This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


Extraordinary Conceptions Faces Major Lawsuit

Recommended Posts

LondonIF    0

Someone just sent me a lawsuit just filed by a surrogate against Stephanie Caballero and Extraordinary Conceptions claiming they told her to lie to her insurance company so they would cover the surrogacy maternity bills. They all got denied and the surrogate is stuck with the bills and claims Stephanie Cabellero, the attorney and owner, not only asked her to lie but forged her name on documents. This is really scary that an agency and an attorney would do something like this. The case was filed June 5th in North County Court in San Diego and is called T***** vs. Extraordinary Conceptions. I bet this is going to get a lot of press. I've pasted most of the suit below. sorry it is a bit messy but this program won't allow me to post the PDF clean version so it translated most of the words so I could paste. I hope this woman gets her bills paid.





10 . KATHERINE T******. and

JASON T*****. a married couple.



an international agencv:


in her individual and

professional capacities: MARIO

CABALLERO. in his individual and

professional capacity.


individual and professional

capacities and DOES 1-25.














COMES NOW Plaintiffs KATHERINE T***** and .IASON T***** alleging the





I. Plaintiffs KATHER1NE AND JASON T******. a married couple were ataH


times relevant to these proceo:dings residents of San Diego COUnty. in the State of

2 California.

3 2. Defendants EXTRAORDINARY CONCEPTIONS. is an Intc01utional Agency

4 which operates in thc State of Cali Jixnia. offering surrogate parent sen'ices:

5 STEPHANIE CABALLERO. ESQ .. is an individual and an Attorney at Law -licensed

6 to practice law in this State by the State Bar of California - wh~) owned and operated the

7 defendant Extraordinary Conceptions and was employcd by. and/or engaged ill the day to

8 day operations of that business within the Counl) of San Diego. in the State \)f

9 California. at all times relevant to these proceedings. She is sued in her individual and

10 professional capacities: MARIO CABALLERO. is an indivjdual \\ho co-owned and

II operated the defendant Extraordinary Conceptions with Defendant Stephanie Caballeros

12 and was emplo)'cd by. and/or engaged in the day 10 day operations of that business

13 within the County of San Diego. in the State of California. at all times relevant to these

14 proceedings. He is sued in his indiyidual and professional capacities; SARAH

15 CABALLERO. is an individual who at all times relevant to these proceedings was a

16 resident of the County of Orange. in the State ofCalifbmia. She is sued in her individual

17 .capacity.

18 3. Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities of the defendants sued as

19 DOES 1 through 25. inclusi\e. but will amend this Complaint to allege theirtroe names

20 . and capacities when ascertained.

21 4. Plaintirts JASON and KATHERINE T***** (hereinafter "Jason" and/or

22 "Katherine," or "Plaintiff(s)"j are a married cQuple who ha\•e three children. of their own

23 together. Additionally. Katherine has sen'ed as a surrogate birth-mother for the benet1t of

24 Defendant Extraordinary Conceptions. hereinafter "ExtraordinaI; Conceptions:' since


25 i J anuaI;' 18. 2008. She has gi\'en birth to t\Yo babies no\\. under two separate contracts

26 with Extraordinary Conceptions. for the bene tit of two separate sets of "Intended

27 Parents."

28 CO\IPLAI:>:T -:2-


5. During the initial. pre-contraclllai stages of their relationship with Extraordinary

2 I Conceptions. the agency asked Jason and Katherine to pro\id.: it with inliJ1111ation about

3 the medical insurance policy under which she and he were covered. J nson obtained their

4 medical insuran,e through his employer. He and Katherine paid the premiums on their

5 o\\'n. The written contract which Extraordinary drafted and which the Plaintiffs would be

61 required to endorse tor Extraordinary det1ned 'the scope of their relationships with. duties

1 toward and the benefits they were to receive from Extraordinary and the Intended Parents

8 of the child whom Katherine would bear. Extraordinary reserved to itself in its contract

9 responsibility for seeing that the medical costs of the surrogacy proceSs were paid from a

10 trust which it would set up for thdr benefit. Extraordinary "ould serve as trustee and

II administrator over thl;: trust res. and the Intended Parents would furnish the trust res by

12 depositing spedt1c amounts of money into the trust via Extraordinary. at specific interl'als

13 prOVided for in the contract. The contract states that Extraordinary had tht: authority to

14 deteonine when "all fees, compensations. and benefits properly due and owing to the

15 Surrogate ha\'e been paid in full. and all medical fees. costs and expenses of the Surrogate

. 16 contemplated to be paid thorough the Trust Account have been paid in full ... " (See

17 Plaintiffs Exhibit A ["Gestational Parenting Agreement•'j. page 14 of 31. part 19.2.) As

18 a result. the Plaintiffs were not concerned about and did not doubt Extraordinary's

19 ostensible innocuous reasons for requiring them to pro"ide infonnation about their

20 medical insurance. They willingly provided the infonnation about the policy as required

21 b.v' Extraordinar.v.\,. she and .Iason would learn the hard \\av. as discussed ' '"

22 post. that Extraordinary had obtained their insurance infonllation under false pretenses.

23 and that Extraordinary intended fraudulently to employ their personal polley to pay the

24 medical bills resulting from the surrogacy proces~. When Extraordinary initially began to

25 bill their insurance and they objected. Extraordinary as,ured them that their insurance

26 covered the surrogacy and would cover the costs ofth~ binh as well. FurtheOllore. it

27 promised. there would be no out of pocket costs. nor any costs at all to be born by the

28 C"O\fPl.AI~T

.. , ~., ...

Plaintiffs as a result of Extraordinary" s use of their insurance.

") 6. It was around Augu5(. ::'009. when Extraordinary Conceptions began to send claims

3 to Katherine's and .lason•s medical insurer. BIue Shield. for a variety ofilledical bills

4 resulting: from essential prenutal care prO\ided to Katherine and for hcr surrogate birth of

5 mins she carried for intended parents pursuant to arrangements made and facilitated by

6 Extraordin<ll')' Conceptions.

7 7. Approximately one week following the birth of the twins, Katherine and Jason

,8 T***** began to receive bilIs from various medical labs. doctors. the hospital at which

9 she gave birth to the twins. and others. Extraordinal')' was to be responsible for arranging

10 medical co\erage for Katherine's prenatal care and to cover the birth of the twins. but it

11 fraudulently made claims to her and Jason T*****' insurer instead. \Vhen the insurer

1:2 denied many of the claims. Extraordinal')' did not pay the bills as it was obliged 10 do:

IJ instead. it allowed the bills to be sent for payment to the T***** .

