Preview
1 Leila Nourani (State Bar No. 163336)
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
2 725 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
3 Telephone: (213) 689-0404
E-mail: Leila.Nourani@jacksonlewis.com
4
Benjamin J. Schnayerson (State Bar No. 257857)
5 Gonzalo Morales (State Bar No. 334944)
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
6 50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4615
7 Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
8 E-mail: Ben.Schnayerson@jacksonlewis.com
Gonzalo.Morales@jacksonlewis.com
9
Attorneys for Defendant
10 JANET DURGIN
11
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
FOR THE COUNTY OF SONONA
13
14
JANE DOE 1, An Individual; JANE DOE 2, Case No. SCV-272344
15 An Individual; LINNET VACHA, An
Individual; CLIO WILDE An Individual; [ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
16 SAVANNAH TURLEY, An Individual; HON.PATRICK BRODERICK, DEPT.:
MORGAN APOSTLE, An Individual; JANE 16]
17 DOE 3, An Individual; JANE DOE 4, An
DECLARATION OF GONZALO
18 Individual; JANE DOE 5, An Individual; JANE MORALES IN SUPPORT OF
DOE 6, An Individual; JANE DOE 7, An DEFENDANT JANET DURGIN’S
19 Individual; HANNA HOLT, An Individual., DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS'
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
20 Plaintiff,
Filed Concurrently with Notice of
21 v Demurrer and Demurrer to Plaintiff’s
First Amended Complaint; Memorandum
22 SONOMA ACADEMY, A California of Points and Authorities in Support; and
Corporation; MARCO MORRONE, An (Proposed) Order
23 Individual; ADRIAN BELIC, An Individual;
ELLIE DWIGHT An Individual; JANET Date:
24 DURGIN, An Individual; and DOES 1 through Time:
Dept: 16
25 100, inclusive
26 Defendants.
Complaint Filed: December 29, 2022
27 FAC Filed: July 3, 2023
Trial Date: None Set
28
1 Case No. SCV-272344
DECLARATION OF GONZALO MORALES ISO DEMURRER
1 I, Gonzalo Morales, declare as follows:
2 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of California. I am an
3 attorney at Jackson Lewis P.C., counsel of record for Defendant Janet Durgin (“Durgin”). I have
4 personal knowledge of the facts stated in this Declaration, except those stated on information and
5 belief. As to the latter facts, I believe them to be true. If called as a witness, I could and would
6 competently testify to them.
7 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
8 Complaint (“FAC”) that was filed on July 3, 2023. The original complaint was filed on December
9 29, 2022.
10 3. On June 23, 2023, Sonoma Academy’s counsel and I engaged in a meet-and-confer
11 with Plaintiffs’ counsel pertaining to Durgin and Sonoma Academy’s Demurrers as required by
12 Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. Sonoma Academy’s counsel and I raised the same
13 objections, which pertained to the Plaintiffs’ claims being time-barred and two of the Plaintiffs’
14 dates of birth not being included in the operative complaint.
15 4. During the meet-and-confer on June 23, 2023 with Plaintiffs’ counsel, Plaintiffs’
16 counsel advised us for the first time that Plaintiffs are relying upon California Penal Code section
17 647.6 to invoke the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1.
18 5. Subsequently, on or about July 7, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Sonoma
19 Academy’s counsel, who then informed me, that Plaintiffs will not amend their FAC to address
20 the issues presented by Durgin and Sonoma Academy counsel, including to allege which Penal
21 Code applied for CCP section 340.1 and the dates of birth for Jane Doe 4 and Jane Doe 5.
22 6. Plaintiffs’ initial filing of the FAC was rejected. Accordingly, the Parties agreed
23 that the deadline for a response to the FAC did not begin to run until a conformed copy of the
24 Complaint was served, which was done by email on August 15, 2023.
25 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
26 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 18, 2023, in San Francisco, California.
27
28 Gonzalo Morales
2 Case No. SCV-272344
DECLARATION OF GONZALO MORALES ISO DEMURRER
EXHIBIT A
1 GLORIA ALLRED, SBN 65033 ELECTRONICALLY FILED
NATHAN GOLDBERG, SBN 61292 Superior Court of California
2 MARIA G. DIAZ, SBN 220087 County of Sonoma
KIRBY F. CANON, SBN 276414 7/3/2023 2:18 PM
3 LAW OFFICES By: Jennifer Ellis, Deputy Clerk
ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG
4 6300 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1500
5 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048
Telephone No. (323) 653-6530
6 Fax No. (323) 653-1660
gallred@amglaw.com
7 ngoldberg@amglaw.com
mdiaz@amglaw.com
8 kcanon@amglaw.com
9
LAWRENCE KING, SBN 120805
10 Law Offices of Lawrence J. King
11 Western Avenue
11 Petaluma, California 94952
(707) 769-9791
12 kingesq@pacbell.net
13
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Linnet Vacha, Clio Wilde, Savannah Turley,
14 Morgan Apostle, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 6, Jane Doe 7, and Hanna Holt
15
16
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
17
FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
18
19
JANE DOE 1, An Individual; JANE DOE 2, An CASE NO: SCV-272344
20 Individual; LINNET VACHA, An Individual;
CLIO WILDE An Individual; SAVANNAH Assigned to Hon. Patrick Broderick, Dept. 16
21 TURLEY, An Individual; MORGAN
APOSTLE, An Individual; JANE DOE 3, An FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
22 Individual; JANE DOE 4, An Individual; JANE
DOE 5, An Individual; JANE DOE 6, An 1. NEGLIGENCE PER SE;
23 2. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND
Individual; JANE DOE 7, An Individual;
HANNA HOLT, An Individual., RETENTION;
24 3. NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO
25 Plaintiffs, WARN, TRAIN, EDUCATE OR
vs. ENFORCE PROTECTIVE
26 POLICIES;
SONOMA ACADEMY, A California 4. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
27 Corporation; MARCO MORRONE, An EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Individual; ADRIAN BELIC, An Individual; (All Plaintiffs against Defendant
28
-1-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 ELLIE DWIGHT An Individual; JANET SONOMA ACADEMY);
DURGIN, An Individual; and DOES 1 through 5. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
2 100, inclusive, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(All Plaintiffs against Defendants
3
Defendants. MORRONE and SONOMA
4 ACADEMY);
6. SEXUAL ASSAULT
5 (Plaintiff Holt against Defendants
BELIC and SONOMA ACADEMY);
6 7. SEXUAL ASSAULT
(Plaintiffs Wilde, Turley, Apostle,
7
Doe 4, and Doe 5 against Defendants
8 MORRONE and SONOMA
ACADEMY);
9 8. SEXUAL BATTERY Civ. Code
§1708.5 (Plaintiffs Wilde, Turley,
10 Apostle, Doe 4, and Doe 5 against
11 Defendants MORRONE and
SONOMA ACADEMY);
12 9. SEXUAL BATTERY Civ Code
§1708.5 (Plaintiff Holt against
13 Defendants BELIC and SONOMA
ACADEMY);
14 10. SEX HARASSMENT Civ. Code
15 §51.9 (All Plaintiffs against
Defendants MORRONE and
16 SONOMA ACADEMY);
11. SEX HARASSMENT Civ. Code
17 §51.9 (Plaintiff Holt against
Defendants BELIC and SONOMA
18 ACADEMY); and
19 12. VIOLATION OF CA ED CODE
§220 (Plaintiffs Doe 2, 5, and 6
20 against Defendant SONOMA
ACADEMY
21
22 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
23
24
25 Plaintiffs JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, LINNET VACHA, CLIO WILDE, SAVANNAH
TURLEY, MORGAN APOSTLE, JANE DOE 3, JANE DOE 4, JANE DOE 5, JANE DOE 6,
26
JANE DOE 7, and HANNA HOLT (collectively “Plaintiffs”) hereby allege and assert the
27 following causes of action against Defendants, SONOMA ACADEMY, MARCO MORRONE,
ADRIAN BELIC, ELLIE DWIGHT, JANET DURGIN, and DOES 1-100 inclusive (collectively
28 “Defendants”):
-2-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 INTRODUCTION
2 1. This suit arises from the repeated failure of Defendants SONOMA ACADEMY
3 (“SA”), JANET DURGIN and ELLIE DWIGHT to protect under-age SA students from the
4 pervasive inappropriate mental and physical abuse and sexual misconduct of certain members of
5 its faculty and staff, including Marco MORRONE and Adrian BELIC, as well as their cover-up
6 of incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment of SA female students by SA faculty and
7 male students.
