testing either. Plaintiff Jarnille Rodriguez was frightened that either of the substandard embryos might continue to grow in her womb but be saddled with signi?cant development problems and deformities. Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez wondered why Defendant SALEM would implant all three when it appeared that two of them were defective. Plaintiff amille Rodriguez expressed her concern regarding the diagnosis of ?perfect? as well as her concern regarding the substandard embryos and was told by the attending nurse, Alex Corona, that no genetic testing was necessary unless the mother experienced several miscarriages. She received no further explanation from Defendant SALEM regarding his decision to implant all three other than she should trust him. The entire time Defendant SALEM was bustling forward with the procedure. Plaintiff .Iamille Rodriguez decided to continue to trust in Defendant representation that he was an expert and knew what he was doing. 36. With Plaintiff Richard Rodriguez Jr. present, Defendant SALEM performed the implantation of the embryos into Jamille Rodriguez?s uterus, with the assistance of Defendant DOB 22. At the conclusion of the embryo transfer procedure Defendant SALEM told the Plaintiffs that all of the embryos had been successfully surgically implanted into Jamille Rodriguez? uterus and that the procedure was completed with no complications. 37. Plaintiff Iamille Rodriguez was required to rest in bed for three days following the embryo transfer procedure including the day of the procedure. Ten days following the procedure, on or November 12, 2014, amille Rodriguez went to PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER for blood tests. Two days later Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez returned to PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER for a second set of blood tests. At that time she was told that a certain hormone level in her blood samples would be compared and that an elevated level would indicate a pregnancy. Mrs. Rodriguez -16- COMPLAINT was told to return home and that she would be contacted by someone by three o?clock that afternoon with the results. Mrs. Rodriguez was in fact contacted. and told that she was pregnant. Mrs. Rodriguez returned to the PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER three more times in the coming weeks. On her ?rst visit, two weeks after she was informed that she was pregnant, Defendant SALEM performed an ultrasound. and told Mrs. Rodriguez that he saw a ?fetal pole?. At that time Defendant SALEM asked his assistant, Anna Johnson, how many weeks Plaintiff was along as well as what Plaintiff?s hormone levels were. Anna Johnson responded without referencing any chart or data in vague and uncertain terms. Defendant SALEM proceeded with the examination without himself checking any charts or referencing any data. At that same appointment, Defendant SALEM told Plaintiff amille Rodriguez that there was only a ?50/50 chance? that the pregnancy, or any pregnancy, would continue because only of Mrs. Rodriguez?s eggs were suitable candidates for fertilization. It should be noted that Mrs. Rodriguez produced eight eggs for harvest for this ?rst course of treatment. Using Defendant SALEM ?5 stated estimation on suitability, only 1.44 of her eggs would have been suitable for fertilization and potentially implantation, assuming a 100% success rate by the embryologist, but he chose to implant all three that allegedly survived germination, apparently regardless of their suitability or Viability. This was the first of many contradictory statements made by Defendant SALEM, after his initial sales pitch where he touted his success and assured the Plaintiff? that he would achieve success in their case. It now appeared that this was the beginning of Defendant concerted attempt to bring the Plaintiffs, his latest marks, in for a ?soft landing?. Every good con has an exit strategy. or these particular Defendants it appears that once the Plaintiffs had committed themselves ?nancially and emotionally to the course of treatment, Defendant SALEM and the other named Defendants would at the same time continue to manipulate the Plaintiffs in order to continue to extract the maximum amount of money from them and their insurance company for himself and his various business associates in -17- COMPLAINT the community, while also steadily and slowly alluding to the reality of the situation which was that Defendant SALEM possessed no expertise, had pioneered no special procedures and that the Plaintiffs were not suitable candidates for the bargain basement, sloppy, slap?dash, reckless, unethical and medically unsound procedures the Defendant and his co conspirators employed on the Plaintiffs. These truths would be wrapped in medical double speak and as stated below would also be delivered so as to make the Plaintiff?s believe that they were somehow to blame or at fault. 38. On the second appointment, approximately one week after the ?rst, Defendant SALEM claimed that he saw the ??utter? of the fetal heart. On her third visit Defendant SALEM claimed that the ?fetus? was no longer viable and recommended that she terminate or undergo 8. DNC procedure to surgically remove the embryo from Mrs. Rodriguez?s uterus. 39. Mrs. Rodriguez declined to terminate the pregnancy at that time and sought a second opinion at a Kaiser hospital. Her attending physician, at Kaiser, performed an examination and ultrasound procedure. This doctor disagreed about the existence of a fetal pole but did. inform Mrs. Rodriguez that her body would, in all likelihood, terminate the cluster on its own and offered Mrs. Rodriguez an injection to begin that process chemically in the controlled environment of the hospital. 40. Mrs. Rodriguez declined the use of a chemical agent and was released from the hospital. Some twenty?four hours later Mrs. Rodriguez did in fact naturally terminate and expel the cluster. Mrs. Rodriguez contacted Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER to inform them of what occurred. At that time the staff at Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER made an appointment with Plaintiff arnille Rodriguez to perform a follow up examination the next day. At that time Plaintiff Rodriguez was informed that the cluster had not been fully discharged. Based upon that representation, Mrs. Rodriguez underwent a DNC procedure at defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER which was performed by defendant SALEM. -gg- COMPLAINT AWN 41. Every round of IVF treatment comes with separate costs. The plaintiff? paid in excess of six?thousand dollars for laboratory fees, surgical fees, anesthesia and other medical costs including prescriptions and various medical consumables like prenatal vitamins and other over the counter medications for each of the three rounds from FAST IVF and. NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY. Defendant SALEM has agreements with certain providers including Defendants NORTHRIDGE and FAST IVE to provide these ?required? items to his patients. Additionally. Defendant SALEM created shell companies including the WOMANS HEALTH SURGICAL CENTER and PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER, LP. for the sole purpose of billing his patients? insurance companies for various procedures he performs on them during the course of treatment that he requires upfront payment from the patient. In this case, Plaintiff Iainille Rodriguez had her insurance billed by both WOMANS HEALTH SURGICAL CENTER and PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER, LP. Plaintiff Iamille Rodriguez was informed by Defendant MCKENZIE that Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER regularly double bills insurance companies using one or both Defendant corporations in order to maximize the amount of money that the Defendants will receive on a given claim. 42. Plaintiff Iamille Rodriguez had no further contact with any of the Defendants until they contacted her in mid January of 2015. Plaintiff Rodriguez. received a call from an individual who told her that some type of examination was conducted on the tissue samples that were removed from her during the DNC procedure at Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER. The caller informed her that the analysis revealed that the tissue was an embryo that was developing into a fetus. Plaintiff Iamille Rodriguez instantly had her hopes reignited by this information and the way it was presented to her. Not surprisingly, the caller then asked about scheduling her for her second round of treatment. Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez now believes that this call was simply a ruse -19- COMPLAINT get her wallet back into the clutches of the Defendants. No proof of this ?fetal examination? was ever presented nor was it ever referenced by any of the Defendants after this phone call. 43. In February of 201 5, plaintiffs returned to Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER and Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez had an ultrasound as well as a general check up to clear the way for her to proceed with round two of her treatment plan. Plaintiff Rodriguez?s exam was conducted by Defendant SALEM. Defendant SALEM was very upbeat at this meeting and vowed to .. get you pregnant by Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez?s 40th birthday was April 2015. Defendant SALEM also advocated that the Plaintiffs go ahead and pay for genetic testing to be done on the embryos he anticipated on collecting, prior to the second implantation. The Plaintiffs again met with Defendant MCKENZIE and authorized her to charge their credit card $3,750.00 for a round of testing to be completed at a later date. Plaintiff? 5 credit card was charged $3,750.00 in late March of 201 5. 