14 8. Whenlirst she began to recdve the bills. Katherine T***** called Extraordinal')'

15 Conception's Executive Director. Defendant MARlO CABALLERO. However. she was

16 permitted only to speak with Defendant SAR.AH CABALLERO. her 'Surrogacy Case

17 Manager." Sarah Caballero told Katherine to send the hO$pital bills to defendant MARIO

18 CABALLERO'S oftice and that Extraordinal')' Conceptions would take care oflhe matter

J 9 right away.

20 9. Katherine promptly gOI into her car and drove to Extraordinal')"s otlices in order 10

21 deliver the bills in person. Extraordinary's staff declined to let her delh'er them to Mr.

~o Caballero in person. but they took the bills and promised to give them to Mr. Caballero.

23 Despite her efforts. Mr. Caballero and Extraordillal')' did nothing toward getting those

24 bills paid. Katherine. in her delicate post-partum state. of which Extraordinary was well

25 aware of course. and Jason ha\\:: had to endure an ul1\\,arranted ceaseless barrage of

26 harassing phone caJls and letters from the billing departments of the hospital and other

27 medical providers. Blue Cross Slopped paying the bills which Extraordinary had regularly


submitted to it. in Katherine' s name. once it got wind of the fact that Katherine \vas

2 sen"ing as a surrogate. and that she \Vas not h~\ing her o\\'n child. The eddence shows

3 that Extraordinary was \yell aware that Blue Cross would not COH'r for-proHt surrogate

4 pregnancies and births. yet. it relied exclusively upon payment by Blue Cross as a hedge

5 against financial disaster for Katherine and Jason. Extraordinary's submission oflhe

6 medical bills to Blue Cross was done with intent to, or with reckless disn:gard that it

7 would deceive and defraud both Blue Cross and the Plaintiffs.

8 110. Later that same week during which she drove the medical bills she had received


9 . after Blue Cross bcgan to reject payment of them. Katherine called Extraordinary and

JO spoke with Jennifer Garcia. the Legal Assistant to Defendant Stephanie Caballero.

11 Katherine demanded that Extraordinary get the bills which she had delivered to it paid

12 right away. because she was being hounded for payment b:" the creditors. Ms. Garcia told

13 Katherine that she would have to contact the hospital to ask that the hospital resubmit the

14 bills to her insurance compan~'. Blue Cross.

J 5 II. Katherine spoke with Extraordinal)" s Sarah Caballero (not related to Mario or

16 Stephanie Caballero) during the same phone call. Ms. Caballero agreed that Katherine

J 7 would have to resubmit the bills to the hospital's billing department herselt: but this time.

18 I she instructed. Katherine should deny that the billing was for a surrogate birth. and [()

19 claim instead. that the ,hild was born \0 herself and her husband to conceal from the

20 hospital and from Blue Cross the fact that the births she endured were for surrogate

21 parents. and not for her and her husband.

22 12, That same week. during a different call which Katherine made \0 Extraordinary in

23 attempt to get the outstanding bills which daily caused her and her husband severe

24 emotional hann. as well as serious hann to their financial status. Defendant STEPHANIE

25 CABALLERO. an attorney at law in California. or her agent at her bequest. order~d

26 Katherine to deliver the Blue Cross benefits booklet so that she could examine the

27 services covered by Blue Cross. just in case it included surrogacies. Thus. for the second

28 I CO\lPLAIST -5-




, time that same week. Katherine was required to drive her car to Extraordinary

2 Conceptions' oflkes. this time to de)her thl! booklet.

3 13. After another two weeks passed. Katherine received a call from the hospital" s

4 department called Care Payment Plans. That departmel1l demanded an immediate

'5 payment from Katherine and threatened to send the bills into collections if she refused.

6 Katherine promised to call right back and then immediately called defendant Mario

7 Caballero. She was denied the abilit), to speak with him for the second time. and once

8 again she was translerred to Legal Assistant Sarah Caballero who told her to ask the ~ ~

9 hospital to resubmit the bills to her insurer. and this time. Ms. Caballero specificall;'

10 instructed Katherine not to tell the hospital"s Care Payment Plans thatlhe bills resulted

I 1 from a surrogate birth. Ms. Caballero instructed her to owrtly lie in order to make the

12 hospital's Care Payment Plans believe (hat the babies to whom she had given birth a week

13 prior I\<:re hers and her husband•s. Ms. Caballero additionally instructed Katherine ((I

14 make sure that she spoke with someone in the hospital's billing department with whom

15 she had not previously dealt. somebody other than the people to whom she had spoken

16 when last she asked them to resubmit the bills.

17 14. Out of financial desperation. not knowing What else to do. although her fnith in

18 Extraordinar;' was fairly depleted by then, Katherine did as Ms. Caballero and defendant

19 Extraordinary. et al. instructed her to do. She called the hospital. did not mention that the

20 bills resulted from a surrogacy. and requested that it resubmit her bills to her insurance

21 company. When Katherine called Ms. Caballero back again to let her know that the deed

22 was done. Ms. Caballero urgently demanded to know whether she had made certain to

23 insist that the birth was not a surrogacy.

24 15. On or about October 26.2009. Katherine em ailed defendant Stephanie Caballero's

25 Legal Assistant Jennifer Garcia. lind informcd her that she continucd 10 receive bills for

26 the twins' radiolog~' treatment. labs and other post~natal hospital care. cost which were

27 specifically to be born by the Intended Parents. as arranged by defendant Extraordinary.

