Click on the Court Orders button at the top of this page to read recent decisions regarding this case.



Willed Body Program Litigation Update – February 2007

The parties have met with the Court and set up a more detailed discovery/case management plan.  Based on the documents, records and testimony we have obtained, we can start dividing the family members/plaintiffs into particular groupings.

Group 1 consists of those plaintiffs for whom we have documentation showing their loved ones’ bodies were sent to an off-campus entity for use.

Group 2 consists of those plaintiffs for whom we have identified the bodies of their loved ones as still being at the UCLA on-campus.

Group 3 consists of those plaintiffs for whom defendant the Regents has documentation believed to concern in some manner the final disposition of donors’ remains.

Group 4 consists of those plaintiffs for whom defendant the Regents has no documentation concerning in any manner the final disposition of donors’ remains.

Our office will continue to work to identify what happened to each and every donor’s body once turned over to UCLA.



Willed Body Program Litigation Update – January 2007

The parties have jointly retained the expert services of a DNA sampling company. A number of donated remains are still being held at UCLA. We want to identify those remains and preserve a DNA record for those remains, should some dispute arise concerning the identification of any donors. The DNA sampling experts are to provide the parties with a complete list and description of the remains currently held by UCLA.

Once the sampling and identification process is completed, the remains will be cremated. The cremains will thereafter be preserved pending a determination concerning the final disposition by the parties and/or the Court.



Willed Body Program Litigation Update – December 2006

We have taken the first session of Ernest Nelson’s deposition.. For three days Mr. Nelson described how UCLA and Johnson & Johnson, Inc. paid him to disarticulate donors’ remains. And, Mr. Nelson produced records of some of the bodies he sent off-campus. These documents list tracking numbers assigned to the bodies when they are first received by UCLA. We, therefore, now have records that identify by number some of the donors’ bodies sold by UCLA to Johnson & Johnson, Inc. and several other corporate entities.

The next step is to obtain a complete list of the names of donors which match up with the tracking numbers assigned to each donor. In that way, we will be able to positively identify a number of bodies transferred off-campus for use by Johnson & Johnson, Inc. and other companies.


Willed Body Program Litigation Update – November 2006

The Court has issued its Order on the defendants’ demurrers to (motions to dismiss) Plaintiffs’ complaint and motion to strike the class action allegations. The Court overruled (denied) the defendants’ motions to dismiss the negligence cause of action and denied the Regents’ effort to dismiss the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action.

However, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to strike the class action allegations. This means that the matter is no longer a class action lawsuit. It DOES NOT mean the case is finished or that Plaintiffs have lost their right to recover. It simply means that the cases are now considered individual cases, but the Court will still manage the cases together and move the cases along together. It also means there is no longer a class representative to respond to discovery on behalf of all plaintiffs, so all plaintiffs will likely have to help in this endeavor as the cases move forward.

UCLA Willed Body Program Litigation Update – Change of Scheduled Hearing Date

Please note, the Court has rescheduled the further status conference previously scheduled for February 23, 2006 at the hour of 1:45 p.m. The status conference has been rescheduled for March 10, 2006 at the hour of 2:00 p.m. in Dept. 323 of the Central Civil West Courthouse.

IMPORTANT UPDATE CONCERNING THE STATUS OF THE UCLAWILLED BODY PROGRAM LITIGATION – FEBRUARY 2006

Recently, the California Court of Appeal issued a decision that may materially affect our ability to certify this case as a class action. In the case entitled Bennett v. The Regents of the University of California 133 Cal.App.4th 347 (2005), the Court of Appeal, in dicta, implied that cases involving the mishandling of human remains do not generally lend themselves to class certification. The plaintiffs filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court, asking that the Supreme Court review the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Petition was denied last month.

Usually, the pendency of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for all individuals who may wish to file their own, separate suits. Then, if class certification is denied, individuals may still file complaints and seek legal redress individually even though the usual statute of limitations deadline has passed. However, this is not always the case.

It is possible that a court might determine there was no reasonable possibility to certify a class and declare the statute of limitations was not tolled during that period of time in which the class action was actually pending. If that happens, the usual statute of limitations deadline would apply to all unnamed class members’ potential claims, even where the motion for class certification was not actually heard until after the usual statute of limitations period had run. This would mean unnamed class members’ claims would be legally barred.

