Plaintiffs JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2 hereby submit their Complaint for Damages against

Defendants THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, JAMES MASON HEAPS,

M.D.; and DOES 1-500, inclusive, and each of them, and allege as follows.

NATURE OF THIS ACTION

1. This action pertains to Dr. James Heaps’ (“HEAPS”) repeated sexual abuse, assault,

battery and harassment of patients that occurred for over three decades while he was a part of University

of California, Los Angeles (“UCLA”). Heaps used his position of trust and authority as their

gynecologist to sexually violate countless women, including Plaintiffs. The fact he was engaging in

inappropriate conduct with patients was known to UCLA. UCLA had facts available that Heaps could

not be trusted to behave appropriately with patients. Not only did female doctors at UCLA tell others

never to see Heaps in the 1980s, the first California Medical Board investigation of Heaps for sexual

misconduct occurred in the 1990s. Yet, HEAPS was allowed unfettered access to patients until 2018,

when UCLA allowed him to quietly resign.

PARTIES

2. Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (“THE

REGENTS”) is, and at all relevant times was, a public entity (Cal. Gov’t Code § 811.2) and a California

corporation organized under the laws of the State of California. THE REGENTS serves as the governing

board of the University of California and own, operate and control the University of California, including

UCLA. THE REGENTS owns, operates and/or controls medical clinics and hospitals that are part of the

UCLA Health System (“UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES”), which include: Ronald Reagan UCLA

Medical Center; UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica; UCLA Mattel Children’s Hospital; the Stewart

and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at UCLA; UCLA Health Clinics; UCLA Faculty Group;

and the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

3. Defendant JAMES MASON HEAPS, M.D. (herein also “HEAPS”) is an individual who

was and is at all relevant times herein an obstetrician-gynecologist who saw patients at UCLA

MEDICAL FACILITIES between the years 1983 and 2018. HEAPS used his position of trust and

authority as a physician to sexually abuse, assault, batter and harass female patients, discriminate against

patients and subject patients to other misconduct and activities of a sexual nature, including Plaintiffs (all

of which are also collectively referred to as sexual misconduct herein). HEAPS was employed by

medical clinics owned and operated by THE REGENTS and UCLA and held privileges at hospitals

owned and operated by THE REGENTS and UCLA, at the time that the sexual misconduct occurred. At

times and in addition, HEAPS operated through Defendant JAMES HEAPS MEDICAL

CORPORATION, a California corporation that was registered with the California Secretary of State from

approximately 2000 to 2015.

4. Plaintiffs JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2 are two individual women who visited HEAPS

for women’s health issues at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES. JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2 were and

are at all relevant times residents of California.

5. While at the UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES and while HEAPS held privileges at UCLA

MEDICAL FACILITIES, HEAPS sexually abused, assaulted, battered and harassed JANE DOE 1 and

JANE DOE 2. HEAPS was an employee, agent, representative, servant and/or contractor of THE

REGENTS when he sexually abused, assaulted, battered and harassed JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2,

and was acting in the course and scope of his authority, agency, service and/or employment for THE

REGENTS and UCLA.

6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege that each Defendant acted

pursuant to and within the scope of the relationships alleged above, that each Defendant knew or should

have known about, and authorized, ratified, adopted, approved, controlled, and aided and abetted the

conduct of all other Defendants.

7. Defendants and/or DOES 1-500 owned, operated, performed work, controlled activities

and/or was otherwise responsible for the acts and omissions set forth herein. Plaintiffs are informed and

believe, and thereon allege that each Defendant had a duty to Plaintiffs and is legally responsible in some

manner for the events, happenings, omissions and/or occurrences causing damages referred to herein, and

legally and proximately caused damage to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further allege that each Defendant’s

failure to act constituted a breach of fiduciary duties; and/or breach of those duties involved intentional

misconduct, fraud or a knowing violation of law.

8. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, partner or

otherwise, of other Defendants named as DOES 1-500 are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said

Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will move to amend this Complaint to substitute their true

names and capacities when the same have been ascertained.

9. Plaintiffs are unaware of additional bases of liability as to some or all of such fictitious

Defendants sued as DOES 1-500, but believes that their liability arises out of the same general facts as set

forth herein. Plaintiffs will move to amend this Complaint to assert the theories of liability of said

fictitiously named Defendants when they have been ascertained.

10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege that at all relevant times,

each Defendant was the employer, employee, principal, agent, ostensible agent, servant, alter ego,

partner, joint venturer, aider and abetter, officer, director, controlling shareholder, subsidiary, affiliate,

representative, contractor, parent corporation, successor in interest, and/or predecessor in interest of some

or all of all of the other Defendants, and at all relevant times acted within the course and scope of such

employment, agency or relationship, and in doing the things alleged herein, did so with the knowledge,

permission, consent, authority and/or approval of Co-Defendants, and/or bore such other relationships to

some or all of the other Defendants so as to be liable for their conduct with respect to the matters alleged

herein.

ADDITIONAL AGENCY & ALTER EGO ALLEGATIONS

11. Defendants profited financially from the sexual misconduct. Plaintiffs are informed and

believe, and thereon allege that HEAPS had dual motives for his conduct, financial gain from fraudulent

overbilling and the opportunity to sexually abuse, assault, batter and harass Plaintiffs and discriminate

against them. Defendants protected HEAPS from being exposed as a sexual predator because they

profited from his conduct.

12. In the alternative to HEAPS being an employee of Defendants at the time Plaintiffs were

sexually abused, assaulted, battered and harassed by HEAPS, HEAPS was acting as an apparent or

ostensible agent of THE REGENTS, UCLA and DOES 1-500. At all relevant times, HEAPS and THE

REGENTS held HEAPS out as a physician who was working for and/or affiliated with THE REGENTS,

UCLA and DOES 1-500 and Plaintiffs were led to believe that HEAPS was employed by THE

REGENTS, UCLA Health and DOES 1-500, by, among other things (some of which are alleged upon

information and belief): (a) UCLA provided HEAPS with an office, insurance, hardware, software,

furniture and staff at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES; (b) UCLA billed for services HEAPS provided at

UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES; (c) HEAPS was on THE REGENTS/UCLA’s payroll; (d) HEAPS used

the UCLA emblem and other indicia of his affiliation with UCLA as authorized by UCLA, including on

business cards and letterhead; (e) the UCLA Health System Physician Referral Service referred patients

to HEAPS for gynecological and oncology care; (f) UCLA physicians referred patients to HEAPS and

told patients that he was “part of UCLA” or “with UCLA”; (g) HEAPS was a UCLA consulting

physician; (h) HEAPS was a Professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA from 1989 to

2018; (i) the care patients needed that HEAPS did not provide directly were provide by UCLA and at

UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES, including labs and diagnostic tests; (j) at least as early as 2010, HEAPS

had a webpage devoted to him on the UCLA Health website (www.uclahealth.org/jamesheaps) and

HEAPS had a UCLA email address; and (k) at least as early as 2010, HEAPS was listed in the UCLA

Health System Physician Directory.

13. HEAPS was under the direct supervision, management, agency and control of Defendants

THE REGENTS and DOES 1-500. HEAPS was an OB/GYN and oncologist hired, employed,

supervised, controlled and/or retained by Defendant to practice medicine at UCLA MEDICAL

FACILITIES. HEAPS’ duties included providing obstetric-gynecological and oncological medical care

to the female patients of UCLA Health. With knowledge that HEAPS was in contact with and providing

sensitive medical care to vulnerable and naked female patients, THE REGENTS and DOES 1-500 were

in a special, confidential, and fiduciary relationship with Plaintiffs, and thus owed Plaintiffs a duty of

care.

14. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants THE

REGENTS and DOES 1-500 are the alter egos of Defendant HEAPS and/or each other. There exists and

at all relevant times there existed a unity of interest, ownership, operation and/control between Defendant

THE REGENTS, HEAPS and/or DOES 1-500 such that any individuality and separateness between these

Defendants have ceased.

15. In addition to the direct liability of the Defendants as alleged herein, Defendants are liable

for the wrongdoings of and at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES because they are the alter egos and mere

instrumentalities, agents, conduits and/or adjuncts of each other/co-Defendants.

16. Prior to HEAPS being put on THE REGENTS/UCLA’s official payroll on or about 2014,

Defendant HEAPS’ practice was intended to be a mere shell, instrumentality and conduit designed to

shield the assets of THE REGENTS and DOES 1-500 from liabilities arising from owning, controlling

and/or operating UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES in which HEAPS practiced. This abuse of the

corporate privilege has resulted in numerous poor outcomes to patients, including Plaintiffs.

Additionally, Defendants’ use of HEAPS’ office was nothing more than a veil or shell to further their

unjust practice of concealment and misrepresentation of the identity of the responsible ownership,

management and financial interest or concealment of personal business activities under Associated

Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co. (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 825, 840. Further, Defendant HEAPS has

been undercapitalized as a means of avoiding civil liability for wrongdoing. See, e.g., Toho-Towa Co.,

Ltd. v. Morgan Creek Prods., Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1110.

17. Defendants have acted act as a single entity. There was such a unity of ownership and

interest among Defendants that adherence to the fiction of separate existence would sanction a fraud

and/or promote injustice. Given the alter ego relationship between and among the Defendants and

HEAPS, as a matter of law, each of the acts and omissions attributable to HEAPS, is also legally

attributable to Defendants. An abuse of the corporate privilege and the promotion of an injustice will

result from recognizing the separate existence of Defendants as distinct persons or entities.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFFS

A. THE SEXUAL ABUSE, ASSAULT, BATTERY, HARASSMENT OF AND INJURY

TO JANE DOE 1

18. On or about March 28, 2013, JANE DOE 1 visited HEAPS at one of the UCLA

MEDICAL FACILITIES for a gynecology examination, including a pap smear. This was JANE DOE

1’s first and only visit with HEAPS. HEAPS started the appointment in his office, which was separate

from the examination room. After reviewing her medical history and lulling her into a sense of safety,

she was led to the examination room.

19. A female nurse, medical assistant or chaperone (“the female chaperone”) was present in

the examination room and instructed JANE DOE 1 to disrobe completely and put on hospital coverings, a

vest that opened in front and a sheet for the waist down. JANE DOE 1 complied.

20. The female chaperone was present throughout the examination with HEAPS, but had her

back turned and was facing away from JANE DOE 1, and could not see the front of JANE DOE 1 or

JANE DOE 1’s pelvic area during the examination.

21. HEAPS first touched JANE DOE 1’s breasts during what he was purporting to be a breast

examination while JANE DOE 1 was sitting upright on the examination table. Instead of a breast

examination that was within the standard for physicians, HEAPS, without gloves, cupped, fondled and

groped her breasts. This inappropriate touching was not clinical, was confusing to JANE DOE 1 and

made her uncomfortable. He eventually stopped and did not palpate or examine her breasts as a usual

gynecologist would do, including performing an examination while she was supine.

22. Next, HEAPS performed a pap smear by using a speculum to access her cervix and

swabbed her cervix. After removing the speculum, without any warning or consent, HEAPS repeatedly

stroked her clitoris and vaginal lips. After stroking her genitals, HEAPS told her that she could get

dressed.

23. After her horrifying encounter with HEAPS, JANE DOE 1 told an acquaintance that she

felt that she had been violated. She was so disturbed that she never contacted HEAPS or UCLA for the

results of the lab work, and found another doctor.

24. The pap smear and other swabs taken by HEAPS during the examination were processed

at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center (757 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095-8358).

25. It was reasonably foreseeable that the tortious acts, omissions and wrongful conduct and

breach of their respective duties by Defendants, and each of them, would endanger the safety, health and

wellbeing of Plaintiff and cause significant personal injuries and emotional distress.

26. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants HEAPS, THE REGENTS and DOES 1-

500’s tortious acts, omissions and wrongful conduct and breach of their respective duties, JANE DOE 1

has suffered, and continues to suffer personal injuries from the physical and sexual battery, physical

injury, weight loss, great pain and suffering of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical

manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, shame, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation

and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiff has sustained and continues to incur economic damages, including

loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity and expenses for medical treatment and services,

medications and related matters, as well as noneconomic damages, the full nature and extent of which are

not yet known to Plaintiff, and leave is requested to amend this Complaint to conform to proof at trial.

