COMES NOW, Plaintiff, JOHN DOE, by and through his Guardian ad litem, JANE DOE, ("Plaintiff") who complains and alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff JOHN DOE was a resident of the County of Riverside, State of California. The name used by JOHN DOE in this Complaint is not the actual name of JOHN DOE, but is a fictitious name utilized to protect the privacy of JOHN DOE, a victim of childhood sexual molestation and exploitation. Plaintiff JOHN DOE is a male minor, who was born on October 2, 2007, and was a minor during the entire time of the sexual misconduct alleged herein. Plaintiff JOHN DOE was a minor at the time of all incidents alleged herein.

2. Defendant LA SIERRA ACADEMY (hereinafter "LSA"), at all times mentioned herein was and is, a business entity of form unknown, having its principal place of business in the County of Riverside, State of California. Plaintiff is informed and believe and on that basis allege that Defendant LSA is a non-profit private school. LSA purposely conducts substantial educational business activities in the State of California, and was the primary entity owning, operating and controlling the activities and behavior of its employee and agent Matthew Johnson

3. Defendant SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST (hereinafter "SCC"), at all times mentioned herein was and is, a California nonprofit corporation, having its principal place of business in the County of Riverside, State of California, Plaintiff is informed and believe and on that basis allege that Defendant SCC is a non- profit organization operating under the General Conference of Seventh- Day Adventist.

4. Defendant NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS
   OFFICE OF EDUCATION (also known as, "ADVENTIST EDUCATION") (hereinafter ADVENTIST EDUCATION), at all times mentioned herein was and is, a business entity of form unknown, having its principal place of business in Howard County, Maryland. Plaintiff is informed and believe and on that basis allege that Defendant ADVENTIST EDUCATION is the school system of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. ADVENTIST EDUCATION controls and has decision making power over LSA, which is a member school.

5. Defendant MATTHEW DANIEL JOHNSON (hereinafter “JOHNSON”) is an adult individual, who Plaintiff is informed and believes, was arrested on March 5, 2020, and is currently out on bail after being arrested on charges of child pornography. Plaintiff is informed and believe that during the investigation of JOHNSON, it was revealed that JOHNSON was using a camera he placed in the boys' bathroom at LSA to videotape young boys, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes that JOHNSON was hired by LSA and served as its employee, agent, and/or servant of LSA, SCC, and ADVENTIST EDUCATION. JOHNSON was hired by LSA as a counselor to its minor students, during which time he came into contact with Plaintiff and video recorded them in the bathroom.

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at all relevant times, each Defendant was the principal, agent partner, joint venture, officer, director, controlling shareholder, subsidiary, affiliate, parent corporation, successor in interest, and/or predecessor in interest of some or all of all of the other Defendants, and bore such other relationships to some or all of the other Defendants so as to be liable for their conduct with respect to the matters alleged below.

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that each Defendant acted pursuant to and within the scope of the relationships alleged above, that each Defendant knew or should have known about, and authorized, ratified, adopted, approved, controlled, and aided and abetted the conduct of all other Defendants.

8. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, partner or otherwise, of other Defendants, herein named as DOES 1-100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will move to amend this Complaint to substitute their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained.

9. Plaintiff is also unaware of the basis of liability as to some or all of such fictitious Defendants sued herein as DOES 1-100, inclusive, but believes that their liability arises out of the same general facts as set forth herein. Plaintiff will move to amend this Complaint to assert the theories of liability of said fictitiously named Defendants when they have been ascertained.

10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant and DOES 1-100, inclusive, are legally responsible in some manner for the events, happenings, omissions and/or occurrences causing damages referred to herein, and legally and proximately caused damage to Plaintiff. Further, each and every Defendant, including DOES 1-100, inclusive, had a duty to Plaintiff, as a student of LSA

11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that DOES 1-100, inclusive, were contractors, individuals, sole proprietorships, partnerships and/or corporations, and all their employees and agents who performed services as an employee, agent, ostensible agent, servant, partner, joint venturer, and aider and abettor of each of the Defendants and were, in operating herein complained of, acting within the course and scope of such relationship and therefore are responsible for damages to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged. Whenever a Defendant is the subject of any charging allegation by Plaintiff, it shall be deemed that DOES 1-100, inclusive, and each of them, are likewise subject to this charging allegation.

///

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10. Plaintiff seek damages under the statutory and common law of the State of California.

2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395 because some of the acts and transactions described herein occurred within this county AND some Defendants are or were registered to operate in the State of California and/or are or were operating within this county;

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

1. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a student at LSA. As a result, thereof, and at all material times hereto, Plaintiff was under LSA, SCC, ADVENTIST EDUCATION, and LSA s supervisory personnel’s care, control and supervision.

2. LSA, SCC and ADVENTIST EDUCATION, among others, hired JOHNSON to work at LSA and/or failed at all facets of their obligations, including in the hiring, retention, training and
   supervision of JOHNSON as outlined herein.

3. By hiring JOHNSON to serve as an employee, aide, mentor, and counselor to minor students, LSA, SCC and ADVENTIST EDUCATION held JOHNSON out to the public, Plaintiff and his family to be of high ethical and moral repute, and to be in good standing with LSA, the County of Riverside, the County of San Bernardino, the State of California, and the public. LSA represented to the public, Plaintiff and his family that JOHNSON was a highly qualified. counselor and mentor who would assist Plaintiff with working through academic, spiritual, and personal issues he faced and oversee his needs during school and after-school hours. Inherent in these representations was the understanding that JOHNSON was selected to educate, aide, lead, guide, teach, support, mentor and counsel the Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his family reasonably assumed that JOHNSON was worthy of their trust. LSA represented that JOHNSON was worthy of that trust as well. As a result, JOHNSON was put into a position to teach, counsel and advise minor students at LSA, including Plaintiff, regarding academics, classes and spiritual issues.

