Complaint Kerrigan Et Al. v. Orange County Et Al.

1 V.
James DeSimone (SBN: 119668)

V. JAMES DESIMONE LAW
2 13160 Mindanao Way, Suite 280
Marina Del Rey, California 90292
3 Telephone: 310.693.5561
4 Facsimile: 916.927.2046
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
6 FRANCIS KERRIGAN and CAROLE MEIKLE
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF ORANGE COUNTY
9
FRANCIS J. KERRIGAN and CAROLE Case No.:
10 MEIKLE
PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED
11 Plaintiffs COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
12 NEGLIGENCE
13 VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH
ORANGE COUNTY, CHAPMAN FUNERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
14 HOMES and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, NEGLIGENT
MISREPRESENTATION
15 INTENTIONAL
Defendants.
16 MISREPRESENTATION
5) CONCEALMENT
17 6) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
18
19 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Kerrigan et.. al v.. County of Orange et. al V. James DeSimone, Esq.
Case No.:
1 Plaintiffs, FRANCIS J. KERRIGAN and CAROLE MEIKLE, respectfully submit the
2 instant Verified Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial and allege as follows:
3 CASE OVERVIEW
4 The Orange County Coroner’ s Office caused the Kerrigan family unimaginable pain and
5 suffering because it did not want to spend its time properly identifying the body of a deceased
6 homeless person. On May 6, 2017 the Orange County Coroner’s Office informed the family of
7 Frankie M. Kerrigan, a 57-year-old mentally ill homeless man, that Frankie’ s body was found
8 behind a Verizon store that day and that his identity had been verified through fingerprints and
9 his identification card. The Kerrigan family mourned the death of Frankie, held a Catholic funeral
10 and, to their knowledge, buried their son and brother. A few weeks later, Frankie showed up at
11 one of the pallbearer’s house alive. The Orange County Coroner’ s Office did not use proper
12 identification procedures when it received the body because it did not think anyone would care
13 about a deceased mentally ill homeless man. When the misidentification was realized, the County
14 of Orange orchestrated a cover up in an attempt to conceal the gross negligence that occurred at
15 the Orange County’s Coroner’s Office. Chapman Funeral Homes failed to disclose facts that
16 would have revealed the cover up to Plaintiffs.
17 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
18 1. This Complaint is brought by Plaintiffs FRANCIS J. KERRIGAN (hereinafter
19 “ KERRIGAN” ) and CAROLE MEIKLE (hereinafter “ MEIKLE, collectively “ Plaintiffs” ) against
20 ORANGE COUNTY (hereinafter “ COUNTY” ), CHAPMAN FUNERAL HOMES and DOES 1-
21 50 (referred to collectively as “ Defendants” ) for injuries resulting from the misidentification of a
22 person deceased in Fountain Valley, California and the subsequent cover up.
23 2. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Plaintiff KERRIGAN is and has been an
24 individual residing in Riverside County, California.
25 3. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Plaintiff MEIKLE is and has been an
26 individual residing in Orange County, California.
27 4. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Defendant CHAPMAN FUNERAL
28 HOMES was a California Company operating in Orange, California.
2
Kerrigan et. al v. County of Orange et. al V. James DeSimone, Esq.
Case No.:
1 5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all relevant times
2 DOES 1-25 were under the direct supervision, employ and control of Defendant COUNTY. In
3 doing the acts alleged herein, Defendants DOES 1-25 were acting within the course and scope of
4 their employment within the COUNTY, rendering it vicariously liable for their acts.
5 6. DEFENDANTS DOES 1-25 proximately caused Plaintiffs injuries by integrally
6 participating or failing to intervene in the misidentification of the deceased and/or by engaging in
7 acts and/or omissions in furtherance of the campaign to cover up the COUNTY and its employee’s
8 negligence.
9 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all relevant times
10 DOES 26-50 were under the direct supervision, employ and control of, or otherwise affiliated
11 with, Defendant CHAPMAN FUNERAL HOMES. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendants
12 DOES 26-50 were acting within the course and scope of their employment or agency with
13 CHAPMAN FUNERAL HOMES rendering it vicariously liable for their acts.
14 8. DEFENDANTS DOES 26-50 proximately caused Plaintiffs injuries by integrally
15 participating or failing to intervene in the misidentification of the deceased and/or by engaging in
16 acts and/or omissions in furtherance of the campaign to cover up the COUNTY and its employee’ s
17 negligence.
18 STATEMENT OF FACTS
19 9. KERRIGAN’ S son Frank Kerrigan
20 (hereinafter “ Frankie” ) began experiencing the effects of
21 various mental disorders, including schizophrenia, mlmwiM
22 approximately fifteen years ago when Frankie was in his early 40s. Due to his mental illness,
23 Frankie preferred a transient lifestyle and chose to live intermittently homeless over the past ten
24 years. KERRIGAN and MEIKLE, Frankie’s sister, continuously offered Frankie love, comfort,
25 medical assistance and shelter.
26 10. On May 4, 2017 KERRIGAN had a telephone conversation with his son Frankie.
27 During the phone call, KERRIGAN offered to help Frankie find housing, but Frankie declined
28 the offer.
3
Kerrigan et . al v.. County of Orange et. al V . James DeSimone, Esq.
Case No. :
1 11. On May 6, 2017, at approximately three o’ clock in the afternoon, KERRIGAN
2 received a note from the Riverside County Sheriffs Office directing him to call the Orange
3 County Coroner’ s Office regarding his son Frank.
4 12. Shortly after receiving the note, KERRIGAN called the Coroner’s Office and was
5 told his son Frankie was deceased. He was told that his son’s body was found near a Verizon
6 Store in Fountain Valley. ' rr
^ -
7 13. KERRIGAN asked if he needed to identify his son’s
'
* <J 2 **6
8 body and was told that it was not necessary because Frankie had been
{7s */
9 identified by his fingerprints.