28 CO~lPI.AI\T ~6-

under their contract. Ms. Garcia told Katherine I\l send th..: bilb to Extraordinary

2 Conceptions. and she promised this time to forward the bills to Extraordinary's Trusl

3 Administrator Carol (no last name gin.m). who handled the money paid into

4 Extraordinary Conception's trust fund by the Intt:nded Parents. and that Carol would just

5 pay the bills from the trust re~ (which is the manner in \\hich the medical costs were to

6 have been paid under the tenns of the contract in any event).

7 16. Katherine nevertheless continued to receive hospital bills. Meanwhile.

8 Extraordinary Conceptions repealedl~' assured both Katherine and Jason when one or the

9 other would call to complain. that the mattcr would be resoh'cd forthwith.

10 )7. Katherine repeatedly telephoned. emailed. and drove herself to Extraordinary




Conceptions in attempt meet with defendant Mario Caballero. the alleged proprietor of

that Extraordinary Conceptions branch of a world-wide tree of other branches. Katherine

souaht to ensure that Extraordinary was attending to the IInancial issue \\hich continued

0;;;;; " '. ...

14 to haunt her and Jason unabated. and increasingly to ruin them financially. Her

15 extraordinary efforts were to no avail. however, The pattern of being: placated \\•ith

16 hollow promises. and then being ignored or even ovenly mistreated by Extraordinary

17 Conceptions continued and still continues.

18 18. In or about the end of January 20 I O. Katherine received an email from defendant

19 Stephanie Caballero's Legal Assistant. Jennifer Garcia. in \\hich she claimed that the

20 hospital was at fault for the entire fiasco. because it had billed under the wrong codes.

21 Therefore. she asserted unabashedly. Katherine would have to gather all of her medical

22 claims and paperwork once again. and resubmit it all with the proper codes not to the

23 hospital or its billing agents this time. but to her own medical insurer. Blue Cross.jor Ihe

24 fourth lime! Ms. Garcia e\'en provided Katherine with a coyer letter to use \\hen she

25 resubmitted the bills on or about

26 19, Katherine did as Extraordinary Conceptions and Jennifer Garcia told her: On

27 Februal)' 5. 2010. she again resubmitted the bills. but this time directly to her insurer.

28 C(lMI'LA1,'r -7-

Blut: Cross. Dl:spit.: this Jatc5t effort. Katherine ilnd Jason !la\c continued to rcceive

:2 hounding culls and billing statements from th.: hospital and varjou~ health care pro\iders

3 whom she sa\\" during the course of her surroga!;y. Despite the Plaintiffs' continued pleas

4 for Extraordinary to abide by the contract between them by paying the bilJ5 generated by


5 : Katherine's sen'ices as a surrogate on Extraordinary's behalf. as usual. the Plaintiffs

6 received only Iip-sen'ice. empty promises. but no efforts or assistance whatsoever to

7 inten'ene on their beh,llf,

8 20. On or about February 18. 2010. for the second time. Katherine received a call from

9 "'Roni." of the hospital" s billing sen'ice - "Care Payment Plan," ROlli explained that

10 Katherine needed to pay something that day in order to stop the collections process from

II being initiated, Katherine explained again to Roni. that she and her husband should not

12 have been billed at all. that Extraordinary Conceptions and, or the Intended Parents for

13 whom Katherine had served as a surrogat ... mother were supposed to have paid all of the

14 costs associated with the surrogacy. including all medit:ul bills. Roni was relentle;;s and

15 unimpressed with the logic of Katherine's explanation, The hospital and other health care

16 providers whol11 Care Payment Plan rl;!presented had already billed and been denied

17 payment from the Plaintiffs' insurer. Blue Cross. and the medical sen'ices had all been

18 provided to Katherine ill her name. llot to Extraordinary or the Intended Parents for whom

19 Katherine had carried and given birth to a child. Care Payment Plan had allow<!d

20 Katherine and Jason six months to pay their hospital and other health care related hi lis.

21 and it simply could not extend them any more time, They would hu\'e to pay at least a

22 Significant portion of their total bill that day. or be rderred. by the close of business that

i' ~J day to collections, Of course. that would indude a referral to the credit agencies and a

24 concomitalllnegative effect upon the Plaintiffs' theretotore stellar credit score,

::!5 2 I. Katherine immediately called Extraordinal) Conception's Legal Assistant.

26 Jennifer Garda. Ms. Garcia conferenced into the call Extraordinary's Trust Fund

27 Administrator. CaroL Both Carol and Ms, Garcia specifically and explicitly promised


Katherine that they would call her later that day. that she need not worry. and that they

were going to hand!.: it. Although they did not call her hack that day as promised. nor at

any time during thl.! rest oflhat \\eek. she put her faith in the notion that they had indeed

4 handled the matter as promised. Her faith had once again been misplaced.

5 22. In late Marcil. 2010. the Plaintiff, finally retained ,ounsel to assist them \\"ith the

6 endless problems surrounding Katherine's surrogacy on defendant Extraordinary's behalf

7 which they had long endured. In earl~' April. 20 I O. counsel for the Plaintiffs spoke to an

8 agent named Lenin from Progressive !'v1anagement Services. Counsel was able to

9 convince Lenin to lorestall referring the matter to collections for one momh.

10 23. As anyon;;: would expect. the Plaintiffs' contract with Extraordinary Concepts

11 specil1cally provided that Extraordinary. nol the Plainti ffs. would secure medical

12 I insurance coverage in ord~r to pay all medical costs resulting from Katherine' 5 generous

131 services as a surrogate mother for one of Extraordinary's paying clients. Extraordinary

]4 never made any efforts at all to secure insurance of its own. norto pay any of the costs

] 5 which ha\'e resulted from her services as a surrogate. Nor did Extraordinary even cause

16 I payments tor the medical costs of Katherine' s sen ices to be paid by the tnlst fund into

17 which the Intended Parents were contractually required to make ample payments for

18 covering all costs. presumably, and oYer wh kh Extraordinary contractually reserved to

19 itself the role of administrator .. Instead. Extraordinary allowed all medical and other costs

20 reSUlting from her generous services. frol11 which Extraordinary financially benefitted

21 tremendously. . to be charged to Katherine and Jason T***** . Instead of co mine: to their ~ ~

22 rescue as they were contractually and ethically bound to do once the PlaintitTs began to