44. The PLAINTIFFS returned to PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER on or about March 10, 2015, to begin a second round of IVF. The required treatment again included injections of various fertility drugs, mandated to be purchased by FAST IVF and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY, as well as monitoring and ultrasound examinations at the CENTER. Just as before, on or about March 26, 2015, Plaintiff I amille Rodriguez underwent the procedure to extract her mature eggs after chemical stimulation caused them to drop. Plaintiff amille Rodriguez was informed and believes that a total of nine eggs were harvested from her this time. This procedure, which lasts approximately one hour, was performed by Defendant SALEM, at PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER in Torrance. Using Defendant previously stated percentage of suitability only 1.62 of these eggs would be a suitable candidate for fertilization. 45. Five days after extraction but prior to implantation, Plaintiffs were contacted by an individual know only as Mai, now designated as DOB 23, who worked at the CENTER, and were -20- COMPLAINT told that five of the nine eggs that were harvested had been successfully germinated into embryos and were currently viable. The Plaintiffs were told that they had the option to freeze the five embryos and go through a third round of utural stimulation to obtain more eggs to germinate in order to produce the maximum amount of embryos (ten) that would be covered by the round of genetic testing that they had already paid for. However, the clinic staff repeatedly told the plaintiffs that ?fresher was better? when it came to embryos. Plaintiff Rodriguez asked DOE 23 what Defendant SALEM would recommend. Plaintiff amille Rodriguez was told that Defendant SALEM was recommending that not only should they not freeze the current batch but that they skip the genetic testing and go straight to implantation with the current batch of fertilized eggs. Of note was that the Plaintiffs? credit card was run by Defendant MCKENZIE several days prior in the amount of $3,750.00. Based on Defendant express representations the Plaintiffs decided to follow his advice and proceed with the implantation without freezing any embryos or conducting genetic testing. The amount of $3,750.00 was never refunded to Plaintiffs. 46. On or about March 31, 2015, patient amille Rodriguez underwent a second embryo transfer procedure, performed by Defendant SALEM, with the assistance of Defendant DOE 23. Just as before, Defendants SALEM and DOE 23 showed Plaintiff Richard Rodriguez Jr. microscopic images of three purportedly viable embryos, claiming that the embryos were ready for implantation. At this time the Plaintiffs were informed that of the ?ve supposedly viable embryos that existed the day before only three survived and were still suitable. Further, Plaintiffs were informed that of the three only one was a good candidate. After urging plaintiff Richard Rodriguez Jr. to once again ?inspect? the embryos, all three were captured within a single syringe. With Plaintiff Richard Rodriguez Jr. present, Defendant SALEM prepared to perform the implantation of the embryos into amille Rodriguez?s uterus, with the assistance of Defendant DOE 23. Prior to the procedure, Dr. Salem remarked to Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez that her external and internal genitalia COMPLAINT and reproductive organs had a strange formation and appearance. Defendant SALEM had examined Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez?s external and internal genitalia and reproductive organs at least twelve times prior to this statement. He proceeded to tell Plaintiff .lamille Rodriguez that he, . .had never seen anything like this?, and, . .you have two tunnels. Hopefully they meet up in the back.? Defendant SALEM further remarked that he was . .unsure whether to implant in the left or the right.? Defendant SALEM informed Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez that he, . .went left.? Defendant SALEM then made the comment that, believe 1 went left last time.? Defendant SALEM then called in a nurse to confirm his observation. Plaintiff Janiille Rodriguez was put on edge by this series of statements and events. Defendant SALEM proceeded with the implantation without further testing or examination of Plaintiff. At the conclusion of the embryo transfer procedure, Defendant SALEM told the Plaintiffs that all three of the embryos had been successfully surgically implanted into amille Rodriguez. 47. Once again Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez was required to rest in bed for three days including the day of the procedure following the embryo transfer procedure. On or about April 8, 2015, Jamille Rodriguez went to PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER location in Corona California for blood tests. Two days later on April 10, 2015., she returned to Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER, Corona, for a second set of blood tests. Mrs. Rodriguez was told. to return home and that she would be contacted by someone that afternoon with the results. Mrs. Rodriguez was contacted later that day and was told that she was not pregnant. 48. Plaintiff Rodriguez made an appointment to discuss her growing concerns regarding the ef?cacy, reliability and legitimacy of the IVF treatments that she had been receiving with Defendant SALEM in late April of 201 5. At that meeting she confronted Defendant SALEM with her concerns including the fact that his daughter Defendant SHALA SALEM previously told the Plaintiffs that they were not good candidates and that she and her husband felt bullied into signing -22- the initial agreement by defendant MCKENZIE and only did so based on Defendant representations that he had analyzed the data in their particular case and assured them he would be successful but only if they agreed to sign up and pay immediatly. Plaintiffs also confronted Defendant SALEM regarding his practice of implanting any and every embryo. Defendant SALEM enticed the Plaintiffs to enter into a contract for IVF services based solely on Defendant representations that he was a ?pioneer? and had ?expertise? in the field that far outpaced other practitioners. He represented that he would use that skill and care in selecting both sperm and egg. In reality, the method he employed to chemically force Plaintiff amille?s uterus into producing a sequence of eggs for harvest was the same tired method that had been in use for decades. Far from being able to select and fertilize the ?best she had? he simply used whatever her body produced on its own. Further, he knowingly implanted weak or underdeveloped embryos into Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez?s uterus without ?rst even conducting any type of testing, genetic or otherwise. Defendant actions were grossly negligent, medically irresponsible, dangerously reckless and clearly unethical at best. Defendant actions and pattern of conduct demonstrate that the entire sequence of events was never designed to produce a viable embryo for the Rodriguez?s. The process was designed and carefully orchestrated for one purpose: the unjust enrichment of Defendant SALEM and his co defendants by fraudulently holding themselves out to be experts when in fact they used basic and unrefined techniques to in effect run a confidence game where babies were the angle, hopeful parents were the marks and any actual pregnancies they were able to achieve were nothing more than props to be used in the furtherance of their scheme in future cons. Unsatisfied with simply ?eecing their program participants, the Defendants also organized corporations to conduct fraudulent and deceitful insurance billing. 49. After this consultation Defendant SALEM told Plaintiff amille Rodriguez that he would like to schedule a second hysteroscopy and ?remap? Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez?s COMPLAINT reproductive system based on his later stated concern that her system may have gone through ?stress realignment.? Defendant SALEM, very conveniently and with expert precision, informed Plaintiff Rodriguez that this so called ?stress realignment? was to blame for the failure of the second round of IVF. Plaintiff Rodriguez asked Defendant SALEM for clari?cation and he informed her that her reproductive system could have realigned due to stress and that she would need to undergo a second ?mapping?, for an additional fee of course, to ensure that he was able to implant in the best spot for Plaintiff Rodriguez?s third session. The second hysteroscopy was completed shortly thereafter at an additional out of pocket cost to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants double billed the Plaintiff?s insurance for this procedure, as is their custom. 50. Finally, in late July of 2015, Plaintiff Jainille Rodriguez was resigned to complete the third and ?nal round of treatment that she and her husband had pro?paid for in October of 2014. Although the Plaintiffs were losing con?dence in the IVF scheme they felt that they had nothing to lose by attempting the third procedure as they had already paid now in excess of $40,000.00 (Forty?Thousand Dollars) to the various Defendants. This was their out of pocket cost. only. The Defendants have billed the Plaintiff?s insurance provider well in excess of that ?gure. Plaintiff .larnille Rodriguez was informed that all of the test results that the Defendants were relying on to continue her course of treatment were set to expire and attempted to schedule her to have them all redone at one of the Defendant CENTERS, for an additional fee. The Plaintiffs; already very leery of the Defendants in this case decided to have the testing done at a different medical provider at a greatly reduced cost. Predictably, the Defendants only required a fraction of the medical information: testing and results from the outside medical provider that the Defendants had deemed medically necessary when the Defendants were performing the examination themselves and billing the Plaintiffs as well as double billing their insurance provider. The Plaintiffs had the test results sent over to the Defendants from the secondary medical provider and were informed by Deanne -24- COMPLAINT NJQLA Molina, an employee of the Defendants, that the test results showed that everything was fine and that Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez was cleared to begin her third and final round of IVF treatment. 