Preview
Jack W. Weaver, Esq., Bar No. 278469
1
Rachael M. Mache, Esq., Bar No. 318461
2 WELTY, WEAVER & CURRIE
3554 Round Barn Blvd, Suite 300
3 Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Tel: (707) 433-4842 Fax: (707) 473-9778
4 jack@weltyweaver.com
rachael@weltyweaver.com
5
6 Alexander M. Schack, Esq., Bar No. 99126
Natasha N. Serino, Esq., Bar No. 284711
7 Shannon F. Nocon, Esq., Bar No. 316523
SCHACK LAW GROUP
8 16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
9 San Diego, CA 92127
Tel: (858) 485-6535 Fax: (858) 485-0608
10 alexschack@schacklawgroup.com
natashaserino@schacklawgroup.com
11 shannonnocon@schacklawgroup.com
12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, individually and
13 on behalf of all others similarly situated
14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
15
16
17 DAVID SUCHARD, JODY SUCHARD, Case No.:
and JANE DOE, individually, and on behalf
18 of all others similarly situated; CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
19
Plaintiffs, 1. Violations of the Unfair
20 Competition Law (Business &
v. Professions Code § 17200 et seq.)
21 2. Violations of the False
SONOMA ACADEMY, a California non- Advertising Law (Business &
22 profit; and DOES 1 through 500. Professions Code § 17500 et seq.)
23 3. Constructive Fraud (Civil Code §
Defendants. 1573)
24 4. Fraud by Concealment
25 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
26
27
28
-1-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs David Suchard, Jody Suchard and Jane Doe (hereinafter collectively referred to
2 as "Plaintiffs"), by and through their undersigned counsel and on behalf of themselves and all
3 others similarly situated, brings this Class Action against Defendants SONOMA ACADEMY
4
and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive (hereinafter collectively referred to as “SA” or
5
"Defendants"), and alleges as follows:
6
7 INTRODUCTION
8 1. Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants SA and DOES 1 through 500 to
9 remedy violations of law made in connection with Defendants' concealment of systemic sexual
10 abuse of its high school students over the course of eighteen years. As a result of Defendants’
11 fraud, false advertising, and unfair business practices, Plaintiffs and the class paid extremely high
12 tuition costs in reliance on Defendants’ false promise to provide a high quality and reputable
13 education and a safe learning environment. Plaintiffs and the class did not in any way receive the
14 benefit of the bargain the paid for.
15 2. Defendant SONOMA ACADEMY ("SA") is a private high school in Santa Rosa,
16 California, that holds itself out to be the area’s most elite, prestigious, and reputable college
17 preparatory school. For the 2020-2021 school year, SA charged students $49,600 per year for
18 tuition and dining programs. Further, according to its recent Form 990, SA had net assets of
19 $104,516,439 as of June 2020. Importantly, SA promotes itself as not only an elite high school but
20 one which uniquely provides a close-knit community and safe learning environment. SA’s Code
21 of Conduct states that SA faculty’s and staff’s "nurturing, caring relationships with students are
22 what make SA such a special place.”
23 3. In derogation of this community identity and SA's repeated promises to provide a
24 safe and highly reputable educational environment, SA actively concealed the fact that it employed
25 Marco Morrone ("Morrone"), a serial sexual predator, as a full-time teacher, and knowingly
26 permitted him unfettered sexual access to students for over eighteen years under the guise of
27 quality education, including for at least fourteen years after SA first received reports of Morrone's
28 sexual abuse of students in early 2007. As the sexual abuse continued, SA continued to promote
-2-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 itself as a safe, prestigious, and high-quality educational institution, all while charging students
2 yearly tuition of approximately $50,000 per student per year. SA also concealed its knowledge,
3 dating back to as early as 2002, that two other SA faculty members, Shannon Rake ("Rake") and
4 Adrian Belic ("Belic"), sexually abused children during their time as students of SA. SA chose to
5 protect its public image rather than protect the youngest, most vulnerable members of its
6 community.
7 4. As a result of SA’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and the Class members have
8 suffered harm in that they incurred substantial expenses for SA tuition and related expenses that
9 they would not otherwise have paid. Plaintiffs therefore bring this action seeking relief on behalf
10 of themselves and all others similarly situated.
11
12 PARTIES
Plaintiffs DAVID SUCHARD and JODY SUCHARD
13
14 5. Plaintiffs DAVID SUCHARD AND JODY SUCHARD are citizens of the state of
15 California, who reside in Sonoma County, California. Plaintiffs paid tuition to SA for a high school
16 education for their child from approximately 2015 to 2017. Plaintiffs DAVID AND JODY
17 SUCHARD enrolled their child at SA due to its reputation as a preeminent college preparatory
18 school and one of the best high schools in the area. Plaintiffs DAVID AND JODY SUCHARD
19 were excited for the opportunities they believed an SA education would provide.
20 6. Plaintiffs DAVID AND JODY SUCHARD selected and ultimately paid SA tuition
21 and related expenses because of SA's advertisements and representations that SA was “the premier
22 private, independent, co-ed, college preparatory high school” in the area. None of SA's
23 representations contained any disclosure that then current and former SA staff and/or faculty had
24 sexually and/or physically abused students, despite the fact that SA had knowledge of such
25 incidents and was under a mandatory duty to report each and every instance of suspected child
26 abuse. If SA had disclosed the reported incidents of sexual or physical abuse of students,
27 prospective students, including Plaintiffs and the Class members, would not have chosen to pay
28 the significant tuition and expenses of attending SA.
-3-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 7. Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered ascertainable losses as a result of
2 SA's omissions and/or representations associated with the safety, reputation, and success of its
3 educational program. Plaintiffs’ ascertainable losses include, but are not limited to, tuition
4 expenses and other related out-of-pocket losses.
5 Plaintiff JANE DOE
6 8. Plaintiff JANE DOE is a citizen of the state of California, who resides in Sonoma
7 County, California. Plaintiff paid tuition to SA for a high school education from 2018 to 2021.
8 Plaintiff parents enrolled at SA due to its reputation as a preeminent college preparatory school
9 and one of the best high schools in the area. Plaintiff was excited to attend the prestigious school
10 and was excited for the opportunities she believed an SA education would provide.
