Sonoma Academy is a private high school with approximately 300 students, charging around $50,000 annually in tuition and fees. Plaintiffs David and Jody Suchard paid for their child to attend from 2015 to 2017, and plaintiff Jane Doe paid for her own tuition from 2018 to 2021. The plaintiffs’ lawsuit alleged that from 2002 to 2020, the School employed three staff members who engaged in sexual abuse, assault, or inappropriate conduct toward students (not the plaintiffs or their children), and that the School failed to disclose these incidents to the School community or authorities.
The allegations centered most extensively on Marco Morrone, a longtime teacher accused of grooming students, making inappropriate comments, assigning sexually explicit material, and engaging in boundary violations. The complaint detailed numerous instances in which students, parents, or counselors raised concerns about Morrone and others over the years, and alleged that administrators failed to act appropriately or notify others, including failing to make mandated reports under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA). In 2021, the School’s Board of Trustees retained an outside investigator to look into the concerns. That investigator’s report concluded that the School, including the former Head of School and assistant Head of School, were informed of multiple incidents between 2004 and 2020.
The plaintiffs sought to create a class action lawsuit with the class of people of those who paid tuition from 2003 to 2020 for students who graduated before July 2020. They alleged that Sonoma Academy’s concealment of staff misconduct induced them to believe the School was safe, and had they known the truth, they would not have paid the School’s high tuition. They asserted claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), as well as for constructive fraud and fraud by concealment, and sought damages, restitution, and injunctive relief.
The trial court ruled in favor of Sonoma Academy. The plaintiffs appealed.
The plaintiffs argued that the School’s failure to disclose incidents of sexual misconduct and its failure to comply with mandated reporting laws amounted to unfair business practices under the UCL. They claimed they were injured economically by paying tuition they otherwise would not have paid.
The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a UCL claim. To have standing under the UCL, a plaintiff must have suffered an economic injury “as a result of” the defendant’s conduct. The Court relied heavily on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, which permits standing where a plaintiff relied on a misrepresentation and paid more or received less than they otherwise would have.
However, the Court distinguished this case from Kwikset. The plaintiffs here did not allege that their own children were mistreated, that their education was compromised, or that they were aware of the misconduct at the time they paid tuition. The alleged misconduct affected other students, and the plaintiffs’ children received the education they paid for. The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs’ alleged harm was “conjectural and hypothetical,” not concrete or particularized. The risk that their children might have been harmed, or that the School community was unsafe, did not materialize in their individual cases.
The plaintiffs attempted to analogize their claim to consumer cases where sellers failed to disclose product defects. But the Court found these cases inapposite, noting that in each of those cases, the plaintiffs received less than what they had bargained for—e.g., defective electronics or undis–closed fees. In contrast, here, the plaintiffs’ students received the promised education, and the plaintiffs could not point to any aspect of the educational service that was diminished or devalued due to the nondisclosures.
The Court held that a moral or ethical objection to the School’s conduct is not an economic injury sufficient to support UCL standing.
In their two remaining fraud-based claims (constructive fraud and fraud by concealment), plaintiffs alleged on behalf of themselves and a putative class, that the School breached its duty to disclose to them material facts: that there were reports of sexual abuse, harassment, and assault, that the School employed three sexual predators who were not fit to interact with minors, and that the School had failed to report instances of sexual improprieties. The plaintiffs also alleged that the School had a duty to disclose the information under CANRA.
The Court dismissed the claim for constructive fraud. Constructive fraud requires a fiduciary or confidential relationship, which the plaintiffs attempted to ground in their tuition payments and the School’s role as an educator. But the Court found no legal or factual basis for concluding that the School had a confidential relationship with tuition payers. The plaintiffs were not unusually vulnerable, nor did the School undertake a fiduciary role akin to that of a trustee or legal guardian.
As for the fraud by concealment claim, the Court rejected several alternate bases for a duty to disclose. First, the plaintiffs failed to establish a confidential relationship. Second, although a duty to disclose can arise where one party has exclusive knowledge of material facts, the Court found that knowledge about misconduct at the School was already circulating among students and parents. Public complaints, rumors, and student advocacy efforts were cited in the complaint itself, undermining the argument that only the School knew about the misconduct.
Further, the Court found that common issues did not predominate, which is required for a class action suit. Whether any given tuition payer was misled or would have chosen differently had they known about the staff misconduct would require individualized inquiries. Because members of the School community had differing levels of awareness and rumors were already circulating, the plaintiffs could not establish reliance or causation in a way that applied uniformly across the proposed class.
The Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision and affirmed dismissal of all claims against Sonoma Academy.
Suchard v. Sonoma Acad. (Mar. 21, 2025) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2025 Cal.App. LEXIS 183].
Note: The decision emphasizes that for tuition payers to prevail under California’s Unfair Competition Law, they must show a personal, concrete, and economic injury resulting from the school’s conduct. Where parents and students receive the educational services they paid for, they cannot claim economic harm based solely on undisclosed misconduct affecting others.