23 suffer the emotional and financial costs of Extraordin"ry's fraud upon them and their

24 I insurer. they talked a lot. bUlmade no efforts to assist the Plaintiffs at alL

~5 I 24. The Plaintiffs simply could not afflJrd to pay the bills which Extraordinary

26 i Conceptions detrauded them into believing at the outset of their agreement that they


27 would never need even to be concerned about. As a result of Extraordinary' s fraud. the

Plaimiffs' credit is ruined and they i::ot1tinue to cndur~ relentless humiliating. degrading

2 and depressing hounding. nQ\\' by collections creditors. whence legal action against them

3 is undoubtedly eminent. for an amount exceeding $25.000.00. But thut amount represents

4 only the tip of the iceberg sized amount of damages which Extraordinary has caused by its

5 i Ilreed and disre~ard to the Plainti ffs. I ~ ~

6125. Defendant Extraordinary Cmlception and its defendant owners and employees

71 finally applied icing to the deceit-tilled cake which they had cooked up for the Plaintiffs

8 . by overtly and brazenly forging the Plaintiffs' names to documents which the Plaintiffs

9 told them not to tile. More specitically. on or about March 13. 20 I O. Stephanie Caballero.

10 I the Attorney tor and Co-Founder of Extraordinary Conceptions. wrote an email to the


I I I T***** addsing them that they needed immediately to tile an appeal with their medkal

12 insurer. Blue Cross. However. PlaintitrJason T***** told DeH:ndant Caballero that

13 before they tiled an app~al or an)thing else. he and Katherine wished to be provided

14 copies of all correspondenc~ between Extraordinary Conceptions and Blue Cross. which

15 was written on their behalf or in their names.

16 26. Defendant Stephanie Caballero ignored Jason's demand to redew her and her

17 agency's correspondence with Blue Cross. Instead. on March 14.2010. the very next day

18 following his explicit refusal to appron~ or to tile an appeal and his demand to Stephanie

19 Caballero. he and Katherine received another email from Caballero in which she

20 infonl1\~d them that she had gone ahead and filed the appeal t1Jr them. Jason and Katherine

2J were dumbfounded. to say the least. Neither he nol' Katherine had even impliedly

22 consented to attorney Caballero' s preparation and tiling of the appeal. Indeed. as noted.

23 they expressly forbade her from doing so.

24 27. To make matters Wol'se. just about as bad as an attorney Ikensed to practice law in

25 the State of California could mak.: things for herself and her career. attorney Stephanie

26 Caballeros fraudulently forged Katherine's signature on a letter she drafted and sent to

27 Blue Cross. on another ktter whieh she drafted and sent to Health Care Management. and

28 COMPIAI~T -I 0-




J I upon the appellat~ materials \\hid1 sill: prepared and Jiled with I3Jue Cross.

2128. MagnifYing her Ji'audulent intent and seeming :;ociopathic attitude with r.:gard to

3 i the horrible sltulllion into which she and her ag~ncy had placo.'d the Plaintiffs. on or about

41 April 14.2010. attorney Stephan!c Cubalkm ~Jl1ailed Dr. Marius Breucker. one of the


5 !intended parents of the twin babie~ to whom Kath<!rine had given birth . .In attempt to

61 defame Katherine by fraudulclllly and falsely cl(liming. for some unfathomable reason.

7 that "Katherine [T***** had] been in contact \V.itil [the hospital] throughout this process.

8 [sic] even going so far as to [tell the hospitalw] 's~nd lh~ bills to collections. I don't

9 care. The others are there as \lei I. r m stili not going to pay ....... Dr. Breucker knew

10 that Katherine had been trying desperately to get defendunt Stephanie Caballeros and her

11 agency. defendant Extraordinary C onceptiolls to pay the medical bills resulting from her


12 services as surrogate mother 10 his twin babies. HI;! had fully funded the trust set up and

13 administered by Extraordinal)' for the very purpose of paying the medical bills. so he

I~ I kne~~' better than to ~all for abs~rd and li~eIOlJs.lies that Stephanie caball~ros had pos~ted

I, to hun about Katherll1e. There/ore. he kmdly Jon\ard defendant Stephanie Caballero s

16 awful email to the Plaintiffs lOuse as they deemed appropriate. Now come the Plaintiffs

J 7 to do, and to seek from the defendants. thilt which is exceedingly appropriate.



20 29. PlaintitTs re-allege and hereby incorporate by referenc.:: herein. in their entirety.

21 each of the allegations Set forth in the foregoing paragraphs numbered 1-26 inclusive,and

22 additionally allege the following:

23 30. On or about lune 24.2008. Extraordinary Conceptions explicitly promised in

24 writing to '~obtain a specialized health insurance policy for [Plaintiff Katherine T***** ] .

25 ., ," for purposes of covering any costs. medical or othen\lsc. arising from Katherine's

26 service to Extraordinary and/or any Intended Parents for whom she might carry and bear

27 children. (See Plaintiffs Exhibit 1. "Release & Consent Agreement." p. 3 01'3.)

-1 ] •

31. On Septeml1er 11.2008. the Plaintiff!;. including Katherine's hushand. Jason

:1 T***** . entered into a "Gestational Parenting Agrc\!ment" ostensibly. only between

3 themselves and the Intended Parents of twin hahi.;>s to whom Katherine would ultimate!)

4 gi\'e birth. In both of the dO\:uments dted al1o\,l.'. defimdants E;.;traordinary COllceptions.

5 et al. attempted explicitly to exclude themselves liS panies to any agreement Inl\'ing to do

6 with Katherine's surrogacy. to make th.: surrogacy agreement at issue strictly between the

7 I plaintiffs and the Intended Parents. to e;.;dude themsdn:s as panies in prhity. and

8 thereb\' to shield themselves from am Iiabilit\' for am damages the\' might cause the ~ .. .. ~ ... ~ ....