4. At all times material hereto, JOHNSON was employed, retained, and/or allowed to be
   on-campus to supervise, mentor, aide and/or teach children at LSA, and the SCC. In such
   capacity, JOHNSON was under the direct supervision, employ, agency, and control of the LSA, SCC and ADVENTIST EDUCATION, and DOES 1-100. His employment duties and responsibilities with the named Defendants included, in part, providing for the supervision, counseling, advisory, educational, and emotional needs and well-being of students at LSA and other children, including the Plaintiff.

5. Through his position with LSA, SCC and ADVENTIST EDUCATION, JOHNSON was put into direct contact with Plaintiff, students at LSA JOHNSON was assigned to aide, counsel, advise and mentor Plaintiff. It is under these circumstances that Plaintiff came to be under the direction and control of JOHNSON, who used his position of authority and trust over Plaintiff to sexually exploit him.

6. Plaintiff is informed and believe that JOHNSON was arrested on March 5, 2020, after an investigation by the Fontana Police Department Internet Crimes Against Children task force discovered he was in the possession of over 500 photographs depicting child pornography. During this investigation it was uncovered that JOHNSON was using a camera positioned in the boys' bathroom at LSA to videotape nude minors, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believe that JOHNSON was charged with crimes related to this investigation and the investigation has continued with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

7. As a student at LSA, where JOHNSON was retained and worked, Plaintiff was under
   JOHNSON's direct supervision, care and control, thus creating a special relationship, fiduciary
   relationship, and confidential relationship with Defendants. Additionally, as minor child under the custody, care and control of Defendants, Defendants stood in loco parentis with respect to Plaintiff while he was attending school and school-related functions at LSA. As the responsible parties and employers controlling JOHNSON, Defendants were also in a special relationship with Plaintiff and owed special duties to Plaintiff.

8. Before Plaintiff was sexually exploited by JOHNSON, Defendants knew or should have known that JOHNSON had engaged in unlawful sexually-related conduct with minors in the past, and/or was continuing to engage in such conduct. Defendants had a duty to disclose to these facts to Plaintiff, his family, parents and others, but suppressed, concealed or failed to disclose this information. The duty to disclose this information arose by the special, trusting, confidential, fiduciary, and in loco parentis relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff.

9. Defendants failed to take reasonable steps and implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by JOHNSON, including preventing the sexual exploitation of Plaintiff by JOHNSON, avoiding placement of JOHNSON in a function or environment in which contact with children is an inherent part of that function or environment. Instead, Defendants ignored and concealed the sexual exploitation of Plaintiff and others by JOHNSON that had already occurred. Defendants failed to properly supervise JOHNSON at LSA, which led to many students, including Plaintiff, being repeatedly sexually exploited by JOHNSON.

10. Prior to and during the sexual harassment, molestation and exploitation of the Plaintiff, Defendants knew or should have known that JOHNSON had violated his role as a mentor, counselor, advisor and faculty member, and used this position of authority and trust acting on behalf of Defendants to gain access to children, including Plaintiff, on and off the school facilities and grounds, in which he video recorded Plaintiff while unclothed in the bathroom for his own sexual gratification as well as for distribution.

11. With knowledge that JOHNSON had previously engaged in dangerous and inappropriate conduct with children, Defendants conspired to and did knowingly fail to take reasonable steps and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by JOHNSON, including preventing or avoiding placement of JOHNSON in a function or environment in which contact with children is an inherent aspect of that function or environment.

12. Plaintiff further allege that Defendants failed to report and did hide and conceal from Plaintiff’s parents, students, parents, teachers, law enforcement authorities, civil authorities and
    others, the true facts and relevant information necessary to bring JOHNSON to justice for the
    sexual misconduct he committed, as well as protect minors under their care, including Plaintiff.

13. Defendants also implemented various measures designed to, or which effectively, made JOHNSON's conduct harder to detect including:

    • Permitting JOHNSON to remain in a position of authority and trust after Defendants knew or should have known that he was a molester and exploiter of children;

    • Placing JOHNSON in a separate and secluded environment, including placing him in charge of young children, advising programs, and youth programs where they purported to supervise the children, which allowed him to sexually exploit the children, including Plaintiff;

    • Allowing JOHNSON to come into contact with minors, including Plaintiff, without adequate supervision;

    • Failing to inform, or concealing from Plaintiff’s parents and law enforcement officials the fact that Plaintiff and others were or may have been sexually exploited after Defendants knew or should have known that JOHNSON may have sexually exploited Plaintiff or others, thereby enabling Plaintiff to continue to be endangered and sexually exploited, and
      creating the circumstance where Plaintiff and others were less likely to receive medical/mental health care and treatment, thus exacerbating the harm to Plaintiff;

    • Holding out JOHNSON to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s parents, students, and to the school community as being in good standing and trustworthy;

    • Failing to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual exploitation by JOHNSON with students, who were minor children; and

    • Failing to put in place a system or procedure to supervise or monitor employees, volunteers, representatives or agents to ensure that they did not exploit or molest minors in Defendants' care, including Plaintiff.

    • Failing to put in place a system or procedure to supervise or monitor employees, volunteers, representatives or agents to ensure that they did not place hidden recording devices in the restrooms.

    • Failing to put in place a system or procedure to determine whether or not hidden recording devices were being used in the restrooms.

14. By his position within the Defendants' institutions, Defendants and JOHNSON demanded and required that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s parents respect JOHNSON in his position of aide, advisor, youth counselor, teacher and mentor at LSA and the SCC.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO PLAINTIFF

1. The incidents of sexual exploitation outlined herein took place while Plaintiff was under the control of JOHNSON in his capacity and position as counselor and mentor at LSA and SCC, and while acting specifically on behalf of Defendants.

2. Defendant JOHNSON was at all times relevant to this Complaint a counselor, advisor, and youth mentor at LSA an institution wholly operated by SCC and ADVENTIST EDUCATION.

3. Plaintiff is informed and believe that while JOHNSON sexually exploited Plaintiff, Defendants were well aware that JOHNSON took an unusual interest and spent an inordinate amount of time with minor children and had unfettered access to the boys' restroom despite its reservation for minors.