11 9. Plaintiff JANE DOE selected and ultimately paid SA tuition and related expenses
12 because of SA's advertisements and representations that SA was “the premier private, independent,
13 co-ed, college preparatory high school” in the area. None of SA's representations contained any
14 disclosure that then current and former SA staff and/or faculty had sexually abused students,
15 despite the fact that SA had knowledge of such incidents and was under a mandatory duty to report
16 each and every instance of suspected child abuse. If SA had disclosed the reported incidents of
17 sexual abuse of students, prospective students, including Plaintiff and the Class members, would
18 not have chosen to pay the significant tuition and expenses of attending SA.
19 10. Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered ascertainable losses as a result of
20 SA's omissions and/or representations associated with the safety, reputation, and success of its
21 educational program. Plaintiffs’ ascertainable losses include, but are not limited to, tuition
22 expenses and other related out-of-pocket losses.
23 DEFENDANT SONOMA ACADEMY
24 11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis alleges, that SA at all times
25 mentioned herein was and is a California non-profit corporation, having its principal place of
26 business in the State of California, County of Sonoma.
27 ///
28 ///
-4-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 12. SA is a private high school located in Santa Rosa, California. SA advertises itself
2 as the “the premier private, independent, co-ed, college preparatory high school.” It’s website
3 further proclaims, “[o]ur team of faculty and staff are trained professionals, deeply knowledgeable
4 both in our subject areas as well as in adolescent development. We have created a rich, multi-
5 faceted, dynamic program that is designed to ensure the success of all of our students in all aspects
6 of their lives.” SA’s Code of Conduct states: “Sonoma Academy takes the safety and comfort of
7 its students very seriously . . . SA encourages parents, students, alumni or other members of the
8 school community to report concerns about any violations of [its] policies . . . Such reports will be
9 kept as confidential as possible except as necessary for SA to take appropriate action .... Sonoma
10 Academy is a close-knit community, and our staffulty's [sic] nurturing, caring relationships with
11 students are what make SA such a special place.” It further states that “[e]mployees will: be
respectful of students at all times [and n]ot discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion, national
12
origin, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, physical or mental
13
disability, or physical appearance,” among other things. All SA employees are expected to be
14
familiar with these policies and follow them.
15
13. At all relevant times, SA held its faculty and staff, including Marco Morrone, out
16
to be trustworthy and legitimate. Indeed, SA made Marco Morrone the and/or one of the only AP
17
History and English teacher(s) at the prestigious college preparatory high school and assigned
18
students to his classes and small mentorship groups, thereby forcing its young students and their
19
parents to place their trust and confidence in Morrone in order to receive their education. While
20
falsely representing that Morrone was a trustworthy, safe, and legitimate teacher, SA concealed
21
numerous complaints lodged by female students as well as concerns voiced by staff about
22
Morrone’s sexual abuse, harassment, assault, and misconduct, which date back to at least 2004,
23 just two years into Morrone’s over eighteen-year tenure.
24 14. SA also concealed known acts of sexual abuse and harassment committed against
25 students by other faculty, including the acts of Rake and Belic, which included grooming young
26 students for sexual abuse and pressuring these students to have sexual intercourse.
27 ///
28 ///
-5-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 DOE DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 500
2 15. Defendants DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, and each of them, are sued herein
3 under said fictitious names. Plaintiffs are ignorant as to the true names and capacities of DOES 1
4 through 500, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, and therefore sues said
5 Defendants by such fictitious names. When their true names and capacities are ascertained,
6 Plaintiffs will request leave of Court to amend this Complaint to state their true names and
7 capacities herein.
8 16. SA and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, are sometimes collectively referred to
9 herein as “Defendants” and/or as “All Defendants”; such collective reference refers to all
10 specifically named Defendants as well as those fictitiously named herein.
11 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis allege, that at all times
12 mentioned herein, each Defendant was responsible in some manner or capacity for the occurrences
herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ damages, as herein alleged, were proximately caused by all said
13
Defendants.
14
18. At all times mentioned herein, each and every Defendant was an employee, agent
15
(actual and/or apparent or ostensive), and/or servant of SA and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive,
16
and/or was under their complete control and/or active supervision. Defendants are individuals,
17
corporations, partnerships, and/or other entities that engaged in, joined in, and conspired with other
18
Defendants and wrongdoers in carrying out the tortious and unlawful activities described in this
19
Complaint.
20
19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis allege, that at all times
21
mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants such that any
22
individuality and separateness between Defendants ceased to exist. Defendants were the
23
successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the other Defendants, in that they purchased, controlled,
24 dominated and operated each other without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or
25 other manner of division. To continue maintaining the facade of a separate and individual existence
26 between and among Defendants would serve to perpetrate a fraud and injustice.
27 20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis allege, that at all times
28 mentioned herein, SA and DOES 1 through 500 were the actual and/or apparent agents,
-6-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 representatives and/or employees of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things
2 hereinafter alleged, Defendants were acting within the course and scope of said alternative
3 personality, capacity, identity, agency, representation, and/or employment and were acting within
4 the scope of their authority, whether actual or apparent.
5 21. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis allege, that at all times
6 mentioned herein, SA and DOES 1 through 500 were the trustees, partners, servants, joint
7 venturers, shareholders, contractors, actual and/or apparent agents and/or employees of each and
8 every other Defendant, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting
9 individually, through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission
10 and consent of each and every other Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by
11 each and every other Defendant, and that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs
and the Class.
12
22. The unlawful acts alleged against Defendants in this complaint were authorized,
13
ordered, or performed by Defendants’ respective officers, agents, employees, or representatives,
14
while actively engaged in the management, direction, or control of Defendants’ affairs or conduct.
15
23. Defendants have participated as co-conspirators with Defendants and have
16
performed acts and made statements in furtherance of the conspiracy. Various persons and/or firms
17
not named as Defendants herein may have participated as co-conspirators in the violations alleged
18
herein and may have performed acts and made statements in furtherance thereof.
19
24. Each of the Defendants named herein acted as the agent or joint venturer of or for
20
the other Defendants with respect to the acts, violations and common course of conduct alleged
21
herein. In particular, each Defendant participated in, relied on, or acted in concert with Defendants
22
to carry out and/or conceal the wrongful conduct described herein.
23 25. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis allege, that at all times
24 material hereto, Morrone was under the direct supervision, management, agency, and control of
25 Defendants SA and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on
26 this basis allege, that Morrone was hired, employed, supervised, and retained by Defendant SA,
27 and DOES 1 through 500. In this capacity, Morrone’s employment duties included teaching
28 humanities classes to junior and senior high school students, including young female students.