27. As a further direct and proximate result of the personal injuries caused by Defendants, in

whole or part, Plaintiff has been generally damaged in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the

Superior Court, Limited Jurisdiction.

28. Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest on said damages attributable to an ascertainable

economic value pursuant to Civ. Code Section 3288. Plaintiff has lost prejudgment interest pursuant to

Civ. Code Section 3291, the exact amount of which Plaintiff prays leave to insert herein when finally

ascertained and to confirm to proof at trial. In the event that HEAPS is prosecuted and convicted of a

felony for the conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff requests leave to amend the instant Complaint, such that a

request for attorneys’ fees can be made against HEAPS pursuant C.C.P. Section 1021.4.

29. Plaintiff reserves the right to seek leave of court to add punitive damages claims against

HEAPS and/or DOES 1-500 for any “professional negligence” claims through duly noticed motion under

C.C.P. Section 425.13, to the extent Plaintiff asserts any such claims. Plaintiff also separately reserves

the right to seek leave of court through a duly noticed motion to add punitive damages under applicable

law and statutes providing for punitive damages for the various other causes of action alleged herein.

B. THE SEXUAL ABUSE, ASSAULT, BATTERY, HARASSMENT OF AND INJURY

TO JANE DOE 2

30. In or about 1992, JANE DOE 2, a UCLA blood bank employee at the time, visited

HEAPS at one of the UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES for a gynecology examination. This was JANE

DOE 2’s first and only visit with HEAPS. JANE DOE 2 had also been a student of UCLA extension

classes between approximately 1989-1992.

31. JANE DOE 2 was placed in an examination room and HEAPS had her disrobe

completely. While she was naked, HEAPS touched JANE DOE 2’s breasts during what he was

purporting to be a breast examination while JANE DOE 2 was sitting upright on the examination table.

Without gloves and with both hands, HEAPS cupped, fondled and groped her breasts, telling her that

they were “really firm” and they would not be like that forever. This inappropriate touching was not

clinical, was confusing to JANE DOE 2 and made her uncomfortable. He eventually stopped and did not

palpate or examination her breasts as a usual gynecologist would do.

32. Next, HEAPS performed what he was purporting to be a vaginal examination. Without

warning and consent inserted his fingers into her vagina in a sexual manner, stroked her genitals and

flicked at her partially-intact hymen, while asking “how often are you having sex,” and telling her “to get

a dildo to use three times a week.” HEAPS finally stopped and told her she could get dressed.

33. After her horrifying encounter with HEAPS, JANE DOE 2 was so disturbed that she never

returned to HEAPS for treatment. She was often reminded of the sexual abuse, assault, battery and

harassment and discrimination, and would cringe when she saw HEAPS in the hallways of UCLA

MEDICAL FACILITIES while she continued working in the UCLA Blood Bank until she was able to

leave that job.

34. It was reasonably foreseeable that the tortious acts, omissions and wrongful conduct and

breach of their respective duties by Defendants, and each of them, would endanger the safety, health and

wellbeing of Plaintiff and cause significant personal injuries and emotional distress.

35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants HEAPS, THE REGENTS and DOES 1-

500’s tortious acts, omissions and wrongful conduct and breach of their respective duties, JANE DOE 2

has suffered, and continues to suffer personal injuries from the physical and sexual battery, physical

injury, weight loss, great pain and suffering of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical

manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, shame, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation

and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiff has sustained and continues to incur economic damages, including

loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity and expenses for medical treatment and services,

medications and related matters, as well as noneconomic damages, the full nature and extent of which are

not yet known to Plaintiff, and leave is requested to amend this Complaint to conform to proof at trial.

36. As a further direct and proximate result of the personal injuries caused by Defendants, in

whole or part, Plaintiff has been generally damaged in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the

Superior Court, Limited Jurisdiction.

37. Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest on said damages attributable to an ascertainable

economic value pursuant to Civ. Code Section 3288. Plaintiff has lost prejudgment interest pursuant to

Civ. Code Section 3291, the exact amount of which Plaintiff prays leave to insert herein when finally

ascertained and to confirm to proof at trial. In the event that HEAPS is prosecuted and convicted of a

felony for the conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff requests leave to amend the instant Complaint, such that a

request for attorneys’ fees can be made against HEAPS pursuant C.C.P. Section 1021.4.

38. Plaintiff reserves the right to seek leave of court to add punitive damages claims against

HEAPS and/or DOES 1-500 for any “professional negligence” claims through duly noticed motion under

C.C.P. Section 425.13, to the extent Plaintiff asserts any such claims. Plaintiff also separately reserves

the right to seek leave of court through a duly noticed motion to add punitive damages under applicable

law and statutes providing for punitive damages for the various other causes of action alleged herein.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

39. HEAPS’ affiliations with UCLA began in 1983. HEAPS completed his internship and

residency in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, and his fellowship in gynecologic oncology, at UCLA

School of Medicine from 1983 to 1989. In 1989, HEAPS was appointed Assistant Professor in UCLA’s

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

40. HEAPS worked at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES in various capacities from 1983 to

June 30, 2010, including, but not limited to, being employed as a gynecologist at the UCLA Student

Health Center. HEAPS held medical privileges at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES, including Ronald

Reagan UCLA Medical Center, from 1986 to 2018. From approximately 1990 to 2014, HEAPS provided

OB/GYN treatment as a UCLA-affiliated physician at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES. His practice was

located at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES, including as of 2010, at 100 UCLA Medical Plaza. In

February 2014, UCLA fully acquired HEAPS’ practice and HEAPS saw patients at UCLA MEDICAL

FACILITIES as direct employee of UCLA from on or about February 1, 2014, through June 28, 2018.

41. In February 2014, HEAPS was named to the position of Health Sciences Associate

Clinical Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the David Geffen School of

Medicine at UCLA. By the late 1980s, HEAPS had already gained a reputation at UCLA for disturbing

behavior with patients, including failing to put on gloves before touching their genital areas. In the late

1980s, one of HEAPS’ patients mentioned him to a female doctor and then-oncology fellow at UCLA,

who told the patient: “Never see him. Never.”

42. Around the same time, a patient of HEAPS, who was a student at UCLA’s School of

Medicine, mentioned to a friend of hers that she had just had an uncomfortable encounter with her

gynecologist in an elevator. Without knowing anything about the gynecologist, the friend, who worked

in a laboratory in the same building where HEAPS worked, replied, “Oh, was it Jamie Heaps?”

43. In the late 1990’s, there was a California Medical Board (“CMB”) investigation relating to

sexual misconduct with a patient during which the CMB, with the knowledge of at least one of HEAPS’

supervisors, visited HEAPS’ office and took photographs.

44. Michael T. Johnson, M.D., a longtime administrator of the UCLA Health System and its

Vice Chair of Clinical Affairs for OBGYN, has known HEAPS since at least 1998. Dr. Johnson was

aware that HEAPS routinely acted inappropriately with his patients. He both received patient complaints

and witnessed HEAPS’ abusive conduct firsthand. Dr. Johnson’s supervisory role gave him the ability

and obligation to report credible complaints of physician misconduct to the university administration.

But as part of a policy of indifference at UCLA to complaints of sexual misconduct against doctors, Dr.

Johnson failed to act on complaints about HEAPS to protect patients at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES

from his misconduct.

45. In December 1999, Dr. Johnson received a detailed complaint from a patient reporting

HEAPS’ actions and statements during a December 14, 1999 examination for pain in her levator muscles.

In her letter of complaint, she wrote that HEAPS’ “examination of the vagina to be particularly rough,

unnecessarily painful and violating,” and caused her “constant pain for two days after his examination.”

Additionally, the patient complained that during his examination, HEAPS had made multiple

“inappropriate, disturbing and embarrassing” comments while she was “undressed from the waist down”

including unsolicited inquiries as to whether she had a boyfriend and why she did not have one. HEAPS

even suggested that the patient should treat her condition by visiting “the ‘Pleasure Chest’ on Santa

Monica Blvd and purchas[ing] a ‘dildo.’” The patient wrote that HEAPS “then instructed me to insert

the ‘dildo’ into my vagina for thirty minutes each day. He told me not to turn on the vibrator part and to

make sure I did not squeeze the ‘dildo’ with my levator muscles. He also said, ‘don’t forget to lubricate

it.’” HEAPS then held up “various cylinder-shaped objects in the examination room to give me an idea

of the ideal size of ‘dildo’ to purchase.”

46. Despite the detailed allegations stated in this letter, Dr. Johnson never responded, and

HEAPS continued to treat women at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES.

47. In 2004, a breast cancer patient who saw HEAPS for a checkup complained to her regular

doctor that he had rubbed her clitoris, smelled her vagina, and told her that she smelled nice. The doctor

responded that the patient wasn’t the only who had concerns about HEAPS.

48. In 2006, another patient filed a complaint against HEAPS with UCLA, but never heard

back.

49. In 2013, after being referred to HEAPS by Stephen Ross, M.D., a doctor at UCLA

MEDICAL FACILITIES, a patient complained to Dr. Ross that HEAPS had fondled her breasts and

acted in other inappropriate ways during her examination. Dr. Ross told her that another patient of his

had also complained about HEAPS acting in an offensive manner.

50. In early 2014, a breast cancer patient informed UCLA Health System that she was

“completely shocked and embarrassed” by HEAPS’ inappropriate sexual contact and comments during a

medical appointment, and that she had filed a complaint with the CMB. UCLA later informed this

woman that it had “thoroughly reviewed and investigated” her allegations. To the contrary, UCLA never

interviewed the patient in connection with her complaint. UCLA also refused to provide further

information, did not take responsibility for what had occurred, and failed to explain what, if anything, the

university had done in response to her complaint.

51. UCLA’s refusal to inform this patient of the results of the investigation, if any, that it

conducted into her 2014 complaint, violated its sexual misconduct policy. That policy mandated that

“the complainant shall be informed if there were findings made that the Policy was or was not violated

and of actions taken to resolve the complaint, if any.” In addition, THE REGENTS’ own Code of

Conduct mandates that “the University of California will respond promptly and effectively to reports of

sexual violence, sexual harassment, retaliation and other prohibited behavior.” In direct contravention of

their own Codes, THE REGENTS failed to investigate, address and correct a sexually abusive

environment with HEAPS and at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES, and actively concealed HEAPS’

sexually abusive behavior for decades, thereby exposing Plaintiffs to HEAPS’ sexual misconduct.

52. During an investigation into a 2017 complaint against HEAPS for inappropriate conduct

during a gynecology exam, Dr. Johnson said that “nobody would be surprised by allegations” against

HEAPS because it was well known that “Heaps goes right up against the line/boundary of

appropriateness.” D. Johnson further admitted that “what [Heaps] does would make him uncomfortable

as a patient.” In the early 2000s, Dr. Johnson became so “uncomfortable with how [Heaps] was

conducting” a patient’s examination that “he stopped referring his patients” to HEAPS.

53. Dr. Johnson recalled that sometime between 1997 and 2000, investigators from the CMB

investigated HEAPS “for being inappropriate with a patient.” Dr. Johnson had also heard from multiple

patients “who have shared feedback that [Heaps] is creepy. . . .” A UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES’

staff member in the Labor and Delivery department told Dr. Johnson that while she was a patient of

HEAPS, he stroked her thigh during examinations.

54. Other members of the UCLA Health System knew of HEAPS’ misconduct. One

acknowledged in 2018 that HEAPS “lacks boundaries” and, when asked if she had ever witnessed or

heard of any inappropriate behavior by HEAPS, said that his “eyes tend to, ‘linger too long or drop to the

chest area.’” In 2016, one reported to Dr Johnson and the interim Chair of the OB/GYN department,

Andrea Rapkin, M.D., that HEAPS had violated department policy when he examined a pregnant clinic

employee. Another experienced HEAPS’ behavior firsthand in August or September 2014, when

HEAPS made a comment towards her “that made her feel uncomfortable;” he remarked that her “body

looks great” while he “gestur[ed] with his arms and hands like he was framing her body with his hands”

and “made her feel like he was undressing her.” She reported the incident to Bonnie Jacobson, the

UCLA Health System’s Chief Administrative Officer at the time and Jacobsen met with Dr. Johnson, but

Dr. Johnson “did not do anything about what was shared,” “did not report it to the Title IX Officer” or

the department chair, and did not “address it in anyway [sic] with Dr. Heaps.”