10 14. KERRIGAN was also told that an autopsy had to be
11 performed on his son and that he could not claim Frankie’ s body until «# y'< *3
12 after the autopsy was complete. ^ **«/*

if
^ - / 0*9'
6
13 15. Immediately after terminating the phone call with the

14 Coroner’ s Officer, KERRIGAN called his daughter MEIKLE and told her that Frankie was
15 deceased.
16 16. Upon hearing about her brother’s death, MEIKLE immediately went to the
17 Verizon Store where her brother’s body had been reportedly found and erected a shrine in his
18 memory. The shrine included photos, a poem, flowers, a candle and rosary beads. MEIKLE stayed
19 at the scene for some time, crying and praying.
20 17. The scene was covered in blood and dirty blankets, causing
21 MEIKLE further distress as she imagined the possibility that her brother’ s
22 death was painful and violent.
23 18. On or about May 7, 2017 MEIKLE contacted the Coroner’ s
24 Office to confirm what the office told her father. MEIKLE spoke with Kelly
25 at the Coroner’ s Office. MEIKLE was concerned that there may have been
26 foul play involved in Frankie’s death. MEIKLE was informed that there was no foul play and her
27 brother passed away peacefully.
28 19. MEIKLE also asked about Frankie’ s personal belongings. Kelly informed