-7-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Morrone worked for, was employed by, and/or was an actual and/or apparent or ostensive
2 agent/servant of Defendant SA and/or DOES 1 through 500.
3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4
5 26. This Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted herein pursuant to the
6 California Constitution, Article VI, § 10 and California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10.
7 Jurisdiction is also proper pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §§ 17202 and
8 17203.
9 27. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section
10 395. Plaintiffs’ injuries and injuries of similarly situated Class members occurred in Sonoma
11 County.
12 28. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, among other things,
13 Defendants regularly conduct business in California, and marketed and sold their educational
services in California. This action does not involve issues of federal law. Defendants have
14
sufficient minimum contacts with this state so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court
15
in compliance with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
16
17 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
18 29. SA is a private high school located in Santa Rosa, California. SA proclaims itself
19 to be “the premier private, independent, co-ed, college preparatory high school.” It’s website
20 further proclaims, “[o]ur team of faculty and staff are trained professionals, deeply knowledgeable
21 both in our subject areas as well as in adolescent development. We have created a rich, multi-
22 faceted, dynamic program that is designed to ensure the success of all of our students in all aspects
23 of their lives.” SA’s Code of Conduct states: “Sonoma Academy takes the safety and comfort of
24 its students very seriously … SA encourages parents, students, alumni or other members of the
25 school community to report concerns about any violations of these policies as described in the
26 policies below. Such reports will be kept as confidential as possible except as necessary for SA to
27 take appropriate action …. Sonoma Academy is a close-knit community, and our staffulty's [sic]
28 nurturing, caring relationships with students are what make SA such a special place.” It further
-8-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 states that “[e]mployees will: be respectful of students at all times. Not discriminate on the basis
2 of sex, race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or
3 expression, physical or mental disability, or physical appearance,” among other things. All SA
4 employees are expected to be familiar with these policies and to follow them. Further, according
5 to its recent Form 990, SA had net assets of $104,516,439 as of June 2020.
6 30. For the 2020-2021 school year, SA charged students $49,600 per year for tuition
7 and dining programs. SA holds itself out to be the area’s most elite, prestigious, and reputable
8 college preparatory high school. Importantly, SA promotes itself as not only an elite high school
9 but one which uniquely provides a close-knit community. One is not merely a student at SA, but
10 part of a “connected community.” Yet, in contravention to this community identity fostering
11 expectations of trust, safety, and protection, SA actively concealed the fact that it employed and/or
12 had previously employed serial sexual predators as teachers and permitted them unfettered sexual
13 access to its young students under the guise of quality education. SA used this concealment, and
14 numerous false representations stemming therefrom to continue to market itself as the area’s
15 premier college preparatory high school and obtain tuition and other financial benefits from
16 students and/or their parents, including Plaintiffs and the Class. As a direct and proximate result
17 of Defendants SA’s and Does 1 through 500’s unlawful business practices, false advertising, and
18 fraud, Plaintiffs and the Class incurred substantial expenses on SA tuition and related expenses,
19 which Plaintiffs and the Class would not have paid for or would have paid substantially less for
20 had they known the truth about SA.
21
A. Acts of Sexual Abuse and Harassment Committed by SA Teacher, Marco
22 Morrone, Against SA Students
23 31. Marco Morrone began teaching at SA in 2002. He became a full time SA faculty
24 member in the humanities department and primarily taught courses to juniors and seniors,
25 including English, history, and other electives. Upon information and belief, Morrone was a
26 “popular” teacher and was noted among students and SA staff as a “handsome teacher.” Morrone
27 was employed in this capacity until November 2020 when SA terminated his employment
28 ///
-9-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 following an investigation detailing Morrone’s years of sexual abuse, harassment, and assault of
2 students, which was actively and deliberately concealed by SA and its administrators and staff.
3 32. During his over eighteen years at SA, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on
4 that basis allege, that Morrone sexually abused, harassed and/or assaulted numerous young
5 students through use of his position, authority, and trust as an SA teacher. Morrone committed
6 these wrongful acts by engaging in the following, among other things:
7
8 a. Picking favorite female students, known as “Marco’s girls,” whom Morrone gave
extra attention, feedback, and praise. These students were well known as
9
Morrone’s favorites and described as attractive young women who excelled in
10 humanities. There were also persistent and widespread rumors that Morrone
engaged in sexual relationships with these women and the relationship between
11 Morrone and “Marco’s Girls” was understood to be overtly sexual. A recent
investigation identified at least 34 Marco’s Girls from throughout Morrone’s
12 tenure at SA;
13
b. Seeking out opportunities to be alone with students, either on campus or off
14 campus, and sometimes in one-on-one windowless rooms. Morrone used these
opportunities to have overly personal conversations with students about his own
15 life and their life. These conversations and private moments were designed and in
fact fostered students’ emotional dependency on Morrone and groomed them for
16 future sexual abuse, harassment, and assault;
17
c. Having students babysit for him and frequently driving students alone in his
18 vehicle;
19 d. Making sexually charged remarks to students. For example, Morrone made
statements to students such as, “they didn’t make them like you when I was in
20 high school,” “you will not have trouble attracting guys in college,” “you never
21 stop inspiring me,” and “I would take any excuse to talk to you more.” Morrone
also commented on students’ physical appearance and sent overly flirtatious
22 and/or inappropriate emails to numerous students. Morrone’s statements were
designed to make students feel unique and emotionally comfortable with Morrone
23 and to develop a special and intimate relationship between vulnerable students
and Morrone;
24
25 e. Soliciting sexual writing from students. In particular, Morrone required students
to engage in “free writing” exercises wherein he asked students to write a certain
26 number of pages each day or week on any topic, regardless of relevance to the
curriculum. He emphasized that no topic was off limits and encouraged students
27 to write about deeply personal topics, including mental health struggles, family
traumas, and their own sexual experiences. Morrone rewarded students who wrote
28
-10-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 about such experiences by giving them extra attention and comments on their
writing and personal issues. For example, Morrone would comment on student
2 work with statements such as “you are the most interesting person I have ever
met,” “you are fascinating,” “tell me more,” “kinky,” and “I want you to keep
3 writing because I want to get to know you well and enough to write something
4 substantial back to you.” Those who did not write about such experiences
received few if any comments. Despite the fact that numerous students reported
5 instances of abuse or other misconduct that Morrone was under a legal duty to
report, Morrone did not report these instances or otherwise seek to obtain help for
6 such students. He instead used the “exercise” to identify vulnerable students,
develop intimate and personal relationships with them, and thereby groom them
7 for further and increasing sexual harassment, abuse, and assault;
8
f. Physically abusing and assaulting students under the guise of “teaching” SA
9 sanctioned martial arts classes;
10 g. Assigning readings of sexually explicit and graphic texts, including Morrone’s
own writings. For example, Morrone repeatedly instructed students to read Lolita
11 and frequently discussed the empathy the author evoked for the pedophile
12 character. He personally gave copies of Lolita to at least three students and
recommended it to several others. Morrone also gave students copies of his own
13 manuscript, which contained sexually explicit and mature content, including a
detailed account of a teacher who had sexual desires for his female student, read
14 confidential pages of her journal, and failed to appropriately report her suicidal
ideations. The manuscript ended with the administration discovering the teacher’s
15
wrongful conduct but nonetheless refusing to fire him as it would make the school
16 look equally bad;
17 h. Identifying emotional vulnerabilities in students and pursing an intimate or special
relationship with them;
18
i. “Turning” on favorite students by abruptly withdrawing attention, leading to
19
increased levels of anxiety and confusion among these students. Once students
20 became emotionally dependent on Morrone, he would abruptly shift and distance
himself from them, leaving them desperate to regain his attention and even more
21 vulnerable to Morrone’s sexual abuse, harassment, and misconduct;
22 j. Using the above described conduct to groom students for further sexual abuse,
harassment, and assault, including, but not limited to, touching their thighs,
23
pressing his thigh against theirs, touching the back of their legs, wrapping his arm
24 around them while reviewing work, standing overly close to them while engaging
in serious and/or intimate conversations, engaging in acts of physical aggression
25 against students, pressing himself against students’ backsides, and subjecting
students to extended full body hugs.