51. On or about August 14, 2015, Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez underwent the third procedure to extract her mature eggs after chemical stimulation caused them to drop. As before, the required treatment included injections of the fertility drugs, Menopur which was now being provided through Defendant FAST FAST IVF is an international third. party drug importation and export facilitator. DEFENDANT SALEM informed the Plaintiffs that he could save them some money on their third round of treatment if they purchased their prescriptions from Istanbul, Turkey, using Defendant FAST IVF as a middle man. Defendant SALEM assured the Plaintiffs that the transaction was completely legal because he was the prescribing physician. The Plaintiffs ?rst attempt to complete the wire transfer to pay for the prescription in the country of Turkey was met with a flat re?isal by banking staff who told the Plaintiffs to be wary of not only a scam but that the address or geographical area they were seeking to place the wire had some type of Department of Homeland Security warning associated with it. The Plaintiffs were eventually successful in wiring the funds and obtained a shipment of what they believed was Menoper from Defendant sources in the Levent area of Turkey. The Plaintiffs used this shipment of material in conjunction with their other prescribed medications and over the counter uturen stimulants purchased as instructed from NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY. The Plaintiffs are now aware that the shipments that they received were compromised due to the delicate nature of the protein strings in solution that the actual drug Menoper contains. 52. PLAINTIFF Jamille Rodriguez was informed and believes that a total of ten eggs were harvested from her during this third procedure. The egg retrieval procedure was performed by Defendant SALEM, at PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER in Torrance. Using Defendant -25- COMPLAINT previously stated percentage of suitability only 1.80 of these eggs would be a suitable candidate for fertilization. 53. Three days after extraction but prior to implantation, Plaintiffs were again contacted by DOB 23, an embryologist who worked at the PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER, and told that ?ve of the ten eggs that were harvested had been successfully germinated into embryos and were currently Viable. Speci?cally, Plaintiff amille Rodriguez was informed that two of the embryos were, ?perfect? and ?amazing? while two others were, ?a little behind? and the fifth, ?even more behind?. The Plaintiffs were again told that they had the option to freeze the five embryos and go through. a fourth round of utural stimulation to obtain more eggs to germinate in order to produce the maximum amount of embryos (ten) that would be covered by the round of genetic testing that they had already paid for prior to the second round of IVF in March of that year. At this point the Plaintiffs were aware that their credit card had been charged by Defendant MCKENZIE in the amount of $3,750.00. When the Plaintiffs spoke with Defendant MCKENZIE about the charge in April of 201 5, Defendant MCKENZIE told the Plaintiffs that the PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER would keep the money in anticipation of the Plaintiffs doing genetic testing for the third round of IVF. The Plaintiffs had no reason to suspect that they would be unable to obtain a refund at a later date if they chose not to do the genetic testing. 54. On or about August 19, 2015, Plaintiff Jamiile Rodriguez underwent a third and ?nal embryo transfer procedure, performed by Defendant SALEM, with the assistance of Defendant DOE 23. Just prior to the implantation the Plaintiffs were informed that of the five supposedly viable embryos that existed the day before only three survived and were still suitable. Further, Plaintiffs were informed that of the three only one was a good candidate. Just as before, Defendants SALEM and DOB 23 showed Plaintiff Richard Rodriguez Jr. microscopic images of three purportedly Viable embryos, claiming that the embryos were ready for implantation. After urging ?26- COMPLAINT plaintiff Richard Rodriguez Jr. to once again ?inspect? the images of the embryos, all. three were captured within a single syringe. With Plaintiff Richard Rodriguez Jr. present, Defendant SALEM prepared to perform the implantation of the embryos into amille Rodriguez?s uterus, with the assistance of Defendant DOE 23. 55. Once again Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez was required to rest in bed for three days including the day of the procedure following the embryo transfer. On or about August 25, 2015, atnille Rodriguez went to PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER location in Torrance California for the ?rst of the two blood tests that were required to measure the hormone levels in her system to determine if she was pregnant. The next day while Plaintiff amille Rodriguez was opening her mail she saw a letter from her insurance provider. Plaintiff ainille Rodriguez was shocked and frightened to see that Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER had billed her insurance $19,000.00 for the second hysteroscopy that Defendant SALEM had ordered in July. Compounding her frustration was a notation from her provider that they had rejected the claim and that Plaintiff Rodriguez was liable for the entire amount. Plaintiff Rodriguez was thrown into a panic by this news. On the one hand she was under strict orders to relax and take it easy after completing the implantation but this nearly final blow from the Defendants was too much for her to contain her emotions. Plaintiff Rodriguez tried numerous times to contact Defendant MCKENZIE but was unable to do so. The. following day on August 26, 2015, Plaintiff Rodriguez again returned to the center for her second blood test and happened upon Defendant MCKENZIE exiting an elevator. Plaintiff ainille Rodriguez questioned Defendant MCKENZIE about the charges and was again told that it was simply the practice of the Defendants to try to get the insurance company to pay as much as they would for anything. Defendant MCKENZIE told Plaintiff amille Rodriguez that the Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER would reverse the charge against her personally but indicated that the one or both of the other Defendants, WOMANS HEALTH SURGICAL -27- COMPLAINT UCENTER or PACIFIC COAST SURGICAL CENTER would likely attempt to charge her insurance again. Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez was appalled. The enormity of the fraud that was being perpetrated against her and her husband came into sharp relief in that instant. 56. The plaintiffs were thoroughly disgusted with the entire situation. They could not believe what had happened. Several days later in early September of 2015, Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez contacted. Defendant MCKENZIE and demanded the return of her $3,750.00 that the CENTER had charged her for genetic testing that was never performed. To add a ?nal insult to the staggering ?nancial and emotional injury already in?icted upon the Plaintiffs by the Defendants, Defendant MCKENZIE informed Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez that Defendant MCKENZIE would be unable to do so because she was working with the RBI to resolve some type of fraudulent identity theft and couldn?t use her credit card system to refund any of the Plaintiffs money until that issue was resolved. While Plaintiffs have absolutely no doubt that the .B.I. may very well be investigating any one of several aspects of the Defendants business practices from fraud to suspicious money transfers to countries on State Department and Homeland Security watch lists there is no evidence that any of Defendant statements are true and the simple fact is that the Defendants are crooks who as of the ?ling of this Complaint have yet to refund the $3,750.00 procured for genetic testing that was never performed. The Plaintiffs bring the instant Complaint and seek all the relief requested herein. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Fraud (Against Defendant Rifaat Salem M.D., Rifaat Salem Ml). Inc, Shala Salem M.D, Paci?c Reproductive Center, Womans Health Surgical Center, Paci?c Coast Surgical Center, Sharon McKenzie, FAST IVF, and Northridge Plaza Pharmacy) 57. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation set. forth in paragraphs 1 through 56 above as is fully set forth herein at length. -23- COMPLAINT 58. Tortious fraud or deceit occurs when a party ?willfully deceived another with the intent to induce him. to alter his position to his injury or risk.? Cal. Civ. Code ?1709. Here, Defendant Rifaat Salem M.D., Rifaat Salem MD. Inc, Shala Salem MD, Paci?c Reproductive Center, Womans Health Surgical Center, Pacific Coast Surgical Center and Sharon McKenzie (as an agent of Riffat Salem, MD.) made several af?rmative misrepresentations to Plaintiffs, which they knew were false to induce Plaintiffs to undergo unnecessary medical procedures that Plaintiffs justi?ably relied upon that directly caused physical and ?nancial damage to Plaintiffs. Defendants FAST WP and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY made concealments and/or half?truths, a suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it or who gives information or other facts likely to mislead when they knew the truth that induced Plaintiffs to obtain medications that were allegedly not medically necessary and possibly harmful. 