Kerrigan et. al v. County of Orange et. al V . James DeSimone, Esq.
Case No. :
1 MEIKLE that Frankie was found with his identification, wallet and $56 and that his identity
2 was confirmed based on his identification card .
3 20. On or about May 7, 2017 MEIKLE and KERRIGAN went to the site Frankie’s
4 body was found. KERRIGAN dug in the bushes for any possessions, including every single scrap
5 of paper that Frankie might have left behind. MEIKLE gave her father a moment alone at the
6 scene. Once alone, KERRIGAN began to cry.
7 21. On or about May 7, 2017 KERRIGAN and MEIKLE met with Terry, the director
8 at CHAPMAN FUNERAL HOMES. During the meeting KERRIGAN and MEIKLE told Terry
9 that it was very important that Frankie’ s body was picked up in a timely manner from the coroner.
10 They also told Terry they wanted Frankie’ s personal belongings, most importantly his black
11 attache case he always carried and the watch he always wore.
12 22. On or about May 8, 2017 funeral arraignments were made and a graveside plot
13 was selected near Frankie’ s mother, who passed away 10 years prior, at the Holy Sepulcher
14 Cemetery. This area of the cemetery was a sacred place for Plaintiffs.
15 23. The autopsy on the body was conducted on May 9, 2017. Shortly thereafter, the
16 body was released to the CHAPMAN FUNERAL HOMES where the body was embalmed and
17 prepared for funeral.
18 24. In the following days KERRIGAN and MEIKLE notified friends and family of
19 Frankie’ s death and invited to the funeral.
20 25. On May 10, 2017 the family sent the funeral director at CHAPMAN FUNERAL
21 HOMES a photo of Frankie to use for the memorial mass cards. KERRIGAN and MEIKLE met
22 with the church and selected an appropriate mass, including songs, prayers and readings suitable
23 for Frankie’ s service.
24 26. On the evening ofMayll , 2017 there was a very small viewing of Frankie’ s body
25 for the family at KERRIGAN’ S request.
26 27. During the viewing, Funeral Director Terry brought Frankie’s personal belongings
27 to KERRIGAN and MEIKLE’ s husband Terry Meikle. None of the belongings looked familiar.
28 The was no identification in the wallet. Moreover, there was no black attache or watch in the
5
Case No.:
1 belongings.
2 28. KERRIGAN wanted Frankie buried with a watch on his
3 wrist and a pen in his pocket, two possessions Frankie always had on
4 him. Terry the Funeral director received a watch and a pen KERRIGAN
5 brought and put it on Frankie’ s body.
6 29. KERRIGAN asked Terry to further check with his staff
7 and the coroner to help locate Frankie’ s black attache case, his watch
8 and his pen but PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that no follow up was conducted.
9 30. On May 12, 2017 a mass in Frankie’s memory and a funeral was held at Holy
10 Family Cathedral. Thereafter, the body was interned at Holy Sepulcher Cemetery. Approximately
11 fifty people attended the funeral, including family and friends who came from Las Vegas,
12 Washington State, Ontario, San Diego and Santa Barbara.
13 31. Following the funeral, KERRIGAN and MEIKLE continued to grieve the loss of
14 Frankie.
15 32. On May 15, 2017, KERRIGAN went through every item of clothing and
16 possessions he had been told belonged to Frankie. KERRIGAN could not recognize a single item.
17 KERRIGAN proceeded to call the Coroner and request that they continue to look for Frankie’s
18 black attache case, wrist watch, and pen.
19 33. On the evening of May 23, 2017, KERRIGAN received a telephone call from a
20 longtime family friend, Bill Shinker, who served as a pallbearer at Frankie’ s funeral.
21 34. Mr. Shinker said “ Are you sitting down? Frankie is alive.” Frankie showed up at
22 the pallbearer’ s home for a visit, unaware that a funeral had been held for him eleven days prior.
23 35. Frankie then got on the phone and said “ Hi, Dad, how are you doing?”
24 36. Stunned, KERRIGAN realized that Frankie was somehow alive. KERRIGAN
25 immediately called his family to inform them Frankie was alive.
26 37. When MEIKLE heard the news that Frankie was alive she felt numb and did not
27 understand nor know how to react to the news.
28 38. KERRIGAN and MEIKLE continue to have complex and emotionally disturbing
6
Case No.:
1 and intrusive emotions. They continue to have feelings of grief and mourning related to burying
2 Frankie and anguish concerning the lies which were told to them regarding the certain
3 identification of their son and brother.
4 39. On May 30, 2017, the family’ s representative notified the Orange County
5 Coroner’ s Office that Frankie was alive.
6 40. On June 1, 2017, the Orange County Coroner’ s Office told the family’ s
7 representative that the man erroneously identified as Frankie, and buried in his grave, was John
8 Dickens, age 54 at death.
9 41. On or about August 23, 2017, John Dicken’s body was disinterred.
10 42. The Fountain Valley Fire Department Incident Report lists the body recovered on
11 May 6, 2017 as John Doe: age 65 weighing 250 pounds.
12 43. A witness at the Verizon Store described the deceased as a heavy man with long
13 dark hair.
14 44. On May 6, 2017 Frankie was 57 years old, did not weight more than 170 pounds
15 and had short light hair.
16 45. Upon information and belief, on May 6, 2017, the Orange County Coroner’ s
17 Office did not and could not have obtained Frankie’ s fingerprints from the body nor did they have
18 or use his identification card to identify the body.
19 46. Upon information and belief, John Dickens body was not the body recovered at
20 the Verizon Store, instead an unknown third individual was found deceased at that location.
21 47. Upon information and belief, employees or agents at the Coroner’ s office realized
22 that the body recovered at the Verizon store looked nothing like Frankie sometime after informing
23 KERRIGAN of Frankie’ s death but before releasing a body to CHAPMAN FUNERAL HOMES.
24 48. Upon information and belief, the Orange County Coroner’ s Office, through its
25 employees and agents, released a body that was not recovered at the Verizon Store to the
26 CHAPMAN FUNERAL HOMES that looked “ close enough” to Frankie.
27 49. Upon information and belief, the Orange County Coroner’ s Office, through its
28 employees and agents, did not want to admit to their identification error and instead released a
7
Case No.:
1 body that resembled Frankie with the belief that no one would care because the deceased were
2 mentally ill and/or homeless.
3 50. Upon information and belief, CHAPMAN FUNERAL HOMES concealed
4 information regarding the appearance of the body that was received by the COUNTY, and how
5 different it looked from the photo of Frankie provided by KERJRJGAN, intending to deceive
6 KERRIGAN and MEIKLE.
7 51. On July 23, 2017 the Clerk of the Board timely received KERRIGAN and
8 MEIKLE’s Claim for Money or Damages Against the County of Orange.
9 52. On November 6, 2017 KERRIGAN and MEIKLE filed an amended Claim for
10 Money or Damages Against the County of Orange.
11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
12 Negligence
13 (Against all Defendants)
14 53. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, each
15 and every allegation set forth above.