4. Facts Regarding the Sexual Exploitation of Plaintiff JOHN DOE:

   • In or around March or April 2020 Plaintiff JOHN DOE's parents were notified by the Riverside Police Department that Plaintiff JOHN DOE had been identified as a child filmed by JOHNSON while in the bathroom at LSA.

   • Subsequent to JOHN DOE's sexual exploitation at the hands of JOHNSON, he began to experience multiple mental, emotional and psychological problems, due to the sexual exploitation.

5. As set forth more fully herein above, JOHNSON did sexually exploit Plaintiff, who was a minor at the time. Such conduct by JOHNSON was based upon Plaintiff’s gender and was done for JOHNSON 's sexual gratification. These actions upon Plaintiff were performed by JOHNSON without the free consent of Plaintiff, who were minors at all times of the exploitation. These actions upon Plaintiff constitute conduct in violation of California Penal Code § 311.2 and others.

6. As a direct result of the sexual exploitation of Plaintiff by JOHNSON, Plaintiff has
   difficulty in reasonably or meaningfully interacting with others, including those in positions of
   authority over Plaintiff, and in intimate, confidential and familial relationships, due to the trauma of childhood sexual exploitation inflicted upon them by Defendants. This inability to interact creates conflict with Plaintiff’s values of trust and confidence in others, and has caused Plaintiff’s substantial emotional distress, anxiety, nervousness and fear.

7. As a direct result of Plaintiff’s exploitation by JOHNSON, Plaintiff experienced severe issues with their personal life, including issues with trust and difficulties in maintaining meaningful familial relationships and friendships. These feelings have caused Plaintiff substantial emotional distress, anxiety, nervousness and fear.

8. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' tortious acts, omissions, wrongful
   conduct and/or breaches of their duties, whether willful or negligent, Plaintiff’s future employment and personal development has been adversely affected. Plaintiff will lose wages as a result of the exploitation at the hands of Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiff has suffered economic injury, all to Plaintiff’s general, special and consequential damage in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court.

9. Defendants should have been aware of JOHNSON's wrongful conduct at or about the
   time it was occurring, and thereafter, but took no action to obstruct, inhibit or stop such continuing conduct, or to help prevent Plaintiff (as well as their parents) from enduring the trauma from such conduct. Despite the authority and ability to do so, Defendants refused to, and did not act effectively to stop the sexual assaults on Plaintiff, to inhibit or obstruct such abuse, or to protect Plaintiff from the results of that trauma.

10. During the period of exploitation of Plaintiff at the hands of JOHNSON, Defendants had the authority and ability to obstruct or stop JOHNSON's sexual exploitation on Plaintiff, but failed to do so, thereby allowing the exploitation to occur and to continue unabated. This failure was a part of Defendants' plan and arrangement to conceal wrongful acts, to avoid and inhibit detection, to block public disclosure, to avoid scandal, to avoid the disclosure of their tolerance of child sexual exploitation, to preserve a false appearance of propriety, and to avoid investigation and action by public authority including law enforcement. Such actions were motivated by a desire to protect the reputation of Defendants, and to protect the monetary support of Defendants while fostering an environment where such exploitation could continue to occur.

11. As is set forth herein, Defendants and each of them have failed to uphold numerous mandatory duties imposed upon them by state and federal law, and by written policies and procedures applicable to Defendants, including but not limited to the following:

* Duty to use reasonable care to protect students from known or foreseeable dangers (Government Code §§ 820, 815.2);

* Duty to refrain from taking official action that contradicts the provisions of Article 1, § 28© of the California Constitution;

* Duty to enact policies and procedures that are not in contravention of the Federal Civil Rights Act, § 1983, and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution;

*Duty to protect students and staff, and provide adequate supervision;

* Duty to ensure that any direction given to faculty and students is lawful, and that adults act fairly, responsibly and respectfully towards faculty and students;

* Duty to properly train teachers, athletic directors, athletic coaches, youth counselors, mentors, administrators, and staff so that they are aware of their individual responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe environment 

* Duty to supervise faculty and students and enforce rules and regulations prescribed for schools, exercise reasonable control over students as is reasonably necessary to maintain order, protect property, or protect the health and safety of faculty and students or to maintain proper and appropriate conditions conducive to learning;

* Duty to exercise careful supervision of the moral conditions in the school;

* Duty to hold pupils to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds or during recess;

* Duty to properly monitor students, prevent or correct harmful situations or call for help when a situation is beyond their control;

* Duty to ensure that personnel are actually on hand and supervising students;

* Duty to provide enough supervision to students;

* Duty to supervise diligently;

* Duty to act promptly and diligently and not ignore or minimize problems;

* Duty to refrain from violating Plaintiff’s right to protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations (Civil Code § 43);
* Duty to abstain from injuring the person or property of Plaintiff, or infringing upon any of his rights (Civil Code § 1708);

* Duty to report suspected incidents of child abuse and more specifically childhood sexual abuse

(Penal Code §§ 11166, 11167); and

* Duty to establish various school safety and violence prevention programs (Education Code §§ 32228, 32228.5, 35294.10-35294.15).

1. Compulsory education laws create a special relationship between students and
   Defendants, and students have a constitutional guarantee to a safe, secure and peaceful school
   environment. Defendants and each of them failed to acknowledge unsafe conditions, and therefore failed to guarantee safe surroundings in an environment in which Plaintiff were not free to leave, specifically including but not limited to allowing JOHNSON to operate isolated environments, incapable of monitoring from the outside, wherein JOHNSON sexually exploited Plaintiff and others.

2. Defendants had and have a duty to protect students, including Plaintiff. Defendants
   were required to and failed to provide adequate campus and site school event supervision, and
   failed to be properly vigilant in seeing that supervision was sufficient to ensure the safety of
   Plaintiff and others.

3. 42. Defendants lodged with JOHNSON the color of authority, by which he was able to influence, direct and exploit Plaintiff and others, and to act illegally, unreasonably and without respect for the person and safety of Plaintiff.