Given the recent Bennett decision, and in an abundance of caution, our firm

intends to file a single complaint before March 6, 2006 on behalf of all those individuals who have retained our office in the ongoing litigation arising from UCLA’s wrongful sale and disposition of donated remains. The complaint will name all our clients, ensuring them the continued right and ability to pursue their cases against UCLA even if class certification is ultimately denied by the court, should they so desire.

The complaint will be filed on March 6, 2006. Those family members related to your decedent, who have not signed a retainer agreement with our firm, or retained other counsel, should do so prior to March 6, 2006. Our complaint can only be filed on behalf of those who wish to retain our office by March 6, 2006. So, please, if you or members of your family have not signed a retainer agreement, contact our office as soon as possible. Our office will continue to pursue this matter as a class action, but filing this additional complaint on March 6, 2006 will ensure all possible litigation rights and all possible avenues of redress will remain open to you and your family members.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (310) 854-4444 or send me an e-mail at eyerly@kbla.com.

January 2006

The hearing on the defendants’ demurrers took place on December 13^th. The parties argued the matters before the Court for more than four hours. At the end of the day, the Court took the matter under submission. It is anticipated that Judge Kuhl will issue a written decision within the next several weeks. We will post the decision as soon as it is received by our office.

The parties and the Court also addressed discovery issues after the hearing on demurrers. UCLA has objected and refused to produce any documents. After hearing arguments on this issue, the Court made several discovery orders, which will force UCLA to start producing documents.

Lastly, the Court set a further status/discovery conference for January 17, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 323 of the Central Civil West Courthouse.

December 2005

The hearing on the defendants’ demurrers (motions to dismiss) has once again been rescheduled. The Court has rescheduled oral arguments on the motions for December 13, 2005 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 323 of the Central Civil West Courthouse.

All the briefing on the demurrers has been completed and the briefs have all been filed with the Court. The defendants’ demurrers, our oppositions to demurrers, and the defendants’ replies in support of demurrers are all available to you on our website.

In a nutshell, the defendants argue that family members of decedents may not, as a matter of law, seek redress against UCLA and the other defendants for mishandling bodies donated to the school. UCLA argues that the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act gives it rights superior to all others over the decedents’ remains and affords the school with statutory immunity for its actions. In effect, UCLA argues that it may do whatever it wishes with the donors’ bodies – despite whatever promises and representations the school made to donors, their families and the general public. UCLA also argues that whatever promises it may have made concerning the use, treatment and disposition of donated remains, family members where otherwise legally obligated to deliver their loved ones remains to UCLA. Therefore, as a matter of law, plaintiffs cannot have relied on promises and representations made by UCLA.

We, on the other hand, argue that the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act does not afford UCLA immunity for its conduct. Further, we argue that UCLA relied on family members to notify the school about the deaths of their loved ones. Without the aid and assistance of family members the willed body program could not exist. And, if UCLA told family members the truth about what was happening to the remains donated to the school, people would not agree to donate their bodies and family members would never have turned over their loved ones’ bodies, so UCLA lied. The school made promises it never intended to keep in order to keep the bodies coming into the program.

October 2005

The hearing on the defendants’ demurrers (motions to dismiss) has been rescheduled for December 5, 2005 at 1:45 p.m. in Department 323 of the Central Civil West Courthouse.

All defendants have already filed their opening briefs and supporting documents. The defendants have demurred to all of the causes of action brought on behalf of the plaintiffs, as well as to the class action allegations. Defendants’ goal, once again, is to get this case dismissed on purely legal grounds, thereby avoiding discovery and/or a trial on the substantive merits of the case.

The defendants’ opening briefs are all posted on our website, so you can see what arguments UCLA and the other defendants are making.

Our opposition briefs are due on October 31, 2005. We will, likewise, make the opposition briefs available to you on this website.

AUGUST 2005

We have won the right to get some discovery from UCLA. A number of months ago we first obtained an order from the criminal court judge allowing UCLA to access and copy all of the documents, computer files, donor records, and other material seized by the police department back in March 2004. After we received the order from the criminal court, UCLA still did not make copies of that material, so we moved Judge Kuhl to issue an order compelling UCLA to make copies of these documents by a date certain. Then, at the very last minute, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office tried to intervene, filing an ex parte motion in the criminal court seeking to prevent UCLA from copying the documents. UCLA did not oppose the motion, but we did.

