Opinion ID: 2608931
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Remaining Defendants

Text: The Regents, Quan, Genetics Institute, and Sandoz are not physicians. In contrast to Golde, none of these defendants stood in a fiduciary relationship with Moore or had the duty to obtain Moore's informed consent to medical procedures. If any of these defendants is to be liable for breach of fiduciary duty or performing medical procedures without informed consent, it can only be on account of Golde's acts and on the basis of a recognized theory of secondary liability, such as respondeat superior. The procedural posture of this case, however, makes it unnecessary for us to address the sufficiency of Moore's secondary-liability allegations. As already mentioned, the superior court addressed only the purported cause of action for conversion. Because the superior court found that Moore had not stated such a cause of action, it had no occasion to address the sufficiency of Moore's allegation that the Regents and Quan were acting as Golde's agent[s] and joint venturer[s]. [12] In a later proceeding, however, the superior court did find that the same allegations were too conclusory to state a cause of action against Genetics Institute and Sandoz. The Court of Appeal did not hold, explicitly or implicitly, that Moore's secondary-liability allegations were sufficient as against any defendant. The court did hold that Moore had stated a cause of action against the Regents and Quan. However, the court did not reach that conclusion on the basis of secondary liability. Instead, drawing no distinctions between the defendants, the court held simply that each defendant was primarily liable for conversion. [13] Because no court has yet addressed the Regents' and Quan's secondary liability and because the superior court will need to consider other issues on remand, there is no need to address these issues at this time. [14] With respect to Genetics Institute and Sandoz, the situation is slightly different. The Court of Appeal mentioned Moore's secondary-liability allegations against these defendants but expressed no opinion as to their sufficiency. Instead, as to these defendants the court merely reversed the superior court's order for failure to grant leave to amend. Our affirmance of this part of the Court of Appeal's decision will leave Moore free to attempt, once again, to allege that Genetics Institute and Sandoz are secondarily liable for Golde's torts.