26
27 ///
28 ///
-11-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 33. It was only when an investigation exposed the rampant abuse committed by
2 Morrone with SA’s knowledge and under its supervision, that Morrone’s systematic sexual abuse,
3 harassment, and assault of his young students finally ceased.
4 34. At all times herein alleged, Morrone was an employee, agent, and/or servant of SA
5 and DOES 1 through 500, and/or was under their complete control and/or direct supervision. At
6 all times relevant hereto, Morrone was acting in the course and scope of his authority, agency,
7 service, and/or employment for SA.
8 35. In the alternative, at all times herein alleged, Morrone was an apparent or ostensible
9 agent of SA and DOES 1 through 500. Plaintiffs were led to believe that Morrone was employed
10 by SA and DOES 1 through 500, given that Morrone worked in the SA Humanities Department
11 and held himself out to be working for SA and DOES 1 through 500.
12 B. Acts of Sexual Abuse and Harassment Committed by SA Assistant Girls’
Soccer Coach, Shannon Rake, Against SA Students
13
14 36. In or around 2002, SA employed assistant girls’ soccer coach, Shannon Rake.
15 During her tenure in this position, Rake formed a close relationship with one of the female students
16 on the team and used her position as the student’s coach to groom her for later sexual abuse. Rake
17 subsequently sexually abused the student on multiple occasions. SA and Durgin received reports
18 of the abuse and terminated Rake’s employment, but failed to contact outside counsel, the SA
19 Board, and failed to file a mandated report under the California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting
20 Act (“CANRA”).
21 37. At all times herein alleged, Rake was an employee, agent, and/or servant of SA and
22 DOES 1 through 500, and/or was under their complete control and/or direct supervision. At all
23 times relevant hereto, Rake was acting in the course and scope of her authority, agency, service,
24 and/or employment for SA.
25 38. In the alternative, at all times herein alleged, Rake was an apparent or ostensible
26 agent of SA and DOES 1 through 500. Plaintiffs were led to believe that Rake was employed by
27 SA and DOES 1 through 500, given that Rake worked as an assistant girls’ soccer coach and held
28 herself out to be working for SA and DOES 1 through 500.
-12-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 C. Acts of Sexual Abuse and Harassment Committed by SA Teacher, Adrian
Belic, Against SA Students
2
3 39. In or around 2004, SA hired Adrian Belic to teach a documentary film course.
4 During his tenure in this position, Belic spent significant time alone with a female student. He used
5 this one-on-one contact to groom and manipulate the student for later sexual interactions. He then
6 sexually abused the student on multiple occasions, including one instance of sexual intercourse.
7 He also sexually abused a second SA student during this time. One of the students discussed the
8 abuse in a free write journal submitted to Morrone. Assistant Head of School, Ellie Dwight, also
9 received word from school counselors that there may be an issue with Belic. Despite this, no SA
10 administrator or employee contacted outside counsel or the SA Board, filed a mandated report
11 about Belic, or contacted law enforcement.
12 40. At all times herein alleged, Belic was an employee, agent, and/or servant of SA and
13 DOES 1 through 500, and/or was under their complete control and/or direct supervision. At all
14 times relevant hereto, Belic was acting in the course and scope of his authority, agency, service,
15 and/or employment for SA.
16 41. In the alternative, at all times herein alleged, Belic was an apparent or ostensible
17 agent of SA and DOES 1 through 500. Plaintiffs were led to believe that Belic was employed by
18 SA and DOES 1 through 500, given that Belic worked as an SA teacher and held himself out to be
19 working for SA and DOES 1 through 500.
20
D. SA’s Knowledge and Active Concealment of Acts of Sexual Abuse and
21 Harassment Committed by Its Employees Against Its Students
22 42. A Report to the SA Board of Trustees, which summarized an investigation
23 conducted by Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and was publicly-released on November 28, 2021 (the
24 “Debevoise Report”), found that SA administrators, including former Head of School, Janet
25 Durgin, and Assistant Head of School, Ellie Dwight, were informed of numerous acts of sexual
26 harassment, abuse, and assault committed by faculty and/or staff against students on numerous
27 occasions from 2004 to 2020. The Debevoise Report details the following timeline:
28
-13-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 a. 2002–2004: Assistant girls’ soccer coach, Shannon Rake, formed a close
relationship with one of the students on the team and used her position as the
2 student’s coach to groom her for later sexual abuse. Rake subsequently sexually
abused the student on multiple occasions. SA and Durgin received reports of the
3 abuse and terminated Rake’s employment, but failed to contact outside counsel, the
4 SA Board, and to file a mandated report under the California Child Abuse and
Neglect Reporting Act (“CANRA”).