59. The defendant must have made a misrepresentation consisting of either: 1) affirmative misrepresentation the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true; 2) A concealment or half?truth the suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact; or 3) A false promise a promise made without any intention of performing it. (Cal. Civ. Code ?1710; see also Cal. Civ. Code ?1572.) 60. From July 2014 through August of 2015, Defendant SALEM in. concert with the herein named Defendants, at various times throughout that period, made the following representations to the Plaintiffs; Despite the fact that Mr. Rodriguez had been previously diagnosed with extremely low sperm count and one percent motile sperm count and that Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez was over the established weight limit and was only able to produce a very limited number of eggs for -29- COMPLAINT harvest after chemical stimulation, of which less that 20% were viable candidates for fertilization and implantation, there was a realistic chance through the sophisticated techniques employed by the Defendant, that In?Vitro Fertilization would produce a pregnancy for the Plaintiffs; As a result of very costly procedures undertaken by Defendant SALEM to harvest eggs from Mrs. Rodriguez, as well as his assertion that he was able to and had retrieved Viable sperm cells from Mr. Rodriguez, Defendants SALEM claimed to be successful in fertilizing several of Plaintiff amille Rodriguez?s eggs with sperm cells obtained from Mr. Rodriguez and creating multiple viable embryos; Photographs or microscopic slides of embryos shown to the Plaintiffs by Defendant SALEM and Defendant DOE 21 before embryo transfer, were in fact, viable embryos produced from Mr. Rodriguez?s sperm and Mrs. Rodriguez?s eggs through techniques; Defendant SALEM, with assistance from Defendant DOB 22 and DOB 23, not exclusively, surgically implanted these viable embryos into Mrs. Rodriguez, which thereafter failed to produce a pregnancy. On three separate occasions. 61. Further, Defendants FAST IVP and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY filled prescriptions written by Defendant SALEM with knowledge that the medications were allegedly not necessary and possibly harmful. This concealment from the patient who was Plaintiff was likely to mislead when Defendants FAST and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY are entities entrusted with knowledge of appropriate medications to be dispensed. to patients. 62. The misrepresentation must. be of a material fact, essential to the analysis undertaken by the plaintiff such that the plaintiff would not have acted as he did without it. 63. The misrepresentations and false promises that were made by Defendants above were essential to the analysis undertaken by Plaintiff in their decision to undergo expensive and -30- COMPLAINT dangerous medical procedures in the hopes of a successful pregnancy as well as receiving proper medication. 64. The misrepresentation must be made with knowledge of its falsity or knowledge of the effect of concealment of a material fact. 65. Here, Defendants SALEM ET AL knew their representations to the Defendants, and knew that each of them were false, and made them to induce the Plaintiffs to incur, and to continue to incur great ?nancial expense paid to the Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE, with no realistic expectation of producing a successful pregnancy. 66. The representations made by Defendants, SALEM ET AL, to the Plaintiffs, were in fact false. The true facts were as follows: From the very outset, given the data. already in the Defendant?s possession including the extremely low sperm and viability diagnoses of Plaintiff Richard Rodriguez?s motile Sperm production, coupled with Jamille Rodriguez?s body weight in excess of established guidelines for successful implantation and low egg production there was never any realistic chance of the Plaintiffs ever successfully becoming pregnant through regular treatment protocols which were in fact the type employed by the Defendants and not the cutting edge and highly advanced medically innovative methods coupled with pioneering techniques that the Defendants claimed they used and that the Plaintiffs specifically relied upon when entering into the treatment contract; From the very outset, the Defendants representations regarding their relative rate of success in producing successful pregnancies in situations like that of the Plaintiffs, were highly in?ated and untrue; Contrary to their express representations, Defendants had not successfully fertilized eggs surgically harvested. from Mrs. Rodriguez?s with. sperm obtained from Mr. Rodriguez; COMPLAINT .4: Nat)?: Contrary to their representations, the photographs or microscopic slides alleged to be of viable embryos allegedly produced by the IVF techniques employed by the Defendants and shown to the Plaintiffs prior to embryo transfers, were in fact either (1) not photographs of viable embryos at all, or (2) if they were viable embryos, they were not the Plaintiffs embryos. Contrary to their express representations, Defendants SALEM and DOB 22 and DOB 23, not exclusive, did not implant viable embryos into Mrs. Rodriguez on. any occasion but rather intentionally performed sham surgeries and actually implanted nothing at all, or undertook surgeries and implanted embryos that were of low quality and had no chance of survival; Contrary to their express representations, not only had the Defendants not had the rate of success in fertilizing eggs that they claimed but in this case were deceptive in their claims regarding the fertilized eggs they claimed to produce insofar as different descriptions of suitability were given to the embryos before implantation 67. Further, Defendants FAST and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY knew or should have known that the medications that were prescribed by SALEM for Plaintiffs were allegedly not medically necessary and possibly harmful, ineffective, improperly labeled, and/or unusable in their final dispensed form. 68. The defendant must intend to induce the plaintiff to alter his or her position to his or her injury or risk. The intent to defraud or deceive is not required; the plaintiff need only prove the defendant?s intent to cause another to alter his position. 69. When Defendants, SALEM ET AL, made these representations, they knew them to be false, and made the representations with the intention of deceiving and defrauding the Plaintiffs, and for the purpose of causing the Plaintiffs to act in reliance on these representations, with the expectation that Plaintiffs would rely on such representations and undertake one or more cycles of IVF treatment. -32- COMPLAINT making the above alleged false representations, Defendants, and each of them wrongfully and improperly, with conscious and ?agrant disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs, intended to induce and did in fact induce the Plaintiffs, in reliance thereon, to undertake three cycles of IVF procedures which required the Plaintiffs to undergo numerous painful and invasive medical procedures, at considerable ?nancial expense. 71. Defendants FAST IVF and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY intended to induce Plaintiff to alter their position by picking up, paying for, and ingesting the medications dispensed to them by FAST WP and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY. 72. Justi?able reliance insofar as one who makes a fraudulent. misrepresentation is subject to liability to the persons or class of persons whom he intends or has reason to expect to act or to refrain from action in justi?able reliance in the type of transaction in which he intends or has reason to expect their conduct to be in?uenced. 73. Plaintiffs justi?ably relied on false promises and affirmative misstatements made by Defendants SALEM ET AL, they trusted Defendants as health care providers and staff and believed that they had the best interest of the patient in mind when they decided to go forward with. IVF treatment with Defendants. Defendants had a reason to expect that their affirmative misstatements and false promises would in?uence the conduct of Plaintiffs and that Plaintiffs would justifiably rely on statements that were being made to them in a medical setting as patients seeking treatment. 74. Further, Plaintiffs justifiably relied on FAST and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY insofar as they were trusted to have knowledge relating to the medications that were prescribed to Plaintiffs, and had an alleged working relationship with SALEM, ET AL to fill allegedly unnecessary prescriptions that were possibly harmful to Plaintiffs without ever cautioning Plaintiffs as to the lack of necessity. Justifiable reliance on the concealment of the alleged working -33- COMPLAINT 2.8 relationship with SALEM ET AL caused Plaintiff to pick. up, pay for, and indigent medications from Defendants FAST IVF and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY. 75. Reliance on the misrepresentation must cause plaintiff damage; misrepresentations without damage do not support a cause of action for deceit. The misrepresentation must be a proximate cause of the damage. 76. In this case, as a proximate result of the fraudulent, false, and. deceptive representations made by Defendants SALEM ET AL, as alleged herein, Plaintiffs in reliance thereon, agreed to and executed the Financial Agreement, authorizing the Defendants to conduct all appropriate and necessary medical procedures attendant to the medical procedure described as ?In- Vitro Fertilization?, and also agreed to pay to the Defendants and to others, substantial sums of money for the IVF procedures and related prescription drugs and medical testing. By reasons of the events set forth above, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. 