Fe Ps Sac

1 V.
James DeSimone (SBN: 119668)

V. JAMES DESIMONE LAW
2 13160 Mindanao Way, Suite 280
Marina Del Rey, California 90292
3 Telephone: 310.693.5561
4 Facsimile: 323.544.6880
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
6 FRANCIS KERRIGAN and CAROLE MEIKLE
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF ORANGE COUNTY
9
FRANCIS J. KERRIGAN and CAROLE Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
10 MEIKLE
PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED SECOND
11 Plaintiffs AMENDED COMPLAINT
12
MARINA DEL REY, CALIFORNIA 90292
1) NEGLIGENCE
13160 MINDANAO WAY, SUITE 280
v.
13 2) VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH
ORANGE COUNTY, COLONIAL FAMILY CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

14 3) NEGLIGENT
FUNERAL CARE & CREMATION, INC. and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, MISREPRESENTATION
15 4) INTENTIONAL
16 Defendants. MISREPRESENTATION
5) CONCEALMENT
17 6) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
18
19 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20 Action Filed: February 13, 2018

Trial Date: Not Set
21
22 Plaintiffs, FRANCIS J. KERRIGAN and CAROLE MEIKLE, respectfully submit the
23 instant Verified Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial and allege as follows:
24 CASE OVERVIEW
25 The Orange County Coroner’s Office caused the Kerrigan family unimaginable pain and
26 suffering because it did not want to spend its time properly identifying the body of a deceased
27 homeless person. On May 6, 2017 the Orange County Coroner’s Office informed the family of
28 Frankie M. Kerrigan, a 57-year-old mentally ill homeless man, that Frankie’s body was found
1
PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Kerrigan et. al v. County of Orange et. al V. James DeSimone, Esq.
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
1 behind a Verizon store that day and that his identity had been verified through fingerprints and
2 his identification card. The Kerrigan family mourned the death of Frankie, held a Catholic funeral
3 and, to their knowledge, buried their son and brother. A few weeks later, Frankie showed up at
4 one of the pallbearer’s house alive. The Orange County Coroner’s Office did not use proper
5 identification procedures when it received the body because it did not think anyone would care
6 about a deceased mentally ill homeless man. When the misidentification was realized, the County
7 of Orange orchestrated a cover up in an attempt to conceal the gross negligence that occurred at
8 the Orange County’s Coroner’s Office. Chapman Funeral Homes failed to disclose facts that
9 would have revealed the cover up to Plaintiffs.
10 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
11 1. This Complaint is brought by Plaintiffs FRANCIS J. KERRIGAN (hereinafter
12 “KERRIGAN”) and CAROLE MEIKLE (hereinafter “MEIKLE, collectively “Plaintiffs”) against
13 ORANGE COUNTY (hereinafter “COUNTY”), COLONIAL FAMILY FUNERAL CARE &

