Jane Doe Suit

. Suite 800 lrvme, California 92612 Telenhnne' (949) 252-9990 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave JOHN MANLY, Esq. (State Bar NO. 149080)- VINCE w. FINALDI, Esq. (State Bar NO. 238279) ALEX E. CUNNY (State Bar NO. 291567) JANE E. REILLEY (State Bar NO. 314766) MANLY, STEWART FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 . Telephone: (949) 252-9990 Fax: (949) 252-9991 FELED l'f rn'ta Su erior Court of Ca 1?0 pCountv of Les Anoe es MM 212013 RONALD T. LABRIOLA (State Bar No. 163478) THOMAS M. MOORE (State Bar No. 1160590) TI-IE SENATORS (RET.) FIRM, LLP 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 850 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 557?5800 Fax: (866) 676-6769 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3., and JANE DOE 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, JANE DOE 1, an individual; JANE DOE 2, an individual; JANE DOE 3, an individual; and JANE DOE 4, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. DR. GEORGE TYNDALL, an individual; UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 500.. Defendants. ,Deputy 0y 'itn?r?t?t?h? Robinson 0 4 4 Case NoJudge: Department: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1) VIOLATION OF UNRUH ACT (CIVIL CODE 51) 2) VIOLATION OF BANE ACT (CIVIL CODE ?52.1) 3) SEXUAL ABUSE AND HARASSMENT IN THE EDUCATIONAL SETTING (ED UCA TION CODE ?22 0) - 4) GENDER VIOLENCE (CIVIL 52.4); . 5) SEXUAL HARASSMENT (CIVIL . CODE 51.9); 6) SEXUAL 7) SEXUAL BATTERY (CIVIL CODE 1708.5); . 8) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (B USINESS PROFESSIONS CODE 17200); 9) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL 10) FRAUD (CIVIL - CODE 1573); 11) -1- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES . rm I: {\ng RECEIPT DATE PAID: 05521?13 10:11 HM $435.00 31? RECEI WED: cHEcg: $435.00 CRSH: $0.00 CHQNEE: $0.00 CREE) $?tg 1 1! a 4i 201901451317 21! d! a. -- 209 036'; m: 051.21) 202? AH no W4- as m? i-m' .511 has? 55,113 STEWART FINALDI {9491252-9990 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' MANLY12) NEGLIGENT 13) NEGLIGENT 14) NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN, TRAIN OR EDUCATE. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. NOW, Plaintiffs JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3, and JANE DOE 4, who complain and allege as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE PARTIES 1. This action seeks to vindicate the rights of four young women who were sexually abused,,harassed and molested at the hands of serial sexual predator, Defendant DR. GEORGE TYNDALL (herei'na?er referred to as, or while they were students at Defendant UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (hereinafter referred to as While attending Defendant USC, Plaintiffs were forced to repeatedly seek medical treatment from TYNDALL, due to the fact that he was the only full?time gynecologist on staff at Defendant Student Health Clinic. TYNDALL used this positionof trust and authority to sexually abuse Plaintiffs on multiple occasions, by engaging in acts that include but are not limited to: forcing Plaintiffs to strip naked, groping Plaintiffs? breasts, digitally penetrating Plaintiffs? vaginas, and spread open their anal crevice so he could leer at the crevice and anus, for no legitimate medical purpose and for no other reason than to satisfy his own prurient sexual desires. Despite the fact that has publicly admitted that it received numerous complaints of sexually abusive behavior, dating back to at least the year 2000, Defendant USC actively and deliberately concealed sexual abuse for years, continuing to grant TYNDALL unfettered sexual access to the young female USC students in his care, all to protect Defendant reputation and ?nancial coffers. PLAINTIFF JANE DOE 1 2. Plaintiff JANE DOE 1 is a female who was born in 1985, was raised in California and currently resides in Sacramento COunty, California. -2- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ~q t1.? WV, Ix") ED 1:13 Surte 800 lrvme, California 92612 Telenhnne' (9491252-9990 MANLY, STEWART FIN 19100 Von Karman Ayethe fall of 2003, Plaintiff JANE DOE 1, who was just eighteen years old at the time, moved to USC to begin her undergraduate studies-In order to obtain a standard gynecological examination as part of an ordinary medical health regimen, Plaintiff JANE DOE 1 made an appointment with the only gynecological physician on staff at student health clinic, TYNDALL, in or around 2003. It was at this point (as detailed further, below) that TYNDALL gained access to PLAINTIFF JANE DOE and sexually abused her. Such sexual abuse included, i but was not limited to, penetrating Plaintiff JANE DOE 1?s vagina with his entire hand, up to his wrist, to her pelvic ?oor, without a glove, under the guise of conducting a medical treatment. Although Plaintiff JANE DOE 1, in reasonable reliance upon Defendant active concealment of its knowledge that TYNDALL was a sexual predator, believed that TYNDALL was conducting a legitimate medical procedure, in May-of 2018, Plaintiff JANE DOE I realized, for the ?rst time, that