9 parties by their own wrongful conduct. intentional. unlawful. or otherwise. IPlaintim'

10 Exhibit J. p.:2 of 3: and Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2. p. I." 1 and pan 1.5.} However. the

II defendants res~ryed to themselves authority to reign over 1110st aspects of the agreement

12 between the Plaintiffs and the Intended Parents. (Sec generall\,. PlaintitTs' Exhibit I.) ~. ,

13 I Perhaps most signiticantly. the del"endants reserved to themseh'es authoril) to administer

14 a trust which was (0 be funded by the Intended Parl!nts and which was to be used by

IS Extraordinary Conceptions' for purposes of compensating the Plaintiffs or reimbursing

16 them costs from the funds provided by the Intended Parents. (Plaintiffs Exhibit 1,

17 "Gestational Parenting Agreement." pp. 13. part 19.1. and 14. pan 19.4. e.g.: and see p,

18 20, pan 19.16.4 re obligation of Intended Parents to pay all medical costs. etc.).

19 32, The Plaintiff alleges that she complied fully and faithfully ,'ilh each and every

20 I term of the contract between herself and the defendants. and that she dutifully and timely

21 perfoffi1li>d every act or forbearance required of her under the contract.

22 33. Additionally. the plaintiff alleges that she continued to receive hospital bills

23 despite defendant's repeated reassurances that the matter would be resolved. Plaitltiff

24 I Katherine T***** telephoned and emlliJed the defendants on innumerable occasions in

25 attempt to convince them to perform their contractual obligations. She enm drO\e

26 repeatedly to dd"endant' S oftices for personal "isits in an attempt to ensure that

27 Defendant's staff was working on resolving the issue. More than a few times. the Plaintiff

28 CO\l~L,\I~T -1:>

was required to driw to the dejl:ndul1(:;' ofJices at the defendants' insistence repeatedly to

2 deliver the same bills and other doculll.:'ms she had aln!ady provided to them. lollowing

3 i which visits the dCIi.:ndants would do nothing to as~bt her to get the bills paid.

4 ! 34. Under the tenns of their agreements, the dei"endallls were required to ensure that


5 I "all fees. compensations. and benetits properly due and owing to the Surrogate have been

6 I paid in full. and all medical fees. costs and expenses of the Surrogate contemplated to be

7 paid through the Trust Account have been paid in full" (Plaintiffs Gestational Parenting

8 Agreement. Exhibit I. p.14).

9135. The defendant's failed and refused to do those things which they were required to


10 do un~er .. t~l~ agre~me~t. The defendants' failure.s and refusals to. tacilitate the payment

11 . of Plaml11ts hospital tees and costs. was a material breach of their agreement.

12 36. Due to the defendants' material breach of the agreement without legal

13 justifkation Of excusc. the Plaintiffs have been severely damaged in that they have been

14 required to expend much of their own monc~'. to make \!xtensive eff()rts of their own and

15 to suffer extreme emotional and financial distrc:ss due to the attempts they were required

16 to make in Yain, in order to mitigate their damages caused by the defendants' breach. such

17 as avoiding a referral to debt collections and collections actions against them personally.

18 Plaintiffs have additionally been damaged tinancially because they have been required to

19 expend tremendous amounts of money in order to secure legal assistance trom attomeys.

20 to become deeply indebted to those attomeys, and to pay the costs of bringing and

21 maintaining this action at law and equity against the det1mdant.

22 37. PlaintitTs allege that the Defel1dal1fs wrongful rcfusallO resolve the maller. and

23 allow the unpaid hospital bills to go into collections. thereby negatively etfecting

24 Plaintiffs' credit history. is the direct and proximate cause of their damages in that. but for

25 the defendant's wrongful refusal. PlaintiffS would not hu\c been required to make the

26 aforementioned repeated efforts. to suffer SeVere emotional al1d financial hamlS. or tt1 be

27 required to pay for attorneys and this action in attempt to resolYe this matter. There has

28 CO~IPIi\I~T .. 13 ..

: been nO intenening cause of the plaintiffs' damages.

1 '38. Wherefore. Plaintiffs respectfully pray for an award of damages in accordance

3 ; with the law and their m:tuall11onetary losses. plus an award of unspecified damages for

4 the expenditures ofth~ Plaintiffs' tillle and cnorts. and forth .. extreme emotional distress

5 which the Plaintiffs ha\e suffered as a result of the defendants' wiltll! nreach. They also

6 request an award of attorney' s j\;:c~ and costs pursuant to Part 37.1 (Prevailing Party

7 Clause) of the Gestational Parenting Agreement. to which agreement the delendants must





12 I



be found to be panies in privity despite their recitals to the contrary - which recitals are

against public policy. logic. and the plainly contradictory other language oCthe

agreements which they required the Plaintiffs unilaterall~' to endorse. and for any other

damages which the court might deem tit \0 award till: plaintiff.



14 39. Plaintiffs re-allege and hereby incorporate by reference herein. in their entirety.

15 each of the allegations sel forth in the foregoing paragraphs numbered 1-36 inclusive, and

16 additionallY. alleges the follo\\'lnl1: ~ ~

J 7 40. Defendant Extraordinary Conceptions and defendant proprietors and managers of

18 that agenc~' were obliged under their agreement with the Plaintiffs to keep and maintain,

J 9 and to ensur~ the proper funding of a trust account to be funded either by the intended

20 parent. or by Extraordinary Conceptions itself. if it failed to ensure proper funding by the



intended parents. tbr purposes of ensuring the timely payment of all of the Plaintiffs'

medical expenses and for ensuring the timely payment in tlllL in acc(lfdance with the

contract. for the Plaintiffs' surrogacy services.

24 41. By guaranteeing payment of all medical expenses arising from their surrogacy

25 sen'ices. as well as payment to the Plaintiffs tbr their serdces. defendant Extraordinat:

26 Conceptions and the defendant proprietors of that agency assumed the risk and the role of

27 insurers to the Plaintiffs with regard to the proper funding of the trust account. and f'or


timely payment ofa.l! medicnl costs nssodnted with Plaintiff Katherine's surrogacy. und

2 for tile timel)' payment of full to Katherine (or her sen ices

3 i 42. Defendant Extraordinary Conceptions and the defendant Proprietors of DCI'i!ndunt



4 i Extraordinary Conceptions have wrongfully and in bad faith. refused to perfonn and

5 I have wrongfullY denied their obligations as insurers after the Plaintiffs had fully

61 perfonm:d their contractual obligations. induding Plaintiff Katherine T***** ~d\ing binh


7 I to the baby and relinquishing Care and custody of the baby pursuant to the surrogacy

8 I agreem en t.

9 1 43. By d~nying their obligations as insurers as heretofore alleged. Defendant

10 I E:maordinuf)' Conceptions. and the defendant proprietors of Defendant Extraordinal)'

II I Conceptions have breueh<!d their duties of good faith and fair dealing. owed by insurers

12 to their insureds. by unreasonably den)'ing coverage torPlaill1iff Katherine T***** 's

13 medical care and payment to the Plaintiffs for their sen ices under the surrogacy contract.