77. The Conduct of Defendants SALEM ET AL, as alleged herein, was an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of material fact known to the Defendants with the intention on the part of the Defendants of depriving the Plaintiffs of money, property, or legal rights, causing personal injury, or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages. Defendants? conduct was particularly egregious and in ?agrant disregard. of the fact that Plaintiffs had executed the FINANCIAL AGREEMENT for IVF, and subjected themselves to the painful and invasive medical procedures involved. in the fervent hope that they would be able to have children of their own as well as the ?nancial burden of obtaining a mortgage loan on their home. -34.. COMPLAINT 78. Further, Defendants FAST IVF and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY made concealments or relayed half?truths to Plaintiffs resulting in misrepresentations that were the proximate cause of ?nancial and physical damage to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs reliance on the misrepresentations by FAST WP and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY relating to medications which they justi?ably relied on to be medically necessary and appropriate caused them physical harm resulting in bruising, swelling, impaired limb function, and other physical damage, pain, as well as ?nancial harm due to the payments they made to each of these Defendants for allegedly ineffective, unnecessary, improperly labeled, and/ or unusable medications in their final dispensed form. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Deceit/Negligent Misrepresentation (Against Defendant Rifaat Salem M.D., Rifaat Salem Ml). Inc., Shala Salem M.D, Paci?c Reproductive Center, Wemans Health Surgical Center, Paci?c Coast Surgical Center, Sharon McKenzie, FAST IVF, and Northridge Plaza Pharmacy) 79. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 78 above as if fully set forth herein at length. 80. Negligent misrepresentation occurs if a party to a contract makes an unwarranted and untrue assertion, believing the assertion to be true and intending to induce another party to enter into the contract. (Cal. Civ. Code Negligent misrepresentation may also occur outside a contractual setting if a person asserts, as a fact, that which is not true, having no reasonable ground for believing it to be true, intending that the Plaintiff rely upon the assertion. (Cal. Civ. Code 1709, 1710.) 81. The defendant must have made an untrue representation as to a past or existing material fact. 82. Defendant SALEM made multiple untrue representations regarding the skill, special training, pioneering techniques, and cutting edge methods employed by himself and. his Co? Defendants. -35- COMPLAINT U83. SALEM ET AL repeatedly made untrue representations to Plaintiff regarding the clinic?s past successful pregnancy rates based on ?cutting edge methods,? and also Plaintiff's likelihood of a successful pregnancy. 84. SALEM ET AL continued to coax Plaintiff into painful, allegedly unnecessary medical procedures which they claimed would result in a successful pregnancy. 85. Defendants FAST IVF and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY ?lled prescriptions and made representations to Plaintiffs that the medications would be used for the purposes they were prescribed for. 86. Defendants FAST WP and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY made claims regarding the necessity of the medications prescribed by SALEM ET AL. 87. Regardless of the defendant?s actual belief, the defendant must have made the statement without any reasonable ground for believing it to be true (Cal. Civ. Code ?1710 or in a manner not warranted by his information (Cal. Civ. Code ?1542.) 88. In making the alleged misrepresentations alleged herein, Defendants SALEM ET AL, and each of them knew or in the reasonable exercise of reasonable care, should have known that such representations were false, and that they would induce the Plaintiffs, in reliance thereon to undertake one or more procedures, which required the Plaintiffs to undergo numerous painful and invasive medical procedures, at considerable financial expense. 89. Defendants FAST IVF and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY did not believe their statements regarding the ef?cacy of the medications they filled and told Plaintiff to ingest. FAST IVF and PLAZA PHARMACY knew the statements they made to Plaintiffs regarding the prescribed medications by SALEM ET AL to be untrue and without any grounds of believing those statements to be true and knew it would not assist Plaintiffs in a successful pregnancy. Further, the injection and ingestion of the drugs would cause Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez physical harm resulting in bruising, swelling, impaired limb function, and other physical damage. 90. The representation must have been made with the intent to induce the plaintiff to act in reliance on it. (Cal. Civ. Code 1572, 1710.) ?36? COMPLAINT ?390me 91. Each of the representations alleged herein were deceitful and negligently made by Defendants SALEM ET AL, and each of them during the course of their diagnosis, care, and treatment of the Plaintiffs, for the purpose of inducing them to undertake ln~Vitro Fertilization treatments. 92. Defendants FAST IVF and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY made false representations to Plaintiffs with the intent to induce plaintiff to continue to obtain IVF services from SALEM and co?defendants and to continue to get their costly medications prescribed by SALEM ET AL ?lled at or through their respective establishments. 93. The plaintiff must have relied on the representation and his reliance must have been justi?ed. 94. The plaintiff must suffer damages due to his reliance on the defendant?s representation. 95. As a proximate result of the fraudulent, false, and deceptive representations made by Defendants, SALEM ET AL, as alleged herein, Plaintiffs agreed to and executed the FINANCIAL AGGREMENT document, proffered by Defendant MCKENZIE authorizing the Defendants to conduct all appropriate and necessary medical procedures attendant to the medical procedure described as ?In?Vitro Fertilization? and also agreed to pay to the Defendants and to others, substantial sums of money for the IVF procedures and related prescription drugs and medical. testing. All in direct reliance of Defendant negligent misrepresentations regarding the skill, special training, pioneering techniques, and cutting edge methods employed by himself and his Co-Defendants. By reason of the events set forth above, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. 96. False representations by Defendants FAST IVF and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY also induced Plaintiffs to obtain prescription drugs from these Defendants in reliance that the prescription medications were needed for the IVF procedures damaging Plaintiffs both financially and physically, as described above. -37- COMPLAINT THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional lnfliction of Emotional Distress (Against Defendants Rifaat Salem M.D., Rifat Salem M.D. Inc, Shala Salem NLD, Paci?c Reproductive Center, Womans Health Surgical Center, Pacific Coast Surgical Center and Sharon McKenzie) 97. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1. through 96 above as if fully set forth herein at length. 98. Damages for intentional in?iction of emotional distress are recoverable when plaintiff suffers a severe emotional injury caused by the defendant?s outrageous conduct absent any privilege with the intent to cause, or with reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress. 99. Behavior may be considered outrageous if a defendant 1) abuses a relation or position which gives him power to damage the plaintiffs interest; 2) knows the plaintiff is susceptible to injuries through mental distress; or 3) acts intentionally or unreasonably with the recognition. that the acts are likely to result in illness through mental distress. 100. Defendant SALEM ET AL were physicians and/or health care providers with the duty to follow the same standard of care as other physicians and/or health care providers in the same or similar circumstance as those in their shoes. Defendant SALEM ET AL abused their position as physicians and/or health care providers who claimed to be running an clinic using state of the art technology and by claiming they were pioneers in the field that would produce a successful pregnancy for plaintiffs. 101. Defendants SALEM ET AL were in a special position of physician/health care provider that allowed them the power to damage plaintiffs interest of having a successful pregnancy by using ?state of the art technology? when they actually were not employing any -33- different techniques, and knew that the Plaintiff was in the position of a patient entrusting Defendants SALEM ET AL with their care. 102. Further, at all times mentioned herein, Defendants SALEM ET AL, and each of them, knew or should have known how badly the Plaintiffs wanted a child of their own and also knew that the false and fraudulent representations made to the Plaintiffs, as previously alleged. herein, were likely to cause the Plaintiffs, severe emotional distress, most particularly if Defendant vast experience and cutting edge and highly advanced medically innovative methods were nothing more that fantastic illusions and the Plaintiffs were unlikely to become pregnant except in the hands of an expert or pioneer in the field which Defendant Salem represented himself to be, but is not. do his methods or procedures appear to be different from any other clinic providing the exact same service but acting responsibly by providing the service to suitable candidates. 