5
Preview
Jack W. Weaver, Esq., Bar No. 278469 1 Rachael M. Mache, Esq., Bar No. 318461 2 WELTY, WEAVER & CURRIE 3554 Round Barn Blvd, Suite 300 3 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Tel: (707) 433-4842 Fax: (707) 473-9778 4 jack@weltyweaver.com rachael@weltyweaver.com 5 6 Alexander M. Schack, Esq., Bar No. 99126 Natasha N. Serino, Esq., Bar No. 284711 7 Shannon F. Nocon, Esq., Bar No. 316523 SCHACK LAW GROUP 8 16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 9 San Diego, CA 92127 Tel: (858) 485-6535 Fax: (858) 485-0608 10 alexschack@schacklawgroup.com natashaserino@schacklawgroup.com 11 shannonnocon@schacklawgroup.com 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, individually and 13 on behalf of all others similarly situated 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA 15 16 17 DAVID SUCHARD, JODY SUCHARD, Case No.: and JANE DOE, individually, and on behalf 18 of all others similarly situated; CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 19 Plaintiffs, 1. Violations of the Unfair 20 Competition Law (Business & v. Professions Code § 17200 et seq.) 21 2. Violations of the False SONOMA ACADEMY, a California non- Advertising Law (Business & 22 profit; and DOES 1 through 500. Professions Code § 17500 et seq.) 23 3. Constructive Fraud (Civil Code § Defendants. 1573) 24 4. Fraud by Concealment 25 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 26 27 28 -1- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiffs David Suchard, Jody Suchard and Jane Doe (hereinafter collectively referred to 2 as "Plaintiffs"), by and through their undersigned counsel and on behalf of themselves and all 3 others similarly situated, brings this Class Action against Defendants SONOMA ACADEMY 4 and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive (hereinafter collectively referred to as “SA” or 5 "Defendants"), and alleges as follows: 6 7 INTRODUCTION 8 1. Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants SA and DOES 1 through 500 to 9 remedy violations of law made in connection with Defendants' concealment of systemic sexual 10 abuse of its high school students over the course of eighteen years. As a result of Defendants’ 11 fraud, false advertising, and unfair business practices, Plaintiffs and the class paid extremely high 12 tuition costs in reliance on Defendants’ false promise to provide a high quality and reputable 13 education and a safe learning environment. Plaintiffs and the class did not in any way receive the 14 benefit of the bargain the paid for. 15 2. Defendant SONOMA ACADEMY ("SA") is a private high school in Santa Rosa, 16 California, that holds itself out to be the area’s most elite, prestigious, and reputable college 17 preparatory school. For the 2020-2021 school year, SA charged students $49,600 per year for 18 tuition and dining programs. Further, according to its recent Form 990, SA had net assets of 19 $104,516,439 as of June 2020. Importantly, SA promotes itself as not only an elite high school but 20 one which uniquely provides a close-knit community and safe learning environment. SA’s Code 21 of Conduct states that SA faculty’s and staff’s "nurturing, caring relationships with students are 22 what make SA such a special place.” 23 3. In derogation of this community identity and SA's repeated promises to provide a 24 safe and highly reputable educational environment, SA actively concealed the fact that it employed 25 Marco Morrone ("Morrone"), a serial sexual predator, as a full-time teacher, and knowingly 26 permitted him unfettered sexual access to students for over eighteen years under the guise of 27 quality education, including for at least fourteen years after SA first received reports of Morrone's 28 sexual abuse of students in early 2007. As the sexual abuse continued, SA continued to promote -2- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 itself as a safe, prestigious, and high-quality educational institution, all while charging students 2 yearly tuition of approximately $50,000 per student per year. SA also concealed its knowledge, 3 dating back to as early as 2002, that two other SA faculty members, Shannon Rake ("Rake") and 4 Adrian Belic ("Belic"), sexually abused children during their time as students of SA. SA chose to 5 protect its public image rather than protect the youngest, most vulnerable members of its 6 community. 7 4. As a result of SA’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and the Class members have 8 suffered harm in that they incurred substantial expenses for SA tuition and related expenses that 9 they would not otherwise have paid. Plaintiffs therefore bring this action seeking relief on behalf 10 of themselves and all others similarly situated. 11 12 PARTIES Plaintiffs DAVID SUCHARD and JODY SUCHARD 13 14 5. Plaintiffs DAVID SUCHARD AND JODY SUCHARD are citizens of the state of 15 California, who reside in Sonoma County, California. Plaintiffs paid tuition to SA for a high school 16 education for their child from approximately 2015 to 2017. Plaintiffs DAVID AND JODY 17 SUCHARD enrolled their child at SA due to its reputation as a preeminent college preparatory 18 school and one of the best high schools in the area. Plaintiffs DAVID AND JODY SUCHARD 19 were excited for the opportunities they believed an SA education would provide. 20 6. Plaintiffs DAVID AND JODY SUCHARD selected and ultimately paid SA tuition 21 and related expenses because of SA's advertisements and representations that SA was “the premier 22 private, independent, co-ed, college preparatory high school” in the area. None of SA's 23 representations contained any disclosure that then current and former SA staff and/or faculty had 24 sexually and/or physically abused students, despite the fact that SA had knowledge of such 25 incidents and was under a mandatory duty to report each and every instance of suspected child 26 abuse. If SA had disclosed the reported incidents of sexual or physical abuse of students, 27 prospective students, including Plaintiffs and the Class members, would not have chosen to pay 28 the significant tuition and expenses of attending SA. -3- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 7. Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered ascertainable losses as a result of 2 SA's omissions and/or representations associated with the safety, reputation, and success of its 3 educational program. Plaintiffs’ ascertainable losses include, but are not limited to, tuition 4 expenses and other related out-of-pocket losses. 5 Plaintiff JANE DOE 6 8. Plaintiff JANE DOE is a citizen of the state of California, who resides in Sonoma 7 County, California. Plaintiff paid tuition to SA for a high school education from 2018 to 2021. 8 Plaintiff parents enrolled at SA due to its reputation as a preeminent college preparatory school 9 and one of the best high schools in the area. Plaintiff was excited to attend the prestigious school 10 and was excited for the opportunities she believed an SA education would provide. 11 9. Plaintiff JANE DOE selected and ultimately paid SA tuition and related expenses 12 because of SA's advertisements and representations that SA was “the premier private, independent, 13 co-ed, college preparatory high school” in the area. None of SA's representations contained any 14 disclosure that then current and former SA staff and/or faculty had sexually abused students, 15 despite the fact that SA had knowledge of such incidents and was under a mandatory duty to report 16 each and every instance of suspected child abuse. If SA had disclosed the reported incidents of 17 sexual abuse of students, prospective students, including Plaintiff and the Class members, would 18 not have chosen to pay the significant tuition and expenses of attending SA. 19 10. Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered ascertainable losses as a result of 20 SA's omissions and/or representations associated with the safety, reputation, and success of its 21 educational program. Plaintiffs’ ascertainable losses include, but are not limited to, tuition 22 expenses and other related out-of-pocket losses. 