14 44. As a result oflhe defendants' wrongfi.d denial of insurance co\crage and

15 conl:omitant breal:hes of good faith and fair dealing as insurers. the Plaintiffs ha\'e

16 5uftered irreparable damage to their theretofore stellar credit scores. serious financial

17 harm - including but not limited to extensive out of pocket losses - and severe emotional

18 distress. Especially severe emotional harm was a foreseeable consequence of the

19 defendants' actions or inactions b<!cause they were aware that Plaintiff Katherine' s post~

20 panum emotional state was especially sensitive. Nevertheless. the defendants disregarded

21 this fact in deciding to breach their special obligations to her panicularly. oj' good faith

22 and fair dealing. and she indeed suffered more eXlensin) emotional harm as a result of

23 their wrongful actions or inactions.

24 45. Wherefore. the Plaintiffs pray for general. special and ~onsequential damages in

25 amounts to be proven during trial. and for punitjve damages in all unspecified amount tor

26 the hanns which the~ caused by their intentional. bad faith tailures to fulfil! their

27 obligations to the Plaintiffs as their insurers.

28 'O~IPLAI\T 15•



3 46. Plaintiffs re-allege and h~reby incorporate hy rer",rence herein. in th~ir entirety.

-+ each oflhe allegations set forth in tht: foregoing paragraphs numbered 1-43 inclu~iye. und

5 additionally allege the following:

6 47. The defendants. Defendant Extraordinary Conccpti()J1S ond its proprktors and

7 agents. assumed the roil: of trustees to a trust regarding which the Plaintiffs were

8 beneticiaries. As trustees ofa trust to which the Plaintiffs "efe beneticiaries.the

9 defendants and each of them owed tht: I'lai)1li 11$ and each of them a sp.::cial tiduciary dUly

10 of honest; in fact. and of good faith and fair dealing.

11 I 48. By failing 10 distribute the trust res to the Plaillliffs in accordance with the terms

12 I of the trust which terms of distribution and paymcnt ('fthe res to the PlaintitTs the

13 I defendants themselves devised. tlw ddl.:l1dants and <'nch of them violated their special


J -+ I tiduciar'l dUlies 10 the Plaintit1s.

15 149. ;s a result of the defendants' failures to obscne and comport with their special

16 fiduciary duties as twstees of the tru,t tt1 \\ hkh th~ Plaimi ffs wer~ ben~ficiaries. the

\7 PlaintitTs have suffered severe i1nancial. ell111ti(1nul und other harms - such as having to

18 expend tremendous efforts. for naught. in attempt to cOl]\in,e the defendants to distribute

19 the trust res in the manner in which Ihe defendal1ts themselvcs prescribed. and which

20 would have protecied the Plaintiffs from the harms ultimately caused by the defendants'

21 breach of their fiduciary dll1ies.

22 i 50. Wherefore. the Plaintiffs pray lor awards ,11' compensatory. special and

23 consequential damages from the defendants and each of tht:m. in amounts to be proven at

24 trial. and for excmplary/punithc dUlllagcs aguinst the defendants il1 unspecified amounts.

25 i


26 I


27 I 5 J.




Plaintiffs re-allege and hereby incorporate hy r~fereI1~e hereil1. in their entirety.

28 ,t t()\IPL\I~l -16-

each of the allegations set forth in the flJregoing paragrllphs numbered 1•48 inclush•e. and

2 additionally alll!ges the following:

The foregoing misrepresentations of defendants. (Illd each of them. w.ert' made

4 \\ith no n:asollllble basb on tho;! purt of said defendants for belio;!\'ing the

5 misrepresentations to be true.

6 53. Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that they wcre required to contribute

7 financially to the process. Specifically. Defendants require Plaintiffs to pay the medical

8 insurance premiums and to use their insurance to cover the costs of required prenatal care

9 for which Defendants would prolil. B~' using Plaintiffs' insurance for which Plaintiffs

10 paid the premiums. Defendants essentially required Plaintiffs to pay a portion of their

) lawn earnings. which naturally. diminished Plaintiffs' profits from the deal.

12 54. Defendants unlawfully used Plaintiffs insurance tbr their benefit for many reasons,

13 but primarily because Defendants knew without any qut:stion that Plaintiffs medical

14 insurance policy did not cover and would decline to pay for the costs of Plaintiffs

15 surrogate pregnan.) fbI' Defendants' profit. Defendants knew beyond doubt that

16 Plaintiffs' insurer would co\"er the prenatal. birthing and post-partum costs should

17 Plaintitfs' pregnancy ,md birth ofa child in the normal course of things. 50 Defendants

18 intended from the outset to submit claims to Plaintiffs' insurer on Plaintiffs' behalf

19 without ever revealing that Plaintiffs' pregnancy was for purposes of surrogacy from

20 which Defendants would profit.

21 55. Said defendants. although they should ha\e known ()rthe falsity of their

22 representations. failed to disclosed to Plaintiffs. the false and fraudulent nature of

23 defendants'misrepresentations.

24 56. Defendants concealed and suppressed said facts that they were bound to disclose.

25 Moreover. Defendants told PlaimitTs facts and prevented Plaintitfs from

26 discoYering the suppressed facts. Such facts were suppressed and concealed with the

27 intent to defraud and induce Plaillliffs. Further. defendants knew that Plaintiffs would







rely upon and act upon such misstatements and misr..:prcscntutiol1s. At the time. the

Plaintiffs \\ere unaware ofthe cOIH.:caled and suppressed ract and would not have taken

the actions subscribed had Plaintiffs Known said IlK•Is .