4. Defendants had a duty to and failed to adequately train and supervise all counselors,
   advisors, teachers, aides, coaches, mentors and staff to create a positive, safe, spiritual and
   educational environment, specifically including training to perceive, report and stop inappropriate conduct by other members of the staff, specifically including JOHNSON, with children.

5. Defendants had a duty to and failed to enact and enforce rules and regulations
   prescribed for schools and execute reasonable control over students necessary to protect the health and safety of the student and maintain proper and appropriate conditions conducive to learning.

6. Defendants were required to and failed to exercise careful supervision of the moral conditions in their school and provide supervision before and after school. This duty extended
   beyond the classroom.

7. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described JOHNSON and other supervisors within LSA and SCC and acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, so as to constitute malice and oppression under California Civil Code §3294. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the recovery of punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against all Defendants in a sum to be shown according to proof.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTON

   Negligence

 (Against All Defendants)

1. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.

2. Prior to and after the first incident of JOHNSON's sexual exploitation of Plaintiff, through the present, Defendants, knew or should have known that JOHNSON had or was capable
   of sexually, physically, and mentally abusing the Plaintiff or other victims.

3. Defendants had special duties to protect the Plaintiff and the other students within LSA, when such students were entrusted to their care by their parents. Plaintiff’s care, welfare and physical custody was entrusted to Defendants. Defendants voluntarily accepted the entrusted care
   of Plaintiff. As such, Defendants owed Plaintiff, a minor child, a special duty of care, in
   addition to a duty of ordinary care, and owed Plaintiff the higher duty of care that adults dealing
   with children owe to protect them from harm. The duty to protect and warn arose from the special, trusting, confidential, and fiduciary relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s instilled great trust, faith and confidence in Defendants, and in JOHNSON as their teachers, counselors, advisers and mentors.

4. Defendants breached their duties of care to the minor Plaintiff by allowing JOHNSON to come into contact with the minor Plaintiff and other students, without supervision; by failing to adequately hire, supervise and retain JOHNSON who they permitted and enabled to have access to Plaintiff; by failing to investigate or otherwise confirm or deny such facts about JOHNSON; by failing to tell or concealing from Plaintiff, his parents, guardians and law enforcement officials that JOHNSON was or may have been sexually exploiting minors; by failing to tell or concealing from Plaintiff’s parents, guardians or law enforcement officials that Plaintiff was or may have been sexually harassed, molested and exploited after Defendants knew or should have known that JOHNSON may have sexually exploited Plaintiff or others, thereby enabling Plaintiff to continue to be endangered and sexually exploited, and creating the circumstance where Plaintiff was less likely to receive medical/mental health care or treatment, thus exacerbating the harm done to Plaintiff; and by holding out JOHNSON to Plaintiff and to their parents as being in good standing and trustworthy. Defendants cloaked within the facade of normalcy Defendants' conduct, contact and actions with Plaintiff and disguised the nature of the
   sexual harassment, molestation and exploitation and contact.

5. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by, inter alia, failing to investigate or otherwise confirm or deny such facts, failing to reveal such facts to Plaintiff, the community of the school, students, minors, and law enforcement agencies, placing and continuing to place JOHNSON in positions of trust and authority within LSA and SCC, and holding out, and continuing to hold out JOHNSON to Plaintiff, the public, the community of the school, students, minors, and law enforcement agencies as being in good standing and trustworthy.

6. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by, inter alia, failing to adequately
   monitor and supervise JOHNSON and stopping JOHNSON from committing wrongful sexual
   exploitation of minors including Plaintiff. This belief is founded on the fact that Plaintiff were
   informed and believed that the employees and staff of LSA and SCC had suspected the
   exploitation was occurring at the time and failed to investigate into the matter further. Based on
   these facts, Defendants knew and or should have known of JOHNSON's incapacity to supervise
   and stop employees of Defendants from committing wrongful sexual exploitation of minors.

NEGLIGENCE PER SE-PENAL CODE MANDATORY CHILD ABUSE REPORTING

1. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.

2. Under CANRA, Defendants were childcare custodians and were under a statutory duty to report known or suspected incidents of sexual molestation or abuse of minors to a child protective agency, pursuant to California Penal Code § 11166, and/or not to impede the filing of any such report.

3. Defendants knew or should have known that their agent, employee, counselor, advisor and mentor, JOHNSON, and other teachers and staff of Defendants had sexually molested, abused or exploited minors, including Plaintiff, giving rise to a duty to report such conduct under California Penal Code § 11166.

4. Defendants knew, or should have known, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that an undue risk to minors, including Plaintiff, existed because Defendants did not comply with
   California’s mandatory reporting requirements.

5. By failing to report the continuing exploitation, which Defendants knew of or should have known of, and by ignoring the fulfillment of the mandated compliance with the reporting requirements provided under California Penal Code §11166, Defendants created the risk and danger contemplated by the CANRA, and as a result, unreasonably and wrongfully exposed Plaintiff and other minors to sexual exploitation.

6. Plaintiff was a member of the class of persons for whose protection California Penal Code § 11166 was specifically adopted to protect.

7. Had Defendants adequately reported the exploitation of Plaintiff and other minors as. required by California Penal Code § 11166, further harm to Plaintiff’s and other minors would have been avoided.

8. As a proximate result of Defendants' failure to follow the mandatory reporting
   requirements of California Penal Code §11166, Defendants wrongfully denied Plaintiff and other minors the intervention of child protection services. Such public agencies would have changed the then-existing arrangements and conditions that provided the access and opportunities for the exploitation of Plaintiff by JOHNSON.

9. The physical, mental, and emotional damages and injuries resulting from the sexual
   exploitation of Plaintiff by JOHNSON, were the type of occurrence and injuries that the CARNA were designed to prevent.

10. As a result, Defendants' failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements
    of California Penal Code § 11166 also constituted a per se breach of Defendants' duties to Plaintiff.