103. Defendant must have the l) intent to in?ict the injury gr 2) the realization that the injury was substantially certain to result from his conduct. 104. The conduct must be directed at the plaintiff, or occur in the presence of a plaintiff of whom defendant is aware. 105. At all times material hereto, Defendants, SALEM ET AL, and each of them, undertook the fraudulent malicious conduct alleged herein with the intention of causing the Plaintiffs severe emotional harm or with reckless disregard of the likelihood that Plaintiffs would suffer such emotional harm as a result of their conduct. 106. This outrageous conduct was directed towards Plaintiffs as they were both told fraudulent statements and Plaintiff amille Rodriguez was physically violated in SALEM ET phony efforts to produce a pregnancy, which he knew or should have known was not viable based on Plaintiffs? medical information. -39- COMPLAINT 107. A plaintiff seeking damages for intentional in?iction of emotional distress must prove that the distress is "serious? or ?severe," meaning substantial or enduring. 108. The plaintiffs emotional distress must have been actually caused by the defendant?s outrageous conduct. 109. The fraudulent and malicious conduct alleged herein constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct, in that any reasonable person would know and understand that the Plaintiffs were particularly vulnerable and susceptible to severe emotional distress and that the Defendants? conduct would likely cause the Plaintiffs severe emotional distress, and was so extreme so as to exceed all bounds of conduct usually tolerated in a civilized society. 110. As a proximate result of the outrageous conduct of the Defendants, SALEM ET AL, as alleged herein, Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress. Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez was diagnosed with severe depression after Defendants? conduct. 111. The conduct of Defendants, SALEM ET AL, as alleged herein, was outrageous, intentional, and fraudulent, with the intention on the part of the Defendants, of depriving the Plaintiffs of money, property, or legal rights, causing personal injury, or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff?s rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages, Defendants conduct was particularly egregious and in flagrant disregard of the fact that Plaintiffs had executed the Financial Agreement for WP and subjected themselves to the painful and invasive medical procedures involved in the fervent hope that they would be able to have children of their own coupled with the ?nancial burden of obtaining a mortgage loan on their home to pay for the procedures, for which Plaintiffs find themselves still obligated. -40- COMPLAINT FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Medical Malpractice (Against Defendants Rifaat Salem M.D., Rifat Salem NLD. Inc, Shala Salem NLD, Pacific Reproductive Center, Womans Health Surgical Center, Paci?c Coast Surgical Center, Sharon McKenzie and Does 1-100) 112. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 111 above as if fully set forth herein at length. 113. At all. times and places mentioned herein, Defendants, SALEM ET AL, carelessly and negligently instructed, examined, diagnosed, prescribed, cared for, and treated Plaintiffs, and each of them, for their medical conditions, including but not limited to, the diagnosis and treatment of their infertility, including the retrieval of mature eggs from Plaintiff arnille Rodriguez, fertilization of viable embryos resulting from the Plaintiffs reproductive cells, and embryo transfer without the Plaintiff? informed consent or knowledge, and provided hospital, medical, nursing, laboratory, x?ray, care and treatment in a careless and negligent manner, resulting in injury to the Plaintiffs. 114. At all times material hereto, Defendants, SALEM ET AL, and each of them, negligently and carelessly cared for, treated, and rendered medical services upon the persons and the bodies of the Plaintiffs, and negligently and carelessly operated, managed, controlled, and conducted their services, activities and supervision in connection with the Plaintiffs? care and treatment, and negligently and carelessly failed to properly ensure the character, quality, ability, and competence of individuals treating patients in their facilities, laboratories, and other diagnostic facilities that as a proximate result thereof, Plaintiffs were caused to and did suffer the injuries alleged herein. 115. The negligence of the Defendants, and each of them, includes, but is not limited to, the following: (1) negligent failure to appropriately diagnose and asses Plaintiffs? conditions; (2) -41- COMPLAINT U.) 42negligent failure to render appropriate and complete treatment of the Plaintiffs? conditions; (3) negligent failure to have adequate staf?ng to meet reasonably expected medical needs of their patients; (4) negligent failure to have adequate equipment to meet reasonably expected medical needs of their patients; (5) negligent failure to maintain an adequate level of medical care for patients; (6) negligent failure to protect patients from harm, and (7) negligent failure to evaluate the quality of medical and support care rendered on their premises. 116. Beginning on or about July, 2014, Defendants, and each of them, undertook the care and treatment of the Plaintiffs, and rendered professional services in the diagnosis, care, and treatment of them, and continuing thereafter, carelessly and negligently instructed, examined, diagnosed, prescribed, cared for, and treated Plaintiffs for their medical conditions, including but not limited to, male infertility and ln?-Vitro Fertilization, and provided hospital, medical, nursing, laboratory, X-ray, diagnostic imaging and evaluation, care, and treatment in a careless and negligent manner resulting in injury to the Plaintiffs. 117. As a direct and legal result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness, and lack of them, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer pain, loss of enjoyment of life and other forms of severe mental and emotional distress and anguish. 1 18. As a further direct and legal result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness, and lack of skillfulness of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs suffered physical injury, including but not limited to, the taking of fertility drugs, recurrent painful and unnecessary surgical harvesting and. removal of eggs from Plaintiff amille Rodriguez and surgical implantations of allegedly Viable embryos, along with non-Viable embryos according to the Defendants, into Jamille Rodriguez, This act alone is contrary to established medical guidelines and is per se medical malpractice. 119. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, conduct, negligence, and carelessness of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs were required to and did, pay to _42_ COMPLAINT .Defendant PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE an amount in excess of $22,000.00, including the $3,750.00 fraudulently charged to Plaintiff credit card which the Defendants have still not returned to the Plaintiffs, as well as an additional amount exceeding $18,000.00 to employ physicians, hospitals, and other health care professionals to examine, treat, and care for them, provide medication and consumables and did incur, and. will incur in the future, medical and other related expenses in connection therewith, the exact amount of which costs, fees and expenses are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, but will be shown according to proof at the time of trial. 120. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants, SALEM ET AL, and each of them, had a duty to disclose to Plaintiffs, all material information necessary to enable the Plaintiffs to make a voluntary and informed decision regarding the proposed IVF treatment and procedures. 121. Defendants, and each of them, represented to Plaintiffs that Richard Rodriguez Jr. was physically capable of producing sperm that could be used to fertilize mature eggs retrieved from Jamille Rodriguez, and did not at any time pertinent hereto disclose or discuss with Plaintiffs the following material information: That the embryos shown to Plaintiffs by Defendants SALEM and each embryo transferred were not viable embryos; That there was no realistic chance that ln?Vitro Fertilization would produce a pregnancy for the Plaintiffs; That the Defendants had not been successful in obtaining Viable sperm from Richard Rodriguez Jr.; That Defendants SALEM ET AL, did not implant viable embryos into Jamille Rodriguez on any occasion, but undertook sham surgeries and actually implanted nothing at all, or implanted subpar or non Viable embryos. -43- COMPLAINT That Defendant SALEM ET AL did not possess the level of skill and expertise, nor were the methods employed by the Defendant?s pioneering, advanced ground breaking or otherwise different from any other fertility center, as was represented to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants which the Plaintiffs speci?cally relied upon when deciding to hire the Defendants. This is not a case of puffery but outright fraud in the inducement. 122. At no time prior to the events, conduct, activity, care, and treatment as herein complained of did Defendants, SALEM ET AL, obtain Plaintiffs? voluntary, knowledgeable, informed consent for the care, treatment, or conduct as herein alleged, and prior to the initiation or performance of said care, treatment, procedure, or conduct, no opportunity was afforded to the Plaintiffs herein to exercise voluntary knowledgeable and informed consent to said care, treatment, procedure, or conduct, including, without limitation, the taking of fertility drugs and undergoing In? Vitro Fertilization procedures, including the harvesting of eggs from Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez, or the implantation of embryos (or alleged embryos) in amille Rodriguez. 