55. In August 2014, Dr. Johnson completed a UC Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment

Prevention Training for Supervisors and Faculty, which included material on responding to sexual

harassment claims and the supervisor’s obligation to report such claims “to the appropriate office

immediately.” Nevertheless, in January 2018, when asked why he did not take any action after the

complaint against HEAPS, Johnson was of “the opinion that he was not responsible for taking any steps

whatsoever to respond to or report” a “clear allegation of sexual harassment.” The Title IX report

thereafter found that Dr. Johnson had violated university policy on reporting incidents of sexual

harassment.

56. Despite knowing about HEAPS’ sexual misconduct, in 2014, Dr. Johnson recommended

HEAPS for a UCLA professorship when HEAPS was under consideration for appointment as a Health

Services Associate Clinical Professor. In 2016, Dr. Johnson wrote a letter “strongly support[ing]”

HEAPS’ appointment to a professorship, describing him as someone who “understands the importance of

excellent communication and empathy with his patients.”

57. That year, 2016, HEAPS was paid one of the highest salaries of any UC system employee

and, on information and belief, in other years during his UCLA tenure such as 2015 and 2017. THE

REGENTS received a direct and substantial financial benefit from retaining HEAPS and by offering his

services to UCLA Health’s female patients, at the expense of those women. THE REGENTS also

benefitted financially from concealing the complaints of sexual misconduct against HEAPS because

concealing them protected UCLA Health 's reputation and financial affairs.

58. In addition, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on thereon allege that HEAPS openly

sexually harassed and assaulted several female nurses and medical assistants who worked at UCLA

MEDICAL FACILITIES, and that UCLA Health had received complaints from such female staff

regarding the sexual harassment and assault. Defendants THE REGENTS and DOES 1-500 knew or

should have known of this sexually abusive environment for staff and patients, including Plaintiffs.

Defendants knew or should have known that the sexually abusive environment rendered any "safeguards"

involving nurses/medical assistants/chaperones ineffective and meaningless. Defendants knew or should

have known that nurses/medical assistants/chaperones could not and did not protect patients (including

JANE DOE 1) from HEAPS in the sexually-abusive environment. Despite all this knowledge,

Defendants did not put in place any additional safeguards to prevent foreseeable harm to female

gynecological patients, including imposition of a policy providing for the mandatory presence of an

independent and appropriately trained chaperone, to prevent, deter, and report any misconduct in the

context of gynecological examinations and procedures. Defendants also did not adequately to train their

employees, agents, representatives, servants and/or contractors in how to recognize and report any

misconduct.

59. No one at UCLA Health informed the UCLA’s Title IX office of the 2014 Complaint

against HEAPS or any of the other complaints prior to 2017. The Title IX office only learned of the 2014

complaint, and of another complaint from 2015 against HEAPS, in the course of a 2017 investigation into

similar allegations of misconduct. The Title IX office found that HEAPS had sexually assaulted and

harassed a gynecological patient in 2019, nearly two years after the investigation began. THE

REGENTS waited nearly two years to let the victim and the public know that they agreed HEAPS had

sexually assaulted and harassed her. In delaying the release of their findings, THE REGENTS and

UCLA’s continued their long-standing cover-up of HEAPS' egregious sexual misconduct – and THE

REGENTS' own malfeasance.

60. Hundreds of women have now come forward to report inappropriate sexual misconduct by

HEAPS and THE REGENTS/UCLA have paid over $3 million in individual settlements relating to

HEAPS’ conduct. In June 2018, without disclosing the results of its investigation that found HEAPS

violated university policy on sexual violence, UCLA allowed HEAPS to quietly resign. This was done in

a deliberate attempt to conceal from Plaintiffs and the public that HEAPS was a sexual predator in an

effort to avoid criminal consequences, civil liability and irreparable harm to UCLA’s reputation. THE

REGENTS and UCLA Health’s deliberate and fraudulent concealment includes allowing HEAPS to

quietly resign in June 2018, after its own internal investigation found that HEAPS had committed sexual

assault and harassment against female patients.

61. In June 2018, UCLA finally notified law enforcement of HEAPS’ misconduct. Before

then, despite notice spanning decades, THE REGENTS never once reported HEAPS’ sexual misconduct

to law enforcement or the CMB.

62. HEAPS was arrested on June 10, 2019 and charged with multiple counts of sexual battery

and one count of sexual exploitation of a patient. Only after HEAPS’ arrest did UCLA issue a statement:

“We are deeply sorry that a former member of our staff violated our policies and standards, our trust, and

the trust of his patients. . . . [W]e know we can and must do better . . . .”1 In that statement, UCLA

publicly acknowledged that it had investigated HEAPS in 2018 “for sexual misconduct and improper

billing practices.” Those improper billing practices included overbilling patients and their insurers, both

private and public.

63. At all times that HEAPS was an employee, agent, representative, servant and/or contractor

of THE REGENTS and UCLA, Defendants held HEAPS out to be a trustworthy, safe and legitimate

OB/GYN and oncologist. In making this false representation, THE REGENTS and UCLA concealed the

numerous complaints by female patients. Throughout HEAPS’ decades of sexual misconduct of female

patients, Defendants represented and promoted the UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES as a trustworthy and

safe place for patients, like Plaintiffs.

64. UCLA Health’s website claims: “For more than 60 years, UCLA Health has provided the

best in health care and the latest in medical technology to the people of Los Angeles and throughout the

world;” and UCLA Health’s reported mission is “to deliver leading-edge patient care, research and

education,” and vision is “to heal humankind, one patient at a time, by improving health, alleviating

suffering and delivering acts of kindness.”2

65. By employing, referring, enabling and allowing HEAPS to treat female patients at UCLA

MEDICAL FACILITIES, THE REGENTS and DOES 1-500 represented to UCLA Health patients,

including Plaintiffs, and the public, that HEAPS was safe and trustworthy, even during intimate

examinations. Defendants did so in order to preserve UCLA’s public image and reputation, so they could

retain patients and recruit new patients, thus allowing payments, donations and other financial support for

their financial gain – even while HEAPS was under investigation towards the end of his tenure with

UCLA.

66. Instead of removing HEAPS while he was under investigation, which was allowed under

UC policy, THE REGENTS and DOES 1-500 allowed and encouraged him continue to treat female

patients that were unaware HEAPS was a sexual predator. Defendants abrogated patient safety and

exposed patients to sexual misconduct. In 2018, UCLA received another complaint from a patient that

1See https://www.uclahealth.org/statement-regarding-the-charges-against-dr-james-heaps (last visited

January 2, 2021).

2See www.uclahealth.org/about-us (last visited January 2, 2021).

HEAPS sexually assaulted her during a gynecological examination on February 28, 2018.

67. A public records request in July 2019 revealed that UCLA had agreed to a confidential

$2.25 million settlement with a former HEAPS’ patient alleging sexual misconduct. The Daily Bruin

reported that UCLA wanted to “keep things confidential” to avoid a “blow up like what happened to

USC” with the Tyndall controversy.

68. At all relevant times, a special relationship existed between Defendants, on the one hand,

and Plaintiffs, on the other hand, and Defendants stood in the position of a fiduciary toward Plaintiffs by

virtue of the relationship that arose, the superior knowledge that the Defendants possessed with respect to

standards of care and with respect to allegations against HEAPS, and Plaintiffs’ dependence upon the

Defendants for information regarding services.

69. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and thereon allege that because of the

relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants, Defendants had an obligation and duty under the law not

to hide material facts and information about HEAPS’ sexual misconduct and/or unfitness to provide

gynecological and obstetrics care. Defendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary duty to disclose HEAPS’

wrongful actions. Additionally, Defendants had an affirmative duty to warn, inform, and institute

appropriate protective measures to safeguard patients who were reasonably likely to come in contact with

HEAPS. Defendants willfully refused to notify, give adequate warning, or implement appropriate

safeguards, and that failure was willful, intentional, and in reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and

safety. That failure was the product of Defendants’ selfish desire to promote or preserve their own

reputations and revenues generated without regard for Plaintiffs’ rights, choices and safety.

70. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants failed to

adequately train and supervise all staff to create a positive and safe environment, specifically including

training to perceive, report, and stop inappropriate sexual misconduct, including sexual abuse, assault,

battery, harassment and discrimination. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that

Defendants failed to adopt and implement safety measures, policies, and procedures designed to protect

patients such as Plaintiffs.

71. Among others as set forth herein, Defendants had a duty to ensure that physicians

employed by or affiliated with UCLA, such as HEAPS, used their positions in a manner consistent with

the standard of care, and did not abuse and harass patients. Defendants abrogated this duty; and

Defendants had a duty to prevent and correct a sexually harassing and abusive environment. THE

REGENTS violated its students, patients and other employees’ trust by knowingly exposing them to

HEAPS during medical treatments, knowing that inappropriate physical contact and other harassment

would likely occur. Defendants actively and deliberately concealed HEAPS' sexual misconduct for

years, continuing to grant HEAPS unfettered access to female patients in order to protect UCLA's

reputation and finances.

72. Defendants are liable for the harm to Plaintiffs resulting from the conduct of HEAPS

because Defendants knew and should have known of HEAPS’ unfitness and sexual propensities prior to

the abuse, assaults, batteries and harassment on Plaintiffs and at the time of his placement at UCLA

MEDICAL FACILITIES and his hiring, repeated promotions and retentions. Defendants failed to

conduct any adequate background and/or reference checks in making the determinations to place, hire,

promote and retain HEAPS. Defendants are liable for the acts and omissions of co-Defendants under the

theories of respondeat superior, vicarious liability, master-servant, agency, right of control and/or

ratification.

73. Defendants owed a duty to female patients, including Plaintiffs, to provide a reasonably

safe environment for them and to provide reasonably necessary supervision and oversight for their safety

and welfare while at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES. Defendants failed to fulfill this legal duty.

74. Defendants did not institute basic protections in order to prevent sexual misconduct to

patients, including having independent, qualified, and trained chaperones present during examinations

and/or, if any such protocols were in place, their employees, agents, representatives, servants and/or

contractors did not follow such protocols. Nor, did they train or supervise their employees, agents,

representatives, servants and/or contractors so as to make them aware of how to intervene should any

medically unnecessary or inappropriate conduct occur, nor how to report such misconduct. As stated

above, even though the abuse inflicted upon JANE DOE 1 was in the presence of a female chaperone, the

chaperone did not act to stop the incidents or report the incidents to authorities.

75. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs and other women by keeping HEAPS as

employee, agent, representative, servant and/or contractor and/or allowing him access to women at

UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES. Defendants allowed HEAPS to continue to examine naked and

vulnerable female patients despite a history of knowledge of complaints of misconduct set forth herein.

All of this was despite receiving and suppressing numerous complaints about his inappropriate behavior

and that he could not be trusted to behave appropriately with patients going back decades. As part of a

policy of indifference to sexual misconduct complaints against physicians in the UCLA Health System

and at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES, Defendants failed to investigate or adequately investigate

complaints about HEAPS’ conduct, and failed to terminate or suspend him during or after those

investigations and complaints. Defendants knew of the probability that he would harm female patients

with whom he came into contact, including Plaintiffs. Through Defendants’ failure to timely reprimand

and in sanctioning the acts referenced herein, and for all of the other reasons set forth in this Complaint

including, without limitation, their failure to take the steps necessary to prevent the occurrence of such

reprehensible acts, both internally and by failing to report to law enforcement and the CMB, Defendants

ratified said actions and, accordingly, are liable for the actions of HEAPS. All of their conduct shows

that Defendants ratified HEAPS conduct over and over again.