NEGLIGENCE PER SE-EDUCATION CODE SAFETY AND VIOLENCE PROGRAMS

1. Under the Education Code (Education Code §§32228, 32228.5, 35294.10- 35294.15), Defendants had a duty to establish various school safety and violence prevention programs designed to protect minor students such as Plaintiff from the sexually exploitive acts of serial predators such as JOHNSON.

2. Defendants knew or should have known that their agents, employees, counselors, advisors and mentors, JOHNSON, and other teachers and staff of Defendants were engaging in sexually exploitive acts with Plaintiff.

3. Defendants knew or should have known in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that an undue risk to minors, including Plaintiff, existed because Defendants did not comply with California's Education Code school safety and protection requirements.

4. By failing to adhere to the Education Code's school safety and protection requirements, Defendants created the risk and danger contemplated by the Education Code and as a result, unreasonably and wrongfully exposed Plaintiff and other minors to sexual exploitation.

5. Plaintiff was a member of the class of persons for whose protection the Education
   Code's school safety and violence protection programs were specifically adopted to protect.

6. Had Defendants established various school safety and violence prevention programs
   designed to protect minor students such as Plaintiff from the sexually exploitive acts of serial
   predators such as JOHNSON, farther harm to Plaintiff and other minors would have been
   avoided.

7. As a proximate result of Defendants' failure to establish various school safety and
   violence prevention programs designed to protect minor students such as Plaintiff from the sexually exploitive acts of serial predators such as JOHNSON, Defendants wrongfully deemed Plaintiff and other minors the benefit of the protection of such programs.

8. The physical, mental, and emotional damages and injuries resulting from the sexual
   molestation of Plaintiff by JOHNSON, were the type of occurrence and injuries that the Education Code's school safety and violence prevention programs were designed to prevent.

9. As a result, Defendants' failure to comply with the Education Code's school safety and
   violence prevention programs also constituted a per se breach of Defendants' duties to Plaintiff.

10. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continue to suffer
    great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional
    distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; have suffered and continue to suffer and were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings
    and earning capacity and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and
    psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligent Supervision

(Against All Defendants, Except JOHNSON)

1. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.

2. As an educational institution for minors, where all of the students are entrusted to the
   teachers, counselors, advisors, mentors, coaches, faculty members and administrators, LSA and
   SCC expressly and implicitly represented that these individuals, including JOHNSON, were not a sexual threat to children and others who would fall under JOHNSON's influence, control, direction, and guidance.

3. Defendants negligently failed to supervise JOHNSON in his positions of trust and authority as teachers, teacher's assistants, counselors and mentors, and/or other authority figure, where they were able to commit wrongful acts against the Plaintiff. Defendants failed to provide reasonable supervision of JOHNSON. Defendants further failed to take reasonable measures to prevent sexual harassment, molestation and exploitation of minors, including Plaintiff.

4. At no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in place a system or procedure to reasonably investigate, supervise and monitor counselors and child supervisors,
   including JOHNSON to prevent pre-sexual grooming and sexual harassment and exploitation of
   children, nor did they implement a system or procedure to oversee or monitor conduct toward minors, students and others in Defendants' care.

5. Defendants were or should have known to be aware and understand how vulnerable children were to sexual exploitation by counselors, advisors, mentors, coaches, teachers and other persons of authority within Defendants.

6. Defendants' conduct was a breach of their duties to Plaintiff.

7. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by, inter alia, failing to adequately
   monitor and supervise JOHNSON and stopping JOHNSON from committing wrongful sexual acts with minors including Plaintiff. This belief founded on the fact that employees and staff of LSA and SCC had suspected the exploitation was occurring at the time and failed to investigate into the matter further. Based on these facts, Defendants knew or should have known of JOHNSON's incapacity to supervise and stop employees of Defendants from committing wrongful sexual acts with minors.

 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

   Negligent Hiring and Retention

   (Against All Defendants, except JOHNSON)

1. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.

2. By virtue of Plaintiff’s special relationship with Defendants and Defendants' relation to JOHNSON, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to not hire and retain JOHNSON given his dangerous and exploitive propensities, which Defendants knew or should have known of had they engaged in a meaningful and adequate investigation of their background prior to their hiring.

3. As an educational institution and operator of a school, where all of the students are minors entrusted to the schools and its employees and agents, Defendants expressly and implicitly represented that the counselors, advisors, mentors, coaches, teachers and others, including JOHNSON, was not a sexual threat to children and others who would fall under JOHNSON's influence, control, direction, and guidance.

4. At no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in place, a system or procedure to reasonably investigate, supervise and monitor teachers, including JOHNSON, to
   prevent pre-sexual grooming and sexual harassment, molestation and exploitation of children, nor did they implement a system or procedure to oversee or monitor conduct toward minors, students and others in Defendants' care.

5. Defendants were or should have known to be aware of and understand how vulnerable
   children were to sexual harassment, molestation and exploitation by teachers and other persons of authority within the control of Defendants.

6. Defendants were put on notice and should have known that JOHNSON had previously
   engaged in dangerous and inappropriate conduct, and that it was, or should have been foreseeable that they were engaging, or would engage in illicit sexual exploitation of Plaintiff, and others, under the cloak of their authority, confidence, and trust, bestowed upon them through Defendants.

7. Defendants were placed on notice that JOHNSON had engaged in dangerous and inappropriate conduct, both before their employment within Defendants, and during that employment. Plaintiff is informed, and thereon allege, that other third parties, minors, students, law enforcement officials and parents informed Defendants of inappropriate conduct committed by JOHNSON.

8. Even though Defendants knew or should have known of these activities by JOHNSON, Defendants failed to use reasonable care in investigating JOHNSON and did nothing to reasonably investigate, supervise or monitor JOHNSON to ensure the safety of the minor students.

9. Defendants' conduct was a breach of their duties to Plaintiff.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

  Negligent Failure to Warn, Train, or Educate

   (Against All Defendants, except JOHNSON)

1. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation
   contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.

2. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect
   Plaintiff and other students from the risk of childhood sexual harassment, molestation and
   exploitation by JOHNSON by properly warning, training or educating Plaintiff and other students about how to avoid such a risk.

3. Defendants breached their duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect
   Plaintiff and other minor students from the risk of childhood sexual harassment, molestation and
   exploitation by JOHNSON, such as the failure to properly warn, train or educate Plaintiff and
   other students about how to avoid such a risk.

4. Defendants breached their duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect
   Plaintiff and other minor students from the risk of childhood sexual harassment, molestation and
   exploitation by JOHNSON, by failing to supervising and stop employees of Defendants, including JOHNSON, from committing wrongful sexual exploitation of minors, including Plaintiff.

  FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
      Constructive Fraud: Civil Code § 1573

   (Against all Defendants, except JOHNSON)

1. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.

2. By holding themselves out as qualified institutions of learning for children, by holding
   JOHNSON out as an agent of Defendants, and by allowing undertaking the academic,
   psychological and emotional instruction and guidance of the Plaintiff through the actions of
   JOHNSON, Defendants entered into a fiduciary, special and confidential relationship with Plaintiff.

3. Defendants breached their fiduciary, special and confidential duties to Plaintiff by the
   wrongful and negligent conduct described herein above, and by so doing gained an advantage over Plaintiff in matters relating to their safety, security and health. In breaching such duties,
   Defendants were able to sustain their status as institutions of high moral repute, preserve their
   reputation in the community, including their administrators and staff, all at the expense of
   Plaintiff’s further injury and in violation of Defendants' mandatory duties.

4. By virtue of their fiduciary relationship and special relationship with Plaintiff,
   Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to:

   • Investigate or otherwise confirm or deny such claims of sexual exploitation;

   • Reveal such facts to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s parents, and caretakers, the school community, and law enforcement agencies;

   • Refuse to place JOHNSON and other persons who sexually exploit children in positions of trust and authority within Defendants' institutions;

   • Refuse to hold out JOHNSON and other persons who sexually exploit children to the public, the school community, students, minors, parents and law enforcement agencies as being in good standing and, trustworthy in keeping with his and their position as a teacher, counselor, advisor, mentor and authority figure;

   • Refuse to assign JOHNSON and other persons who sexually exploit children to positions of power within the school and over minor students; and

   • Disclose to Plaintiff’s parents and Plaintiff, the public, the community, the school, students, minors, and law enforcement agencies the wrongful, tortious, and criminal acts of JOHNSON and others.

97. Defendants' breached their respective duties by:

                   a.   Allowing for JOHNSON to serve in a position for which he was not qualified;

                   b.   Issuing no warnings about JOHNSON; 

                   c.   Permitting JOHNSON to routinely be alone and in control of minors, unsupervised;

                   d.   Not having adopted a policy to prevent JOHNSON from placing a video recording device in the boys' bathroom

       e.    Making no reports of any allegations of JOHNSON's dangerous and inappropriate conduct prior to and during their employment at Defendants; and

                   f. Assigning and continuing to assign JOHNSON to duties which placed him in positions of authority and trust over minors, positions in which JOHNSON could easily isolate and sexually exploit minors.

1. At the time that Defendants engaged in such suppression and concealment of acts, such acts were done for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to forbear on their rights.

2. Defendants' misconduct did reasonably cause Plaintiff to forbear on their rights.

3. The misrepresentation, suppression and concealment of facts were likely to mislead Plaintiff and others to believe that Defendants had no knowledge of any charges, or that there were no other charges of unlawful and sexual misconduct or exploitation against JOHNSON or others and that there was no need for them to take further action or precaution.

4. The misrepresentation, suppression and concealment of facts by Defendants was likely
   to mislead Plaintiff and others to believe that Defendants had no knowledge of the fact that
   JOHNSON was a danger to students.

5. Defendants knew or should have known at the time they suppressed and concealed the facts regarding JOHNSON and others' dangerous and inappropriate conduct that the resulting impressions were misleading.

6. Defendants suppressed and concealed the true facts with the purpose of: preventing
   Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s parents, and others, from learning that JOHNSON and others had been
   engaging in dangerous and inappropriate conduct and were continuing to sexually harass, molest
   and exploit minors and others under JOHNSON and Defendants' control, direction, and guidance, with complete impunity; inducing people, including Plaintiff and other benefactors and donors to participate and financially support Defendants' school and other enterprises of Defendants; preventing further reports and outside investigations into JOHNSON's and Defendants' conduct; preventing discovery of Defendants' own conduct; avoiding damage to the reputations of Defendants; protecting Defendants' power and status in the community and the academic community; avoiding damage to the reputation of Defendants and Defendants' institutions; and avoiding the civil and criminal liability of Defendants, of JOHNSON, and of others.

7. Defendants, with knowledge of the tortious nature of their own, and each other's
   conduct, gave each other substantial assistance to perpetrate the misrepresentations, fraud and
   deceit alleged herein.

8. Defendants' suppression and concealment of facts, and in reliance thereon, were
   induced to act or induced not to act, exactly as intended by Defendants. Specifically, the Plaintiff
   was induced to believe that there were no allegations of dangerous or inappropriate behavior of
   JOHNSON. Had Plaintiff or others known the true facts, they would have not participated further nor continued to financially support the Defendants' activities alleged herein; they would have reported the matters to the proper authorities, to other students and their parents so as to prevent future recurrences; they would not have allowed children, including Plaintiff, to be alone with, or have any relationship with JOHNSON; they would not have allowed children, including Plaintiff, to attend or be under the control of Defendants; they would have undertaken their own investigations which would have led to discovery of the true facts; and they would have sought psychological counseling for Plaintiff, and for other children molested and exploited by JOHNSON.

9. By giving JOHNSON the position of teacher, aide, counselor, advisor and mentor,
   Defendants impliedly represented that JOHNSON was safe and morally fit to give children
   intinction, direction and guidance.

10. When Defendants made these representations or non-disclosure of material facts,
    Defendants knew or should have known that the facts were otherwise. Defendants knowingly and intentionally suppressed the material facts that JOHNSON had engaged in dangerous and
    inappropriate conduct, and knew of or learned of conduct, or should have learned of conduct by
    JOHNSON which placed Defendants on notice that JOHNSON had previously been suspected,
    charged, arrested and convicted of felonies, including drug use, and was likely abusing children. In fact, Defendants had in place a policy and procedure for concealing child abusers as well as failing
    to document or report such exploitation in direct violation of their mandatory legal duties and obligations.

11. Because of Plaintiff’s young age, and because of the status of JOHNSON as an authority figure to Plaintiff, Plaintiff were vulnerable to JOHNSON. Specifically, JOHNSON sought Plaintiff out, and was empowered by and accepted Plaintiff’s vulnerability. Plaintiff’s vulnerability also prevented Plaintiff from effectively protecting themselves from the sexual advances of JOHNSON. Parent Plaintiff’s vulnerability also prevented Plaintiff’s parents from effectively protecting their children from the sexual advances of JOHNSON.

12. Defendants had the duty to obtain and disclose information relating to misconduct of JOHNSON.

13. Defendants misrepresented, concealed or failed to disclose information relating to misconduct of JOHNSON.

14. Defendants knew that they had misrepresented, concealed or failed to disclose
    information related to misconduct of JOHNSON.

15. Plaintiff justifiably relied upon Defendants for information relating to misconduct of JOHNSON.

16. Defendants, in concert with each other and with the intent to conceal and defraud,
    conspired and came to a meeting of the minds whereby they would misrepresent, conceal or fail to disclose information relating to the misconduct of JOHNSON, the inability of Defendants to supervise or stop JOHNSON from sexually harassing, molesting and abusing Plaintiff, and their own failure to properly investigate, supervise and monitor his conduct with minors and students.

17. By so concealing, Defendants committed at least one act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

18. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; has suffered and continue to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity and has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

19. In addition, when Plaintiff finally discovered the fraud of Defendants, and continuing
    thereafter, Plaintiff experienced recurrences of the above-described injuries. In addition, when
    Plaintiff finally discovered the fraud of Defendants, and continuing thereafter, Plaintiff
    experienced extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress that Plaintiff had been the victim of Defendants’ fraud; that Plaintiff had not been able to help other minors being abused because of the fraud, and that Plaintiff had not been able because of the fraud to receive timely medical treatment needed to deal with the problems Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer as a result of the sexual exploitation.

20. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer
    great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional
    distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life;
    has suffered and continue to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from
    performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings
    and earning capacity, and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and
    psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

21. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants acted
    willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights, so as to constitute malice and oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the recovery of punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against Defendants, in a sum to be shown according to proof.

///

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
   Breach of Fiduciary Duty

    (Against all Defendants)

1. Plaintiff re-allege and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.

2. Defendants, as school teachers, staff, faculty, administrators and/or LSA and SCC
   officials were in a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff, owing him a special duty of due care. All Defendants are mandated reporters with respect to claims of child abuse and child safety.

3. Defendants breached their fiduciary duty by failing to properly supervise JOHNSON
   and take appropriate steps to prevent the lewd and lascivious conduct perpetrated by JOHNSON
   against Plaintiff. Defendants LSA and SCC also failed to implement or follow appropriate policies and procedures to protect Plaintiff. In addition, Defendants failed to report JOHNSON's exploitation or promptly notify Plaintiff or their parents.

4. The principals, supervisory personnel, and administrators of LSA and SCC, respectively, willfully and intentionally ignored behavior in JOHNSON and complaints against JOHNSON that they should have reported due to their responsibility as mandated reporters.

5. Defendants failed to call the Commission and to report JOHNSON to law enforcement
   and/or proper civil authorities. The failure to report JOHNSON on each occasion was willful and
   in conscious disregard of the children's safety and robbed the Commission of the opportunity to
   conduct its own independent investigation and consequently concluding that JOHNSON was unfit to teach. This all led to the children being further exposed to JOHNSON's ongoing abuse.

6. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life;
   has suffered and will continue to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from
   performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings
   and earning capacity, and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and
   psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

7. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants acted
   willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of
   Plaintiff’s rights, so as to constitute malice and oppression under California Civil Code section
   3294. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the recovery of punitive damages, in an amount to be
   determined by the court, against Defendants, in a sum to be shown according to proof.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

   Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

       (Against All Defendants)

1. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation
   contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.

2. Defendants' conduct toward Plaintiff, as described herein, was outrageous and
   extreme.

3. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate Defendants putting JOHNSON
   positions of authority at LSA and SCC, which enabled JOHNSON to have access to minor
   students, including Plaintiff, so that he could commit wrongful sexual acts with them, including
   the conduct described herein above. Plaintiff held great trust, faith and confidence in Defendants, which, by virtue of Defendants' wrongful conduct, turned to fear.

4. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate Defendants to be incapable of
   supervising and preventing employees of Defendants, including JOHNSON, from committing
   wrongful sexual exploitation of minor students, including Plaintiff, or to properly supervise
   JOHNSON to prevent such sexual exploitation from occurring, or to promptly notify parents or
   authorities.

5. Defendants' conduct described herein was intentional and malicious and done for the
   purpose of causing, or with the substantial certainty that it would cause Plaintiff to suffer
   humiliation, mental anguish and emotional and physical distress.

6. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer
   great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional
   distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life;
   has suffered and continue to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from
   performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings
   and earing capacity, and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and
   psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

7. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants acted
   willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, so as to constitute malice and oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the recovery of punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against Defendants, in a sum to be shown according to proof.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Invasion of Privacy

(Against All Defendants)

1. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation
   contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.

2. The acts of defendant LSA, individually and by and through their agents, employees, servants, and/or independent contractors, as set forth above, include but are not limited to facilitating the surreptitious recording of underage students’ genitalia by inadequately monitoring their facilities including their bathrooms in order to ensure a safe environment.