..( 57. The representations. misrepresi;mtutions und omissions were made and not made.

5 i with tho! intent to induce Plaintiffs to rely thereon. and entcr into a relationship with the

6 defendants. expend money tbr the benefit of del'1:ndants.

7 58. Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the abo\c-mcntioned misrepresentations. and

8 material omissions as a direct result oCthe success \\ith \\"hich defendants were able to

9 carry out their activities. In rdiance on tlw abow-mentioned misrepresentations.

10 Plaintiffs were defrauded out of amount to be determined at the time of trial.

II 59. As a direct. proximate and legal result of defendants fraud. Plaintit1s have suffered

12 severe emotional. physical and linandal stress.

13 60. Wherefore. Plaintiffs pray for g~neral and ;;pecial damages. including the

14 Plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs lip to and including the t1ling and maintenance of this

15 action. (Civil Code section 3336.) Additionally. the Plaintiffs respectfully pray for a

16 reward of punitive damages under Civil Code section 3194. tor purposes of punishing

17 Defendants tor their aforementioned misrepr~sentutitms. and material omissions. which

18 were made willfully and maliciously, with the intent to injure and oppress Plaintiffs.



21 61. Plaintiffs re-allege and hereby incorporate by reference herein. in their entirety.

22 each of the allegations set forth in the toregoing paragraphs numbered I-58 inclush"e. and

additionally alleges the following:

24 62. The defendants Extfaordinat; Conceptions. et al. owed a duty of care to avoid

25 misrepresenting the tnah and the tacts to the Plaintiff); with regard to what Ih", Plaintiffs

26 were entitled to under the surrO.l...l acy.. ag""" reements \\hkh the\,". entered with the defendants.

17 and with regard to what the defendants would th~msehes do toward satisfying their

28 -18-

obligations to the I>jaintiffs under tho: agreement,.

2 63. The defendants and each of them breached their dUlies of due care with regard to

3 avoiding the misrepresentation of the truth ilnd the facts as described abO\c.

4164. As a n:sult of their breach of dUlY of due care to represent to the Plaintitfs only

5 I those things which we~e true and correct. the Plaintiffs haH ,uffered .:xtensive t1nam:i<l1.


6 emotional and other damages. such as having to expend tremendous amounts of their own

7 efforts toward convincing the defendants to behave toward them truthfully and accuratel:

8 in accord with the terms of the agreements between them. There were no intervening or

9 superceding causes of the hanl1s caused the Plaintiffs.

10 65. Wherefore. Plaintiffs pray for general and special damages. including the

11 Plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs up to and including the tiling and maintenance ofthi5

12 action. (Civil Code section 3336.) Additionally. the Plaintiffs respectfully pray for a

13 reward of punitive damages under Chi! Code section 3294. for purposes of punishing

, ,

14 I Defendants for their grossly negl ig.:nt misrepresentations.



17 66. Plaintiffs re-allege and hereby incorporate by rell:rem;e herein. in their entirety.

18 each of the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs numbered 1-63 inclusive. and

19 additionally alleges the following:

20 67. Plaintiffs herein alle!:!e that Defendants haw wrondl.lll\ exercised dominion ~ ~ .

21 and control over Plail1liffs entitlement ofreil11bursements. which under the Gestational

22 Agreement. Defendants were required tl1 hold for her.

23 68. Plaintiffs additionally allege that under the terms of the Gestational Agreement

24 with Defendants. that upon the perfonnance by Plaintiff Katherine in carryiog the

surrogate child to tern1. Katherine held rightful title to and had th..: right to possession of

26 full reimbursement of moneys held in the Trust Fund.

27 69. Despite Defendants• obligation to reimburse Katherine's medical bills as alleged

28 COMPi.Ai:\T •19•

above. Dt.:fl!ndants intentionall~" and wrongfull~" retained pos~cssion of the Trust fund

2 : mone~ with \I hich they were entrusted at the beginning of the Gestational Agre .. menl.

3 ! and they ha\"c failed to timely pay Katherine monies owed with the illlelll pennancntly to


4 ' deprive Katherine of the amount due ,md owing.

5 70. Katherine has never waived her right to title nor right to the reimbursement of her

6 i medical bills. nor has she (!\,cr in any fashion conscmcd to Dd'endants' retention of that

7 money.

S 71. Plaintiffs have been hamlcd by Defendallls' wrongful and intentional

9 deprivation of the distribution of the Trust fund money because they haw wrongfully

10 been denied the use of that mone~".

II 72. Defendants' intentional and wrongtlll refusal to reimburse Katherine's medical

12 bills was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' injury. in that but for Defendants'

13 conduct in intentionally depriving Plaintiffs. the Plaintiffs would have had the benefit of

14 the reimbursed money and would nO! have suffered the deprivation of it as they have. and

15 there are no intervening factors which might relieve Defendants of liability for their

16 refusal to reimburse to them. and Defendants was a substantial factor in causing the

17 Plaintiffs' hann.

18 73. "Wherefore. Plaintiffs pray for general and ~pccial damages. including the

19 Plaintiffs' attomeys fees and costs up to and including the filing llnd maintenance of this

20 action. (Civil Code section 3336.) Additionally. the Plaintiffs respectt'l.l11y pray for a





reward of punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294. for purposes of punishing

Defendants for their bad faith. intentional and wrongful conversion orth.:: Plaimiffs' trust

fund money. with malice. oppression or fraud toward the plaintiff.



26 74. Plaintiffs re-allege and hereby incorporate by reference herein. in their entirety.

27 each orthe allegations set forth in the f(lreg~'ing paragraphs numbered 1- 71 inclusivc.


and additionally allege the following:

'l 75. Defendants owe a duty I(l exo;!rds~ due car~ towards Plaintiffs.

3! 76. D~f~ndants' acts or omission, to act coostitllle a brea,h of that duty.