76. Upon learning of each complaint of sexual misconduct, Defendants THE REGENTS and

DOES 1-500 had a mandatory duty to immediately report the misconduct involving assaults and batteries

to a local law enforcement agency, including, but not limited to, under Cal. Pen. Code Section 11160.

77. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege that as part of Defendants’

conspiratorial and fraudulent attempt to hide HEAPS’ propensity for sexual misconduct and his prior

sexual misconduct with patients from public scrutiny and criminal investigation, Defendants

implemented various measures designed to make HEAPS’ conduct harder to detect and ensure that other

patients with whom he came into contact, including Plaintiffs, would be harmed, including:

a. Permitting HEAPS to remain in a position of authority and trust after Defendants knew or

should have known of his sexual misconduct on female patients;

b. Placing HEAPS in a separate and secluded environment at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES,

which granted him unfettered access and control over patients even when he was purporting to

conduct extremely sensitive gynecological and/or oncological treatment, thereby allowing

HEAPS to physically interact with, and gain sexual access to, female patients at UCLA

c. Failing to disclose and actively concealing HEAPS’ prior record of sexual misconduct and his

propensity to commit such acts towards patients from their patients, the public and law

enforcement, thereby enabling Plaintiffs to be endangered and harmed and/or creating the

circumstance where Plaintiffs and others were less likely to receive proper medical treatment, thus

exacerbating the harm to Plaintiffs;

d. Allowing HEAPS to have unfettered and uncontrolled access to female patients, including

PLAINTIFF;

e. Holding out HEAPS to Plaintiffs and patients at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES, the students

and alumni of the UCLA community and the public as a trustworthy and honest person of high

ethical and moral repute who was capable and worthy of being granted unsupervised access to

patients;

f. Failing to investigate or otherwise confirm or deny such facts about HEAPS, including prior

complaints, claims and investigations for sexual misconduct;

g. Failing to promptly disclose to UCLA students, the public and Plaintiffs the true reasons for

HEAPS’ “retirement” in June 2018, including continuing to promote HEAPS as a faculty member

and trusted physician on the UCLA Health website and UCLA School of Medicine website even

after he had forcibly “retired”; and holding out that he was in good standing and trustworthy;

h. Cloaking HEAPS’ prior sexual misconduct with patients within the facade of normalcy,

thereby disguising the nature of his sexual misconduct with female patients;

i. Failing to take reasonable steps to prevent and correct a sexually abusive environment and to

implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by HEAPS, such as

avoiding placement of HEAPS in functions or environments in which his intimate contact with

female patients was inherent; and

j. Failing to put in place a system or procedure to supervise or monitor physicians, chaperones,

and agents to ensure they do not molest or abuse patients in Defendants' care or at UCLA

MEDICAL FACILITIES, and that they further report all reasonable suspicions of sexual assault

and battery to law enforcement pursuant to Cal. Pen. Code Section 11160.

78. By and through HEAPS’ positions and affiliation with Defendants, Defendants and

HEAPS demanded and required that Plaintiffs respect HEAPS as a gynecological physician for

Defendants and at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES.

79. By and through HEAPS’ positions and affiliations with the Defendants, HEAPS attained

position of influence and authority over Plaintiffs and other vulnerable female patients. Defendants’

conduct created a situation of peril that was not, and could not, be appreciated by Plaintiffs. By virtue of

Defendants’ conspiratorial and fraudulent conduct, and in keeping with their intent to fail to disclose and

hide HEAPS’ past and ongoing conduct from patients, the UCLA community, the public and law

enforcement, Defendants allowed HEAPS to remain in a position of influence where his unsupervised or

negligently supervised conduct with patients made injury of those individuals, including Plaintiffs,

possible.

80. The sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiffs by HEAPS, as described above, took place

while HEAPS was a gynecological physician employed, retained and/or supervised at UCLA MEDICAL

FACILITIES, while he was serving as an actual and/or apparent employee, agent, representative, servant

and/or contractor of Defendants in his capacity as a physician, faculty member and staff, and while he

had privileges at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES. HEAPS used the guise of gynecological care and

treatment to normalize intimate, inappropriate, and sexually abusive contact with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are

informed and believe, and on that basis allege that such conduct by HEAPS was based upon their gender

and was done for his sexual gratification.

81. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiffs were sexually abused, assaulted,

battered and harassed by HEAPS, who exploited his position, to violate innocent and unsuspecting

women such as Plaintiffs.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

82. Plaintiffs’ complaint is timely under C.C.P. § 340.16. Section 340.16, effective January 1,

2021, provides a one-year window to bring claims arising from the wrongful conduct alleged herein.

Section 340.16(d)(1) provides:

Notwithstanding any other law, any claim seeking to recover damages arising out of a sexual

assault or other inappropriate contact, communication, or activity of a sexual nature by a

physician while employed by a medical clinic owned and operated by the University of

California, Los Angeles, or a physician who held active privileges at a hospital owned and

operated by the University of California, Los Angeles, at the time that the sexual assault or other

inappropriate contact, communication, or activity of a sexual nature occurred, between January 1,

1983, and January 1, 2019, that would otherwise be barred before January 1, 2021, solely because

the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired, is hereby revived, and a cause of action

may proceed if already pending in court on January 1, 2021, or, if not filed by that date, may be

commenced between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

83. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to C.C.P. § 410.10. Plaintiffs seek

damages under the statutory and common law of the State of California.

84. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395

because (a) some of the acts and transactions described herein occurred within this county; and (b) some

Defendants are or were registered to do business in the State of California and/or are or were doing

business within this county.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT

Against All Defendants

85. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

86. HEAPS, in doing the things herein alleged, including intending to subject Plaintiffs to

sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment during Plaintiffs’ time as a patient of HEAPS and UCLA

MEDICAL FACILITIES, THE REGENTS and DOES 1-500, all while HEAPS was acting in the course

and scope of his employment, agency and relationship with Defendants, and each of them and were

intended to cause harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiffs’ person, or intended to put Plaintiffs in

imminent apprehension of such contact.

87. In doing the things herein alleged, Plaintiffs were put in imminent apprehension of

harmful or offensive contact by HEAPS and actually believed HEAPS had the ability to make harmful or

offensive contact with Plaintiffs’ person.

88. Plaintiffs did not consent to HEAPS’ intended harmful or offensive contact with

Plaintiffs’ person, or intent to put Plaintiffs in imminent apprehension of such contact.

89. Defendants are vicariously liable for the conduct alleged herein because, even though they

knew of these pervasive, illegal, and inappropriate activities by HEAPS, Defendants did nothing to

adequately investigate, supervise, or monitor HEAPS to ensure the safety of the patients in his charge and

at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES. Nor did Defendants have and enforce adequate safeguards to

prevent foreseeable harm to female gynecological patients, including imposition of a policy providing for

the mandatory presence of a properly-trained independent chaperone, to prevent, deter and report any

misconduct in the context of gynecological examinations and procedures. Defendants failed to

adequately train their employees, agents, representatives, servants and/or contractors in how to recognize

and report any sexual abuse, assault, battery or harassment. Instead, Defendants allowed HEAPS to

continue to perform gynecological examinations of female patients despite knowledge that he had

committed battery and sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment in the past.

90. In doing the acts alleged herein, HEAPS used the power and authority conferred upon him

by Defendants to get access to patients such as Plaintiffs. It is predictable and foreseeable, given

Defendants' knowledge of HEAPS’ prior misconduct and their negligent supervision of HEAPS, and

failure to have and enforce adequate safeguards to prevent foreseeable harm to female gynecological

patients, that someone in HEAPS' position would abuse the power and authority Defendants conferred

upon him by engaging in assaultive conduct. As such, HEAPS’ conduct is incident to his employment

agency and relationship with Defendants so as to be fairly attributable to them.

91. In doing the things herein alleged, HEAPS violated Plaintiffs’ rights of protection from

bodily restraint or harm, and from personal insult pursuant to Civ. Code Section 43. In doing the things

alleged herein, HEAPS violated his duty, pursuant to Civ. Code Section 1708, to abstain from injuring

the person of Plaintiffs or infringing upon their rights.

92. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, individually, jointly and/or

severally, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional distress and physical pain, emotional anguish, fear,

anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, and other physical and emotional injuries, damages (both economic

and noneconomic as discussed herein), and permanent disability, in the past, present, and future, for

which this claim is made. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ personal

injuries and damages as set forth herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL BATTERY (CIV. CODE § 1708.5)

Against All Defendants

93. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

94. During Plaintiffs’ time as a patient of HEAPS and UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES, THE

REGENTS and DOES 1-500, HEAPS acted with the intent to cause harmful and/or offensive contact with

an intimate part of the Plaintiffs, and a sexually offensive contact with Plaintiffs directly and/or indirectly

resulted and with the intent of sexual arousal, all while HEAPS acted in the course and scope of his

employment, agency and/or relationship with Defendants. The conduct and actions of HEAPS, as stated

herein, constitutes sexual battery for purposes of Civ. Code Section 1708.5.

95. Plaintiffs did not consent to be touched by HEAPS. Because HEAPS’ position of

authority as Plaintiffs’ physician, his physical seclusion of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ mental and emotional

states, Plaintiffs’ young age and/or need for medical treatment and Plaintiffs’ reasonable reliance upon

HEAPS, THE REGENTS and DOES 1-500’s representations that HEAPS was providing legitimate

medical treatment, among other factors, Plaintiffs were unable to, did not and could not consent to such

acts.

96. Defendants failed to adequately and swiftly investigate and reprimand HEAPS for his

inappropriate conduct. Defendants’ actions indicate they approved, aided and abetted, adopted and/or

ratified the HEAPS’ sexual misconduct. Defendants are vicariously liable for the conduct alleged herein

because, even though they knew of these pervasive, illegal and inappropriate activities by HEAPS, they

did nothing to adequately investigate, supervise and monitor HEAPS to ensure the safety of the patients

in his charge and at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES. Nor did Defendants have and enforce adequate

safeguards to prevent foreseeable harm to female gynecological patients, including imposition of a policy

providing for the mandatory presence of a properly-trained independent chaperone, to prevent, deter and

report any misconduct in the context of gynecological examinations and procedures. Defendants also

failed adequately to train their employees, agents, representatives, servants and/or contractors in how to

recognize and report any sexual abuse, assault, battery or harassment. Instead, Defendants allowed

HEAPS to continue to perform gynecological examinations of female patients despite knowledge that he

had committed sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment in the past.

97. In doing the acts alleged herein, HEAPS used the power and authority conferred upon him

by Defendants to get access to patients such as Plaintiffs. It is predictable and foreseeable, given

Defendants' knowledge of HEAPS’ prior misconduct and their negligent supervision of HEAPS, and

failure to have and enforce adequate safeguards to prevent foreseeable harm to female gynecological

patients, that someone in HEAPS' position would abuse the power and authority Defendants conferred

upon him by engaging in assaultive conduct. As such, HEAPS’ conduct is incident to his employment

agency and relationship with Defendants so as to be fairly attributable to them.

98. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, individually, jointly and/or

severally, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional distress and physical pain, emotional anguish, fear,

anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, and other physical and emotional injuries, damages (both economic

and noneconomic as discussed herein), and permanent disability, in the past, present, and future, for

which this claim is made. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ personal

injuries and damages as set forth herein.

99. Plaintiffs have been required to expend attorney fees to pursue their rights under Civ.

Code Section 1708.5, and request that they be awarded all attorney fees and costs reasonably required to

pursue their claims pursuant to Section 1708.5.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH ACT

(CIV. CODE § 51, ET SEQ.)

Against All Defendants

100. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

101. Plaintiffs had a right to be free from sexual orientation and gender discrimination, sexual

abuse, assault, battery and harassment under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs’ civil rights were

violated when Defendants, through their employees, agents, representatives, servants and/or contractors,

intentionally concealed complaints of sexual misconduct by HEAPS from Plaintiffs.

102. Defendants were acting under the color of their authority and in the scope of their

employment, agency (whether actual or apparent/ostensive) or relationship during the instances when

Plaintiffs were patients of HEAPS and at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES.