3. The intrusions by LSA were and are objectionable and offensive to any reasonable person, including the Plaintiff.

4. And as a direct and proximate result of the above-said conduct of Defendant LSA, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from, including but not limited to, severe and permanent emotional distress, embarrassment, past and future medical expenses, depression and anxiety.

NINETH CAUSE OF ACTION

Invasion of Privacy – Intrusion of Seclusion

(Against All Defendants)

1. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation
   contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.

2. The acts of defendant LSA, individually and by and through their agents, employees, servants, and/or independent contractors, as set forth above, include but are not limited to facilitating the surreptitious recording of underage students’ genitalia by inadequately monitoring their facilities including their bathrooms in order to ensure a safe environment.

3. The intrusions by LSA were and are objectionable and offensive to any reasonable person, including the Plaintiff.

4. As set forth above, the intrusions by Matthew Johnson, an agent of Defendant LSA, took place in a bathroom at times when children were present, and when children, like the Plaintiff had the greatest expectation of privacy.

5. And as a direct and proximate result of the above-said conduct of Defendant LSA, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from, including but not limited to, severe and permanent emotional distress, embarrassment, past and future medical expenses, depression and anxiety.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Invasion of Privacy – Public Disclosure of Private Facts

(Against All Defendants)

1. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation
   contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.

2. As set forth above, Matthew Johnson, at all relevant times an agent of Defendant LSA, posted, uploaded, distributed, and/or disseminated the illegal, unauthorized, and private videos of Plaintiff using the restroom at La Sierra Academy, throughout the internet.

3. The illegal, unauthorized private videos displayed Plaintiff’s most vulnerable and private moments from his use of the La Sierra Academy Bathroom.

4. The distribution and dissemination of these videos by Matthew Johnson, who was at all relevant times an agent of Defendant LSA, were and are objectionable and offensive to any reasonable person, including the Plaintiff.

5. And as a direct and proximate result of the above-said conduct of Defendant LSA, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from, including but not limited to, severe and permanent emotional distress, embarrassment, past and future medical expenses, depression and anxiety.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Gender Violence: Civil Code § 52.4
(Against Defendant JOHNSON)

1. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation
   contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.

2. Defendant JOHNSON's acts committed against the Plaintiff, as alleged herein, including the sexual exploitation of the Plaintiff constitutes gender violence and a form of sex discrimination in that one or more of the Defendant JOHNSON's acts would constitute a criminal offense under state law that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, committed at least in part based on the gender of the victim, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction.

3. Defendant JOHNSON's acts committed against the Plaintiff, as alleged herein, including the sexual exploitation of the Plaintiff constitutes gender violence and a form of sex discrimination in that the Defendant JOHNSON's conduct caused a physical invasion or physical invasion of a sexual nature upon the Plaintiff under coercive conditions, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction.

4. As a result of the above-described conduct, the Plaintiff suffered and continues to
   suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

5. As a proximate result of the Defendant JOHNSON's acts, the Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, any combination of those, or any other appropriate relief. The Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code § 52.4, against the Defendant JOHNSON, the perpetrator of this Gender Violence.

///

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Commercial Sexual Exploitation of a Minor: Penal Code § 311.2 And Civil Code § 3345.1
(Against Defendant JOHNSON)

1. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.

2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that basis,, alleges that JOHNSON sexually exploited the Plaintiff by knowingly developing or exchanging photographs, videotapes and/or video recordings of Plaintiff.

3. Such photographs, videotapes and/or video recordings necessarily depicted Plaintiff in obscene sexual conduct as the video recordings were procured by recording Plaintiff while using the bathroom.

4. As a result of this commercial exploitation, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Constructive Invasion of Privacy: Civil Code § 1708.8
(Against Defendant JOHNSON)

1. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation
   contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.

2. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy while in the bathroom at LSA.

3. By placing a video recording device in the bathroom at LSA, JOHNSON intentionally
   intruded on Plaintiff’s privacy in the bathroom at LSA.

4. JOHNSON's intrusion by videotaping this young Plaintiff while unclothed in the
   bathroom of LSA is highly offensive to a reasonable person.

5. As a result of this intrusion, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; has suffered and continue to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Distribution of Sexually Explicit Materials: Civil Code § 1708.85

(Against Defendant JOHNSON)

1. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation
   contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.

2. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy while in the bathroom at LSA.

3. Plaintiff, a minor, did not and could not consent to any video recording.

4. Any such recording by JOHNSON of Plaintiff included video recording of Plaintiff’s
   genitals, constituting sexually explicit material.

5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that these video recordings
   or photographs were distributed publicly by JOHNSON.

6. As a result of this distribution, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer great pain of
   mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress,
   embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; has
   suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from
   performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings
   and earning capacity, and has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and
   psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

1. For general damages in an amount according to proof;

2. For special damages in an amount according to proof for medical expenses, hospital expenses, past wage loss, loss of earning capacity, and incidental expenses;

3. For restitution of unjust revenue collected and costs incurred;

4. For any appropriate statutory damages;

5. For punitive damages/exemplary damages according to proof and pursuant to Civil Code §§ 1708.5(b);

6. For attorney fees and/or penalties pursuant to Civil Code §§ 52(b); 1708.5(b) and (c); and Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5;

7. For costs of suit herein incurred;

8. For interest based on damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;

9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all triable issues.

DATED: February 4, 2021 THOMPSON LAW OFFICES, P.C.

_______________________________

Robert W. Thompson, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

La Sierra Academy - Mathew Daniel Johnson Assault and Abuse Free Legal Consultation:

We handle Mathew Daniel Johnson & the La Sierra Academy Sexual Assault and Abuse cases in Alameda County, Los Angeles County, Marin County, Napa County, Orange County, Sacramento County, Santa Clara County, San Diego County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Sonoma County, Ventura County, and other counties across the State of California.