actions were purely motivated by his own prurient desire to sexually abuse her, as he sexually abused so many other young female patients in the past. 4. TYNDALL repeatedly sexually abused PLAINTIFF JANE DOE on approximately eight separate occasions from approximately 2003 through 2007, by forcing his ungloved ?ngers and/or entire ungloved hand inside of her, each time she came to Defendant Student Health Center. Each time TYNDALL sexually abused PLAINTIFF JANE DOE 1, a USC-employed chaperone was also in the examination room and observed the abuse, yet did nothing to prevent or report sexual abuse. Because Defendant chaperone stood by silently as TYNDALL sexually abused Plaintiff JANE DOE 2, she reasonably believed that TYNDALL was conducting a legitimate medical treatment while he was groping and penetrating her, although she now knows that conduct was, in fact, sexual abuse. PLAINTIFF JANE DOE 2 5. Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 is a female who was born in April of 1986, was raised in California and currently resides in San Mateo County, California. 6. From 2008 through 2014, Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 attended USC as a graduate student. Plaintiff JANE DOE 2, who had never before undergone'ia full gynecological pelvic examination, ?rst saw TYNDALL at student health clinic in 2008 for a routine check-up. -3- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES :41 [my l?m? REC) bill if,? (949} 252-9990 Irvine, California 926 2 Telenhnne' ANLY, STEWART FINALDI 9100 Von Karman Ave, Suite 800 TYNDALL forced JANE DOE 2 to strip completely naked, groped her breasts, and digitally penetrated her vagina instead of using a medical devise, then asked Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 incredibly inappropriate'and intrusive questions about her sexual history including whether or not she had ever swallowed semen before i? for no other reason than for his own sexual grati?cation. Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 was forced to submit to such sexual abuse on at least two more occasions, between 2008 and 2014, and on each of those occasions, a NSC-employed chaperone was present in the examination room and witnessed sexual abuse ?rsthand, yet did nothing to prevent repeated sexual assaults of Plaintiff JANE DOE 2. 7. In or around May of 2015, Plaintiff JANE DOE 2' then reported inappropriate conduct to Donna Beard Gilchrist, Clinical Instructor for Family Medicine. Because Defendant chaperone stood by silently as TYNDALL sexually abused Plaintiff JANE DOE 2, and because of response to her report, JANE DOE 2 reasonably believed that TYNDALL was conducting a legitimate medical treatment while he was-groping and penetrating her, although she now knows that conduct was, in fact, sexual abuse. Despite JANE DOE 2?s detailed complaint of misconduct, and Ms. Gilchrist?s assurances that she would report that complaint,- USC actively concealed JANE DOE 2?s complaint of sexually abusive behavior and continued to allow TYNDALL to have unfettered sexual access to its young female students.- PLAINTIFF JANE DOE 3 8. Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 is a female who was born in 1990, currently resides-in Los Angeles County, California. 9. In 2015, Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 attended USC for graduate school as an international student. In approximately 2015, Plaintiff scheduled a gynecological appointment through Defendant Student Health Clinic?s online portal,.because she required treatment for of a vaginal infection. When Plaintiff JANE .DOE 3 arrived for her appointment, TYNDALL, as the only full-time gynecologist at student health clinic, was her treating physician. TYNDALL forced Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 to remove all of her clothes, then proceeded -4- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 to grope her breasts with his ungloved hands, and digitally penetrate her vagina with two of his 2 ?ngers. Even when Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 told TYNDALL that she was in pain and asked him to 3 stop, TYNDALL cOntinued to digitally penetrate Plaintiff JANE DOE 3. TYNDALL then refused 4 to administer a pap smear test or discharge test to Plaintiff JANE DOE 3, where the purpose of 5 Plaintiff JANE DOE 3?s gynecological appointment was to receive those standard, legitimate 6 medical test. During the entire-time that TYNDALL was sexually abusing Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 7 and refusing to provide her with the actual medical treatment that she requested, a USC-employed 8 chaperone was present, observing the abuse ?rsthand, yet taking no action to prevent or report 9 sexual abuse. Because Defendant chaperone stood by silently as TYNDALL 10 sexually abused Plaintiff JANE DOE 3, she reasonably believed that TYNDALL was conducting 11 a legitimate medical treatment while he was groping and-penetrating her, although she now knows 222% 12 that conduct was, in fact, sexual abuse. 13 PLAINTIFF JANE DOE 4 Egg? 14 10. Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 is a female who currently resides in Los Angeles County, 15 California. Egg; 16 11. In 2014, Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 was a student at USC. In approximately January EE 17 2014, Plaintiff scheduled an appointment through Defendant Student Health Clinic? 5 onlinc 18 portal, because she required treatment for lower abdominal pain. When Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 19 arrived for her appointment, TYNDALL, as the only full-time gynecologist at student 20 health clinic, was her treating physician. TYNDALL digitally penetrated JANE DOE 4's vagina 21 with two of his ?ngers on three separate occasions during the appointment. He also grazed his 22 ungloved ?ngers over her entire naked body, including her breasts, and spread her naked buttocks car) 23 cheeks and leered at her crevice and anus. He also asked Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 incredibly I 24 inappropriate and intrusive questions about her sexual orientation and her willingness to engage in E: 25 oral and anal sex, among other inappropriate questions, for no other reason than for his own sexual E, 26 grati?cation. A USC-employed chaperone was present in the examination room and witnessed 43:3 27 sexual abuse ?rsthand, yet took no action to prevent or report sexual 28 abuse. Because Defendant chaperone stood by silently as TYNDALL sexually abused -5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 11?! '1 Suite 800 ANLY, STEWART FINALDI 9 100 Von Karman Ave, Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' (9491252-9990 caPlaintiff JANE DOE 4, she reasonably believed that TYNDALL was conducting a legitimate medical treatment while he was abusing her, although she now knows that conduct was in fact, sexual abuse. DEFENDANT, DR. GEORGE THE PERPETRATOR 12. Defendant TYNDALL, at all times mentioned herein was and is an adult male individual, who Plaintiffs are informed and believe lived in the State of California during the period of time during which the sexual abuse, harassment, and molestation alleged herein took place and is currently a citizen of the State of California. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis allege, that TYNDALL received his medical degree from the Medical College of in 1985 and completed his medical residency in Obstetricsand Gynecology at Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Los Angeles, California, in 1989. Upon completion of his residency, TYNDALL was hired by USC as a full-time gynecologist at student health clinic, and was employed in that capacity until June 30, 2017, when Defendant USC allowed TYNDALL quietly resign, with a ?nancial settlement paid by Defendant USC, in a deliberate attempt to continue to conceal sexual abuse from Plaintiffs, the Trojan family, law enforcement, and the public at large. During his twenty-eight-year tenure at USC, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis allege, that TYNDALL sexually abused and molested dozens of young female students, including Plaintiffs, through use of his position, authority and trust as the only full-time gynecologist employed by USC student health services. It was only in 2017, when Defendant USC paid TYNDALL a substantial ?nancial settlement so that he would quietly resign, so that Defendant USC could continue to actively conceal the myriad complaints they had received of sexually abusive behavior, that systematic sexual abuse and molestation of U805 young female students was ?nally halted. At all times herein alleged, TYNDALL was an employee, agent, and/or servant of Defendant USC and DOES 1 through 500, and/or was under their complete control and/or direct supervision. 13._ TYNDALL was retained by USC as a Gynecological Physician and to provide medical care and treatment to the young women attending USC as undergraduate and graduate students, most of whom were very young adults and many of whom had never received any -5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (35.33 131:: NLY, 9 Suite 800 100 Von Karman Ave, Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' (949\ 252-9990 gynecological treatment before, while in his care. It was through this position of trust and con?dence, that TYNDALL exploited Plaintiffs, in perpetrating his sexual abuse, molestation and harassment upon Plaintiffs. All of the sexually'abusive and harassing conduct alleged herein was done for sexual grati?cation and was based upon the gender of Plaintiff JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3 and JANE DOE 4. 