123. Plaintiffs would not have consented to the procedures in any respect, if they had been advised that, given Richard Rodriguez Jr.?s condition of extremely low sperm count and motile production and Jamille Rodriguez?s weight in excess of the limit set by the Defendant?s themselves, for said procedure, that there was no realistic chance that IVF would produce a pregnancy for the Plaintiffs or if the had been informed of the true nature of the Defendants procedures, methods and expertise. 124. As a direct and proximate legal result of the failure of Defendants, SALEM ET AL, and each of them, to obtain Plaintiffs? informed consent for In-Vitro Fertilization and embryo transfer, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damage as alleged herein. 125. Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount that is not precisely known at this time, but which is in excess of the jurisdictional amount of this court and will be proven at trial. -44- COMPLAINT FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Battery (Against Defendants Rifaat Salem, M.D., Rifaat Salem Ml). Inc, Shala Salem Ml), Pacific Reproductive Center, Womans Health Surgical Center, Paci?c Coast Surgical Center and Doe?s 1.400) 126. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 125 above as if fully set forth herein at length. 127. A battery is any intentional, nonconsensual, and harmful or offensive contact by one person to another. 128. The defendant must have intended to perform the act that resulted in the harmful or offensive contact; the defendant need not have intended to cause the harm or offense. 129. Here, SALEM ET AL performed several cycles of IVF and allegedly implanted embryos into Plaintiff arnille Rodriguez and prescribed allegedly unnecessary medications to Plaintiff, which caused harmful and offensive contact to Plaintiff through the surgery and medical procedures performed. 130. The contact must have been harmful or offensive to a reasonable person. 131. Here, no reasonable person would knowingly undergo painful and dangerous unnecessary medical procedures, and such contact would be considered harmful and offensive to a reasonable person in Plaintiffs circumstances who trusted SALEM ET AL with their medical care. 132. The plaintiff must show the contact was ?unconsented.? 133. Defendant?s contact must have caused injury, damage, loss or harm to the plaintiff. 134. Here, Defendants SALEM ET AL failed to obtain Plaintiffs? voluntary and informed consent to undertake ln~Vitro Fertilization, including the taking of fertility drugs, the harvesting of mature eggs from Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez, and the implantation of embryos into .lainille Rodriguez, by failing to disclose the true facts regarding the extent of Plaintiff Richard Rodriguez -45- COMPLAINT 42a. @09qu Jr.?s motile sperm production, by failing to inform Plaintiffs that there was no realistic chance of producing a pregnancy through considering Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez?s general health and constitution, availability of viable mature eggs for harvest and by failing to inform Plaintiffs that no viable embryos had been produced, or informing them that subpar embryos were produced but would be implanted anyway, knowing full well that these implantations, even if they did occur had no chance of success, Defendants SALEM ET AL, and each of them, committed battery upon Plaintiffs when they performed the above described surgery or procedures. 135. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damage as alleged herein. 136. Plaintiffs have been damaged. in an amount that is not precisely known at this time but which is in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court and will be proven at trial. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unfair Competition Bus Prof Code 17200 et. seq. (Against Defendants Rifaat Salem, M.D., Rifaat Salem Ml). Inc, Shala Salem MD, Pacific Reproductive Center, Womans Health Surgical Center, Paci?c Coast Surgical Center and Doe?s 1-100) 137. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 136 above as if fully set forth herein at length. 138. This cause of action is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs pursuant to California Prof. Code 17200, at saga, which provides that ?unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or deceptive business act or practice, and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with section 17500) as Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code. 139. Business and Professions Code 17200 prohibits any ?unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice? and any ?unfair, deceptive or misleading advertising.? ~46- COMPLAINT 140. Based on information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants SALEM ET AL, committed unlawful, unfair, and deceptive practices set forth in paragraphs 79 through 96 of this Complaint. 141. Here, these negligent misrepresentations that SALEM ET AL made, which they knew were false and would induce Plaintiffs in reliance thereon to undertake one or more IVF procedures, which required Plaintiffs to undergo numerous painful and invasive medical procedures and procure unnecessary and potentially harmful prescription drugs, at considerable ?nancial expense. 142. Defendants SALEM ET AL used fraudulent, false, and deceptive representations in order to induce individuals of the public, including Plaintiffs to agree to and execute the FINANCIAL AGREEMENT, proffered by Defendant MCKENZIE authorizing the Defendants to conduct all appropriate and necessary medical procedures attendant to the medical procedure described as ?In?Vitro Fertilization? therein, and also agreed to pay SALEM ET AL including Defendants FAST and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY substantial money for IVF procedures and. related prescription drugs and medical testing. All in direct reliance on Defendant negligent misrepresentations regarding the skill, special training, and pioneering techniques and cutting edge methods employed by himself and his Co-Defendants. 143. Defendants SALEM ET negligent misrepresentations described above constitutes an unfair and fraudulent business act or practice aimed at inducing more patients to undergo treatments and procedures from SALEM ET AL rather than other establishments. Misrepresentations by SALEM ET AL that they possess the ?skill, special training, pioneering techniques, and cutting edge methods? that would result in a successful pregnancy in?uence members of the public, including Plaintiffs to enter into a ?nancial arrangement to the bene?t of SALEM ET AL. The misrepresentations made by SALEM ET AL are unlawful and unfair business COMPLAINT acts or practices and are an unfair, deceptive and misleading form of advertisement that impacts competition in the ?eld of IVF procedures. 144. SALEM ET misrepresentations to patients who meet with them regarding the ?pioneering techniques and cutting edge methods? that they use as Opposed. to other clinics and health care providers constitutes ?misleading advertising, promotion, or marketing? since Defendants seek to be ?nancially rewarded based on individuals, including Plaintiffs, who entered into a FIANANCIAL AGREEMENT with them. 145. The practices offend public policy, are unconscionable, are oppressive and unscrupulous, and cause substantial injury to consumers. 146. Defendants? acts and concealment of material facts, as described in this Complaint, have a capacity, tendency or likelihood to deceive or confuse members of the general public regarding the safety and effectiveness of ln~Vitro Fertilization and the true success rate and outcome of such procedures. 147. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief allege that Defendants, SALEM ET AL, committed an unfair business act or practice. The utility of the misleading and/or deceptive advertising, promotion, or marketing, as well as nonudisclosure of certain consequences with respect to the same, for the purpose of marketing ln-Vitro Fertilization procedures is negligible, if any, when weighed against the extent of harm to the general public and Plaintiffs. The harmful impact upon the members of the general public and Plaintiffs, who were and are mislead and deceived with respect to the Defendants? advertising, promotion, or marketing of IVF, far outweighs any reason or justifications by the Defendants in not disclosing the truth about the safety and effectiveness of such procedures in its advertising, promotion, or marketing. Defendants SALEM ET AL, had an improper motive in misrepresenting and/or omitting the truth about the safety and effectiveness of in that Defendants are seeking to increase the number of -43- COMPLAINT IVE procedures that are performed and the number of patients treated at the PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE CENTER, and the profits to be garnered therefrom. The utilization of unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive practices was and is under the sole control of Defendants SALEM ET AL, and was fraudulently and deceptively hidden from members of the general public in its advertising, promotion and marketing. 148. As purchasers and consumers of IVF procedures who have been injured by Defendants? unlawful and/or unfair practices, Plaintiffs are entitled to and do bring this action seeking all available remedies under California?s Unfair Competition Law, including declaratory and injunctive relief and restitution, as well as attorney?s fees and costs. 