103. Defendants denied Plaintiffs full and equal advantages, facilities, privileges, and health

care services because of their sexual orientation and/or gender by allowing HEAPS unfettered access to

sexually abuse, harass, and discriminate against Plaintiffs by and through his position of authority at as

physician employed at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES and by actively ignoring and concealing from

Plaintiffs their knowledge that HEAPS was discriminatory and a sexual predator.

104. By employing and retaining HEAPS at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES, despite their

knowledge of HEAPS’ abusive and discriminatory behavior, Defendants granted HEAPS unfettered

access to their female patients, thereby exposing Plaintiffs to HEAPS’ sexual abuse and discrimination.

Thus, Defendants’ retention of HEAPS denied Plaintiffs, and all of HEAPS’ female patients, of full and

equal access to safe medical facilities, treatment, and services based upon their gender.

105. The substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ conduct, including of actively ignoring

and actively concealing reports and complaints of HEAPS’ misconduct, was Plaintiffs’ gender, as

Defendants knew that patients would seek sexual health treatment from HEAPS and would be

unwittingly subjected to his sexual misconduct.

106. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, individually, jointly and/or

severally, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional distress and physical pain, emotional anguish, fear,

anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, and other physical and emotional injuries, damages (both economic

and noneconomic as discussed herein), and permanent disability, in the past, present, and future, for

which this claim is made. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ personal

injuries and damages as set forth herein.

107. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful actions as alleged herein,

Plaintiffs are entitled to damages as set forth in Civ. Code § 52(a), including statutory, special and

general damages to be determined by a jury, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees as may be determined by

the Court.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE BANE ACT (CIV. CODE § 52.1)

Against All Defendants

108. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

109. Defendants’ actions as alleged herein have and will continue to interfere with Plaintiffs’

right to be free from gender discrimination in the form of sexual harassment under an educational

program or activity receiving federal assistance, codified under 20 U.S.C., § 1681. Plaintiffs further had

a right to have THE REGENTS respond immediately and investigate their sexual abuse, assault, battery

and harassment, and discrimination by HEAPS.

110. During Plaintiffs’ time as a patient at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES, Defendants

engaged in oppressive and unlawful tactics in ignoring, concealing, and ultimately suppressing Plaintiffs’

complaints of being sexually abused, harassed and discriminated against by HEAPS. Plaintiffs were

threatened, intimidated and coerced from reporting HEAPS’ abusive conduct by HEAPS’ own

intimidating and humiliating conduct as well as the conspiratorial silence and inaction of THE

REGENTS, including UCLA nurses, medical assistants and chaperones. These intentional acts of

concealment of HEAPS’ abusive behavior violated the Plaintiffs’ right to be free from discrimination on

the basis of gender.

111. Plaintiffs were deprived of due process of the law when various complaints to UCLA and

Defendants’ employees, agents, representatives, servants and/or contractors failed to trigger any report,

investigation, or other action by Defendants, who was required to do so under their own policies and

procedures, as well as under Federal mandate, Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment. These actions

were also contrary to Plaintiffs’ civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the State of California.

112. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was intended to, and did successfully interfere with,

Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights to be free from gender discrimination and harassment as well as

interfered with their due process rights under the United States Constitution, specifically the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments.

113. Defendants unlawfully and wrongfully used or employed others to wrongfully use threats,

intimidation, harassment, violence and coercion over Plaintiffs’ persons, to which Plaintiffs had no relief

except to submit to Defendants’ wrongful threats, intimidations, harassment, violence and coercion,

which rendered Plaintiffs’ submission involuntary.

114. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, individually, jointly and/or

severally, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional distress and physical pain, emotional anguish, fear,

anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, and other physical and emotional injuries, damages (both economic

and noneconomic as discussed herein), and permanent disability, in the past, present, and future, for

which this claim is made. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ personal

injuries and damages as set forth herein.

115. Plaintiffs are further entitled to attorney’s fees and other relief pursuant to Civ. Code

Sections 52 and 52.1. In subjecting Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment described herein, Defendants

acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiffs, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’

rights, entitling Plaintiffs to compensatory damages in a sum to be shown according to proof, emotional

distress damages in a sum to be shown according to proof, attorney 's fees, other damages pursuant to

Civ. Code Section 52(b)(1), and a temporary restraining order or a preliminary or permanent injunction

ordering Defendants to refrain from conduct or activities alleged herein, and such other relief as the court

deems proper.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR GENDER VIOLENCE (CIV. CODE § 52.4)

Against All Defendants

116. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

117. HEAPS committed violent acts against Plaintiffs, and/or intentionally threatened violence

against Plaintiff as described above, whether or not Defendants actually intended to carry out the threat.

HEAPS’ acts committed against Plaintiffs, including the sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment,

constitute gender violence and a form of sex discrimination in that HEAPS’ conduct caused a physical

intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature upon Plaintiffs under coercive conditions, whether or not

those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction.

118. The substantial motivating reason for said conduct was Plaintiffs’ gender. A reasonable

person in Plaintiffs’ position would have believed that the threat would be carried out.

119. HEAPS’ actions were approved and/or ratified by Defendants, and were approved and/or

ratified by managing agents of Defendants and/or HEAPS was negligently hired, supervised, retained

and/or employed despite knowledge of his lack of fitness for the business. Defendants are, therefore,

liable for these actions of HEAPS.

120. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, individually, jointly and/or

severally, Plaintiffs were harmed and have sustained severe emotional distress and physical pain,

emotional anguish, fear, anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, and other physical and emotional injuries,

damages (both economic and noneconomic as discussed herein), and permanent disability, in the past,

present, and future, for which this claim is made. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing

Plaintiffs’ personal injuries and damages as set forth herein.

121. Defendants, and each of them committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently

and oppressively with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiffs. The aforementioned acts of

Defendants and each of them, were willful, wanton, malicious, intentional, oppressive, and despicable

and were done in willful and conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiffs, and were

done by owners, officers, directors and/or managerial agents of Defendants. Such conduct was also

authorized and/or ratified by owners, officers, directors and/or managing agents of Defendants. In light

of Defendants, and each of their willful, knowing and intentional conduct against Plaintiffs, they seek an

award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.

122. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiffs are entitled to actual

damages, compensatory damages, injunctive relief, any combination of those, including those damages

(both economic and noneconomic as discussed herein), or any other appropriate relief. Plaintiffs are

further entitled to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Civ. Code Section 52.4(a).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT (CIV. CODE §§ 51.9 & 52)

Against All Defendants

123. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

124. During Plaintiffs’ time as patient of HEAPS and at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES,

HEAPS intentionally, recklessly, and wantonly made sexual advances, solicitations, requests and/or

demands for sexual compliance of a hostile nature based in part on Plaintiffs’ gender that were

unwelcome, pervasive and severe, including but not limited to, HEAPS inappropriately probing,

touching, fondling and/or penetrating Plaintiffs’ bodies, breasts and genitalia, all under the supervision of

Defendants, who were acting in the course and scope of their agency with Defendants and each of them.

125. A business and/or professional relationship existed between Defendants and Plaintiffs. It

was only through the business and/or professional relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants that the

incident was possible. As such, Plaintiffs were individuals protected under Civ. Code Sections 51.9 and

52.

126. The incidents of abuse outlined herein took place while Plaintiffs were under the control

of HEAPS and Defendants, in their capacity and position as supervisors of physicians, medical

professionals and staff at UCLA Health, THE REGENTS and DOES 1-500, and while acting specifically

on behalf of Defendants.

127. During Plaintiffs’ time as patient of HEAPS and at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES,

HEAPS intentionally, recklessly, and wantonly did acts which resulted in harmful and offensive contact

with intimate parts of Plaintiffs’ persons, including but not limited to, using his position of authority and

age to force Plaintiffs to give into HEAPS’ sexual suggestions and conduct.

128. Because of Plaintiffs’ relationships with HEAPS and Defendants, HEAPS’ status as a

physician at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES and Plaintiffs’ young age and/or need for medical

treatment, Plaintiffs were unable to easily terminate the relationship they had with the Defendants.

129. Because HEAPS’ position of authority as Plaintiffs’ physician, his physical seclusion of

Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ mental and emotional states, Plaintiffs’ young age and/or need for medical treatment

and Plaintiffs’ reasonable reliance upon Defendants’ representations that HEAPS was providing

legitimate medical treatment, among other factors, Plaintiffs were unable to, did not and could not

consent to such acts.

130. The acts and omissions of Defendants and their employees, agents, representatives,

servants and/or contractors were performed in furtherance of the practices and policies of Defendants and

were known or should have been known to each of them, and were performed within the course and

scope of Defendants’ authority. It is further that the acts and omissions of Defendants and their

employees, agents, representatives, servants and/or contractors were performed with the knowledge,

permission, consent, authorization, and ratification of Defendants, acting by and through their managing

agents, officers, employees, representatives, servants and/or contractors.

131. Even though Defendants knew or should have known of these activities by HEAPS,

Defendants did nothing to adequately investigate, supervise or monitor HEAPS’ to ensure the safety of

the patients in their charge, including Plaintiffs.

132. A corporation is a “person” within the meaning of Civ. Code Section 51.9, which subjects

persons to liability for sexual harassment within the business, service or professional relationship, and

such an entity defendant may be held liable under this statute for the acts of its employee, agent,

representative, servant and/or contractor. See C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th

1094. Further, principles of ratification apply when the principal ratifies the agent’s originally

unauthorized harassment, which has repeatedly occurred herein.

133. Defendants’ conduct and the conduct of their agents was a breach of their duties to

Plaintiffs.

134. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, individually, jointly and/or

severally, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional distress and physical pain, emotional anguish, fear,

anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, and other physical and emotional injuries, damages (both economic

and noneconomic as discussed herein), and permanent disability, in the past, present, and future, for

which this claim is made. Plaintiffs are further entitled to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Civ. Code

Section 52(b)(3). Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ personal injuries

and damages as set forth herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Against All Defendants

135. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

136. As described above, without Plaintiffs’ consent, Defendants’ employee, agent,

representative, servant and/or contractor HEAPS engaged in unlawful, sexual abuse, assault, battery and

harassment against Plaintiffs.

137. Defendants allowed, adopted, approved, aided, abetted and/or ratified HEAPS’ behavior

by allowing him to continue to work for them with unfettered, physical access to female patients like

Plaintiffs knowing or having reason to know that he had a history of sexual misconduct, including

improperly touching and harassing female patients.

138. Defendants’ conduct was outrageous. Defendants intended to cause Plaintiffs emotional

distress and/or acted with reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiffs would suffer emotional

distress during the massage when the conduct occurred.

139. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate the sexual abuse, assault, battery and

harassment of Plaintiffs by HEAPS, or Defendants’ knowledge and callous indifference thereof.

Plaintiffs had great trust, faith and confidence in in Defendants, which by virtue of HEAPS and

Defendants’ wrongful conduct turned to fear.

140. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate Defendants putting HEAPS, who was

known to Defendants to have physically and sexually abused other patients, in a position of care over

female patients, including Plaintiffs, which enabled HEAPS to have access to other patients so that he

could commit wrongful sexual acts, including the conduct described herein, with his female patients,

including Plaintiffs. A reasonable person could not expect or tolerate the Defendants and their agents to

be incapable of supervising and/or stopping participants and members of Defendants, including HEAPS,

from committing wrongful sexual acts with patients, including Plaintiffs, or to be incapable of

supervising HEAPS.

141. Further, a reasonable person would not expect a chaperone whose presence was supposed

to ensure patient’s comfort and safety during a gynecological exam would sit idly by and not say

anything while Plaintiff JANE DOE 1 was being sexually abused by a physician. Indeed the presence of

a silent chaperone has now further exacerbated Plaintiff’s extreme embarrassment and harm as she was

subjected to what she now understands to be misconduct with a silent audience.

142. Defendants’ conduct described herein was intentional and malicious and done for the

purpose of causing or with the substantial certainty that PLAINTIFF would suffer humiliation, mental

anguish, and emotional and physical distress.

143. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, individually, jointly and/or

severally, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional distress and physical pain, emotional anguish, fear,

anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, and other physical and emotional injuries, damages (both economic

and noneconomic as discussed herein), and permanent disability, in the past, present, and future, for

which this claim is made. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ personal

injuries and damages as set forth herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief against Defendants as hereinafter set forth.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD

Against All Defendants

144. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

145. By holding HEAPS out as an agent of Defendants, and by allowing him to undertake the

sensitive medical care of female patients such as Plaintiffs, and by holding themselves out as a

preeminent healthcare facility and enticing and encouraging students, staff and the public to seek medical

care at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES, including with HEAPS, Defendants entered into a confidential,

fiduciary and special relationship with Plaintiffs.

146. Defendants breached their confidential, fiduciary and special duties to Plaintiffs by the

wrongful conduct described herein, and in so doing gained an advantage over Plaintiffs in matters

relating to Plaintiffs’ safety, security and health. In particular, in breaching such duties alleged herein,

Defendants were able to sustain UCLA’s status as an institution of high moral repute and preserve their

reputation, all at the expense of Plaintiffs’ further injuries and in violation of Defendants’ mandatory

duties.

147. By virtue of their confidential, fiduciary and special relationship with Plaintiffs,

Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty, among other things, to:

a. Investigate, follow-up, or otherwise confirm or deny claims of sexual and inappropriate

conduct made against HEAPS;

b. Reveal such facts to Plaintiffs, the UCLA community, the public, the medical community and

law enforcement;

c. Refuse to place HEAPS and other molesters in positions of trust and authority within

Defendants’ institutions;

d. Refuse to hold out HEAPS and other abusers to Plaintiffs, the public, the UCLA community,

the medical community and law enforcement as being in good standing and trustworthy in

keeping with him and his position as a physician, faculty members and authority figure;

e. Refuse to assign HEAPS and other abusers to positions of power within UCLA and

Defendants, and over female patients; and

f. Disclose to Plaintiffs, the public, the UCLA community and law enforcement all of the

wrongful, tortious and sexually exploitive acts that HEAPS had engaged in with his patients and

at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES.

148. Defendants’ breach of their respective duties include, but are not limited to:

a. Not making reasonable or prompt investigations of HEAPS and/or his conduct in response to

complaints;

b. Issuing no warnings about HEAPS to patients;

c. Permitting HEAPS to consistently not being adequately supervised during his visits with

patients;

d. Not adopting a policy to prevent HEAPS from routinely having patients in his unsupervised

control;

e. Making no reports of any allegations of HEAPS’ abuse of patients prior to or during his

employment, agency and/or relationship with Defendants to the CMB and/or law enforcement;

f. Assigning/scheduling and continuing to assign/schedule and promote HEAPS to duties and

patients which placed him in positions of authority and trust over other patients at UCLA

MEDICAL FACILITIES, in which HEAPS could easily sexually abuse, assault, batter and harass

and/or discriminate against patients; and

g. Continuing to perpetrate the fraud that HEAPS did not sexually abuse, assault, batter and

harass and/or discriminate against patients when Defendants allowed HEAPS to resign quietly

rather than reporting his conduct to law enforcement, the CMB and/or their patients, including

Plaintiffs.

149. At the time that Defendants engaged in such suppression and concealment of acts, such

acts were done for the purpose of causing Plaintiffs to forbear on their rights.

150. The misrepresentations, suppressions and concealment of facts by Defendants were

intended to and were likely to mislead Plaintiffs and others to believe that Defendants had no knowledge

of any complaints or charges against HEAPS, or that there were no other complaints of misconduct

against HEAPS or others, and that there was no need for them to take further action or precaution.

151. The misrepresentations, suppressions and concealment of facts by Defendants were likely

to mislead Plaintiffs and others to believe that Defendants had no knowledge of the fact that HEAPS was

a sexual predator and was known to engage in misconduct with patients.

152. Defendants knew or should have known at the time they suppressed and concealed the

true facts regarding others victims of HEAPS’ sexual other inappropriate misconduct that the resulting

impressions were misleading.

153. Defendants suppressed and concealed the true facts regarding HEAPS with the purpose of

the following: preventing Plaintiffs and others from learning that HEAPS and others had been and were

continuing to sexually abuse, assault, battery and harass patients and discriminate against patients under

Defendants’ control, direction and guidance with impunity; inducing people, including Plaintiffs and

other benefactors and donors to participate and financially support Defendants’ programs and other

enterprises of Defendants; preventing further reports and outside investigations into HEAPS and

Defendants’ conduct; preventing discovery of Defendants’ own conduct; avoiding damage to the

reputations of Defendants; protective Defendants’ power and status in the community; avoiding damage

to the reputation of Defendants or Defendants’ institutions; and avoiding the civil and criminal liability of

Defendants, HEAPS and others.

154. Defendants with knowledge of the tortious nature of their own and HEAPS’ conduct,

knowingly conspired and gave each other substantial assistance to perpetrate the misrepresentations,

fraud and deceit alleged herein by repeatedly covering up allegations of sexual and other misconduct

made against HEAPS and allowing HEAPS to remain at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES and in his

position as a physician, faculty member and staff so they could maintain their reputations and positions

within their organizations and communities.

155. Plaintiffs and others were misled by Defendants’ suppressions and concealment of such

facts, and in reliance thereon, were induced to seek medical care by HEAPS and at UCLA MEDICAL

FACILITIES and induced not to act, exactly as intended by Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiffs were

induced to believe that there were no allegations of misconduct against HEAPS and that he was safe to be

around patients. Had Plaintiffs and others known the true facts about HEAPS, they would not have

participated further in activities of Defendants, or continued to financially support Defendants’ activities.

They would have reported the matters to the proper authorities so as to prevent future recurrences and

would not have allowed others or themselves to be alone with or have any relationship with HEAPS or

under the control of Defendants. They would have undertaken their own investigations which would

have led to discovery of the true facts and would have sought help for Plaintiffs and for other patients,

who had been sexually abused, assaulted, battered and harassment, discriminated against or subjected to

other misconduct by HEAPS.

156. By holding HEAPS out as an agent of Defendants, and by allowing him to undertake the

sensitive medical care of female patients such as Plaintiffs, and by holding themselves out as a

preeminent healthcare facility and enticing and encouraging students, staff and the public to seek medical

care at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES, Defendants impliedly represented that HEAPS was safe and

morally fit to give medical care and provide sensitive women’s health treatment.

157. When Defendants made these affirmative or implied representations and nondisclosures of

material facts, Defendants knew or should have known that the facts were otherwise. Defendants

knowingly and intentionally suppressed the material facts that HEAPS had, on numerous prior occasions,

sexually abused, assaulted, battered and harassment, discriminated against or subjected patients to other

misconduct, and knew of or learned of conduct, or should have known of conduct by HEAPS which

placed Defendants on notice that HEAPS had previously been suspected of misconduct, including

felonies, and was likely sexually abusing, assaulting, battering and harassing, discriminating against or

subjecting to other misconduct the patients in his care and at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES.

158. Because HEAPS’ position of authority as Plaintiffs’ physician, his physical seclusion of

Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ mental and emotional states, Plaintiffs’ young age and/or need for medical

treatment, Plaintiffs were vulnerable to HEAPS. HEAPS sought Plaintiffs out and was empowered by

and accepted their vulnerability. Plaintiffs’ vulnerability also prevented Plaintiffs from effectively

protecting themselves from the sexual advances and misconduct of HEAPS.

159. Defendants had the duty to obtain and disclose information relating to the sexual

misconduct and discrimination by HEAPS.

160. Defendants misrepresented, concealed or failed to disclose information relating to sexual

misconduct and discrimination by HEAPS. Defendants knew that they had misrepresented, concealed or

failed to disclose information related to sexual misconduct and discrimination by HEAPS.

161. Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon Defendants for information relating to the sexual

misconduct and discrimination by HEAPS.

162. Defendants in concert with each other and with the intent to conceal and defraud,

conspired and came to a meeting of the minds whereby they would misrepresent, conceal or fail to

disclose information relating to the sexual misconduct and discrimination by HEAPS, the inability or

unwillingness of Defendants to supervise or stop HEAPS from harming patients and their own failure to

properly investigate, supervise and monitor his misconduct with patients.

163. By so concealing, Defendants committed at least one act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

164. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, individually, jointly, and/or

severally, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional distress and physical pain, emotional anguish, fear,

anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, and other physical and emotional injuries, damages (both economic

and noneconomic as discussed herein), and permanent disability, in the past, present, and future, for

which this claim is made. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ personal

injuries and damages as set forth herein.

165. Plaintiffs also experienced the above-described injuries when discovering the fraud of

Defendants. Plaintiffs experienced extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress that

Plaintiffs had been the victim of Defendants' fraud; that Plaintiffs had not been able to help other female

patients to avoid being harmed because of the fraud; and that Plaintiffs had not been able because of the

fraud to receive timely medical treatment needed to deal with the problems they have suffered and

continue to suffer as a result of the sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment and discrimination.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief against Defendants as hereinafter set forth.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTON FOR NEGLIGENCE

Against All Defendants

166. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

167. Prior to and after the first incident of HEAPS’ sexual misconduct through the present,

Defendants knew and/or should have known that HEAPS had and was capable of sexually, physically,

and mentally abusing and harassing Plaintiffs and other victims.

168. Defendants, and each of them, had a duty, among other things, to properly manage and

oversee HEAPS and UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES; to secure patient safety and to keep the premises

safe for patients; to provide adequate and competent security; to utilize appropriate rules, regulations,

policies and/or procedures for the investigation and prevention of sexual misconduct on their premises;

and to provide or equip the premises with adequate security measures that would have prevented the

incidents. Defendants further breached their duty of care to Plaintiffs by failing to protect the Plaintiffs

from foreseeable harm from the sexual misconduct of HEAPS.

169. As set forth above, Defendants and each of them also had special duties to protect

Plaintiffs and other female patients. As such, Defendants owed Plaintiffs a special duty of care that

medical professionals dealing with vulnerable medical patients owe to protect them from harm. The duty

to protect and warn arose from the special, trusting, confidential and fiduciary relationship between

Defendants and Plaintiffs.

170. Defendants breached their duties of care to the Plaintiffs by allowing HEAPS to come into

contact with Plaintiffs without effective supervision; by failing to adequately hire, supervise and retain

HEAPS whom they permitted and enabled to have access to Plaintiffs; by concealing from Plaintiffs, the

public and law enforcement that HEAPS was sexually abusing, assaulting, battering and harassing and

decimating against patients, by holding HEAPS out to Plaintiffs as being of high moral and ethical

repute, in good standing and trustworthy.

171. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs by failing to investigate or otherwise

confirm or deny such facts of sexual misconduct by HEAPS, failing to reveal such facts to Plaintiffs, the

UCLA community, the public and law enforcement agencies, and by placing HEAPS into a position of

trust and authority, holding him out as being in of high moral and ethical repute, in good standing and

trustworthy.

172. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs by failing to prevent HEAPS from

committing wrongful sexual acts with patients, including Plaintiffs. Defendants’ voluminous past records

of sexual misconduct by HEAPS caused Defendants to know, or gave them information where they

should have known, of HEAPS’ incapacity to serve as a physician, faculty member and staff at UCLA

MEDICAL FACILITIES providing for the physical care of female patients.

173. Under applicable law, Defendants, by and through their employees, agents,

representatives, servants and/or contractors, were medical care providers and were under a statutory duty

to report known or suspected incidents of sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment of patients or any

individuals in their care to the appropriate authorities, and not to impede the filing of any such report.

174. Defendants knew or should have known that HEAPS and other faculty, staff, employees,

agents, representatives, servants and/or contractors of Defendants, had sexually abused, assaulted,

battered, harassed, harmed and/or caused other injuries to female patients, giving rise to a duty to report

such conduct. Defendants knew, or should have known, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that an

undue risk to patients, including Plaintiffs, existed because Defendants did not comply with mandatory

reporting requirements.

175. By failing to report the continuing sexual misconduct by HEAPS, which Defendants knew

or should have known about, and by ignoring the fulfillment of the mandated compliance with the

reporting requirements, Defendants created the risk and danger contemplated by the applicable mandated

reporting laws, and as a result, unreasonably and wrongfully exposed Plaintiffs to harm.