23 DEFENDANT SONOMA ACADEMY 24 11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis alleges, that SA at all times 25 mentioned herein was and is a California non-profit corporation, having its principal place of 26 business in the State of California, County of Sonoma. 27 /// 28 /// -4- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 12. SA is a private high school located in Santa Rosa, California. SA advertises itself 2 as the “the premier private, independent, co-ed, college preparatory high school.” It’s website 3 further proclaims, “[o]ur team of faculty and staff are trained professionals, deeply knowledgeable 4 both in our subject areas as well as in adolescent development. We have created a rich, multi- 5 faceted, dynamic program that is designed to ensure the success of all of our students in all aspects 6 of their lives.” SA’s Code of Conduct states: “Sonoma Academy takes the safety and comfort of 7 its students very seriously . . . SA encourages parents, students, alumni or other members of the 8 school community to report concerns about any violations of [its] policies . . . Such reports will be 9 kept as confidential as possible except as necessary for SA to take appropriate action .... Sonoma 10 Academy is a close-knit community, and our staffulty's [sic] nurturing, caring relationships with 11 students are what make SA such a special place.” It further states that “[e]mployees will: be respectful of students at all times [and n]ot discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion, national 12 origin, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, physical or mental 13 disability, or physical appearance,” among other things. All SA employees are expected to be 14 familiar with these policies and follow them. 15 13. At all relevant times, SA held its faculty and staff, including Marco Morrone, out 16 to be trustworthy and legitimate. Indeed, SA made Marco Morrone the and/or one of the only AP 17 History and English teacher(s) at the prestigious college preparatory high school and assigned 18 students to his classes and small mentorship groups, thereby forcing its young students and their 19 parents to place their trust and confidence in Morrone in order to receive their education. While 20 falsely representing that Morrone was a trustworthy, safe, and legitimate teacher, SA concealed 21 numerous complaints lodged by female students as well as concerns voiced by staff about 22 Morrone’s sexual abuse, harassment, assault, and misconduct, which date back to at least 2004, 23 just two years into Morrone’s over eighteen-year tenure. 24 14. SA also concealed known acts of sexual abuse and harassment committed against 25 students by other faculty, including the acts of Rake and Belic, which included grooming young 26 students for sexual abuse and pressuring these students to have sexual intercourse. 27 /// 28 /// -5- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 DOE DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 500 2 15. Defendants DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, and each of them, are sued herein 3 under said fictitious names. Plaintiffs are ignorant as to the true names and capacities of DOES 1 4 through 500, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, and therefore sues said 5 Defendants by such fictitious names. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, 6 Plaintiffs will request leave of Court to amend this Complaint to state their true names and 7 capacities herein. 8 16. SA and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, are sometimes collectively referred to 9 herein as “Defendants” and/or as “All Defendants”; such collective reference refers to all 10 specifically named Defendants as well as those fictitiously named herein. 11 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis allege, that at all times 12 mentioned herein, each Defendant was responsible in some manner or capacity for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ damages, as herein alleged, were proximately caused by all said 13 Defendants. 14 18. At all times mentioned herein, each and every Defendant was an employee, agent 15 (actual and/or apparent or ostensive), and/or servant of SA and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, 16 and/or was under their complete control and/or active supervision. Defendants are individuals, 17 corporations, partnerships, and/or other entities that engaged in, joined in, and conspired with other 18 Defendants and wrongdoers in carrying out the tortious and unlawful activities described in this 19 Complaint. 20 19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis allege, that at all times 21 mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants such that any 22 individuality and separateness between Defendants ceased to exist. Defendants were the 23 successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the other Defendants, in that they purchased, controlled, 24 dominated and operated each other without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or 25 other manner of division. To continue maintaining the facade of a separate and individual existence 26 between and among Defendants would serve to perpetrate a fraud and injustice. 27 20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis allege, that at all times 28 mentioned herein, SA and DOES 1 through 500 were the actual and/or apparent agents, -6- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 representatives and/or employees of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things 2 hereinafter alleged, Defendants were acting within the course and scope of said alternative 3 personality, capacity, identity, agency, representation, and/or employment and were acting within 4 the scope of their authority, whether actual or apparent. 5 21. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis allege, that at all times 6 mentioned herein, SA and DOES 1 through 500 were the trustees, partners, servants, joint 7 venturers, shareholders, contractors, actual and/or apparent agents and/or employees of each and 8 every other Defendant, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting 9 individually, through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission 10 and consent of each and every other Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by 11 each and every other Defendant, and that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs and the Class. 12 22. The unlawful acts alleged against Defendants in this complaint were authorized, 13 ordered, or performed by Defendants’ respective officers, agents, employees, or representatives, 14 while actively engaged in the management, direction, or control of Defendants’ affairs or conduct. 15 23. Defendants have participated as co-conspirators with Defendants and have 16 performed acts and made statements in furtherance of the conspiracy. Various persons and/or firms 17 not named as Defendants herein may have participated as co-conspirators in the violations alleged 18 herein and may have performed acts and made statements in furtherance thereof. 19 24. Each of the Defendants named herein acted as the agent or joint venturer of or for 20 the other Defendants with respect to the acts, violations and common course of conduct alleged 21 herein. In particular, each Defendant participated in, relied on, or acted in concert with Defendants 22 to carry out and/or conceal the wrongful conduct described herein. 23 25. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis allege, that at all times 24 material hereto, Morrone was under the direct supervision, management, agency, and control of 25 Defendants SA and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on 26 this basis allege, that Morrone was hired, employed, supervised, and retained by Defendant SA, 27 and DOES 1 through 500. In this capacity, Morrone’s employment duties included teaching 28 humanities classes to junior and senior high school students, including young female students. -7- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Morrone worked for, was employed by, and/or was an actual and/or apparent or ostensive 2 agent/servant of Defendant SA and/or DOES 1 through 500. 