8 2. In response to a group of female alumni going public concerning MORRONE’s
9 sexual misconduct with SA students, SA retained the New York law firm, Debevoise & Plimpton
10 LLP (“Debevoise”) to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct by adults employed at SA.
11 On November 28, 2021, Debevoise released its final report revealing decades of inappropriate
12 sexual misconduct toward students by SA employees, including Defendant MORRONE, as well
13 as the sexual abuse of at least two SA students by Defendant BELIC. The investigation further
14 detailed SA’s abject failure to take corrective action once it was informed about incidents of
15 sexual harassment, sexual abuse and sexual assaults. A true and correct copy of the Debevoise &
16 Plimpton Report to the Board of Trustees of Sonoma Academy is attached to this Complaint as
17 Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth hereat (“the Investigative
18 Report”).
19 3. SA students and parents placed their trust in Defendants to provide a safe and
20 professional educational environment for students in their formative years of education. This
21 trust was reinforced by SA’s recruitment promotions depicting SA as a leading educational
22 institution that upheld the highest standards of pedagogy, care of its under-age students,
23 professionalism, respect, and ethics.
24 4. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered severe emotional,
25 physical, and economic damages for which they are entitled to just compensation.
26 PARTIES
27 5. Plaintiffs are now adult females, each of whom are under the age of 40, who were
28
-3-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 subjected to inappropriate sexual conduct while they were minor students at SA.
2 6. JANE DOE 1 is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma County,
3 California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA
4 ACADEMY.
5 7. JANE DOE 2 is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma County,
6 California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA
7 ACADEMY.
8 8. LINNET VACHA is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma
9 County, California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at
10 SONOMA ACADEMY.
11 9. CLIO WILDE is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma County,
12 California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA
13 ACADEMY.
14 10. SAVANNAH TURLEY is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma
15 County, California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at
16 SONOMA ACADEMY.
17 11. MORGAN APOSTLE is a female adult currently residing in New York State.
18 She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA ACADEMY
19 and resided in California at the time.
20 12. JANE DOE 3 is a female adult residing at all relevant times in. She was a minor
21 during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA ACADEMY.
22 13. JANE DOE 4 is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma,
23 California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA
24 ACADEMY.
25 14. JANE DOE 5 is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma,
26 California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA
27 ACADEMY.
28
-4-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 15. JANE DOE 6 is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma,
2 California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA
3 ACADEMY.
4 16. JANE DOE 7 is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma,
5 California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA
6 ACADEMY.
7 17. HANNA HOLT is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma County,
8 California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA
9 ACADEMY.
10 18. Defendant SONOMA ACADEMY is a California Corporation, registered as a
11 non-profit and based in Sonoma County, California and, at all times alleged herein, conducted
12 business in the County of Sonoma.
13 19. Defendant MARCO MORRONE is an adult male whom Plaintiffs are informed
14 and believe was at all relevant times a resident of Sonoma County, California. Defendant
15 MORRONE was employed as a teacher at SA from 2002 to 2020.
16 20. Defendant ADRIAN BELIC is an adult male whom Plaintiffs are informed and
17 believe was at all relevant times a resident Solano County, California. Defendant BELIC was
18 employed as a teacher at SA during 2004.
19 21. Defendant JANET DURGIN is an adult female whom Plaintiffs are informed and
20 believe was at all relevant times a resident of Sonoma County, California. Defendant DURGIN
21 was employed as the Head of School at SA at all relevant times.
22 22. Defendant ELLIE DWIGHT is an adult female whom Plaintiffs are informed and
23 believe was at all relevant times a resident of Sonoma County, California. Defendant DWIGHT
24 was employed as Assistant Head of School at SA at all relevant times.
25 23. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, partnership, or
26 otherwise, of DOES 1-100, inclusive are unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue said
27 Defendants by such fictitious names. The full extent of the facts linking such fictitiously sued
28
-5-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Defendants are unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereupon allege, that
2 each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE was, and is negligent, or in some other
3 actionable manner, responsible for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and thereby
4 negligently, or in some other actionable manner, legally and proximately caused the hereinafter
5 described injuries and damages to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this
6 Complaint to show the Defendants’ true names and capacities after the same have been
7 ascertained.
8 24. Whenever in this complaint reference is made to Defendant(s), or any of them,
9 such allegation shall be deemed to include all fictitiously named Defendants.
10 25. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, are and were the co-
11 conspirators, aiders, abettors, agents, representatives, and/or employees of the other Defendants,
12 and in acting as described herein were acting within the course and scope of their alternative
13 capacity, identity, agency, representation, and/or employment and were within the scope of their
14 authority, whether actual or apparent, and with the full knowledge, consent, authority,
15 ratification, and/or permission of the other Defendants.
16 26. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, are and were the
17 trustees, partners, servants, joint venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each
18 and every other Defendant, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting
19 individually, through such capacities and within the scope of their authority, and with the
20 permission and consent of each and every other Defendant and said conduct was thereafter
21 ratified by each and every other Defendant, and each of them is jointly and severally liable to
22 Plaintiffs.
23 27. At all times mentioned herein, each of the fictitiously named Defendants is an
24 alter ego of one or more of the named Defendants or is in some manner liable or responsible for
25 the events, happenings, and/or tortious and unlawful conduct that caused the injuries and
26 damages alleged in this Complaint. On information and belief, at all times material herein, there
27 existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of them, such that an
28
-6-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 individuality and separateness between Defendants ceased to exist. Defendants were the
2 successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the other Defendants in that they purchased,
3 controlled, dominated, and operated each other without any separate identity, observation of
4 formalities, or any other separateness. To continue to maintain the facade of a separate and
5 individual existence between and among Defendants, and each of them, would serve to
6 perpetuate a fraud and injustice.
7 28. At all times mentioned herein, each Defendant was responsible in some manner or
8 capacity for the occurrences herein alleged. Defendants including DOES 1-100 are sometimes
9 collectively referred to herein as “Defendants” and/or as “All Defendants.” Whenever reference
10 is made to “Defendants” in this Complaint, such allegation shall be deemed to mean the acts of
11 Defendants acting individually, jointly, and/or severally.
12 29. Plaintiffs were subjected to acts of childhood sexual assault, harassment, abuse
13 and/or molestation while they were minor students at SONOMA ACADEMY by SONOMA
14 ACADEMY’S agents, staff, faculty, representatives, employees, partners, joint venturers, and/or
15 servants. These acts of childhood sexual assault, harassment, abuse and/or molestation
16 perpetrated upon the Plaintiffs began when the Plaintiffs were under the age of 18 years old and
17 constitute childhood sexual assault within the definition of Code of Civil Procedure section
18 340.1(d). These acts of childhood sexual assault, harassment, abuse and/or molestation resulted
19 in the personal physical injury, as well as emotional, psychological and psychiatric injury and
20 damage to the Plaintiffs.
21 30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that, at all times mentioned,
22 each of the Defendants, including DOES 1-100, acted in concert with each and every other
23 Defendant, intended to and did participate in the events, acts, practices and/or courses of conduct
24 alleged herein, and was a proximate cause of damage and injury thereby to Plaintiffs as alleged
25 herein. Defendants are also liable based on the legal doctrines of Respondeat Superior,
26 Conspiracy, and Ratification.
27 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
28
-7-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 31. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Constitution
2 Article VI, §10 and California Code of Civil Procedure §410.10.
3 32. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
4 Section 395. Plaintiffs suffered the injuries alleged herein in Sonoma County, and the liability
5 arose in Sonoma County.
6 33. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1(q) as amended by
7 Assembly Bill 218, effective January 1, 2020, there is a three (3) year window in which all civil
8 claims of childhood sexual assault are revived if they have not been litigated to finality. This
9 provision provides that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any claim for damages
10 described in paragraphs (1) through (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a) that has not been litigated to
11 finality and that would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2020, because the applicable statute
12 of limitations, claim presentation deadline, or any other time limit had expired, is revived, and
13 these claims may be commenced within three years of January 1, 2020. A Plaintiff shall have
14 the later of the three-year time period under this subdivision or the time period under subdivision
15 (a) as amended by the act that added this subdivision.” Because Plaintiffs’ claims have not been
16 previously litigated to finality, they are timely under the revised provisions of Code of Civil
17 Procedure § 340.1(q).
18 34. It is upon information, and therefore belief, that the sexual misconduct perpetrated
19 upon the Plaintiffs as minors was the result of a “cover-up” or a “a concerted effort to hide
20 evidence relating to childhood sexual assault.” See Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1(b).
21 Specifically, it is based upon information and therefore belief, that the Defendant SONOMA
22 ACADEMY engaged in conduct to conceal the sexually inappropriate behavior of MORRONE
23 and to hide facts from the Plaintiffs, which would have apprised the Plaintiffs, their family, and
24 those who could have intervened in MORRONE’s abusive behavior (including but not limited to
25 law enforcement, administrative authorities, and child protective agencies) and prevented the
26 Plaintiffs’ sexual molestation as minors.
27 35. Further, it is upon information, and therefore belief, that the Defendants
28
-8-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 SONOMA ACADEMY and DOES 1 through 100, were specifically aware, or based on the
2 availability of information to them had reason to know, that MORRONE was a sexual threat to
3 Plaintiffs.
4 36. Despite having this knowledge and prior warning of MORRONE’s risk of
5 childhood sexual assault and/or molestation posed to minor students, Defendant SONOMA
6 ACADEMY and DOES 1 through 100 did nothing to protect the Plaintiffs, inform them of the
7 risk, and further, actively concealed this information from the Plaintiffs and their families.
8 Regardless of its knowledge about the danger posed to the Plaintiffs (and other minors) by
9 MORRONE, Defendant SONOMA ACADEMY and DOES 1 through 100 refused to inform the
10 Plaintiffs about the danger that MORRONE posed to them.
11 37. This conduct constituted a “cover up” under the meaning of Code of Civil
12 Procedure § 340. 1(b)(1) and (b)(2). Therefore, the Plaintiffs are entitled to the enhanced remedy
13 provided for in Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1(b)(1) to recover up to treble damages.
14 COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
15 EXCEPT AS TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE 5
16 38. For nearly two decades, Defendant MORRONE selected young, female students
17 each year whom he “groomed” for his own sexual gratification. These students were known
18 amongst other students and SA staff members as "Marco's Girls." The Debevoise investigation
19 found that, over the course of his eighteen years as a SA teacher, MORRONE sexually harassed,
20 abused, and/or molested at least thirty-four children, including Plaintiffs, while they were SA
21 students, although SA had knowledge of MORRONE’s ongoing sexual misconduct.
22 MORRONE's abuse of Plaintiffs and others included, but was not limited to, grooming young
23 female students, assigning them to read sexually erotic literature, encouraging young female
24 students to write their own sexually explicit short stories, encouraging female students to read a
25 sexually explicit novel MORRONE himself wrote in which he fantasized about having sex with
26 one of his female high school students and created a character, which he told a student at SA was
27 based on her, with whom he had sexual relations, providing academic favors and benefits to
28
-9-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 students who met with MORRONE one on one and opened-up about personal sexual matters;
2 making inappropriate body contact with female students, including, but not limited to touching
3 the thighs and lower backs of female students without consent, pressing his body, including his
4 groin, up against female students, making lewd and inappropriate comments about female
5 students' physical appearance and sexual history and leering at female students and invading
6 their personal space. Numerous incidents of MORRONE’s sexual misconduct are set forth in
7 detail in the November 28, 2021, forty-six page Investigative Report issued by the Debevoise
8 law firm.
9 39. The Investigative Report issued by the Debevoise law firm also concludes that
10 BELIC sexually abused one student on multiple occasions and another student on one occasion
11 while employed by SA. BELIC’s abuse consisted of grooming behavior, taking an under-age
12 student on trips to San Francisco, beaches, parks, restaurants, sexually explicit movies and a strip
13 club, showing his victim porn on his computer, and ultimately engaging in sex with his minor
14 victim.
15 40. Defendants MORRONE and BELIC used their authority and positions of trust to
16 exploit Plaintiffs sexually and emotionally. Many of their sexually abused students were young,
17 vulnerable, and under their and SA’s direct supervision and control. The victims were often
18 unaware that the conduct of MORRONE and/or BELIC was sexually abusive.
19 41. Defendants MORRONE and BELIC’s actions were not for any legitimate
20 educational purpose, but rather, were acts of sexual harassment, abuse, and/or molestation
21 performed for MORRONE's and BELIC’s own sexual gratification and entirely outside the
22 scope of any legitimate educational purpose. MORRONE and BELIC performed these and other
23 improper acts without the legal consent of Plaintiffs because they were minors.
24 42. The sexual harassment, abuse and/or molestation of Plaintiffs by MORRONE and
25 BELIC, as alleged herein, took place while Plaintiffs were students of Defendants SA and while
26 MORRONE, BELIC, and other individuals named herein served as agents and/or employees of
27 Defendants in their capacity as faculty members or staff employed, retained, and supervised by
28
- 10 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Defendants SA, DURGIN, DWIGHT and DOES 1-100.
2 43. MORRONE and BELIC engaged in conduct that a reasonable person would
3 consider annoying, disturbing, irritating, and offensive and their conduct caused irreparable
4 emotional, physical, and economic harm to Plaintiffs, for which Defendants must be held
5 responsible.
6 44. Defendants SA, DURGIN, DWIGHT and DOES 1-100 had knowledge of
7 MORRONE’s systemic sexual abuse and inappropriate behavior of annoying and/or molesting
8 female students as early as 2006, but did not remove MORRONE from his position until 2020.
9 Defendants SA, DURGIN, DWIGHT and DOES 1-100 also had reason to suspect that Defendant
10 BELIC was engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with under-age SA students but failed to
11 report their suspicions to the proper authorities as they were mandated to do.
12 45. Defendant SONOMA ACADEMY violated the trust granted by students and
13 parents by deliberately concealing its own knowledge, as well as numerous reports and
14 complaints, of sexual abuse committed by Defendant MORRONE for at least fourteen years and
15 of the sexual abuse committed by BELIC. Defendants ignored and actively concealed reports and
16 complaints of child abuse from students, parents and staff and failed to report MORRONE's and
17 BELIC’s conduct to authorities as it was mandated to do. SA violated its female students' trust
18 by knowingly putting young girls in classes taught by Defendant MORRONE, knowing that
19 sexual abuse and harassment would occur to "Marco's girls" and by retaining BELIC and giving
20 him access to the school’s campus and events after his employment ended although it had reason
21 to suspect he was engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with under-age SA students.
22 46. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants knew
23 or should have known that MORRONE and BELIC engaged in unlawful sexually abusive
24 conduct in the past, and/or were continuing to engage in such conduct. Defendants had a duty
25 under the California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act ("CANRA") to disclose these facts
26 to Plaintiffs and their parents and guardians, but negligently, and/or intentionally suppressed,
27 concealed, or failed to disclose this information. Defendants’ failure to report MORRONE's and
28
- 11 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 BELIC’s conduct caused their victims substantial psychological, emotional and economic
2 damages. Plaintiffs were also discouraged from further reporting MORRONE and BELIC’s
3 conduct based on SA's failure to act on the numerous victim and witness reports of sexual
4 harassment. For nearly two decades, SA did not take reasonable steps to investigate numerous
5 complaints of adult sexually improper conduct with minors that began in the early 2000s and
6 lasted until the year 2020.
7 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO PLAINTIFFS
8 47. Early in his tenure as a teacher at SA, the administration received a number of
9 complaints from parents of students that Marco MORRONE favored certain female students.
10 Defendant Janet DURGIN spoke with MORRONE in 2005 or 2006 and told him to do whatever
11 was necessary to counter the impression. However, this warning fell on deaf ears. Marrone
12 continued to favor certain female students who came to be known as “Marco’s girls.” He acted
13 in a manner that fostered the belief among students at SA that he was engaged in sexual relations
14 with female students. No effort was made by Defendants to ensure that Morrone heeded the
15 warning which he was given.
16 48. Prior to 2006, at least one parent repeatedly approached Defendant DURGIN to
17 express concern about MORRONE assigning the book “Lolita” to her daughter to read.
18 DURGIN informed defendant MORRONE that he could no longer assign “Lolita” to his minor
19 students. MORRONE ignored this instruction and continued to assign “Lolita” to students,
20 particularly those that he was sexually attracted to and with whom he desired to have a sexual
21 relationship. Members of the administration knew or should have known that he continued to
22 assign “Lolita” to his minor female students.
23 49. “Lolita” is a book about a pedophile who is consumed by his lust for “nymphets,”
24 children between the ages of 9 and 14. The main character, Humbert, “falls in love” with Lolita,
25 a 12 year old girl. The book starts: “Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul.
26 Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the
27 teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.”
28
- 12 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 50. In the book the author attempts to justify his sexual interest in children by
2 providing examples of men throughout history who lusted after and had sexual relations with
3 children. The author attempts to convince the reader that his feelings for “nymphets” is perfectly
4 normal.
5 51. Humbert is consumed with lust for “every passing nymphet”, but he knows that
6 he cannot act on his lust and must control his impulses, lest he face legal consequences. Humbert
7 states, “Years of secret sufferings had taught me superhuman self-control.”
8 52. In the book, Humbert ultimately has sex with the 12-year-old Lolita. What is most
9 significant about the book is that it provides a window into Defendant MORRONE’s mind.
10 MORRONE is a pedophile who desires to have sex with his female students. However, like
11 Humbert, he fears the potential consequences if he acts on his impulses, and therefore wants to
12 make sure that he can safely proceed. In the book, while Humbert grooms Lolita, he doesn’t have
13 sex with her until Lolita, by his account, seduces him. Defendant MORRONE assigned “Lolita”
14 to his female students so that they could understand his desires, his struggles to control his sexual
15 impulses, and to send a message. His female students needed to make the first move before he
16 would have sex with them, literally taking a page out of the book “Lolita”.
17 53. Humbert wonders what becomes of his nymphets and whether he has caused them
18 harm. “I have often wondered what became of those nymphets later? In this wrought-iron world
19 of criss-cross cause and effect, could it be that the hidden throb I stole from them did not affect
20 their future? I had possessed her—and she never knew it. All right. But would it not tell
21 sometime later? Had I not somehow tampered with her fate by involving her image in my
22 voluptas? Oh, it was, and remains, a source of great and terrible wonder.” Defendant
23 MORRONE need not wonder about the impact his behavior had upon the Plaintiffs in this action.
24 As detailed in this complaint, Defendant MORRONE caused the Plaintiffs in this action severe
25 emotional distress and ongoing mental health issues.
26 54. In 2007, a female student complained to the administration that she felt that
27 MORRONE was flirting with her. The student’s complaint was not taken seriously. No
28
- 13 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 investigation was conducted.
2 55. In the fall of 2007, a second female student (Doe 1) reported to the administration
3 that MORRONE had pinched her and made sexually inappropriate comments to her. The
4 administration engaged outside counsel who recommended that SA file a report with CANRA as
5 it was mandated to do. Sonoma Academy failed to do so. Senior administrators decided that
6 MORRONE would be required to attend training with an HR consultant, but the training lasted
7 for only 2 ½ hours. The consultant disclosed to Defendant DURGIN that Morone admitted
8 engaging in inappropriate behavior towards female students and that he expressed shame and
9 remorse for doing so and that he understood that his conduct had an “adverse influence on kids.”
10 The consultant recommended that MORRONE’s behavior be monitored.
11 56. No such monitoring took place. MORRONE continued to engage in the same
12 objectionable behavior throughout his tenure at SA. He continued to engage in a wide range of
13 conduct towards female students which crossed appropriate teacher-student boundaries including
14 encouraging intimate, sexual and deeply personal entries by students in their journals, which he
15 read and discussed with them as part of class assignments, inappropriately touching students,
16 developing close emotional bonds with students, which were adverse to their interests,
17 recommending and assigning graphic, sexually explicit books, providing students with his own
18 sexually explicit manuscript, failing to refer students who clearly needed psychological
19 counseling to the help that they needed, encouraging students to engage in inappropriate sexual
20 relationship and other actions which resulted in minor students suffering physical, psychological
21 and economic harm.
22 57. In the fall of 2012, the same student (DOE I) who had complained about
23 MORRONE in 2007 met with Janet DURGIN to ask why MORRONE had not been fired. Ms.
24 DURGIN stated that MORRONE’s conduct was unconscious and that he had modified his
25 behavior. The former student said that she knew of many other students who had experienced
26 MORRONE’s inappropriate sexually charged behavior, which had not changed. Ms. DURGIN
27 dismissed these concerns and did not ask for names of other victims or indicate any intention to
28
- 14 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 investigate.
2 58. In 2012 a counselor at Sonoma, asked Defendant DURGIN to fire Defendant
3 MORRONE as a result of his inappropriate behavior towards female students. Ms. DURGIN
4 forwarded the letter from the counselor to Elle DWIGHT. No other action was taken. There was
5 no investigation and MORRONE was allowed to continue victimizing female students for
6 another 8 years until he was terminated.
7 SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8 JANE DOE 1
9 59. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 was born on August 28, 1990, and attended Sonoma
10 Academy from August, 2004 until she graduated in June, 2008.
11
60. Plaintiff knew Defendant MORRONE before she attended Sonoma Academy, but
12
first met him as a student when she was a 13-year-old freshman.
13
61. In 2007, during the second semester of her junior year, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 took
14
Defendant MORRONE’s Humanities III class (a double AP class). She also was in his class
15
during the first few weeks of her Senior year, in the fall of 2007, until she was removed from his
16
class at her request, due to his inappropriate behavior.
17
62. During the second semester of her junior year and continuing until she was
18
removed from his class in the fall of 2007, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 was subjected to sexual
19
harassment by Defendant MORRONE. During that time, Defendant MORRONE’s daily
20
interactions with Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 caused her to believe that he wanted to have a sexual
21
relationship with her.
22
63. Defendant MORRONE daily “groomed” Plaintiff Jane Doe 1, treating her in a
23
way that made her uncomfortable and led some of her peers to comment that he seemed to be
24
sexually interested in her. His eyes lingered on her body. He would ask her to stay after class,
25
ostensibly to discuss her writing, but in reality, to spend time alone with her. He would use
26
academic-seeming situations as a pretense for inappropriate physical contact. For instance, on
27
one occasion, he sat down next to her with the full length of his thigh pressed against her thigh
28
- 15 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 for approximately 20 minutes. He did not discontinue the contact until she moved her body
2 away from him.
3 64. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 became confused and conflicted by Defendant MORRONE’s
4 sexual interest in her. She feared that if she distanced herself from him and did not continue to
5 entertain his interest that she would be punished academically and emotionally, because she had
6 seen how he had turned cold and distant towards other “Marco’s girls” once he lost interest in
7 them. On the other hand, she worried that if she continued to entertain his interest that she would
8 find herself in a sexual encounter with him that she was not prepared for and did not want. She
9 found Defendant MORRONE’s behavior distracting, confusing and ultimately traumatic.
10 65. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 also witnessed Defendant MORRONE’s sexualized
11 interactions with other female students and heard that he gave preferential treatment to those
12 female students towards whom he displayed a sexual interest. These observations, coupled with
13 her own interactions with Defendant MORRONE led Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 to believe that
14 Defendant MORRONE wanted to have a sexual relationship with her. This caused her to feel
15 afraid and humiliated at school.
16 66. In August 2007, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 complained to Lisa Shelton, the Academic
17 Dean, about Defendant MORRONE’s conduct. She asked to be removed from Defendant
18 MORRONE’s class because she was uncomfortable with the “sexual undertones” in his
19 interactions with her. She told Lisa Shelton that it was common knowledge among students that
20 Defendant MORRONE evinced sexually charged favoritism towards certain female students,
21 who, she explained, other students referred to as “Marco’s girls.” She named six (6) other former
22 female students whom she believed had been subjected to similar treatment by Defendant
23 MORRONE. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 told Lise Shelton that Defendant MORRONE pinched her
24 twice, that he had told her she looked "like a little kitten,” and that his daily interactions with her
25 had "sexual undertones.” Lisa Shelton took notes during the conversation and told Plaintiff Jane
26 Doe 1 that she would share this information with Defendant DURGIN, the head of school. Lisa
27 Shelton later confirmed she had done so.
28
- 16 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 67. Ms. Shelton removed Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 from Defendant MORRONE’s class as
2 Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 had requested.
3 68. Lisa Shelton told Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 that Defendant MORRONE had been
4 informed of her allegations and wanted to apologize to her. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 was mortified
5 that Defendant MORRONE knew she had complained about him and did not want to be in his
6 presence.
7 69. As far as Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 knew no corrective action was taken as a result of
8 her complaint and Defendant MORRONE’s sexualized interactions with “select” female students
9 continued.
10 70. Defendant MORRONE’s sexual harassment traumatized Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 and
11 disrupted her academic, intellectual, sexual, and personal development. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1
12 shaved her head after being sexually harassed by Defendant MORRONE in a desperate attempt
13 to make herself less attractive and less of a potential victim of sexual harassment.
14 71. As a result of Defendant MORRONE’s sexual harassment, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1’s
15 grades declined precipitously during her last three semesters at Sonoma Academy. This impaired
16 her ability to be accepted to a college of her choice, as well as her employment prospects after
17 college.
18 72. In the summer of 2012, four years after she had graduated from Sonoma
19 Academy, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 was so disturbed about Defendant MORRONE’s conduct and
20 concerned that he may still be sexually harassing other young female students that she met with
21 Defendant DURGIN. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 requested the meeting to discuss her concerns with
22 how her allegations against Defendant MORRONE had been handled. During the meeting she
23 asked Defendant DURGIN why Defendant MORRONE had not been fired. Defendant DURGIN
24 stated that Defendant MORRONE had been reprimanded and enrolled in a counseling program.
25 This was not true.
26 73. Defendant DURGIN further stated that Defendant MORRONE’s behavior was
27 unconscious and not intentional and that he had modified his behavior. This was also untrue.
28
- 17 -
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 told Defendant DURGIN she believed his behavior was intentional and
2 strategic and that many other girls had been subjected to his inappropriate sexual behavior.
3 Defendant DURGIN claimed that Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 was the only student who had complained
4 about MORRONE’s conduct. This was also untrue. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 knew that at least one
5 other student complained in 2007, the same year she complained, about Defendant MORRONE’s
6 sexually inappropriate behavior. Defendant DURGIN said there was nothing further she could
7 do.
8 74. Then again in 2018, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 raised her concerns with Defendant Ellie
9 DWIGHT, the assistant head of school at Sonoma Academy. She described Defendant
10 MORRONE as a liability and urged Defendant DWIGHT to speak to the other six (6) women
11 that she had named as having experienced sexual harassment by Defendant MORRONE. She
12 warned Defendant DWIGHT that one day Defendant MORRONE’s victims would “come out of
13 the woodwork and it will be bad for SA.”
14 75. In the summer of 2020, after she learned that Defendant DURGIN had retired and
15 been replaced by a new head of school, Tucker Foehl, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 and two other
16 alumnae drafted a letter to Tucker Foehl. In that letter, the three women detailed Defendant
17 MORRONE’s sexually inappropriate behavior and Defendant Sonoma Academy’s complicity.
18 While Tucker Foehl did fire Defendant MORRONE, he did not report Defendant MORRONE's
19 behavior to the relevant authorities or to the local school districts. T
Preview
1 Leila Nourani (State Bar No. 163336) JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 2 725 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 3 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 E-mail: Leila.Nourani@jacksonlewis.com 4 Benjamin J. Schnayerson (State Bar No. 257857) 5 Gonzalo Morales (State Bar No. 334944) JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 6 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4615 7 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 8 E-mail: Ben.Schnayerson@jacksonlewis.com Gonzalo.Morales@jacksonlewis.com 9 Attorneys for Defendant 10 JANET DURGIN 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONONA 13 14 JANE DOE 1, An Individual; JANE DOE 2, Case No. SCV-272344 15 An Individual; LINNET VACHA, An Individual; CLIO WILDE An Individual; [ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO 16 SAVANNAH TURLEY, An Individual; HON.PATRICK BRODERICK, DEPT.: MORGAN APOSTLE, An Individual; JANE 16] 17 DOE 3, An Individual; JANE DOE 4, An DECLARATION OF GONZALO 18 Individual; JANE DOE 5, An Individual; JANE MORALES IN SUPPORT OF DOE 6, An Individual; JANE DOE 7, An DEFENDANT JANET DURGIN’S 19 Individual; HANNA HOLT, An Individual., DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 20 Plaintiff, Filed Concurrently with Notice of 21 v Demurrer and Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint; Memorandum 22 SONOMA ACADEMY, A California of Points and Authorities in Support; and Corporation; MARCO MORRONE, An (Proposed) Order 23 Individual; ADRIAN BELIC, An Individual; ELLIE DWIGHT An Individual; JANET Date: 24 DURGIN, An Individual; and DOES 1 through Time: Dept: 16 25 100, inclusive 26 Defendants. Complaint Filed: December 29, 2022 27 FAC Filed: July 3, 2023 Trial Date: None Set 28 1 Case No. SCV-272344 DECLARATION OF GONZALO MORALES ISO DEMURRER 1 I, Gonzalo Morales, declare as follows: 2 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of California. I am an 3 attorney at Jackson Lewis P.C., counsel of record for Defendant Janet Durgin (“Durgin”). I have 4 personal knowledge of the facts stated in this Declaration, except those stated on information and 5 belief. As to the latter facts, I believe them to be true. If called as a witness, I could and would 6 competently testify to them. 7 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ First Amended 8 Complaint (“FAC”) that was filed on July 3, 2023. The original complaint was filed on December 9 29, 2022. 10 3. On June 23, 2023, Sonoma Academy’s counsel and I engaged in a meet-and-confer 11 with Plaintiffs’ counsel pertaining to Durgin and Sonoma Academy’s Demurrers as required by 12 Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. Sonoma Academy’s counsel and I raised the same 13 objections, which pertained to the Plaintiffs’ claims being time-barred and two of the Plaintiffs’ 14 dates of birth not being included in the operative complaint. 15 4. During the meet-and-confer on June 23, 2023 with Plaintiffs’ counsel, Plaintiffs’ 16 counsel advised us for the first time that Plaintiffs are relying upon California Penal Code section 17 647.6 to invoke the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1. 18 5. Subsequently, on or about July 7, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Sonoma 19 Academy’s counsel, who then informed me, that Plaintiffs will not amend their FAC to address 20 the issues presented by Durgin and Sonoma Academy counsel, including to allege which Penal 21 Code applied for CCP section 340.1 and the dates of birth for Jane Doe 4 and Jane Doe 5. 22 6. Plaintiffs’ initial filing of the FAC was rejected. Accordingly, the Parties agreed 23 that the deadline for a response to the FAC did not begin to run until a conformed copy of the 24 Complaint was served, which was done by email on August 15, 2023. 25 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the 26 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 18, 2023, in San Francisco, California. 27 28 Gonzalo Morales 2 Case No. SCV-272344 DECLARATION OF GONZALO MORALES ISO DEMURRER EXHIBIT A 1 GLORIA ALLRED, SBN 65033 ELECTRONICALLY FILED NATHAN GOLDBERG, SBN 61292 Superior Court of California 2 MARIA G. DIAZ, SBN 220087 County of Sonoma KIRBY F. CANON, SBN 276414 7/3/2023 2:18 PM 3 LAW OFFICES By: Jennifer Ellis, Deputy Clerk ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG 4 6300 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 1500 5 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048 Telephone No. (323) 653-6530 6 Fax No. (323) 653-1660 gallred@amglaw.com 7 ngoldberg@amglaw.com mdiaz@amglaw.com 8 kcanon@amglaw.com 9 LAWRENCE KING, SBN 120805 10 Law Offices of Lawrence J. King 11 Western Avenue 11 Petaluma, California 94952 (707) 769-9791 12 kingesq@pacbell.net 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Linnet Vacha, Clio Wilde, Savannah Turley, 14 Morgan Apostle, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 6, Jane Doe 7, and Hanna Holt 15 16 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 17 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA 18 19 JANE DOE 1, An Individual; JANE DOE 2, An CASE NO: SCV-272344 20 Individual; LINNET VACHA, An Individual; CLIO WILDE An Individual; SAVANNAH Assigned to Hon. Patrick Broderick, Dept. 16 21 TURLEY, An Individual; MORGAN APOSTLE, An Individual; JANE DOE 3, An FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 22 Individual; JANE DOE 4, An Individual; JANE DOE 5, An Individual; JANE DOE 6, An 1. NEGLIGENCE PER SE; 23 2. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND Individual; JANE DOE 7, An Individual; HANNA HOLT, An Individual., RETENTION; 24 3. NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO 25 Plaintiffs, WARN, TRAIN, EDUCATE OR vs. ENFORCE PROTECTIVE 26 POLICIES; SONOMA ACADEMY, A California 4. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF 27 Corporation; MARCO MORRONE, An EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Individual; ADRIAN BELIC, An Individual; (All Plaintiffs against Defendant 28 -1- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 ELLIE DWIGHT An Individual; JANET SONOMA ACADEMY); DURGIN, An Individual; and DOES 1 through 5. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF 2 100, inclusive, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (All Plaintiffs against Defendants 3 Defendants. MORRONE and SONOMA 4 ACADEMY); 6. SEXUAL ASSAULT 5 (Plaintiff Holt against Defendants BELIC and SONOMA ACADEMY); 6 7. SEXUAL ASSAULT (Plaintiffs Wilde, Turley, Apostle, 7 Doe 4, and Doe 5 against Defendants 8 MORRONE and SONOMA ACADEMY); 9 8. SEXUAL BATTERY Civ. Code §1708.5 (Plaintiffs Wilde, Turley, 10 Apostle, Doe 4, and Doe 5 against 11 Defendants MORRONE and SONOMA ACADEMY); 12 9. SEXUAL BATTERY Civ Code §1708.5 (Plaintiff Holt against 13 Defendants BELIC and SONOMA ACADEMY); 14 10. SEX HARASSMENT Civ. Code 15 §51.9 (All Plaintiffs against Defendants MORRONE and 16 SONOMA ACADEMY); 11. SEX HARASSMENT Civ. Code 17 §51.9 (Plaintiff Holt against Defendants BELIC and SONOMA 18 ACADEMY); and 19 12. VIOLATION OF CA ED CODE §220 (Plaintiffs Doe 2, 5, and 6 20 against Defendant SONOMA ACADEMY 21 22 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 23 24 25 Plaintiffs JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, LINNET VACHA, CLIO WILDE, SAVANNAH TURLEY, MORGAN APOSTLE, JANE DOE 3, JANE DOE 4, JANE DOE 5, JANE DOE 6, 26 JANE DOE 7, and HANNA HOLT (collectively “Plaintiffs”) hereby allege and assert the 27 following causes of action against Defendants, SONOMA ACADEMY, MARCO MORRONE, ADRIAN BELIC, ELLIE DWIGHT, JANET DURGIN, and DOES 1-100 inclusive (collectively 28 “Defendants”): -2- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1. This suit arises from the repeated failure of Defendants SONOMA ACADEMY 3 (“SA”), JANET DURGIN and ELLIE DWIGHT to protect under-age SA students from the 4 pervasive inappropriate mental and physical abuse and sexual misconduct of certain members of 5 its faculty and staff, including Marco MORRONE and Adrian BELIC, as well as their cover-up 6 of incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment of SA female students by SA faculty and 7 male students. 8 2. In response to a group of female alumni going public concerning MORRONE’s 9 sexual misconduct with SA students, SA retained the New York law firm, Debevoise & Plimpton 10 LLP (“Debevoise”) to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct by adults employed at SA. 11 On November 28, 2021, Debevoise released its final report revealing decades of inappropriate 12 sexual misconduct toward students by SA employees, including Defendant MORRONE, as well 13 as the sexual abuse of at least two SA students by Defendant BELIC. The investigation further 14 detailed SA’s abject failure to take corrective action once it was informed about incidents of 15 sexual harassment, sexual abuse and sexual assaults. A true and correct copy of the Debevoise & 16 Plimpton Report to the Board of Trustees of Sonoma Academy is attached to this Complaint as 17 Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth hereat (“the Investigative 18 Report”). 19 3. SA students and parents placed their trust in Defendants to provide a safe and 20 professional educational environment for students in their formative years of education. This 21 trust was reinforced by SA’s recruitment promotions depicting SA as a leading educational 22 institution that upheld the highest standards of pedagogy, care of its under-age students, 23 professionalism, respect, and ethics. 24 4. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered severe emotional, 25 physical, and economic damages for which they are entitled to just compensation. 26 PARTIES 27 5. Plaintiffs are now adult females, each of whom are under the age of 40, who were 28 -3- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 subjected to inappropriate sexual conduct while they were minor students at SA. 2 6. JANE DOE 1 is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma County, 3 California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA 4 ACADEMY. 5 7. JANE DOE 2 is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma County, 6 California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA 7 ACADEMY. 8 8. LINNET VACHA is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma 9 County, California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at 10 SONOMA ACADEMY. 11 9. CLIO WILDE is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma County, 12 California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA 13 ACADEMY. 14 10. SAVANNAH TURLEY is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma 15 County, California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at 16 SONOMA ACADEMY. 17 11. MORGAN APOSTLE is a female adult currently residing in New York State. 18 She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA ACADEMY 19 and resided in California at the time. 20 12. JANE DOE 3 is a female adult residing at all relevant times in. She was a minor 21 during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA ACADEMY. 22 13. JANE DOE 4 is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma, 23 California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA 24 ACADEMY. 25 14. JANE DOE 5 is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma, 26 California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA 27 ACADEMY. 28 -4- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 15. JANE DOE 6 is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma, 2 California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA 3 ACADEMY. 4 16. JANE DOE 7 is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma, 5 California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA 6 ACADEMY. 7 17. HANNA HOLT is a female adult residing at all relevant times in Sonoma County, 8 California. She was a minor during the time the sexual misconduct took place at SONOMA 9 ACADEMY. 10 18. Defendant SONOMA ACADEMY is a California Corporation, registered as a 11 non-profit and based in Sonoma County, California and, at all times alleged herein, conducted 12 business in the County of Sonoma. 13 19. Defendant MARCO MORRONE is an adult male whom Plaintiffs are informed 14 and believe was at all relevant times a resident of Sonoma County, California. Defendant 15 MORRONE was employed as a teacher at SA from 2002 to 2020. 16 20. Defendant ADRIAN BELIC is an adult male whom Plaintiffs are informed and 17 believe was at all relevant times a resident Solano County, California. Defendant BELIC was 18 employed as a teacher at SA during 2004. 19 21. Defendant JANET DURGIN is an adult female whom Plaintiffs are informed and 20 believe was at all relevant times a resident of Sonoma County, California. Defendant DURGIN 21 was employed as the Head of School at SA at all relevant times. 22 22. Defendant ELLIE DWIGHT is an adult female whom Plaintiffs are informed and 23 believe was at all relevant times a resident of Sonoma County, California. Defendant DWIGHT 24 was employed as Assistant Head of School at SA at all relevant times. 25 23. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, partnership, or 26 otherwise, of DOES 1-100, inclusive are unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue said 27 Defendants by such fictitious names. The full extent of the facts linking such fictitiously sued 28 -5- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Defendants are unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereupon allege, that 2 each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE was, and is negligent, or in some other 3 actionable manner, responsible for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and thereby 4 negligently, or in some other actionable manner, legally and proximately caused the hereinafter 5 described injuries and damages to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this 6 Complaint to show the Defendants’ true names and capacities after the same have been 7 ascertained. 8 24. Whenever in this complaint reference is made to Defendant(s), or any of them, 9 such allegation shall be deemed to include all fictitiously named Defendants. 10 25. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, are and were the co- 11 conspirators, aiders, abettors, agents, representatives, and/or employees of the other Defendants, 12 and in acting as described herein were acting within the course and scope of their alternative 13 capacity, identity, agency, representation, and/or employment and were within the scope of their 14 authority, whether actual or apparent, and with the full knowledge, consent, authority, 15 ratification, and/or permission of the other Defendants. 16 26. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, are and were the 17 trustees, partners, servants, joint venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each 18 and every other Defendant, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting 19 individually, through such capacities and within the scope of their authority, and with the 20 permission and consent of each and every other Defendant and said conduct was thereafter 21 ratified by each and every other Defendant, and each of them is jointly and severally liable to 22 Plaintiffs. 23 27. At all times mentioned herein, each of the fictitiously named Defendants is an 24 alter ego of one or more of the named Defendants or is in some manner liable or responsible for 25 the events, happenings, and/or tortious and unlawful conduct that caused the injuries and 26 damages alleged in this Complaint. On information and belief, at all times material herein, there 27 existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of them, such that an 28 -6- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 individuality and separateness between Defendants ceased to exist. Defendants were the 2 successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the other Defendants in that they purchased, 3 controlled, dominated, and operated each other without any separate identity, observation of 4 formalities, or any other separateness. To continue to maintain the facade of a separate and 5 individual existence between and among Defendants, and each of them, would serve to 6 perpetuate a fraud and injustice. 7 28. At all times mentioned herein, each Defendant was responsible in some manner or 8 capacity for the occurrences herein alleged. Defendants including DOES 1-100 are sometimes 9 collectively referred to herein as “Defendants” and/or as “All Defendants.” Whenever reference 10 is made to “Defendants” in this Complaint, such allegation shall be deemed to mean the acts of 11 Defendants acting individually, jointly, and/or severally. 12 29. Plaintiffs were subjected to acts of childhood sexual assault, harassment, abuse 13 and/or molestation while they were minor students at SONOMA ACADEMY by SONOMA 14 ACADEMY’S agents, staff, faculty, representatives, employees, partners, joint venturers, and/or 15 servants. These acts of childhood sexual assault, harassment, abuse and/or molestation 16 perpetrated upon the Plaintiffs began when the Plaintiffs were under the age of 18 years old and 17 constitute childhood sexual assault within the definition of Code of Civil Procedure section 18 340.1(d). These acts of childhood sexual assault, harassment, abuse and/or molestation resulted 19 in the personal physical injury, as well as emotional, psychological and psychiatric injury and 20 damage to the Plaintiffs. 21 30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that, at all times mentioned, 22 each of the Defendants, including DOES 1-100, acted in concert with each and every other 23 Defendant, intended to and did participate in the events, acts, practices and/or courses of conduct 24 alleged herein, and was a proximate cause of damage and injury thereby to Plaintiffs as alleged 25 herein. Defendants are also liable based on the legal doctrines of Respondeat Superior, 26 Conspiracy, and Ratification. 27 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 28 -7- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 31. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Constitution 2 Article VI, §10 and California Code of Civil Procedure §410.10. 3 32. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 4 Section 395. Plaintiffs suffered the injuries alleged herein in Sonoma County, and the liability 5 arose in Sonoma County. 6 33. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1(q) as amended by 7 Assembly Bill 218, effective January 1, 2020, there is a three (3) year window in which all civil 8 claims of childhood sexual assault are revived if they have not been litigated to finality. This 9 provision provides that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any claim for damages 10 described in paragraphs (1) through (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a) that has not been litigated to 11 finality and that would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2020, because the applicable statute 12 of limitations, claim presentation deadline, or any other time limit had expired, is revived, and 13 these claims may be commenced within three years of January 1, 2020. A Plaintiff shall have 14 the later of the three-year time period under this subdivision or the time period under subdivision 15 (a) as amended by the act that added this subdivision.” Because Plaintiffs’ claims have not been 16 previously litigated to finality, they are timely under the revised provisions of Code of Civil 17 Procedure § 340.1(q). 18 34. It is upon information, and therefore belief, that the sexual misconduct perpetrated 19 upon the Plaintiffs as minors was the result of a “cover-up” or a “a concerted effort to hide 20 evidence relating to childhood sexual assault.” See Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1(b). 21 Specifically, it is based upon information and therefore belief, that the Defendant SONOMA 22 ACADEMY engaged in conduct to conceal the sexually inappropriate behavior of MORRONE 23 and to hide facts from the Plaintiffs, which would have apprised the Plaintiffs, their family, and 24 those who could have intervened in MORRONE’s abusive behavior (including but not limited to 25 law enforcement, administrative authorities, and child protective agencies) and prevented the 26 Plaintiffs’ sexual molestation as minors. 27 35. Further, it is upon information, and therefore belief, that the Defendants 28 -8- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 SONOMA ACADEMY and DOES 1 through 100, were specifically aware, or based on the 2 availability of information to them had reason to know, that MORRONE was a sexual threat to 3 Plaintiffs. 4 36. Despite having this knowledge and prior warning of MORRONE’s risk of 5 childhood sexual assault and/or molestation posed to minor students, Defendant SONOMA 6 ACADEMY and DOES 1 through 100 did nothing to protect the Plaintiffs, inform them of the 7 risk, and further, actively concealed this information from the Plaintiffs and their families. 8 Regardless of its knowledge about the danger posed to the Plaintiffs (and other minors) by 9 MORRONE, Defendant SONOMA ACADEMY and DOES 1 through 100 refused to inform the 10 Plaintiffs about the danger that MORRONE posed to them. 11 37. This conduct constituted a “cover up” under the meaning of Code of Civil 12 Procedure § 340. 1(b)(1) and (b)(2). Therefore, the Plaintiffs are entitled to the enhanced remedy 13 provided for in Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1(b)(1) to recover up to treble damages. 14 COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 15 EXCEPT AS TO PLAINTIFF JANE DOE 5 16 38. For nearly two decades, Defendant MORRONE selected young, female students 17 each year whom he “groomed” for his own sexual gratification. These students were known 18 amongst other students and SA staff members as "Marco's Girls." The Debevoise investigation 19 found that, over the course of his eighteen years as a SA teacher, MORRONE sexually harassed, 20 abused, and/or molested at least thirty-four children, including Plaintiffs, while they were SA 21 students, although SA had knowledge of MORRONE’s ongoing sexual misconduct. 22 MORRONE's abuse of Plaintiffs and others included, but was not limited to, grooming young 23 female students, assigning them to read sexually erotic literature, encouraging young female 24 students to write their own sexually explicit short stories, encouraging female students to read a 25 sexually explicit novel MORRONE himself wrote in which he fantasized about having sex with 26 one of his female high school students and created a character, which he told a student at SA was 27 based on her, with whom he had sexual relations, providing academic favors and benefits to 28 -9- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 students who met with MORRONE one on one and opened-up about personal sexual matters; 2 making inappropriate body contact with female students, including, but not limited to touching 3 the thighs and lower backs of female students without consent, pressing his body, including his 4 groin, up against female students, making lewd and inappropriate comments about female 5 students' physical appearance and sexual history and leering at female students and invading 6 their personal space. Numerous incidents of MORRONE’s sexual misconduct are set forth in 7 detail in the November 28, 2021, forty-six page Investigative Report issued by the Debevoise 8 law firm. 9 39. The Investigative Report issued by the Debevoise law firm also concludes that 10 BELIC sexually abused one student on multiple occasions and another student on one occasion 11 while employed by SA. BELIC’s abuse consisted of grooming behavior, taking an under-age 12 student on trips to San Francisco, beaches, parks, restaurants, sexually explicit movies and a strip 13 club, showing his victim porn on his computer, and ultimately engaging in sex with his minor 14 victim. 15 40. Defendants MORRONE and BELIC used their authority and positions of trust to 16 exploit Plaintiffs sexually and emotionally. Many of their sexually abused students were young, 17 vulnerable, and under their and SA’s direct supervision and control. The victims were often 18 unaware that the conduct of MORRONE and/or BELIC was sexually abusive. 19 41. Defendants MORRONE and BELIC’s actions were not for any legitimate 20 educational purpose, but rather, were acts of sexual harassment, abuse, and/or molestation 21 performed for MORRONE's and BELIC’s own sexual gratification and entirely outside the 22 scope of any legitimate educational purpose. MORRONE and BELIC performed these and other 23 improper acts without the legal consent of Plaintiffs because they were minors. 24 42. The sexual harassment, abuse and/or molestation of Plaintiffs by MORRONE and 25 BELIC, as alleged herein, took place while Plaintiffs were students of Defendants SA and while 26 MORRONE, BELIC, and other individuals named herein served as agents and/or employees of 27 Defendants in their capacity as faculty members or staff employed, retained, and supervised by 28 - 10 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Defendants SA, DURGIN, DWIGHT and DOES 1-100. 2 43. MORRONE and BELIC engaged in conduct that a reasonable person would 3 consider annoying, disturbing, irritating, and offensive and their conduct caused irreparable 4 emotional, physical, and economic harm to Plaintiffs, for which Defendants must be held 5 responsible. 6 44. Defendants SA, DURGIN, DWIGHT and DOES 1-100 had knowledge of 7 MORRONE’s systemic sexual abuse and inappropriate behavior of annoying and/or molesting 8 female students as early as 2006, but did not remove MORRONE from his position until 2020. 9 Defendants SA, DURGIN, DWIGHT and DOES 1-100 also had reason to suspect that Defendant 10 BELIC was engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with under-age SA students but failed to 11 report their suspicions to the proper authorities as they were mandated to do. 12 45. Defendant SONOMA ACADEMY violated the trust granted by students and 13 parents by deliberately concealing its own knowledge, as well as numerous reports and 14 complaints, of sexual abuse committed by Defendant MORRONE for at least fourteen years and 15 of the sexual abuse committed by BELIC. Defendants ignored and actively concealed reports and 16 complaints of child abuse from students, parents and staff and failed to report MORRONE's and 17 BELIC’s conduct to authorities as it was mandated to do. SA violated its female students' trust 18 by knowingly putting young girls in classes taught by Defendant MORRONE, knowing that 19 sexual abuse and harassment would occur to "Marco's girls" and by retaining BELIC and giving 20 him access to the school’s campus and events after his employment ended although it had reason 21 to suspect he was engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with under-age SA students. 22 46. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants knew 23 or should have known that MORRONE and BELIC engaged in unlawful sexually abusive 24 conduct in the past, and/or were continuing to engage in such conduct. Defendants had a duty 25 under the California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act ("CANRA") to disclose these facts 26 to Plaintiffs and their parents and guardians, but negligently, and/or intentionally suppressed, 27 concealed, or failed to disclose this information. Defendants’ failure to report MORRONE's and 28 - 11 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 BELIC’s conduct caused their victims substantial psychological, emotional and economic 2 damages. Plaintiffs were also discouraged from further reporting MORRONE and BELIC’s 3 conduct based on SA's failure to act on the numerous victim and witness reports of sexual 4 harassment. For nearly two decades, SA did not take reasonable steps to investigate numerous 5 complaints of adult sexually improper conduct with minors that began in the early 2000s and 6 lasted until the year 2020. 7 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO PLAINTIFFS 8 47. Early in his tenure as a teacher at SA, the administration received a number of 9 complaints from parents of students that Marco MORRONE favored certain female students. 10 Defendant Janet DURGIN spoke with MORRONE in 2005 or 2006 and told him to do whatever 11 was necessary to counter the impression. However, this warning fell on deaf ears. Marrone 12 continued to favor certain female students who came to be known as “Marco’s girls.” He acted 13 in a manner that fostered the belief among students at SA that he was engaged in sexual relations 14 with female students. No effort was made by Defendants to ensure that Morrone heeded the 15 warning which he was given. 16 48. Prior to 2006, at least one parent repeatedly approached Defendant DURGIN to 17 express concern about MORRONE assigning the book “Lolita” to her daughter to read. 18 DURGIN informed defendant MORRONE that he could no longer assign “Lolita” to his minor 19 students. MORRONE ignored this instruction and continued to assign “Lolita” to students, 20 particularly those that he was sexually attracted to and with whom he desired to have a sexual 21 relationship. Members of the administration knew or should have known that he continued to 22 assign “Lolita” to his minor female students. 23 49. “Lolita” is a book about a pedophile who is consumed by his lust for “nymphets,” 24 children between the ages of 9 and 14. The main character, Humbert, “falls in love” with Lolita, 25 a 12 year old girl. The book starts: “Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. 26 Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the 27 teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.” 28 - 12 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 50. In the book the author attempts to justify his sexual interest in children by 2 providing examples of men throughout history who lusted after and had sexual relations with 3 children. The author attempts to convince the reader that his feelings for “nymphets” is perfectly 4 normal. 5 51. Humbert is consumed with lust for “every passing nymphet”, but he knows that 6 he cannot act on his lust and must control his impulses, lest he face legal consequences. Humbert 7 states, “Years of secret sufferings had taught me superhuman self-control.” 8 52. In the book, Humbert ultimately has sex with the 12-year-old Lolita. What is most 9 significant about the book is that it provides a window into Defendant MORRONE’s mind. 10 MORRONE is a pedophile who desires to have sex with his female students. However, like 11 Humbert, he fears the potential consequences if he acts on his impulses, and therefore wants to 12 make sure that he can safely proceed. In the book, while Humbert grooms Lolita, he doesn’t have 13 sex with her until Lolita, by his account, seduces him. Defendant MORRONE assigned “Lolita” 14 to his female students so that they could understand his desires, his struggles to control his sexual 15 impulses, and to send a message. His female students needed to make the first move before he 16 would have sex with them, literally taking a page out of the book “Lolita”. 17 53. Humbert wonders what becomes of his nymphets and whether he has caused them 18 harm. “I have often wondered what became of those nymphets later? In this wrought-iron world 19 of criss-cross cause and effect, could it be that the hidden throb I stole from them did not affect 20 their future? I had possessed her—and she never knew it. All right. But would it not tell 21 sometime later? Had I not somehow tampered with her fate by involving her image in my 22 voluptas? Oh, it was, and remains, a source of great and terrible wonder.” Defendant 23 MORRONE need not wonder about the impact his behavior had upon the Plaintiffs in this action. 24 As detailed in this complaint, Defendant MORRONE caused the Plaintiffs in this action severe 25 emotional distress and ongoing mental health issues. 26 54. In 2007, a female student complained to the administration that she felt that 27 MORRONE was flirting with her. The student’s complaint was not taken seriously. No 28 - 13 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 investigation was conducted. 2 55. In the fall of 2007, a second female student (Doe 1) reported to the administration 3 that MORRONE had pinched her and made sexually inappropriate comments to her. The 4 administration engaged outside counsel who recommended that SA file a report with CANRA as 5 it was mandated to do. Sonoma Academy failed to do so. Senior administrators decided that 6 MORRONE would be required to attend training with an HR consultant, but the training lasted 7 for only 2 ½ hours. The consultant disclosed to Defendant DURGIN that Morone admitted 8 engaging in inappropriate behavior towards female students and that he expressed shame and 9 remorse for doing so and that he understood that his conduct had an “adverse influence on kids.” 10 The consultant recommended that MORRONE’s behavior be monitored. 11 56. No such monitoring took place. MORRONE continued to engage in the same 12 objectionable behavior throughout his tenure at SA. He continued to engage in a wide range of 13 conduct towards female students which crossed appropriate teacher-student boundaries including 14 encouraging intimate, sexual and deeply personal entries by students in their journals, which he 15 read and discussed with them as part of class assignments, inappropriately touching students, 16 developing close emotional bonds with students, which were adverse to their interests, 17 recommending and assigning graphic, sexually explicit books, providing students with his own 18 sexually explicit manuscript, failing to refer students who clearly needed psychological 19 counseling to the help that they needed, encouraging students to engage in inappropriate sexual 20 relationship and other actions which resulted in minor students suffering physical, psychological 21 and economic harm. 22 57. In the fall of 2012, the same student (DOE I) who had complained about 23 MORRONE in 2007 met with Janet DURGIN to ask why MORRONE had not been fired. Ms. 24 DURGIN stated that MORRONE’s conduct was unconscious and that he had modified his 25 behavior. The former student said that she knew of many other students who had experienced 26 MORRONE’s inappropriate sexually charged behavior, which had not changed. Ms. DURGIN 27 dismissed these concerns and did not ask for names of other victims or indicate any intention to 28 - 14 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 investigate. 2 58. In 2012 a counselor at Sonoma, asked Defendant DURGIN to fire Defendant 3 MORRONE as a result of his inappropriate behavior towards female students. Ms. DURGIN 4 forwarded the letter from the counselor to Elle DWIGHT. No other action was taken. There was 5 no investigation and MORRONE was allowed to continue victimizing female students for 6 another 8 years until he was terminated. 7 SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 8 JANE DOE 1 9 59. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 was born on August 28, 1990, and attended Sonoma 10 Academy from August, 2004 until she graduated in June, 2008. 11 60. Plaintiff knew Defendant MORRONE before she attended Sonoma Academy, but 12 first met him as a student when she was a 13-year-old freshman. 13 61. In 2007, during the second semester of her junior year, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 took 14 Defendant MORRONE’s Humanities III class (a double AP class). She also was in his class 15 during the first few weeks of her Senior year, in the fall of 2007, until she was removed from his 16 class at her request, due to his inappropriate behavior. 17 62. During the second semester of her junior year and continuing until she was 18 removed from his class in the fall of 2007, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 was subjected to sexual 19 harassment by Defendant MORRONE. During that time, Defendant MORRONE’s daily 20 interactions with Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 caused her to believe that he wanted to have a sexual 21 relationship with her. 22 63. Defendant MORRONE daily “groomed” Plaintiff Jane Doe 1, treating her in a 23 way that made her uncomfortable and led some of her peers to comment that he seemed to be 24 sexually interested in her. His eyes lingered on her body. He would ask her to stay after class, 25 ostensibly to discuss her writing, but in reality, to spend time alone with her. He would use 26 academic-seeming situations as a pretense for inappropriate physical contact. For instance, on 27 one occasion, he sat down next to her with the full length of his thigh pressed against her thigh 28 - 15 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 for approximately 20 minutes. He did not discontinue the contact until she moved her body 2 away from him. 3 64. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 became confused and conflicted by Defendant MORRONE’s 4 sexual interest in her. She feared that if she distanced herself from him and did not continue to 5 entertain his interest that she would be punished academically and emotionally, because she had 6 seen how he had turned cold and distant towards other “Marco’s girls” once he lost interest in 7 them. On the other hand, she worried that if she continued to entertain his interest that she would 8 find herself in a sexual encounter with him that she was not prepared for and did not want. She 9 found Defendant MORRONE’s behavior distracting, confusing and ultimately traumatic. 10 65. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 also witnessed Defendant MORRONE’s sexualized 11 interactions with other female students and heard that he gave preferential treatment to those 12 female students towards whom he displayed a sexual interest. These observations, coupled with 13 her own interactions with Defendant MORRONE led Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 to believe that 14 Defendant MORRONE wanted to have a sexual relationship with her. This caused her to feel 15 afraid and humiliated at school. 16 66. In August 2007, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 complained to Lisa Shelton, the Academic 17 Dean, about Defendant MORRONE’s conduct. She asked to be removed from Defendant 18 MORRONE’s class because she was uncomfortable with the “sexual undertones” in his 19 interactions with her. She told Lisa Shelton that it was common knowledge among students that 20 Defendant MORRONE evinced sexually charged favoritism towards certain female students, 21 who, she explained, other students referred to as “Marco’s girls.” She named six (6) other former 22 female students whom she believed had been subjected to similar treatment by Defendant 23 MORRONE. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 told Lise Shelton that Defendant MORRONE pinched her 24 twice, that he had told her she looked "like a little kitten,” and that his daily interactions with her 25 had "sexual undertones.” Lisa Shelton took notes during the conversation and told Plaintiff Jane 26 Doe 1 that she would share this information with Defendant DURGIN, the head of school. Lisa 27 Shelton later confirmed she had done so. 28 - 16 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 67. Ms. Shelton removed Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 from Defendant MORRONE’s class as 2 Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 had requested. 3 68. Lisa Shelton told Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 that Defendant MORRONE had been 4 informed of her allegations and wanted to apologize to her. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 was mortified 5 that Defendant MORRONE knew she had complained about him and did not want to be in his 6 presence. 7 69. As far as Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 knew no corrective action was taken as a result of 8 her complaint and Defendant MORRONE’s sexualized interactions with “select” female students 9 continued. 10 70. Defendant MORRONE’s sexual harassment traumatized Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 and 11 disrupted her academic, intellectual, sexual, and personal development. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 12 shaved her head after being sexually harassed by Defendant MORRONE in a desperate attempt 13 to make herself less attractive and less of a potential victim of sexual harassment. 14 71. As a result of Defendant MORRONE’s sexual harassment, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1’s 15 grades declined precipitously during her last three semesters at Sonoma Academy. This impaired 16 her ability to be accepted to a college of her choice, as well as her employment prospects after 17 college. 18 72. In the summer of 2012, four years after she had graduated from Sonoma 19 Academy, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 was so disturbed about Defendant MORRONE’s conduct and 20 concerned that he may still be sexually harassing other young female students that she met with 21 Defendant DURGIN. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 requested the meeting to discuss her concerns with 22 how her allegations against Defendant MORRONE had been handled. During the meeting she 23 asked Defendant DURGIN why Defendant MORRONE had not been fired. Defendant DURGIN 24 stated that Defendant MORRONE had been reprimanded and enrolled in a counseling program. 25 This was not true. 26 73. Defendant DURGIN further stated that Defendant MORRONE’s behavior was 27 unconscious and not intentional and that he had modified his behavior. This was also untrue. 28 - 17 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 told Defendant DURGIN she believed his behavior was intentional and 2 strategic and that many other girls had been subjected to his inappropriate sexual behavior. 3 Defendant DURGIN claimed that Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 was the only student who had complained 4 about MORRONE’s conduct. This was also untrue. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 knew that at least one 5 other student complained in 2007, the same year she complained, about Defendant MORRONE’s 6 sexually inappropriate behavior. Defendant DURGIN said there was nothing further she could 7 do. 8 74. Then again in 2018, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 raised her concerns with Defendant Ellie 9 DWIGHT, the assistant head of school at Sonoma Academy. She described Defendant 10 MORRONE as a liability and urged Defendant DWIGHT to speak to the other six (6) women 11 that she had named as having experienced sexual harassment by Defendant MORRONE. She 12 warned Defendant DWIGHT that one day Defendant MORRONE’s victims would “come out of 13 the woodwork and it will be bad for SA.” 14 75. In the summer of 2020, after she learned that Defendant DURGIN had retired and 15 been replaced by a new head of school, Tucker Foehl, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 and two other 16 alumnae drafted a letter to Tucker Foehl. In that letter, the three women detailed Defendant 17 MORRONE’s sexually inappropriate behavior and Defendant Sonoma Academy’s complicity. 18 While Tucker Foehl did fire Defendant MORRONE, he did not report Defendant MORRONE's 19 behavior to the relevant authorities or to the local school districts. T