149. Defendants SALEM ET AL committed an unlawful and unfair, or deceptive act or practice by making written and/or oral material representations (and material omissions) that have a capacity, tendency, or likelihood to deceive or confuse members of the general public regarding the actual or potential success of IVF, as referred to in this Complaint. 150. The unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive acts and practices of Defendants, SALEM ET AL, as alleged in this Complaint, present a threat to members of the general public in that Defendants are able to carry on this scheme of misrepresentation and omission without suffering the consequences of legal action and violation of law. 151. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants SALEM ET AL, continue these unlawful, unfair and/or deceptive business practices alleged herein. 152. Defendant?s acts, misrepresentations, concealment of material facts, and failure to disclose as alleged in this Complaint, constitute an unlawful, unfair, or deceptive business practice within the meaning of the California Bus. Prof. Code 17200, et seq. Plaintiffs and members of the general public were, and are likely to be deceived by Defendants? scheme to misrepresent and omit the presence and/or the possibility of such health effects, as alleged in this Complaint. -49- COMPLAINT 153. Pursuant to California Bus. Prof. Code 17203, Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and members of the general public, seek an order of this Court: Enjoining Defendants, SALEM, and PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE, from continuing to engage, use, or employ any unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive business act or practice, and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, promotion, or marketing, and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions 9.99.123 and Restoring all moneys that may have been acquired by Defendants, SALEM and PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE, as a result of such unlawful, unfair, or deceptive act, or practices. 154. Plaintiffs and members of the general public may be irreparably harmed arid/or denied an effective and complete remedy if such an order is not granted. The unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive acts and practices of Defendants, SALEM ET AL, as described. above, present a serious threat to Plaintiffs and members of the general public. 155. As a result of Defendants? violation of the California Unfair Competition Act, Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution for out of pocket expenses and economic harm suffered. 1.56. Pursuant to Civil Code Section 3287(a), Plaintiffs are further entitled to pre? judgment interest as a direct and proximate result of Defendants? wrongful conduct. The amount of damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of said acts to include attorneys fees and costs was a sum certain and capable of calculation, and Plaintiffs are entitled to interest in an. amount to be set forth according to proof. -50- COMPLAINT SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Constructive Fraud (Against Defendant Rifaat Salem M.D., Rifaat Salem M.D. Inc., Shala Salem M.D, Paci?c Reproductive Center, Womans Health Surgical Center, Paci?c Coast Surgical Center, Sharon McKenzie, FAST IVF, and Northridge Plaza Pharmacy) 157. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 156 above as is fully set forth herein at length. 158. Constructive fraud is a breach of duty, without an actual fraudulent intent, which gains an advantage to the person in fault, by misleading another to his prejudice. (Cal. Civ. Code 1 573 .) 159. The breach of duty must be in the context of a con?dential or ?duciary relationship. 160. Here, the Plaintiffs met SALEM ET AL as patients seeking medical advice and treatment. SALEM ET AL were physicians and health care providers who had a duty to the patient. The doctor-patient relationship is a ?duciary duty evidenced by the facts. 161. Additionally, Defendants FAST IVF and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY were also in a confidential or ?duciary relationship with Plaintiffs acting as pharmacists who have a duty to the patient, in our case the Plaintiffs who went to them to get their medications that were prescribed by SALEM ET AL. 162. A breach of duty occurs when there is any act, omission, or concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or con?dence that results in damage to another, even though the conduct is not otherwise fraudulent. 163. In this case, Plaintiffs were not told accurate figures regarding the likelihood of a successful pregnancy, and were told that SALEM ET AL had experience and possessed a high level expertise as well as being an expert in the field who employed pioneering and ground breaking specialized procedures and that he would be able to perform a successful IVF for the Plaintiffs even -51- COMPLAINT though the Plaintiffs were not good candidates. These misstatements to Plaintiffs by SALEM ET AL as physicians and health providers was a breach of duty and a breach of con?dence that Plaintiffs had in their health care providers, which caused physical, emotional, and ?nancial damage to Plaintiffs. 164. Likewise, Defendants FAST and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY breached their duty as pharmacists by ?lling prescriptions that were prescribed by SALEM ET AL when they knew or should have known that these medications were allegedly not medically necessary and possibly harmful and caused damage to Plaintiff Jamille Rodriguez who ingested and injected the medication in the hopes of a successful pregnancy. 165. The breach of duty must have led to an advantage gained by the breaching party. 166. The plaintiff must justifiably rely on the Defendants? misrepresentations and that the plaintiff was misled to his or her prejudice. 167. Here, the breach of duty by SALEM ET AL as physicians and health care providers resulted in. Plaintiffs signing the FINANCIAL AGREEMENT with SALEM ET AL, which led the breaching party SALEM ET AL to have a financial advantage due to the significant costs and expenses that were paid by Plaintiffs. 168. Further, Defendants FAST IVF and NORTHRIDGE PHARMACY gained an advantage as the breaching party by soliciting payment from Plaintiffs for medications that were allegedly not medically necessary and possibly harmful. 169. Plaintiffs relied on multiple misrepresentations made by SALEM ET AL regarding the pioneering techniques that they would be using and promises of a successful pregnancy, even though Plaintiffs were in fact not good candidates. Plaintiffs relied on SALEM ET AL as physicians and medical providers to be candid with them regarding the likelihood of a successful pregnancy, and the numerous medical procedures that Plaintiff underwent due to the advice of SALEM ET AL. -52_ COMPLAINT Plaintiff were misled to their prejudice by relying on the misstatements made by SALEM ET AL and undergoing very painful and expensive medical procedures that were not really using any ?pioneering techniques? as claimed by SALEM ET AL. 170. Plaintiffs also justi?ably relied on misrepresentations made by Defendants FAST IVF and NORTHRIDGE PLAZA PHARMACY to ensure that the medications that they were taking were effective and necessary. Plaintiffs were misled to their prejudice by relying on these misstatements and ingested and injected the potentially harmful and ineffective medications that were filled by Defendants. 171. Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount that is not precisely known at this time but which is in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court and will be proven at trial. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against the Defendants, and each of them as follows: 1. For general damages in an amount in excess of $2,000,000.00, to be proven at trial; 2. For past and future medical expenses as proven at trial; 3. That this Court find and declare the acts and practices of Defendants, SALEM and. PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE, as described herein to be unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent; 4. That Defendants, SALEM and PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE, be permanently enjoined from engaging in the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent acts and practices alleged herein; 5. That Defendants, SALEM. and PACIFIC REPRODUCTIVE, be ordered to make restitution to Plaintiffs of all out of pocket expenses and economic harm suffered as a consequence of Defendants? Violation of the California Unfair Competition Act; 6. That, Defendants and each of them, be ordered to disgorge all unjust enrichment obtained from the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent acts and practices alleged herein, and make restitution to all affected members of the general public; -53- COMPLAINT That Plaintiffs be awarded attorney?s fees and expenses, pursuant to California Civil Code and California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5; 8. For pre?j udgment and post~judgment interest according to law; 9. For costs of litigation incurred herein; 10. Punitive Damages in an amount to be proven at trial for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, intentional in?iction of emotional. distress, battery, and constructive fraud causes of action. 11. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: January 11, 2017 MCMILLAN Me illan Law Group, APC, attorneys for Plaintiffs, .larnille and Richard Rodriguez -54- COMPLAINT VERIFICATION We are the Plaintiffs in the above?entitled action. The foregoing First Amended Complaint is true of our own knowledge, except for matters state on information or beli those matters we believe them to be true. We declare individually under penalty of pteuIy under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is title and correct. ef, and to .. Dated I I 7 t, HARD RODRIGUEZ, JR PLAINTIFF 5' 3? ill ll . Dated: 5; 55 5 all Ll, line/{5; JAMILLE RODRIGUEZ5 9