14 CREMATION, INC. and DOES 1-50 (referred to collectively as “Defendants”) for injuries
15 resulting from the misidentification of a person deceased in Fountain Valley, California and the
16 subsequent cover up.
17 2. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Plaintiff KERRIGAN is and has been an
18 individual residing in Riverside County, California.
19 3. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Plaintiff MEIKLE is and has been an
20 individual residing in Orange County, California.
21 4. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Defendant COLONIAL FAMILY
22 FUNERAL CARE & CREMATION, INC., doing business as CHAPMAN FUNERAL HOMES,
23 (herein after “COLONIAL”) was a California Company operating in Orange, California.
24 5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all relevant times
25 DOES 1-25 were under the direct supervision, employ and control of Defendant COUNTY. In
26 doing the acts alleged herein, Defendants DOES 1-25 were acting within the course and scope of
27 their employment within the COUNTY, rendering it vicariously liable for their acts.
28 ///
2
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
1 6. DEFENDANTS DOES 1-25 proximately caused Plaintiffs injuries by integrally
2 participating or failing to intervene in the misidentification of the deceased and/or by engaging in
3 acts and/or omissions in furtherance of the campaign to cover up the COUNTY and its employee’s
4 negligence.
5 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all relevant times
6 DOES 26-50 were under the direct supervision, employ and control of, or otherwise affiliated
7 with, Defendant COLONIAL in doing the acts alleged herein, Defendants DOES 26-50 were
8 acting within the course and scope of their employment or agency with COLONIAL rendering it
9 vicariously liable for their acts.
10 8. DEFENDANTS DOES 26-50 proximately caused Plaintiffs injuries by integrally
11 participating or failing to intervene in the misidentification of the deceased and/or by engaging in
12 acts and/or omissions in furtherance of the campaign to cover up the COUNTY and its employee’s
13 negligence.
14 STATEMENT OF FACTS
15 9. KERRIGAN’s son Frank Kerrigan (hereinafter
16 “Frankie”) began experiencing the effects of various mental
17 disorders, including schizophrenia, approximately fifteen years
18 ago when Frankie was in his early 40s. Due to his mental illness, Frankie preferred a transient
19 lifestyle and chose to live intermittently homeless over the past ten years. KERRIGAN and
20 MEIKLE, Frankie’s sister, continuously offered Frankie love, comfort, medical assistance and
21 shelter.
22 10. On May 4, 2017 KERRIGAN had a telephone conversation with his son Frankie.
23 During the phone call, KERRIGAN offered to help Frankie find housing, but Frankie declined
24 the offer.
25 11. On May 6, 2017, at approximately three o’clock in the afternoon, KERRIGAN
26 received a note from the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office directing him to call the Orange
27 County Coroner’s Office regarding his son Frank.
28 ///
3
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
1 12. Shortly after receiving the note, KERRIGAN called
2 the Coroner’s Office and was told his son Frankie was deceased. He
3 was told that his son’s body was found near a Verizon Store in
4 Fountain Valley.
5 13. KERRIGAN asked if he needed to identify his son’s
6 body and was told that it was not necessary because Frankie had been
7 identified by his fingerprints.
8 14. KERRIGAN was also told that an autopsy had to be
9 performed on his son and that he could not claim Frankie’s body until after the autopsy was
10 complete.
11 15. Immediately after terminating the phone call with the Coroner’s Officer,
12 KERRIGAN called his daughter MEIKLE and told her that Frankie was deceased.
13 16. Upon hearing about her brother’s death, MEIKLE immediately went to the
14 Verizon Store where her brother’s body had been reportedly found and erected a shrine in his
15 memory. The shrine included photos, a poem, flowers, a candle and rosary beads. MEIKLE stayed
16 at the scene for some time, crying and praying with one of the Verizon
17 employees who was present when the body was found.
18 17. The scene was covered in blood and dirty blankets, causing
19 MEIKLE further distress as she imagined the possibility that her brother’s
20 death was painful and violent.
21 18. On or about May 7, 2017, after a sleepless night horrified at
22 the possibilities of her brother’s fate, MEIKLE contacted the Coroner’s
23 Office to seek information on Frankie’s death. MEIKLE spoke with Kelly at the Coroner’s Office.
24 MEIKLE was concerned that there may have been foul play involved in Frankie’s death. MEIKLE
25 was informed that there was no foul play and her brother passed away peacefully.