176. Plaintiffs are members of the class of persons for whose protection applicable mandated

reporting laws were specifically adopted to protect. Had Defendants adequately reported the sexual

misconduct of other patients before Plaintiffs as required by applicable mandated reporting laws, harm to

Plaintiffs and other individuals would have been avoided.

177. As a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to follow the mandatory reporting

requirements, Defendants wrongfully denied Plaintiffs and other patients the intervention of law

enforcement and the appropriate authorities. Such public agencies would have changed the then-existing

arrangements and conditions that provided the access and opportunities for HEAPS to harm Plaintiffs.

178. The physical, mental, and emotional damages and injuries resulting from the sexual abuse,

assault, battery and harassment and discrimination of Plaintiffs by HEAPS were the type of occurrences

and injuries that the applicable mandated reporting laws were designed to prevent.

179. As a direct and proximate result, Defendants’ failure to comply with the mandatory

reporting requirements constituted a per se breach of Defendants’ duties to Plaintiffs.

180. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duties to PLAINTIFF by, among other

things, failing to adequately monitor and supervise HEAPS and stop HEAPS from committing wrongful

acts with patients, including Plaintiffs.

181. It was foreseeable that as a result of Defendants’ acts, omission and breaches of duties,

that Plaintiffs would be harmed.

182. THE REGENTS is liable for the acts and omissions of employees, agents, servants,

representatives or contractors acting within the course and scope of employment, agency, service,

representation or contract pursuant to Gov’t Code Sections 815.2, 815.4 and 820.

183. Defendants ratified the acts and conduct committed by HEAPS by continuing to employ

him and allowing him repeated access to female patients, including Plaintiffs, after they knew or should

have known that he had committed acts of sexual misconduct against other patients.

184. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, individually, jointly, and/or

severally, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional distress and physical pain, emotional anguish, fear,

anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, and other physical and emotional injuries, damages (both economic

and noneconomic as discussed herein), and permanent disability, in the past, present, and future, for

which this claim is made. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ personal

injuries and damages as set forth herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief against Defendants as hereinafter set forth.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION

Against THE REGENTS, JAMES HEAPS MEDICAL CORPORATION and DOES 1-500

185. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

186. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to provide reasonable supervision of HEAPS, to use

reasonable care in investigating HEAPS’ background and to provide adequate warning to Plaintiffs and

other patients of HEAPS’ dangerous propensities and unfitness. As organizations and individuals

responsible for and entrusted with the welfare of patients, Defendants had a duty to protect, supervise and

monitor Plaintiffs from being preyed upon by sexual predators and to supervise and monitor HEAPS

such that he would not be placed with vulnerable patients, including Plaintiffs.

187. As representatives of Defendants and UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES, where the patients

thereof were entrusted to Defendants, Defendants’ employees, agents, representatives, servants and/or

contractors expressly and implicitly represented that physicians, faculty and staff, including HEAPS,

were not a sexual threat to those individuals and others who would fall under HEAPS’ influence, control,

direction and care.

188. Defendants, by and through their respective employees, agents, representatives, servants

and/or contractors knew or should have known of HEAPS’ dangerous and exploitive propensities and

that HEAPS was unfit. Despite such knowledge, Defendants negligently failed to supervise HEAPS in

his position of trust and authority as a physician, faculty member and authority figure over female

patients, where he was able to commit the wrongful acts against Plaintiffs. Defendants failed to provide

reasonable supervision of HEAPS, failed to reasonable care in investigating HEAPS and any and all

complaints against and/or concerns of HEAPS and failed to provide adequate warning to Plaintiffs of

HEAPS’ dangerous propensities and unfitness. Defendants further failed to take reasonable steps to

ensure the safety of patients, including Plaintiffs, from sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment and

discrimination.

189. At no time did Defendants have in place a reasonable system or procedure to investigate,

supervise and monitor physicians, faculty members or staff, including HEAPS that could prevent sexual

abuse, assault, battery and harassment and discrimination of patients of HEAPS and at UCLA MEDICAL

FACILITIES, nor did they implement a system or procedure to oversee or monitor conduct towards

patients and others in Defendants’ care.

190. Defendants were aware or should have been aware of how vulnerable medical patients

were to sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment and discrimination by physicians, doctors, faculty

members, and other persons of authority within Defendants’ entities.

191. Defendants were put on notice, knew, and/or should have known that HEAPS had

previously engaged and was continuing to engage in unlawful conduct with students and patients and had

committed other acts for his own personal sexual gratification, and it was foreseeable that he was

engaging or would engage in illicit sexual activities with the Plaintiffs, and others, under the cloak of

authority, confidence and trust bestowed upon him through Defendants.

192. Defendants were placed on actual or constructive notice that HEAPS had sexually abused,

assaulted, battered and harassed other patients and had discriminated against other patients while he was

an actual and/or apparent employee, agent, representative, servant and/or contractor of Defendants.

Defendants were informed of such misconduct by HEAPS and of conduct by HEAPS that would put a

reasonable person on notice of his propensity to do so, prior to the Plaintiffs’ sexual abuse, assault,

battery and harassment and discrimination by HEAPS.

193. Even though Defendants knew or should have known of these illicit sexual activities by

HEAPS, Defendants did not reasonably investigate, supervise or monitor HEAPS to ensure the health

and safety of the patients.

194. Defendants’ conduct was a breach of their duties to Plaintiffs.

195. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs by, among other things, failing to adequately

monitor and supervise HEAPS and stop HEAPS from committing wrongful sexual acts with patients,

including Plaintiffs.

196. Under applicable law, Defendants, by and through their employees, agents,

representatives, servants and/or contractors, were medical care providers and were under a statutory duty

to report known or suspected incidents of sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment of patients or any

individuals in their care to the appropriate authorities, and not to impede the filing of any such report.

197. Defendants knew or should have known that HEAPS and other faculty, staff, employees,

agents, representatives, servants and/or contractors of Defendants, had sexually abused, assaulted,

battered, harassed, harmed and/or caused other injuries to female patients, giving rise to a duty to report

such conduct. Defendants knew, or should have known, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that an

undue risk to patients, including Plaintiffs, existed because Defendants did not comply with mandatory

reporting requirements.

198. By failing to report the continuing sexual misconduct by HEAPS, which Defendants knew

or should have known about, and by ignoring the fulfillment of the mandated compliance with the

reporting requirements, Defendants created the risk and danger contemplated by the applicable mandated

reporting laws, and as a result, unreasonably and wrongfully exposed Plaintiffs to harm.

199. Plaintiffs are members of the class of persons for whose protection applicable mandated

reporting laws were specifically adopted to protect. Had Defendants adequately reported the sexual

misconduct of other patients before Plaintiffs as required by applicable mandated reporting laws, harm to

Plaintiffs and other individuals would have been avoided.

200. As a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to follow the mandatory reporting

requirements, Defendants wrongfully denied Plaintiffs and other patients the intervention of law

enforcement and the appropriate authorities. Such public agencies would have changed the then-existing

arrangements and conditions that provided the access and opportunities for HEAPS to harm Plaintiffs.

201. The physical, mental, and emotional damages and injuries resulting from the sexual abuse,

assault, battery and harassment and discrimination of Plaintiffs by HEAPS were the type of occurrences

and injuries that the applicable mandated reporting laws were designed to prevent.

202. As a direct and proximate result, Defendants’ failure to comply with the mandatory

reporting requirements constituted a per se breach of Defendants’ duties to Plaintiffs.

203. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs by, among other things, failing to adequately

monitor and supervise HEAPS and stop HEAPS from committing wrongful sexual acts with patients,

including Plaintiffs.

204. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, individually, jointly, and/or

severally, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional distress and physical pain, emotional anguish, fear,

anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, and other physical and emotional injuries, damages (both economic

and noneconomic as discussed herein), and permanent disability, in the past, present, and future, for

which this claim is made. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ personal

injuries and damages as set forth herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief against Defendants as hereinafter set forth.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION

Against THE REGENTS, JAMES HEAPS MEDICAL CORPORATION and DOES 1-500

205. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

206. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to not hire or retain HEAPS or allow him to practice at

UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES given his dangerous and exploitive propensities, which Defendants

knew or should have known about had they engaged in a reasonable and adequate investigation of his

background prior to and during his hiring or retention in subsequent positions of employment, agency,

servitude or relationship.

207. Defendants expressly and implicitly represented that physicians, faculty members and

staff at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES, including HEAPS, were not a sexual threat to patients and

others who would fall under HEAPS’ influence, control, direction and/or guidance.

208. At no time did Defendants have in place a reasonable system or procedure to investigate,

supervise and monitor physicians, faculty members or staff, including HEAPS that could prevent sexual

abuse, assault, battery and harassment and discrimination of patients of HEAPS and at UCLA MEDICAL

FACILITIES, nor did they implement a system or procedure to oversee or monitor conduct towards

patients and others in Defendants’ care.

209. Defendants were aware or should have been aware of how vulnerable medical patients

were to sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment and discrimination by physicians, doctors, faculty

members, and other persons of authority within Defendants’ entities.

210. Defendants were put on notice, knew, and/or should have known that HEAPS had

previously engaged and was continuing to engage in unlawful conduct with students and patients and had

committed other acts for his own personal sexual gratification, and it was foreseeable that he was

engaging or would engage in illicit sexual activities with the Plaintiffs, and others, under the cloak of

authority, confidence and trust bestowed upon him through Defendants.

211. Defendants were placed on actual or constructive notice that HEAPS had sexually abused,

assaulted, battered and harassed other patients and had discriminated against other patients while he was

an actual and/or apparent employee, agent, representative, servant and/or contractor of Defendants.

Defendants were informed of such misconduct by HEAPS and of conduct by HEAPS that would put a

reasonable person on notice of his propensity to do so, prior to the Plaintiffs’ sexual abuse, assault,

battery and harassment and discrimination by HEAPS. Even though Defendants knew or should have

known of these sexually illicit activities and misconduct by HEAPS, Defendants failed to use reasonable

care in investigating HEAPS and did nothing to reasonably investigate, supervise, or monitor HEAPS to

ensure the safety of the patients.

212. Even though Defendants knew or should have known of these illicit sexual activities by

HEAPS, Defendants did not use reasonable care to investigate, supervise, or monitor HEAPS to ensure

the health and safety of the patients.

213. Defendants’ conduct was a breach of their duties to Plaintiffs.

214. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs by, among other things, failing to adequately

monitor and supervise HEAPS and stop HEAPS from committing wrongful acts on and against patients,

including Plaintiffs.

215. Under applicable law, Defendants, by and through their employees, agents,

representatives, servants and/or contractors, were medical care providers and were under a statutory duty

to report known or suspected incidents of sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment of patients or any

individuals in their care to the appropriate authorities, and not to impede the filing of any such report.

216. Defendants knew or should have known that HEAPS and other faculty, staff, employees,

agents, representatives, servants and/or contractors of Defendants, had sexually abused, assaulted,

battered, harassed, harmed and/or caused other injuries to female patients, giving rise to a duty to report

such conduct. Defendants knew, or should have known, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that an

undue risk to patients, including Plaintiffs, existed because Defendants did not comply with mandatory

reporting requirements.

217. By failing to report the continuing sexual misconduct by HEAPS, which Defendants knew

or should have known about, and by ignoring the fulfillment of the mandated compliance with the

reporting requirements, Defendants created the risk and danger contemplated by the applicable mandated

reporting laws, and as a result, unreasonably and wrongfully exposed Plaintiffs to harm.

218. Plaintiffs are members of the class of persons for whose protection applicable mandated

reporting laws were specifically adopted to protect. Had Defendants adequately reported the sexual

misconduct of other patients before Plaintiffs as required by applicable mandated reporting laws, harm to

Plaintiffs and other individuals would have been avoided.

219. As a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to follow the mandatory reporting

requirements, Defendants wrongfully denied Plaintiffs and other patients the intervention of law

enforcement and the appropriate authorities. Such public agencies would have changed the then-existing

arrangements and conditions that provided the access and opportunities for HEAPS to harm Plaintiffs.