16 54. Defendants COUNTY and DOES 1-25 owed a duty to Plaintiffs.
17 55. The Coroner’ s Office has a duty to investigate deaths and ascertain the identity of
18 the deceased. Health & Saf. Code, § 102870, 102855, Gov. Code, § 27471.
19 56. The Coroner has a duty to act with reasonable diligence in attempting to identify
20 a body placed in his custody. (Davila v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 137, 142-
21 43).
22 57. The employees or agents at the Coroner’ s Office did not use reasonable care in
23 identifying the body found on May 6, 2017 at the Verizon store when it failed to run fingerprints
24 and/or failed to identify the body through an identification card.
25 58. The Coroner’ s and its employees or agents’ negligent misidentification was a
26 substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm as they believed their loved one was deceased.
27 59. Defendant CHAPMAN FUNERAL HOMES and DOES 26-50 owed a duty of
28 reasonable care to Plaintiffs.
8
Case No.:
1 60. The employees or agents at CHAPMAN FUNERAL HOMES did not use
2 reasonable care in handling human remains.
3 61. CHAPMAN FUNERAL HOMES and its employees or agents’ handling of human
4 remains was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs.
5 62. The acts and omissions against Plaintiffs by Defendants, and each of them, as
6 aforesaid manifested an unreasonable risk of injury to Plaintiffs.
7 63. Defendants engaged in the acts alleged herein and/or condoned, permitted,
8 authorized, directed, approved, and/or ratified the conduct of their employees, agents, and other
9 representatives and are therefore vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct thereof.
10 64. Upon the false notification of Frankie’ s death, Plaintiffs suffered extreme
11 emotional distress, including fright, grief, sadness, mental suffering, worry and mental anguish.
12 65. Upon finding out Frankie was not dead, Plaintiffs suffered from and continue to
13 suffer from additional emotional distress, including anxiety, worry, confusion, nervousness and
14 grief.
15 66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered the
16 aforementioned damages. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to general and compensatory damages
17 in a sum in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of the Court and according to proof at trial.
18 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
19 Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act
20 (Against COUNTY and DOES 1-25)
23 68. California Civil Code 51(b) states “ All persons within the jurisdiction of this state
24 are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
25 disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship,
26 primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations,
27 advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind
28 whatsoever.”
9
Case No.:
1 69. “ Although the Act explicitly lists sex, race, and other types of discrimination, this
2 list is illustrative rather than restrictive, and the Act's protection against discrimination is not
3 confined to these enumerated classes.” ( Javorsky v. Western Athletic Clubs, Inc. (2015) 242
4 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1394.) “ [T]he Act renders unlawful “ only arbitrary, invidious or unreasonable
5 discrimination.” { Ibid , at 1395).
6 70. Plaintiffs were denied equal access and services to the Coroner’ s Office because
7 of Frankie’ s mental illness and/ or homeless status. As a result, the Office did not properly identify
8 the deceased.
9 71. The Orange County Coroner’ s Office is a business establishment for purposes of
10 the Unruh Act since it provides a public service.
18 grief.
22 76. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that DOES 1-25 by engaging
23 in the aforementioned acts and/or in authorizing and/or ratifying such acts, engaged in willful,
24 malicious, fraudulent, intentional, oppressive and despicable conduct, and acted with willful and
25 conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiffs, thereby justifying the award of
26 punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
27 77. In accordance with Civil Code Section 52(a), Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable
28 attorney fees.
10
Kerrigan et. at v. County of Orange et. at V. James DeSimone, Esq.
Case No.:
1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Negligent Misrepresentation
6 79. Defendants, COUNTY and DOES 1-25, made false statements regarding the
7 identity of the deceased body found at the Verizon store on May 6, 2017.
8 80. Defendants had no reasonable grounds to believe the statements made were true.
9 81. The statements were made with the intent to induce Plaintiffs’ reliance on the fact
10 misrepresented.
11 82. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the statement that Frankie was deceased.
15 84. Upon the false notification of Frankie’s death, Plaintiffs suffered extreme
19 grief.
23 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 Intentional Misrepresentation
28 88. Defendants, COUNTY and DOES 1-25, made false statements regarding the
11
Case No.:
1 identity of the deceased body found at the Verizon store on May 6, 2017.
2 89. Defendants knew the representation was false or made the representation
3 recklessly without regard for its truth.
4 90. The statements were made with the intent to induce Plaintiffs’ reliance on the fact
5 misrepresented.
6 91. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the statement that Frankie was deceased.
14 grief.
18 96. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that DOES 1-25 by engaging
19 in the aforementioned acts and/or in authorizing and/or ratifying such acts, engaged in willful,
20 malicious, fraudulent, intentional, oppressive and despicable conduct, and acted with willful and
21 conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiffs, thereby justifying the award
22 of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
23 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 Concealment
25 (Against All Defendants)
28 98. Defendants, and each of them, intentionally failed to disclose to Plaintiffs facts
12
Case No.:
1 that were known only to it, that the body was misidentified, and that Plaintiffs could not have
2 discovered.
3 99. Plaintiffs did not know the body was not Frankie.
4 100. Defendants intended to deceive Plaintiffs by concealing the misidentification.
5 101. Had the omitted information been disclosed, Plaintiffs would have behaved
6 differently and would not have facilitated the burying of non-family member, John Dickens.
14 grief.
18 106. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that CHAPMAN
19 FUNERAL HOMES and DOES 1-50 by engaging in the aforementioned acts and/or in
20 authorizing and/or ratifying such acts, engaged in willful, malicious, fraudulent, intentional,
21 oppressive and despicable conduct, and acted with willful and conscious disregard of the rights,
22 welfare and safety of Plaintiffs, thereby justifying the award of punitive and exemplary damages
23 in an amount to be determined at trial.
24 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
26 (Against All Defendants)