26 19. Kelly also informed MEIKLE that Frankie was found with his identification
27 card, wallet and $56. She assured MEIKLE that Frankie had died peacefully and that an autopsy
28 would be performed on Monday morning and Frankie’s body would be available to the family on
4
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
1 Monday afternoon.
2 20. On or about May 7, 2017 MEIKLE and KERRIGAN went to the site Frankie’s
3 body was found. KERRIGAN dug in the bushes for any possessions, including every single scrap
4 of paper that Frankie might have left behind. MEIKLE gave her father a moment alone at the
5 scene. Once alone, KERRIGAN began to cry.
6 21. On or about May 7, 2017 KERRIGAN and MEIKLE met with Terry Harmon, the
7 director at COLONIAL. They also told Terry they wanted Frankie’s personal belongings, most
8 importantly his black attaché case he always carried and the watch he always wore. KERRIGAN
9 told Terry Harmon that it was very important the possessions were found because Frankie was
10 never without them.
11 22. MEIKLE did not want her brother’s body to be sitting in the morgue. During the
12 May 7, 2017 meeting, MEIKLE asked Terry Harmon to pick up the body as soon as possible.
13 MEIKLE told Harmon that Kelly informed her the autopsy would be performed on Monday
14 morning and the body would be available Monday afternoon. The body was not picked up until
15 Tuesday May 9, 2017.
16 23. On or about May 8, 2017 funeral arraignments were made and a graveside plot
17 was selected near Frankie’s mother, who passed away 10 years prior, at the Holy Sepulcher
18 Cemetery. This area of the cemetery was a sacred place for Plaintiffs.
19 24. The autopsy on the body was conducted on May 9, 2017. Shortly thereafter, the
20 body was released to COLONIAL where the body was embalmed and prepared for funeral.
21 25. MEIKLE specifically directed Terry Harmon to Frankie’s face. She asked that he
22 attempt to make Frankie’s face look full because he was missing teeth and MEIKLE did not want
23 Frankie to appear gaunt.
24 26. MEIKLE provided COLONIAL with burial clothing for Frankie, including size
25 10 ½ slip on dress shoes. Frankie wore a shoe size 9-9 ½. The family decided to buy a larger shoe
26 size to ensure they would fit. Harmon told MEIKLE that everything fit perfectly.
27 27. In the following days KERRIGAN and MEIKLE notified friends and family of
28 Frankie’s death and invited to the funeral.
5
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
1 28. On May 10, 2017 the family sent the funeral director at
2 COLONIAL a recent photo of Frankie to use for the memorial mass
3 cards. KERRIGAN and MEIKLE met with the church and selected an
4 appropriate mass, including songs, prayers and readings suitable for
5 Frankie’s service.
6 29. On the evening of May 11, 2017 there was a very small
7 viewing of Frankie’s body for the family at KERRIGAN’s request.
8 30. During the viewing, Funeral Director Terry brought Frankie’s personal belongings
9 to KERRIGAN and MEIKLE’s husband Terry Meikle. None of the belongings looked familiar.
10 The was no identification in the wallet. Moreover, there was no black attaché or watch in the
11 belongings. The family poured over the possessions for anything that appeared familiar.
12 31. The family prepared three poster boards full of at least 100 pictures of Frankie,
13 which were displayed during the viewing. The poster boards were left with COLONIAL
14 overnight.
15 32. KERRIGAN wanted Frankie buried with a watch on his wrist and a pen in his
16 pocket, two possessions Frankie always had on him. Terry the Funeral director received a watch
17 and a pen KERRIGAN brought and put it on Frankie’s body.
18 33. KERRIGAN asked Terry to further check with his staff and the coroner to help
19 locate Frankie’s black attaché case, his watch and his pen but PLAINTIFFS are informed and
20 believe that no follow up was conducted. Terry Harmon did not tell KERRIGAN about any
21 attempts he made to locate the items and did not respond to KERRIGAN’s requests.
22 34. On May 12, 2017, a mass in Frankie’s memory and a funeral was held at Holy
23 Family Cathedral. Thereafter, the body was interned at Holy Sepulcher Cemetery. Approximately
24 fifty people attended the funeral, including family and friends who came from Las Vegas,
25 Washington State, Ontario, San Diego and Santa Barbara.
26 35. MEIKLE, Meikle’s husband, and Priscilla Kerrigan (KERRIGAN’s wife) noticed
27 that Terry Harmon appeared nervous and apprehensive during the viewing and at the funeral.
28 36. The body was buried without shoes on. The shoes provided by MEIKLE were in
6
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
1 the casket beside the feet. The deceased was buried with dress socks and no shoes. Harmon told
2 MEIKLE that everything provided fit perfectly.
3 37. Upon information and belief, the shoes provided by MEIKLE did not fit the