We argued that the family members’ right to know what happened to their loved ones had to be respected. Discovery in the civil action should not be put on hold forever. The judge agreed. He questioned why the D.A.’s Office opposed allowing UCLA to make a copy of the documents for use in the civil action, noting that the D.A.’s Office has exercised exclusive control over the documents for the past 17 months.

Pursuant to court order, UCLA has since copied of the documents previously seized by the police and has produced a general index describing the documents now in their possession. In turn, we requested all those documents which may be relevant in this case. UCLA has until September 23, 2005 to serve their response to our document request. It is likely that UCLA will refuse to voluntarily produce many of the documents we have requested, and we will need to seek court intervention to force UCLA to turn over relevant documents.

Additionally, a date has been set for hearing on the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaints. The defendants have all filed demurrers. The defendants have the right to challenge the individual causes of action alleged against them; they will argue that the plaintiffs have no legal right or basis to pursue the claims alleged in the complaints. The hearing on these motions will be conducted on November 17, 2005 at 10:00 in department 323 of the Central Civil West Courthouse. All are welcome to attend the hearing, and our office will post the briefs and the eventual ruling on our Website.

In the meantime, there is a further status conference set for September 29, 2005. The parties will address discovery issues with the court at that time.

May 2005

The court has ruled on the preliminary legal issues raised by the defendants. The defendants asked the court to make two rulings as a matter of law:

·  It is not unlawful for UCLA to sell, or for a third party to purchase, cadaveric material for use in education or research; and

·  UCLA is not subject to any constraints in exercising its discretion to sell or otherwise reallocate donors' remains for education or research beyond the document of gift. Essentially, the defendants asked the court to make a legal ruling that UCLA was free to do absolutely anything it wished with donated remains, including selling the remains to private corporations, so long as the donated remains were used for education and research, which would presumably include products testing. In fact, had the court answered these questions in the affirmative, the case would have hinged on the definition of "education and research" and whether or not Johnson & Johnson and the other purchasers used the donated remains for education and research under that definition.

The litigation, however, will not travel down that path. Judge Kuhl ruled that UCLA did not have the unrestricted right to do anything it wished with the remains donated to its Willed Body Program. (A complete copy of the court's ruling has been posted on this Web site.) While the court held that California's Health & Safety Code § 7155 does not prohibit all purchases or sales of human body parts, the court also held that it does not permit all purchases and sales of human body parts for research and educational purposes. UCLA was still obligated to comply with the promises and representations it made to donors, and with other California laws governing the disposition of human remains. The court's ruling means that this litigation can and will proceed forward.

January 2005

The hearing on the defendants' preliminary legal motions has been rescheduled. The hearing was continued from January 7, 2005, to February 8, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. The reason for the change of dates is due to a change in judges. Judge McCoy was named the supervising judge of the civil courts in the Central District, leaving Department 323 and moving over to the downtown courthouse. Replacing him in Department 323 is Judge Carolyn Kuhl. As of January 1, 2005, she will preside over the Willed Body Program litigation arising from the unlawful sale of body parts donated to UCLA.

Judge Kuhl's first act in the litigation will be to rule on the legal issues motions concerning the legality of sales/reallocation of cadaveric material filed by UCLA and the Johnson & Johnson entities, which seek a judicial determination that, as a matter of law, it is not illegal to sell or purchase donated cadaveric material for use in education and research. These legal issues have been fully briefed by all parties and the hearing will be conducted on February 8, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 323 of the Central Civil West Courthouse, located at 600 S. Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005. The hearing is open to the public, so you are welcome to attend. Also, the written briefs, which set forth the parties' arguments, are all posted here on this website. Lastly, once the hearing is completed, our office will post the Court's ruling for your review.

December 2004

In the action for damages arising from the illegal sales of body parts, the defendants - UCLA and the Johnson & Johnson entities - asked the Court to set a hearing date to rule on some preliminary legal issues. The defendants told the Court that they believe there are several pure legal questions, the answer to which, might have a dispositive or significant effect on the case. As such, Judge McCoy set a January 7, 2005, date to hear the defendants' motions.

The defendants have filed their motions. Their briefs are posted on the website and are available for you to view and/or print. Essentially, the defendants argue that there is no statutory prohibition against the sale or purchase of cadaveric material for use in education and research. Our opposition will be filed on or before December 9, 2004. The defendants will then file their reply briefs on or before December 20, 2004. And, as stated above, the hearing is currently scheduled for January 7, 2005, at the hour of 10:00 in department 323 of the Central Civil West Courthouse, located at 600 S. Commonwealth Avenue in Los Angeles. However, Judge McCoy is leaving department 323 at the end of December and this matter will be assigned to a new judge. Therefore, the current hearing date is subject to change.

We will post the opposition and reply briefs and update our website to include any changes in the hearing date. We will also keep you informed on the Court's eventual ruling in these matters and how that ruling affects the case. After the hearing, the parties will again meet the Court to establish discovery protocols and address class certification issues. So, please check back here for updates concerning these items as well.

Update - 9/13/2004

In July our office provided UCLA with a written proposal to resolve the injunctive relief class action suit. Our office drafted a proposed Permanent Injunction that prevents UCLA from resuming operation of its willed body program unless and until the school complies with certain conditions designed to ensure accountability within the program and ensure that donated remains are handled in a dignified and lawful manner. Our proposal also sets forth a methodology for identifying those bodies still in UCLA possession, properly cremating those remains and then allowing family members the opportunity to claim their loved one ashes.

Unfortunately, despite its assurances to the Court that it would work with our office to resolve the injunctive relief action and lodge a proposed Permanent Injunction with the Court prior to a September 14, 2004, status conference, UCLA has still not provided any response at all to our proposal. In fact, the only action undertaken by UCLA since July was its request that the Court further delay these proceedings. The next court hearing is currently scheduled for September 14, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. in department 59 of the downtown courthouse. Our office will make sure that this case moves forward without further delay.

In the action for damages arising from the illegal sales of body parts, the initial status conference was conducted before Judge Charles McCoy on August 24, 2004. The Court ordered all parties to meet and confer about the scope of discovery and preliminary legal challenges to the pleadings. The parties are then scheduled to meet with Judge McCoy on September 30, 2004, to address these issues and set up additional hearing dates. Update - 5/10/2004

Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, LLP, seeks to bring accountability to UCLA's Willed Body Program. The firm first filed suit in 1996, alleging the Willed Body Program improperly handled and disposed of donated remains. That suit seeks damages on behalf of family members whose loved ones' bodies were given to UCLA anytime between the early 1970's through the end of 1993. That suit also seeks permanent injunctive relief against UCLA to prevent the Willed Body Program from engaging in improper practices in the future.

Since the arrest of Henry Reid, the Director of the Willed Body Program, based on new evidence that Mr. Reid, the Willed Body Program and others illegally profited through the sale of donated bodies and body parts between 1997 and this year, Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, LLP, appeared before Commissioner Bruce Mitchell seeking entry of Preliminary Injunction against UCLA's Willed Body Program. Our firm asked the court to enter a Preliminary Injunction to ensure that any donated bodies currently in UCLA's possession will be identified and, from hereon out, be handled in a proper, dignified and respectful manner.

On April 21, 2004, the court entered the Preliminary Injunction we sought. (A copy of the Preliminary Injunction can be viewed on this website.) The Preliminary Injunction will stay in place pending the entry of a Permanent Injunction.

Lastly, in March of this year, Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, LLP, filed an action for damages on behalf of family members whose loved ones' bodies were gifted to UCLA during the time that Henry Reid was the Director of the Willed Body Program. The first court appearance in that action is scheduled for June 3, 2004.

Please check our website for further updates.

Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
Kiesel@KBLA.com

Overview

Kiesel, Boucher & Larson LLP has brought an action on behalf of all families whose loved ones were donated to the UCLA Willed Body Program. Our firm has been in litigation with UCLA since 1996 involving claims of mishandling remains and other allegations dating back to the 1950s. On March 8, 2004, our office filed a new action as a result of the recent revelations of the body parts for sale scandal affecting UCLA’s Willed Body Program. If a relative of yours has been previously willed to and received by UCLA OR you are presently under "contract" to will your body to UCLA, please complete one of the following questionnaires. A member of our firm will be in touch with you shortly to discuss this matter in more detail.