3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4 5 26. This Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted herein pursuant to the 6 California Constitution, Article VI, § 10 and California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10. 7 Jurisdiction is also proper pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §§ 17202 and 8 17203. 9 27. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 10 395. Plaintiffs’ injuries and injuries of similarly situated Class members occurred in Sonoma 11 County. 12 28. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, among other things, 13 Defendants regularly conduct business in California, and marketed and sold their educational services in California. This action does not involve issues of federal law. Defendants have 14 sufficient minimum contacts with this state so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court 15 in compliance with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 16 17 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 18 29. SA is a private high school located in Santa Rosa, California. SA proclaims itself 19 to be “the premier private, independent, co-ed, college preparatory high school.” It’s website 20 further proclaims, “[o]ur team of faculty and staff are trained professionals, deeply knowledgeable 21 both in our subject areas as well as in adolescent development. We have created a rich, multi- 22 faceted, dynamic program that is designed to ensure the success of all of our students in all aspects 23 of their lives.” SA’s Code of Conduct states: “Sonoma Academy takes the safety and comfort of 24 its students very seriously … SA encourages parents, students, alumni or other members of the 25 school community to report concerns about any violations of these policies as described in the 26 policies below. Such reports will be kept as confidential as possible except as necessary for SA to 27 take appropriate action …. Sonoma Academy is a close-knit community, and our staffulty's [sic] 28 nurturing, caring relationships with students are what make SA such a special place.” It further -8- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 states that “[e]mployees will: be respectful of students at all times. Not discriminate on the basis 2 of sex, race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or 3 expression, physical or mental disability, or physical appearance,” among other things. All SA 4 employees are expected to be familiar with these policies and to follow them. Further, according 5 to its recent Form 990, SA had net assets of $104,516,439 as of June 2020. 6 30. For the 2020-2021 school year, SA charged students $49,600 per year for tuition 7 and dining programs. SA holds itself out to be the area’s most elite, prestigious, and reputable 8 college preparatory high school. Importantly, SA promotes itself as not only an elite high school 9 but one which uniquely provides a close-knit community. One is not merely a student at SA, but 10 part of a “connected community.” Yet, in contravention to this community identity fostering 11 expectations of trust, safety, and protection, SA actively concealed the fact that it employed and/or 12 had previously employed serial sexual predators as teachers and permitted them unfettered sexual 13 access to its young students under the guise of quality education. SA used this concealment, and 14 numerous false representations stemming therefrom to continue to market itself as the area’s 15 premier college preparatory high school and obtain tuition and other financial benefits from 16 students and/or their parents, including Plaintiffs and the Class. As a direct and proximate result 17 of Defendants SA’s and Does 1 through 500’s unlawful business practices, false advertising, and 18 fraud, Plaintiffs and the Class incurred substantial expenses on SA tuition and related expenses, 19 which Plaintiffs and the Class would not have paid for or would have paid substantially less for 20 had they known the truth about SA. 21 A. Acts of Sexual Abuse and Harassment Committed by SA Teacher, Marco 22 Morrone, Against SA Students 23 31. Marco Morrone began teaching at SA in 2002. He became a full time SA faculty 24 member in the humanities department and primarily taught courses to juniors and seniors, 25 including English, history, and other electives. Upon information and belief, Morrone was a 26 “popular” teacher and was noted among students and SA staff as a “handsome teacher.” Morrone 27 was employed in this capacity until November 2020 when SA terminated his employment 28 /// -9- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 following an investigation detailing Morrone’s years of sexual abuse, harassment, and assault of 2 students, which was actively and deliberately concealed by SA and its administrators and staff. 3 32. During his over eighteen years at SA, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on 4 that basis allege, that Morrone sexually abused, harassed and/or assaulted numerous young 5 students through use of his position, authority, and trust as an SA teacher. Morrone committed 6 these wrongful acts by engaging in the following, among other things: 7 8 a. Picking favorite female students, known as “Marco’s girls,” whom Morrone gave extra attention, feedback, and praise. These students were well known as 9 Morrone’s favorites and described as attractive young women who excelled in 10 humanities. There were also persistent and widespread rumors that Morrone engaged in sexual relationships with these women and the relationship between 11 Morrone and “Marco’s Girls” was understood to be overtly sexual. A recent investigation identified at least 34 Marco’s Girls from throughout Morrone’s 12 tenure at SA; 13 b. Seeking out opportunities to be alone with students, either on campus or off 14 campus, and sometimes in one-on-one windowless rooms. Morrone used these opportunities to have overly personal conversations with students about his own 15 life and their life. These conversations and private moments were designed and in fact fostered students’ emotional dependency on Morrone and groomed them for 16 future sexual abuse, harassment, and assault; 17 c. Having students babysit for him and frequently driving students alone in his 18 vehicle; 19 d. Making sexually charged remarks to students. For example, Morrone made statements to students such as, “they didn’t make them like you when I was in 20 high school,” “you will not have trouble attracting guys in college,” “you never 21 stop inspiring me,” and “I would take any excuse to talk to you more.” Morrone also commented on students’ physical appearance and sent overly flirtatious 22 and/or inappropriate emails to numerous students. Morrone’s statements were designed to make students feel unique and emotionally comfortable with Morrone 23 and to develop a special and intimate relationship between vulnerable students and Morrone; 24 25 e. Soliciting sexual writing from students. In particular, Morrone required students to engage in “free writing” exercises wherein he asked students to write a certain 26 number of pages each day or week on any topic, regardless of relevance to the curriculum. He emphasized that no topic was off limits and encouraged students 27 to write about deeply personal topics, including mental health struggles, family traumas, and their own sexual experiences. Morrone rewarded students who wrote 28 -10- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 about such experiences by giving them extra attention and comments on their writing and personal issues. For example, Morrone would comment on student 2 work with statements such as “you