13
Case No.:
1 108. Defendants’ conduct as described above was extreme and outrageous and was
2 done with the intent of causing Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress, or with reckless disregard
3 as to whether their conduct would cause Plaintiffs to suffer such distress.
11 grief.
15 113. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that CFIAPMAN
16 FUNERAL FIOMES and DOES 1-50 by engaging in the aforementioned acts and/or in
17 authorizing and/or ratifying such acts, engaged in willful, malicious, fraudulent, intentional,
18 oppressive and despicable conduct, and acted with willful and conscious disregard of the rights,
19 welfare and safety of Plaintiffs, thereby justifying the award of punitive and exemplary damages
20 in an amount to be determined at trial.
21 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
22 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants and any other defendants
23 who may be later added to this action as follows:
24 1. For compensatory damages, including, but not limited to economic and non¬
25 economic damages in the amount according to proof;
26 2. For attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to all applicable statues or legal principles;
27 3. For cost of suit incurred;
28 4. For punitive damages or other penalties recoverable by law, in an amount to be
14
Case No.:
1 proved against each non-public entity Defendant (not including COUNTY);
2 5. For prejudgment interest on all amounts claimed pursuant to Civil Code section
3 3287 and/or 3288; and
4 6. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
5 77
6
7 Date: February 13, 2018 By:
8 ^
V. JAM S DESIMONE, ESQ.
9
10 FRANCIS KERRIGAN and CAROLE
MEIKLE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
Case No.:
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 Plaintiffs FRANCIS J. KERRIGAN and CAROLE MEIKLE hereby demand a trial by