4 I 77. That as a direct and pro;'(it11<1!c r':ouit of the n~giigent. unla\\fui acl5. j~lbc.

5 I



7 i


8 i


wrongful. and willful !Icts of Defendants. as 'llleged above. Plaintiffs were injured.

humiliated. shocked. and suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress lind injury

to their system. all to Plaintitls damage in an amount within the jurisdiction of this




II \ 78. Plaintiffs re-allege and hereb~ incorporate by rderence herein. in their entirety.

121 each of the alkgalions set forth in the foro:going paragraphs numbered 1-75 inclusi\'e.

13 I and additionally aJleges the following:

14 I

79. Defendants' conduct as set out in th" <.:omplaim abOH' was intentional and,

15 malicious and done for the purpose. or \\ith reckless disregard of the likelihood of

16 causing Plaintiffs to suffer humiliation. menial anguish. emotional and physical distress.

17 Such conduct was donc with a conscious al1d'or r..:.:kkss dbregard for the consequences

181 to Plaintiffs' physical and emotional wdl being.

191 80. As the proximate result oCthe aforementioned intentionlll acts of Defendants.

20! Plaintiffs have suffered humiliation. mental anguish. sen~re emotional and physical

21 I distress. and have been injured in mind and hody. These damages arc not presently

22 calculable. and Plaintiffs will seek leave to am.:nd this complaint to confonn to proof

23 presented at trial.

24 81. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willt1.d. wanton. despicable.

25 malicious and oppressive and justi~' thc awarding of exemplary and punitivc damages in

26 an amount subject to proof at the time of trial of this matter.



28 ('()~fI>L~I~T -21-


2 82. Plaintiffs r~-allege and hereby inl.:orporato! by refercne.: herein. in their entir.:ty.

3 each of the allegations set forth in the foregoing pliragraphs numbered 1"79 inclusive.

4 I, and additionally alleges the following:



5: 83. The defendants and each of them ow.:d the Plaimit'fs a duty ofreasonab1e care not

6 to cause the Plaintiffs by their conduct severe emotional hann.

7 84. The defendants breached their duties to use reasonable caution and prudence so as

not to cause the Plaintiffs undo harm or extr"::01e emotional distress. The defendants

breached their dUly of care in this regard by failing to exercise due caution in dealing

with the Plaintifts pursuant to the defendant's contracllIal agreements with the Plaintiffs.

Furthem10re. there lIas a special duty of carc owed by the defendants to the Plainti ITs in

accordance with the defendants' fiduciary duties to\\"ard the Plaintiffs as discussed

above. but the defendants breached that special duty by liolating their I1duciary duties to

the Plaintiffs. Beyond that special duty. however. the defendants additionally hreached

their duties of due care not to cause the Plaintiffs seyere emotional distress b.\ dealing ~

dishonestly in their contractual relations with the Plaintiff:" or at least by misleading

them even if not intentionally. as described above.

18 85. Plaintiffs are infomlcd and believe. and based thereon allege. that defendants

19 knew. or should have known. that their conduct was likely to cause and result in sc\erc

20 emotional distress and haml to the Plainti ffs.

21 86. As a direct and proximate result of defendants acts. Plaintiffs 5ui1ered severe

22 emotional distress in the form of severe fright. grief: shame. humiliation. embarrassment.

anger. chagrin. disappointment and worry.

24 87. Wherefore. the Plaintiffs pray for general compensator). special and

25 consequential damages in accordance with their proof at trial. Furthermore. the

26 PJaintitTs seek attorneys' fees and costs of this action in <ll.!cord with their contract with

27 the defendants. Finally. the aforementioned acts of defendants \\'ere willful. wanton.


despicable. malicious. and oppressive and justify the (ll,"<lrding of exemplary and punithe

2 damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial of this matter.

DATED; JUNE 3, 20 I 0


Respectlillly suhmincd.



Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisers are how we pay the bills to keep the forums going.
Say thanks by clicking a banner from time to time!
@Sunrise    13

I don't know how valid all this info is, so I am going to let it be until someone complains. I have removed the couples last name.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barbgsx1    0

I would love the actual link so I can actully read the lawsuit!! There is currently a lawsuit pending in Florida against a well known attorney right now too for some sort of fraud!!! SCARY STUFF!!!!!!!!!


Barb :)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites from what I got from that, the surro KNEW that she was lying, even IF it was at the advise of the attorney, she still KNEW she was lying, I think at best the atty should have to split the cost of the bills with the surro, but she holds half the responsibility IMO.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gracie    0

I would love the actual link so I can actully read the lawsuit!! There is currently a lawsuit pending in Florida against a well known attorney right now too for some sort of fraud!!! SCARY STUFF!!!!!!!!!


Barb :)

hummm wonder which atty that is.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barbgsx1    0

I would love the actual link so I can actully read the lawsuit!! There is currently a lawsuit pending in Florida against a well known attorney right now too for some sort of fraud!!! SCARY STUFF!!!!!!!!!


Barb :)

hummm wonder which atty that is.


Not mine in JAX!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gracie    0

I would love the actual link so I can actully read the lawsuit!! There is currently a lawsuit pending in Florida against a well known attorney right now too for some sort of fraud!!! SCARY STUFF!!!!!!!!!


Barb :)

hummm wonder which atty that is.


Not mine in JAX!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)



I was thinking Hal if it was a Man.

I told someone today about this site and they are checking into it(they have used her too)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barbgsx1    0

I would love the actual link so I can actully read the lawsuit!! There is currently a lawsuit pending in Florida against a well known attorney right now too for some sort of fraud!!! SCARY STUFF!!!!!!!!!


Barb :)

hummm wonder which atty that is.


Not mine in JAX!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)



I was thinking Hal if it was a Man.

I told someone today about this site and they are checking into it(they have used her too)


He is in Orlando and not Hal. I am still waiting to find the case online, once they file I will post the link :)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir O'Gacy    0

We reached out to the 2 parties involved in the lawsuits to get their sides of the story. We received a response from the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case. If you want to read their side of the story you can do so here:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
pepperbird    0

That sucks. I really like Stephanie and had recently sent in an application. I'd like to know more.


I just read something about Theresa Erickson that just blew me away and mad me sick to my stomach. I'll post the info if it hasn't been already.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites