Emery Ogah, a senior at the University of Southern California (USC), became embroiled in an escalating dispute with a housemate, Nicholas Woltersdorf, while living in an off-campus rented house managed by Orion Housing. In August 2023, after a confrontation over garbage placement during which Woltersdorf threatened that he had a gun, Ogah contacted USC’s Department of Public Safety (DPS). DPS found a prop gun but took no further action because the incident occurred off campus and Woltersdorf was not a USC student. For months afterward, the tenants continued reporting disputes to the landlord, culminating in a physical altercation on February 4, 2024. Both men called the LAPD, and Ogah also contacted DPS. Accounts differed as to who initiated the fight: Ogah reported that Woltersdorf placed him in a chokehold, while Woltersdorf claimed Ogah threw the first punch. The following day, Ogah admitted throwing a glass “to create distance,” and Woltersdorf later obtained a restraining order.
Based on the February incidents, USC notified Ogah in March 2024 that he faced potential violations of the University’s policies on disorderly conduct and physical harm, triggering USC’s formal resolution process. That process provides written notice of allegations, access to relevant information, a presumption that the student is not responsible, a written explanation of the decision, and an opportunity to appeal to the Vice President of Student Life. At an August 16 meeting, USC presented preliminary findings and, because Ogah disputed portions of the determination, referred the matter to a review panel.
That same day, Ogah filed a civil lawsuit against Woltersdorf, Orion Housing, and USC. The bulk of the complaint asserted intentional tort claims against Woltersdorf and negligence and premises liability against Orion Housing. His sole claim against USC alleged negligence by DPS for failing to protect him after earlier reports of threatening conduct. As USC prepared to move forward with its student disciplinary hearing, Ogah sought an emergency injunction to halt USC’s proceedings until the civil case concluded. He argued that allowing USC to proceed would cause irreparable harm because his attorney could not speak or object during the disciplinary hearing, witnesses would not be subject to cross-examination, and USC might “manufacture” factual findings to insulate itself in the civil lawsuit. The trial court granted the injunction and USC appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed. It began by noting the longstanding principle that universities have authority to regulate student conduct and may conduct disciplinary proceedings concurrently with civil or criminal cases arising from the same events. The Court also explained that USC’s disciplinary procedures—including limited attorney participation, lack of cross-examination, and informal evidentiary rules—were consistent with the fair-procedure doctrine governing private university discipline in California.
While Ogah argued that these procedural differences would unfairly advantage USC in the civil case, the Court held that such concerns did not constitute irreparable harm. The disciplinary process did not create rights or consequences that could not later be addressed: any evidentiary disputes could be resolved in the civil case, no transcript would be created that could be used against him, and any attempt by USC to use disciplinary findings to its advantage would be subject to judicial review and traditional evidentiary protections.
The Court also rejected Ogah’s argument that USC might manufacture factual findings to shield itself from liability, finding that the potential for harm was too speculative. USC’s process lacked several hallmarks of a judicial proceeding, such as the ability to subpoena records, live cross-examination, and a formal evidentiary record, therefore the potential for the disciplinary proceedings to be preventative of the civil proceeding was too remote to justify stopping the disciplinary process.
Having found no irreparable harm as a matter of law, the Court of Appeal reversed the order granting the injunction.
Ogah v. University of Southern California (Nov. 12, 2025) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2025 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7219].
Note: This case illustrates the interplay between disciplinary procedures and civil litigation. It also reinforces the fair procedure standard for imposing discipline against students at private schools (including K-12 schools) in California, which includes providing the accused student a notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond, but does not require cross examination or a live hearing.