4 decedent.
5 38. Following the funeral, KERRIGAN and MEIKLE continued to grieve the loss of
6 Frankie.
7 39. On May 15, 2017, KERRIGAN went through every item of clothing and
8 possessions he had been told belonged to Frankie. KERRIGAN could not recognize a single item.
9 KERRIGAN proceeded to call the Coroner and request that they continue to look for Frankie’s
10 black attaché case, wrist watch, and pen.
11 40. On the evening of May 23, 2017, KERRIGAN received a telephone call from a
12 longtime family friend, Bill Shinker, who served as a pallbearer at Frankie’s funeral.
13 41. Mr. Shinker said “Are you sitting down? Frankie is alive.” Frankie showed up at
14 the pallbearer’s home for a visit, unaware that a funeral had been held for him eleven days prior.
15 42. Frankie then got on the phone and said “Hi, Dad, how are you doing?”
16 43. Stunned, KERRIGAN realized that Frankie was somehow alive. KERRIGAN
17 immediately called his family to inform them Frankie was alive.
18 44. When MEIKLE heard the news that Frankie was alive she felt numb and did not
19 understand nor know how to react to the news.
20 45. KERRIGAN and MEIKLE continue to have complex and emotionally disturbing
21 and intrusive emotions. They continue to have feelings of grief and mourning related to burying
22 Frankie and anguish concerning the lies which were told to them regarding the certain
23 identification of their son and brother.
24 46. On May 30, 2017, the family’s representative notified the Orange County
25 Coroner’s Office that Frankie was alive.
26 47. On June 1, 2017, the Orange County Coroner’s Office told the family’s
27 representative that the man erroneously identified as Frankie, and buried in his grave, was John
28 Dickens, age 54 at death.
7
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
1 48. On or about August 23, 2017, John Dicken’s body was disinterred.
2 49. The Fountain Valley Fire Department Incident Report lists the body recovered on
3 May 6, 2017 as John Doe: age 65 weighing 250 pounds.
4 50. A witness at the Verizon Store described the deceased as a heavy man with long
5 dark hair.
6 51. On May 6, 2017, Frankie was 57 years old, did not weight more than 170 pounds
7 and had short light hair.
8 52. The County of Orange has two local registration number’s pertaining to Frankie
9 Kerrigan’s death certificate. Upon information and belief, the two numbers pertain to two
10 different bodies.
11 53. On a working version of the Certificate of Death, the Local Registration Number
12 pertaining to the death is 3095398. Local Registration Number 3095398 is again used on the
13 Physician/ Coroner’s Amendment, changing the identity of the decedent to John Dean Dickens.
14 54. The Local Registration Number used by COLONIAL and found on the Death
15 Certificate provided to KERRIGAN is 3201730007684.
16 55. Upon information and belief, on May 6, 2017, the Orange County Coroner’s
17 Office did not and could not have obtained Frankie’s fingerprints from the body nor did they have
18 or use his identification card to identify the body.
19 56. Upon information and belief, John Dickens body was not the body recovered at
20 the Verizon Store, instead an unknown third individual was found deceased at that location.
21 57. Upon information and belief, employees or agents at the Coroner’s office realized
22 that the body recovered at the Verizon store looked nothing like Frankie sometime after informing
23 KERRIGAN of Frankie’s death but before releasing a body to COLONIAL.
24 58. Upon information and belief, the Orange County Coroner’s Office, through its
25 employees and agents, released a body that was not recovered at the Verizon Store to the
26 COLONIAL that looked “close enough” to Frankie.
27 59. Upon information and belief, the Orange County Coroner’s Office, through its
28 employees and agents, did not want to admit to their identification error and instead released a
8
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
1 body that resembled Frankie with the belief that no one would care because the deceased were
2 mentally ill and/or homeless.
3 60. Upon information and belief, COLONIAL concealed information regarding the
4 appearance of the body that was received by the COUNTY and how different it looked from the
5 photo of Frankie provided by KERRIGAN.
6 61. The Orange County Coroner charges a $318 transport and handling fee.
7 62. The Orange County Coroner charges $16.00 for a copy of a Death Certificate.
8 63. A copy of an autopsy report can be purchased from the Orange County Coroner at
9 a cost of fifteen cents per page.
10 64. On July 23, 2017 the Clerk of the Board timely received KERRIGAN and
11 MEIKLE’s Claim for Money or Damages Against the County of Orange.
12 65. On November 6, 2017 KERRIGAN and MEIKLE filed an amended Claim for
13 Money or Damages Against the County of Orange.

14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

15 Negligence
16 (Against all Defendants)
17 66. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, each
18 and every allegation set forth above.
19 67. Defendants COUNTY and DOES 1-25 owed a duty to Plaintiffs.
20 68. The Coroner’s Office has a duty to investigate deaths and ascertain the identity of
21 the deceased. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 102870, 102855; Gov. Code, § 27471.)
22 69. “The coroner whose duty it is to investigate such deaths shall ascertain as many as
23 possible of the facts required by [Health & Saf. Code, Division 102, Chapter 6].”
24 70. The Coroner has a duty to ascertain “[p]ersonal data concerning decedent
25 including full name, sex, color or race, marital status, name of spouse, date of birth and age at
26 death, birthplace, usual residence, and occupation and industry or business.” (Health & Saf. Code,
27 § 102875.)
28 71. The Coroner has a duty to act with reasonable diligence in attempting to identify
9
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
1 a body placed in his custody. (Davila v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 137, 142–
2 43).
3 72. “A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an
4 employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would,
5 apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal
6 representative.” (Gov. Code, § 815.2.)
7 73. The employees or agents at the Coroner’s Office did not use reasonable care in
8 identifying the body found on May 6, 2017 at the Verizon store when it failed to run fingerprints
9 and/or failed to identify the body through an identification card.
10 74. The Coroner’s and its employees or agents’ negligent misidentification was a
11 substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm as they believed their loved one was deceased.
12 75. Defendant COLONIAL and DOES 26-50 owed a duty of care to prevent
13 foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs. (Quesada v. Oak Hill Improvement Co. (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d
14 533, 596)
15 76. The employees or agents at COLONIAL did not use reasonable care in handling
16 human remains.
17 77. COLONIAL and its employees or agents’ handling of human remains was a
18 substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs.
19 78. The acts and omissions against Plaintiffs by Defendants, and each of them, as
20 aforesaid manifested an unreasonable risk of injury to Plaintiffs.
21 79. Defendants engaged in the acts alleged herein and/or condoned, permitted,
22 authorized, directed, approved, and/or ratified the conduct of their employees, agents, and other
23 representatives and are therefore vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct thereof.
24 80. Upon the false notification of Frankie’s death, Plaintiffs suffered extreme
25 emotional distress, including fright, grief, sadness, mental suffering, worry and mental anguish.
26 81. Upon finding out Frankie was not dead, Plaintiffs suffered from and continue to
27 suffer from additional emotional distress, including anxiety, worry, confusion, nervousness and
28 grief.
10
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
1 82. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered the
2 aforementioned damages. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to general and compensatory damages
3 in a sum in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of the Court and according to proof at trial.
4 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
5 Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act
6 (Against COUNTY and DOES 1-25)
9 84. California Civil Code section 51(b) states “All persons within the jurisdiction of
10 this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national
11 origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation,
12 citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal
13 accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of

14 every kind whatsoever.”

15 85. “Sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition,
16 genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or
17 immigration status” includes a perception that the person has any particular characteristic
18 or characteristics within the listed categories or that the person is associated with a person who
19 has, or is perceived to have, any particular characteristic or characteristics within the listed
20 categories.” (Civil Code 51(b)(6).
21 86. “Although the Act explicitly lists sex, race, and other types of discrimination, this
22 list is illustrative rather than restrictive, and the Act's protection against discrimination is not
23 confined to these enumerated classes.” (Javorsky v. Western Athletic Clubs, Inc. (2015) 242
24 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1394.) “[T]he Act renders unlawful “only arbitrary, invidious or unreasonable
25 discrimination.” (Ibid. at 1395).
26 87. The County discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of their perceived
27 association to an individual that the County perceived was mentally ill and homeless when the
28 County did not provide full and equal access to its services.
11
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
1 88. Plaintiffs were denied equal access and services to the Coroner’s Office because
2 of Frankie’s mental illness and/ or homeless status. As a result, the Office did not properly identify
3 the deceased.
4 89. The Orange County Coroner’s Office is a business establishment for purposes of
5 the Unruh Act since it provides a public service and charges fees for its services.
13 grief.
17 94. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that DOES 1-25 by engaging
18 in the aforementioned acts and/or in authorizing and/or ratifying such acts, engaged in willful,
19 malicious, fraudulent, intentional, oppressive and despicable conduct, and acted with willful and
20 conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiffs, thereby justifying the award of
21 punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
22 95. In accordance with Civil Code section 52(a), Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable
23 attorney fees.
24 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
25 Negligent Misrepresentation
12
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
5 98. Negligent misrepresentation is a tort of deceit. (Bock v. Hansen (2014) 225
6 Cal.App.4th 215, 227 228). According to Civil Code section 1710(2) a deceit is “The assertion,
7 as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be
8 true.”
9 99. The elements of negligent misrepresentation are 1) a misrepresentation of a past
10 or existing material fact, (2) made without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, (3) made
11 with the intent to induce another’s reliance on the fact misrepresented, (4) justi able reliance on
12 the misrepresentation, and (5) resulting damage.” (Ragland v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2012)
13 209Cal.App.4th 182, 196.)

14 100. Defendants, COUNTY and DOES 1-25, made false statements regarding the
15 identity of the deceased body found at the Verizon store on May 6, 2017.
16 101. Defendants had no reasonable grounds to believe the statements made were true.
17 102. The statements were made with the intent to induce Plaintiffs’ reliance on the fact
18 misrepresented.
19 103. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the statement that Frankie was deceased and were
20 harmed.
28 grief.
13
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
4 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 Intentional Misrepresentation
9 109. Defendants, COUNTY and DOES 1-25, made false statements regarding the
10 identity of the deceased body found at the Verizon store on May 6, 2017.

15 111. According to Civil Code section 1710(1) a deceit is “The suggestion, as a fact, of
16 that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true.”
17 112. Defendants knew the representation was false or made the representation
18 recklessly without regard for its truth.
19 113. The statements were made with the intent to induce Plaintiffs’ reliance on the fact
20 misrepresented.
21 114. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the statement that Frankie was deceased.
14
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
1 grief.
10 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 Concealment

19 122. According to Civil Code section 1710(3) a deceit is “The suppression of a fact, by
20 one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead
21 for want of communication of that fact.”
22 123. Defendants, and each of them, intentionally failed to disclose to Plaintiffs facts
23 that were known only to it, that the body was misidentified, and that Plaintiffs could not have
24 discovered.
25 124. Plaintiffs did not know the body was not Frankie.
26 125. Defendants intended to deceive Plaintiffs by concealing the misidentification.
27 126. Had the omitted information been disclosed, Plaintiffs would have behaved
28 differently and would not have facilitated the burying of non-family member, John Dickens.
15
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
8 grief.
17 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
25 representative.” Gov. Code, § 815.2.
26 134. Defendants’ conduct as described above was extreme and outrageous and was
27 done with the intent of causing Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress, or with reckless disregard
28 as to whether their conduct would cause Plaintiffs to suffer such distress.
16
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
8 grief.
17 ///
18 ///
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
17
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants and any other defendants
3 who may be later added to this action as follows:
4 1. For compensatory damages, including, but not limited to economic and non-
5 economic damages in the amount according to proof;
6 2. For attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to all applicable statues or legal principles;
7 3. For cost of suit incurred;
8 4. For punitive damages or other penalties recoverable by law, in an amount to be
9 proved against each individual Defendant (not including COUNTY);
10 5. For prejudgment interest on all amounts claimed pursuant to Civil Code section
11 3287 and/or 3288; and
12 6. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
13
14
15
16
Date: September 27, 2018 By: /s/ V. James DeSimone
17
V. JAMES DESIMONE, ESQ.
18
19 FRANCIS KERRIGAN and
20 CAROLE MEIKLE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 Plaintiffs FRANCIS J. KERRIGAN and CAROLE MEIKLE hereby demand a trial by
3 jury on all claims.
4
5
6
Date: September 27, 2018 By: /s/ V. James DeSimone
7
V. JAMES DESIMONE, ESQ.
8
9 FRANCIS KERRIGAN and
10 CAROLE MEIKLE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
Case No.: 30-2018-00973047-CU-CR-CJC

Fe Ps Sac

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fe Ps Sac

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 V.

James DeSimone (SBN: 119668)

ORANGE COUNTY, COLONIAL FAMILY CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

20 Action Filed: February 13, 2018

13 ORANGE COUNTY (hereinafter “COUNTY”), COLONIAL FAMILY FUNERAL CARE &

13 Money or Damages Against the County of Orange.

14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

13 accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of

14 every kind whatsoever.”

13 209Cal.App.4th 182, 196.)

14 representative.” (Gov. Code, § 815.2.)

14 and every allegation set forth above.

You might also like