are the most interesting person I have ever met,” “you are fascinating,” “tell me more,” “kinky,” and “I want you to keep 3 writing because I want to get to know you well and enough to write something 4 substantial back to you.” Those who did not write about such experiences received few if any comments. Despite the fact that numerous students reported 5 instances of abuse or other misconduct that Morrone was under a legal duty to report, Morrone did not report these instances or otherwise seek to obtain help for 6 such students. He instead used the “exercise” to identify vulnerable students, develop intimate and personal relationships with them, and thereby groom them 7 for further and increasing sexual harassment, abuse, and assault; 8 f. Physically abusing and assaulting students under the guise of “teaching” SA 9 sanctioned martial arts classes; 10 g. Assigning readings of sexually explicit and graphic texts, including Morrone’s own writings. For example, Morrone repeatedly instructed students to read Lolita 11 and frequently discussed the empathy the author evoked for the pedophile 12 character. He personally gave copies of Lolita to at least three students and recommended it to several others. Morrone also gave students copies of his own 13 manuscript, which contained sexually explicit and mature content, including a detailed account of a teacher who had sexual desires for his female student, read 14 confidential pages of her journal, and failed to appropriately report her suicidal ideations. The manuscript ended with the administration discovering the teacher’s 15 wrongful conduct but nonetheless refusing to fire him as it would make the school 16 look equally bad; 17 h. Identifying emotional vulnerabilities in students and pursing an intimate or special relationship with them; 18 i. “Turning” on favorite students by abruptly withdrawing attention, leading to 19 increased levels of anxiety and confusion among these students. Once students 20 became emotionally dependent on Morrone, he would abruptly shift and distance himself from them, leaving them desperate to regain his attention and even more 21 vulnerable to Morrone’s sexual abuse, harassment, and misconduct; 22 j. Using the above described conduct to groom students for further sexual abuse, harassment, and assault, including, but not limited to, touching their thighs, 23 pressing his thigh against theirs, touching the back of their legs, wrapping his arm 24 around them while reviewing work, standing overly close to them while engaging in serious and/or intimate conversations, engaging in acts of physical aggression 25 against students, pressing himself against students’ backsides, and subjecting students to extended full body hugs. 26 27 /// 28 /// -11- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 33. It was only when an investigation exposed the rampant abuse committed by 2 Morrone with SA’s knowledge and under its supervision, that Morrone’s systematic sexual abuse, 3 harassment, and assault of his young students finally ceased. 4 34. At all times herein alleged, Morrone was an employee, agent, and/or servant of SA 5 and DOES 1 through 500, and/or was under their complete control and/or direct supervision. At 6 all times relevant hereto, Morrone was acting in the course and scope of his authority, agency, 7 service, and/or employment for SA. 8 35. In the alternative, at all times herein alleged, Morrone was an apparent or ostensible 9 agent of SA and DOES 1 through 500. Plaintiffs were led to believe that Morrone was employed 10 by SA and DOES 1 through 500, given that Morrone worked in the SA Humanities Department 11 and held himself out to be working for SA and DOES 1 through 500. 12 B. Acts of Sexual Abuse and Harassment Committed by SA Assistant Girls’ Soccer Coach, Shannon Rake, Against SA Students 13 14 36. In or around 2002, SA employed assistant girls’ soccer coach, Shannon Rake. 15 During her tenure in this position, Rake formed a close relationship with one of the female students 16 on the team and used her position as the student’s coach to groom her for later sexual abuse. Rake 17 subsequently sexually abused the student on multiple occasions. SA and Durgin received reports 18 of the abuse and terminated Rake’s employment, but failed to contact outside counsel, the SA 19 Board, and failed to file a mandated report under the California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting 20 Act (“CANRA”). 21 37. At all times herein alleged, Rake was an employee, agent, and/or servant of SA and 22 DOES 1 through 500, and/or was under their complete control and/or direct supervision. At all 23 times relevant hereto, Rake was acting in the course and scope of her authority, agency, service, 24 and/or employment for SA. 25 38. In the alternative, at all times herein alleged, Rake was an apparent or ostensible 26 agent of SA and DOES 1 through 500. Plaintiffs were led to believe that Rake was employed by 27 SA and DOES 1 through 500, given that Rake worked as an assistant girls’ soccer coach and held 28 herself out to be working for SA and DOES 1 through 500. -12- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 C. Acts of Sexual Abuse and Harassment Committed by SA Teacher, Adrian Belic, Against SA Students 2 3 39. In or around 2004, SA hired Adrian Belic to teach a documentary film course. 4 During his tenure in this position, Belic spent significant time alone with a female student. He used 5 this one-on-one contact to groom and manipulate the student for later sexual interactions. He then 6 sexually abused the student on multiple occasions, including one instance of sexual intercourse. 7 He also sexually abused a second SA student during this time. One of the students discussed the 8 abuse in a free write journal submitted to Morrone. Assistant Head of School, Ellie Dwight, also 9 received word from school counselors that there may be an issue with Belic. Despite this, no SA 10 administrator or employee contacted outside counsel or the SA Board, filed a mandated report 11 about Belic, or contacted law enforcement. 12 40. At all times herein alleged, Belic was an employee, agent, and/or servant of SA and 13 DOES 1 through 500, and/or was under their complete control and/or direct supervision. At all 14 times relevant hereto, Belic was acting in the course and scope of his authority, agency, service, 15 and/or employment for SA. 16 41. In the alternative, at all times herein alleged, Belic was an apparent or ostensible 17 agent of SA and DOES 1 through 500. Plaintiffs were led to believe that Belic was employed by 18 SA and DOES 1 through 500, given that Belic worked as an SA teacher and held himself out to be 19 working for SA and DOES 1 through 500. 20 D. SA’s Knowledge and Active Concealment of Acts of Sexual Abuse and 21 Harassment Committed by Its Employees Against Its Students 22 42. A Report to the SA Board of Trustees, which summarized an investigation 23 conducted by Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and was publicly-released on November 28, 2021 (the 24 “Debevoise Report”), found that SA administrators, including former Head of School, Janet 25 Durgin, and Assistant Head of School, Ellie Dwight, were informed of numerous acts of sexual 26 harassment, abuse, and assault committed by faculty and/or staff against students on numerous 27 occasions from 2004 to 2020. The Debevoise Report details the following timeline: 28 -13- CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 a. 2002–2004: Assistant girls’ soccer coach, Shannon Rake, formed a close relationship with one of the students on the team and used her position as the 2 student’s coach to groom her for later sexual abuse. Rake subsequently sexually abused the student on multiple occasions. SA and Durgin received reports of the 3 abuse and terminated Rake’s employment, but failed to contact outside counsel, the 4 SA Board, and to file a mandated report under the California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (“CANRA”). 5