3 jury on all claims.
4
5
6
7 Date: February 13, 2018
8
^
V JAMES DESIMONE, ESQ.
9
10 FRANCIS KERRIGAN and
CAROLE MEIKLE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
Case No. :
1 VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2
3 I, FRANCIS J. KERRIGAN, have read the attached Complaint for Damages and hereby
4 attest that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters, which are therein
5 stated on my information or belief, and as to those matter that I believe it to be true.
6 I declare under penalty of perjury under to the laws of the State of California that the
7 foregoing is true and correct.
8 This Verification was executed on L (LAW
9 California.
10
11
12 NCIS J. KERRIGAN
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2
3 I, CAROLE MEIKLE, have read the attached Complaint for Damages and hereby attest
4 that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters, which are therein stated
5 on my information or belief, and as to those matter that I believe it to be true.
6 I declare under penalty of perjury under to the laws of the State of California that the
7 foregoing is true and correct.
8 This Verification was executed on / )
j /3
9 California.
10
11
j
12 CAROLE MEIKLE
13 l
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Complaint Kerrigan Et Al. v. Orange County Et Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint Kerrigan Et Al. v. Orange County Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 V.

James DeSimone (SBN: 119668)

9 identified by his fingerprints.

12 after the autopsy was complete. ^ **«/*

13 15. Immediately after terminating the phone call with the

PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

26 (Against All Defendants)

2 Plaintiffs FRANCIS J. KERRIGAN and CAROLE MEIKLE hereby demand a trial by

VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

You might also like