220. The physical, mental, and emotional damages and injuries resulting from the sexual abuse,

assault, battery and harassment and discrimination of Plaintiffs by HEAPS were the type of occurrences

and injuries that the applicable mandated reporting laws were designed to prevent.

221. As a direct and proximate result, Defendants’ failure to comply with the mandatory

reporting requirements constituted a per se breach of Defendants’ duties to Plaintiffs

222. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs by, among other things, failing to adequately

monitor and supervise HEAPS and stop HEAPS from committing wrongful sexual acts with patients,

including Plaintiffs.

223. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, individually, jointly, and/or

severally, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional distress and physical pain, emotional anguish, fear,

anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, and other physical and emotional injuries, damages (both economic

and noneconomic as discussed herein), and permanent disability, in the past, present, and future, for

which this claim is made. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ personal

injuries and damages as set forth herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief against Defendants as hereinafter set forth.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FORNEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN, TRAIN OR EDUCATE

Against THE REGENTS, JAMES HEAPS MEDICAL CORPORATION and DOES 1-500

224. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

225. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect

Plaintiffs and other patients from the risk of sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment and

discrimination and harm by HEAPS by properly warning, training or educating Plaintiffs and others

about how to avoid such a risk.

226. Defendants breached their duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect Plaintiffs

and other patients from the risk of from the risk of sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment and

discrimination and harm by HEAPS, such as the failure to properly warn, train or educate Plaintiffs and

other patients about how to avoid the particular risk of sexual misconduct that HEAPS posed.

227. Defendants breached their duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect the

Plaintiffs and other patients from the risk of from the risk of sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment

and discrimination and harm by HEAPS, by failing to supervise and stop employee, agent, representative,

servant and/or contractor of Defendants, including HEAPS, from committing wrongful sexual acts with

patients, including Plaintiffs.

228. Under applicable law, Defendants, by and through their employees, agents,

representatives, servants and/or contractors, were medical care providers and were under a statutory duty

to report known or suspected incidents of sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment of patients or any

individuals in their care to the appropriate authorities, and not to impede the filing of any such report.

229. Defendants knew or should have known that HEAPS and other faculty, staff, employees,

agents, representatives, servants and/or contractors of Defendants, had sexually abused, assaulted,

battered, harassed, harmed and/or caused other injuries to female patients, giving rise to a duty to report

such conduct. Defendants knew, or should have known, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that an

undue risk to patients, including Plaintiffs, existed because Defendants did not comply with mandatory

reporting requirements.

230. By failing to report the continuing sexual misconduct by HEAPS, which Defendants knew

or should have known about, and by ignoring the fulfillment of the mandated compliance with the

reporting requirements, Defendants created the risk and danger contemplated by the applicable mandated

reporting laws, and as a result, unreasonably and wrongfully exposed Plaintiffs to harm.

231. Plaintiffs are members of the class of persons for whose protection applicable mandated

reporting laws were specifically adopted to protect. Had Defendants adequately reported the sexual

misconduct of other patients before Plaintiffs as required by applicable mandated reporting laws, harm to

Plaintiffs and other individuals would have been avoided.

232. As a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to follow the mandatory reporting

requirements, Defendants wrongfully denied Plaintiffs and other patients the intervention of law

enforcement and the appropriate authorities. Such public agencies would have changed the then-existing

arrangements and conditions that provided the access and opportunities for HEAPS to harm Plaintiffs.

233. The physical, mental, and emotional damages and injuries resulting from the sexual abuse,

assault, battery and harassment and discrimination of Plaintiffs by HEAPS were the type of occurrences

and injuries that the applicable mandated reporting laws were designed to prevent.

234. As a direct and proximate result, Defendants’ failure to comply with the mandatory

reporting requirements constituted a per se breach of Defendants’ duties to Plaintiffs.

235. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty to Plaintiffs by, among other things,

failing to adequately monitor and supervise HEAPS and stop HEAPS from committing wrongful sexual

acts with patients, including Plaintiffs.

236. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, individually, jointly, and/or

severally, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional distress and physical pain, emotional anguish, fear,

anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, and other physical and emotional injuries, damages (both economic

and noneconomic as discussed herein), and permanent disability, in the past, present, and future, for

which this claim is made. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ personal

injuries and damages as set forth herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief against Defendants as hereinafter set forth.

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AIDING AND ABETTING

Against THE REGENTS, JAMES HEAPS MEDICAL CORPORATION and DOES 1-500

237. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

238. Defendants knew that HEAPS had engaged in and would engage in willful misconduct,

gross negligence, sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment and discrimination or other conduct that

put the safety, health and welfare of Plaintiffs at risk.

239. Defendants gave substantial assistance to HEAPS in performing such willful misconduct,

gross negligence, sexual abuse, assault, battery and harassment and discrimination or other conduct that

put the safety, health and welfare of Plaintiffs at risk.

240. Defendants and their employees, agents, representatives, servants and/or contractors and

managing agents were on actual and constructive notice of HEAPS’s prior misconduct and abusive

behavior, as more fully set forth herein, and had received multiple complaints and allegations regarding

HEAPS’s conduct and behavior.

241. Defendants and their employees, agents, representatives, servants and/or contractors and

managing agents were aware that such conduct and behavior by HEAPS, as more fully set forth herein

above, represented a routine practice by HEAPS.

242. Defendants and their employees, agents, representatives, servants and/or contractors and

managing agents did not take action or in any way appropriately respond to the complaints and

allegations raised regarding the conduct and behavior of HEAPS and permitted HEAPS continued

unfettered access to female patients at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES.

243. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, individually, jointly, and/or

severally, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional distress and physical pain, emotional anguish, fear,

anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, and other physical and emotional injuries, damages (both economic

and noneconomic as discussed herein), and permanent disability, in the past, present, and future, for

which this claim is made. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ personal

injuries and damages as set forth herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief against Defendants as hereinafter set forth.

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

Against THE REGENTS, JAMES HEAPS MEDICAL CORPORATION and DOES 1-500

244. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

245. Defendants had a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiffs based upon the facts stated herein.

Defendants were duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of Plaintiffs, given that

Defendants undertook the responsibility of providing Plaintiffs with gynecological and/or oncological

treatment with HEAPS and at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES.

246. Defendants intentionally failed to disclose to Plaintiffs that they had received numerous

complaints about HEAPS’ prior misconduct towards female patients during gynecological and

oncological examinations and at UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES. Moreover, Defendants failed to take

any disciplinary action against HEAPS, failed to adequately investigate the complaints against HEAPS

and failed to notify law enforcement and the CMB of HEAPS’ prior misconduct toward patients for over

three decades, and instead made false representations that that HEAPS was a legitimate medical doctor

who was trustworthy to perform safe medical examinations and treatments within the appropriate

standards of care.

247. When Defendants concealed such information and made such representations described

herein, Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon such false representations. As a result of Defendants’ actions,

Plaintiffs did not know of the concealed facts. Defendants intended to deceive Plaintiffs by concealing

the facts. Had Defendants disclosed the omitted information, Plaintiffs reasonably would have behaved

differently, and would not have sought gynecological and/or oncological treatment from HEAPS.

248. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, individually, jointly, and/or

severally, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional distress and physical pain, emotional anguish, fear,

anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, and other physical and emotional injuries, damages (both economic

and noneconomic as discussed herein), and permanent disability, in the past, present, and future, for

which this claim is made. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ personal

injuries and damages as set forth herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief against Defendants as hereinafter set forth.

FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF MANDATORY DUTY (GOV’T CODE § 815.6)

Against THE REGENTS

249. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

250. Pursuant to Gov’t Code Section 815.6, Defendant THE REGENTS is liable for Plaintiffs’

injuries proximately caused by its failure to discharge mandatory duties as alleged herein. Defendant was a

public entity under mandatory duties imposed by enactments that were designed to protect against the risk of

the particular kind of injuries suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of the incidents, but not limited to, THE

REGENTS’ Bylaws 21.2, 21.3 & 21.4, Policies 4402 and Code of Conduct; Cal. Pen. Code Section

11160; Cal. Ed. Code Sections 200 & 234.1; and Cal. Const. Article 1 Sections 26, 28 & 31.

251. Defendant did not make reasonable efforts or exercise reasonable diligence to perform its

mandatory duties imposed under enactments and failed to perform the mandatory duties imposed by said

enactments.

252. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to perform its mandatory duties,

Plaintiffs were caused to suffer the injuries and damages alleged herein. Defendant’s failure to perform

its mandatory duties was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages alleged herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant as hereinafter set forth.

SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY

Against THE REGENTS and DOES 1-500

253. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

254. At all times relevant herein, the Defendants owned, operated and/or controlled the UCLA

MEDICAL FACILITIES and allowed to exist, a dangerous condition of public property that existed on

their premises, including placing HEAPS in a separate and/or secluded environment that granted him

unfettered access and control over patients, allowing a known sexual predator on their premises, failing

to adequately maintain, inspect, secure, supervise and manage their premises, and maintaining a

dangerous condition in the offices/facilities where HEAPS saw patients and used their equipment and

furniture to repeatedly violate patients. These conditions were known, or should have been known, to

Defendants for a sufficient time for them to discover and remedy prior to each of the Plaintiffs being

harmed.

255. Defendants had a duty to protect the public against harms caused by the negligent

ownership, control, operation, building, construction, development, maintenance, management,

modification, inspection and/or repair of UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES. Due to the Defendants’

negligent ownership, control, operation, building, construction, development, maintenance, management,

modification, inspection and/or repair of UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES, they were in a dangerous and

defective condition.

256. The Defendants are liable for the Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages pursuant to, but not

limited to, the following statutes: Gov’t Code Sections 818.6, 830 and 835 et seqs., including, without

limitation, Section 835.2. The Defendants are liable for breaches of its duties as set forth herein. As set

forth in Section 830(a), ‘“Dangerous condition’ means a condition of property that creates a substantial

(as distinguished from a minor, trivial or insignificant) risk of injury when such property or adjacent

property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.”

‘“Protect against’ includes repairing, remedying or correcting a dangerous condition, providing

safeguards against a dangerous condition, or warning of a dangerous condition.” (Section 830(b).)

257. The dangerous condition of public property created a substantial risk of injury to members

of the public, including the Plaintiffs, when they used UCLA MEDICAL FACILITIES with reasonable

care and in a reasonably foreseeable manner at the time of the incidents. Plaintiffs are within the general

class of persons that one reasonably would anticipate might be threatened by Defendants’ conduct; and

the harm suffered by Plaintiffs is within the general class of harms that one reasonably would anticipate

might result from Defendants’ conduct.

258. As a direct and proximate result of the dangerous condition of public property and the

acts, omissions, negligence and breach of duties of the Defendants related thereto, Plaintiffs have

incurred the injuries and damages as set forth herein. The dangerous condition of public property was a

substantial factor in causing the injuries and harm to the Plaintiffs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. For past and future special damages, including, but not limited to, medical and incidental

expenses, and earnings loss and diminution in earning capacity;

2. For past and future general damages;

3. For attorneys’ pursuant to Civ. Code Sections 51, et seq. and 52, et seq., and C.C.P.

Section 1021.5, et seq. and Section 1708.5, and all applicable laws;

4. For any and all appropriate statutory damages;

5. For declaratory and injunctive relief, including, but not limited to, court supervision of

THE REGENTS;

6. For interest based on damages as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as

allowed by law;

7. For costs of suit herein; and

8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.

DATED: March 1, 2021 FIORE ACHERMANN, A Law Corp., RIBERA LAW

FIRM, ALC & THOMPSON LAW OFFICES, P.C.

By: ___________________________

JENNIFER FIORE, ESQ.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dr. James Heaps Assault and Abuse Free Legal Consultation:

We handle Dr. James Heaps Sexual Assault and Abuse cases in Alameda County, Los Angeles County, Marin County, Napa County, Orange County, Sacramento County, Santa Clara County, San Diego County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Sonoma County, Ventura County, and other counties across the State of California.