14. In the event that TYNDALL is prosecuted and convicted of a felony for the conducted alleged herein, Plaintiffs requests leave to amend the instant Complaint, such that a request for attorneys? fees can be made against TYNDALL pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure r? 1021.4. DEFENDANT, USC 15. Defendant USC at all times mentioned herein was and is a California Corporation, having its principal place of business in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs are informed and believe USC is a private research university, established in 1880, located in Los Angeles, California. Defendant USC proclaims itself to be ?one of the world?s leading priVate research universities. An anchor institution in Los Angeles, a global center for arts, technology and international business, diverse curricular offerings provide extensive opportunities for interdisciplinary study and collaboration with leading researchers in highly advanced learning environments.? Defendant Code of Ethics states: ?we aspire to create an environment in which racism, sexism, ageism, xenophobia and homophobia do not go unchallenged.? Moreover, Defendant USC claims that its University Policies ?have been established to create a safe and productive academic and work environment. All university employees and students are expected to be familiar with these policies and to follow them.? Further, Defendant USC purports to have a $5.1 billion endowment as of June 30, 2017, a $4.9 billion budget for the 2017-2018 ?scal year, and $764 million in sponsored research for the 2017-2018 ?scal year. While charging its undergraduate students one of the highest tuition costsin the United States $74,825 in tuition and fees, per year Defendant USC holds itself out to be one of the world?s most elite, prestigious and reputable higher learning institutions. Defendant USC deliberately crafted this public image -7- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. 1,31 k?b rs.) G3 [nude 100 Von Karman Ave, Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' {949\ 252-9990 Ag NLY, STEWART FINALDI _10 order to actively conceal the fact that it employed TYNDALL, a serial sexual predator, and allowed TYNDALL unfettered sexual access to its young female students for nearly thirty years. 16. Furthermore, Defendant marketed and promoted its Engemann Student Health Center (?Student Health Center?) as a safe, affordable and convenient healthcare provider where its students could obtain necessary medical-treatment. The Student Health Center is an especially critical resource to young female students, many of (whom are living away from home for the ?rst time and require safe, direct, and private access to crucial gynecological and reproductive health treatment. Defendant Student Health Center?s own website proclaims: ?Structured for students currently registered for classes, our focus is to help students maintain an optimum level of physical and mental health and _to guide them in maintaining a healthy lifestyle.? Defendant Student Health Center ?serves those students who are registered for classes and who have paid the Student Health Fee,? thus, Defendant USC requires its students to pay a premium above and beyond the $74,825 that they pay in tuition and fees, in order to receive medical treatment at the Student Health Center. The Mission Statement of Defendant Student Health Center states: ?Our mission at Engemann Student Health Center is to provide high quality, cost-effective and client-oriented services and resources in health promotion and disease prevention, primary care and counseling to the University Park Campus student community. We strive to facilitate the completion of your academic career at USC by promoting healthy lifestyles and caring for your?physical and illnesses and concerns.? 17. At all times during his employment with the Student Health Center, Defendant USC held Defendant TYNDALL out to be a trustworthy and legitimate gynecological physician; indeed, by making TYNDALL the only full-time gynecologist on staff at Defendant Student Health Center, Defendant USC forced its young female students to place their trust and con?dence in TYNDALL in order to receive necessary medical care. In making this false representation, Defendant USC concealed numerous complaints lodged by female 'students about sexual abuse, which by Defendant own admission date back to at least the year 2000. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis allege, that Defendant USC received complaints of sexually abusive nature, and therefore knew of -8- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES an my heir Suite 800 (9491 252-9990 NLY, STEWART FINALDI Irvine, California 92612 I IOO Von Karman Ave, Telenhnnedangerous propensity to sexually abuse his young female patients, as early as the 19903. Despite this knowledge, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis allege, that Defendant USC never once reported TYNDALL to law enforcement, or to the Medical Board of California, during twenty-eight-year tenure at Defendant USC. Defendant failure to report TYNDALL is particularly egregious, in light of the fact that its President, C.L. Max Nikias, has publicly admitted that Tyndall ?should have been removed and referred to authorities years ago.? 1 18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on this basis allege, that Defendant USC bene?tted ?nancially from retaining TYNDALL as the only full-time gynecologist at 8 Student Health Center by offering his health care to female students, at those students? expense. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and on this basis allege, that Defendant USC bene?tted ?nancially from actively concealing myriad complaints of sexual abuse made by its female students against TYNDALL by protecting its own reputation and financial coffers. Defendant deliberate and fraudulent concealment included, but was not limited to, paying TYNDALL a financial settlement so that he would quietly resign, after Defendant 2016 investigation revealed that TYNDALL routinely made sexually and racially inappropriate remarks to patients, kept a secret box full of photographs of his patients? genitals, and had documented complaints against him lodged to Defendant USC dating back to at least the year 2000. Defendant USC paid TYNDALL this financial settlement in a deliberate attempt to conceal from Plaintiffs, and the public at large, that TYNDALL was a serial sexual. predator, in order to avoid criminal consequences, civil liability and irreparable damage to its reputation. DOE DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 500 19. Defendants DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, and each of them, are sued herein under said ?ctitious names. Plaintiffs are ignorant as to the true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 500, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, and therefore we said Defendants by such fictitious names. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, Plaintiffs will request leave of Court to amend,this Complaint to state their true names and .?capacities herein. -9- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Su1te 800 (9491252-9990 NLY, STEWART FINALDI Irvine, California 926l2 I 100 Von Karman Ave, Telenhnne20. TYNDALL, USC and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, are sometimes collectively referred to herein as "Defendants" and/or as ?All Defendants"; such collective reference refers to all speci?cally named Defendants as well as those ?ctitiously named herein. 21. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege that at all times mentioned herein, each Defendant was responsible in some manner or capacity for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs? damages, as herein alleged, were proximately caused by all said Defendants. I 22. At all times mentioned herein, each and every Defendant was an employee, agent, and/or servant of Defendant USC and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, and/or was under their complete control and/or ?active supervision. Defendants and each of them _are individuals, corporations, partnerships and/or other entities that engaged in, joined in, and conspired with other Defendants and wrongdoers in carrying out the tortuous and unlawful activities described in this Complaint. 23. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege that at all times mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of them such that any individuality and separateness between Defendants, and each of them, ceased to exist. Defendants and each of them were the successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the other Defendants, and each of them, in that they purchased, controlled, dominated and operated each other without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or other manner of division. To - continue maintaining the facade of a separate and individual existence between and among Defendants, and each of them, would serve to perpetrate a fraud and injustice. 2'4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege that at all times mentioned herein, Defendant TYNDALL, Defendant USC and DOES 1 through 500 were the agents, representatives and/or employees of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, Defendants and each of them were acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality, capacity, identity, agency, representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their authority, whether actual or apparent. -10- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES MANLY, STEWART FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave, Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' (94912523990 \25. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege that at all times mentioned herein, TYNDALL, Defendant USC, and DOES 1 through 500 were the trustees, partners, servants, joint venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other Defendant, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and consent of each and every other Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter rati?ed by each and every other Defendant, and that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs. FACTUAL ALLEGATION APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS BY JANE DOE 1 26. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff JANE DOE 1 was an undergraduate student and was under Defendants_USC, and DOES 1 through 500?s complete control, dominion, and supervision. TYNDALL worked for, was employed by, and/or an agent/servant of the Defendants and/or DOES 1 through 500, when TYNDALL came into contact with the Plaintiff JANE DOE . 27. At all times material hereto, TYNDALL was under the direct supervision, management, agency and control of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive. TYNDALL was a gynecological physician hired, employed, supervised, and retained by Defendant USC, and DOES. 1 through 500. While a gynecological physician at Defendants, employment duties included providing medical care to the female undergraduate and graduate students of Defendant USC. The purported care offered-by TYNDALL included, but was not limited to, conducting gynecological examinations and providing reproductive health treatments to the female students of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, which included Plaintiff JANE DOE 1. Plaintiff JANE DOE was an undergraduate student of Defendant USC and DOES 1 through 500 and it is under these circumstances that Plaintiff JANE DOE 1 came to be under the direction and control of TYNDALL who used his position of authority and trust to molest and sexually abuse Plaintiff JANE DOE 1. . 28. As a student of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 while TYNDALL was a gynecological physician, Plaintiff JANE DOE 1 was under direct supervision, control and care, which created a special, ?duciary relationship between Plaintiff -11- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES . (949} 252-9990 Irvine, California 926l2 19100 Von Karman Ave, Suite 800 Telenhnne' MANLY, STEWART FINALDI JANE DOE 1 and TYNDALL. Because of such relationship, TYNDALL owed Plaintiff a duty of care. Additionally, as the employers and super-visors of TYNDALL with knowledge that he was in contact with and providing medical care to young female students, Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 were also in a special, con?dential, and ?duciary relationship with Plaintiff JANE DOE l, owing Plaintiff JANE DOE 1 a duty of care. . 27. By assigning and employing TYNDALL as the sole full-time gynecologist at Defendant USC and DOES 1 through 500?s Student Health Center, Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 represented to its students, and the community, that TYNDALL was safe, trustworthy, and of high moral and ethical repute, such that students and patients need not worry about having TYNDALL interact with, and provide care to, those students. Defendants did so_ in order to preserve their own public image and reputation, so they could retain past students and recruit new students, thus allowing donations and other ?nancial support to continue ?owing into their coffers for ?nancial gain. 29. Plaintiff JANE DOE 1 is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that TYNDALL had engaged in unlawful sexually- I abusive conduct in the past, and/or'was continuing to engage in such conduct. Defendants had a duty to disclose these facts to Plaintiff JANE DOE 1 and others, but negligently and/or intentionally suppressed, concealed or failed to disclose this information. The duty to disclose this information arose by the special, trusting, con?dential, ?duciaryrelationship between Defendants and Plaintiff JANE DOE 1. Speci?cally, the Defendant USC knew that TYNDALL was groping, digitally penetrating, and otherwise sexually harassing young female students in isolation with those students, based on the following: a. Plaintiff JANE DOE 1, who was approximately 18 years old at the time, had her ?rst-ever gynecological appointment with TYNDALL in or around 2003. During that appointment, under the guise of performing a legitimate medical treatment, TYNDALL forced his entire hand and wrist into Plaintiff JANE DOE 1?s vagina, to her pelvic ?oor. TYNDALL was not wearing a glove, such that he penetrated Plaintiff JANE DOE with his bare hand. Furthermore, TYNDALL did not provide PLAINTIFF JANE DOE 1 with any standard, proper modesty coverings, such as a lap draping, when performing what he claimed to be a legitimate pelvic examination. Although she did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff JANE DOE 1 now -12- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES knows that TYNDALL was not providing medical treatment to her but was 1 instead Sexually assaulting her to further his own prurient desires. 2 b. While TYNDALL had his entire ungloved ?st inside of Plaintiff JANE DOE 1?s vagina, he made a vulgar and demeaning comment on the size of 3 Plaintiff JANE DOE 1?s genitalia, saying: ?You know what they say about tall women.? Plaintiff JANE DOE 1 is informed and believes, and on this 4 basis alleges, that statement was designed to shame, humiliate and control Plaintiff JANE DOE 1 so that she would be silenced, and 5 therefore would not repeat the comment or report sexually abusive conduct to any other person, so that TYNDALL could continue to 6 sexually abuse the young female students of Defendant USC with impunity. These comments did, in fact, shame, humiliate and embarrass Plaintiff to 7 her substantial and emotional detriment, coercing her from disclosing the abuse to USC. 8 c. At all times while Plaintiff JANE DOE 1 was in the examination room with TYNDALL, a chaperone employed by Defendant USC was also present in the room and was charged with the duty of supervising TYNDALL during? the gynecological examination. In dereliction of this duty, while 10 - TYNDALL was sexually abusing Plaintiff JANE DOE by forcing his hand into her vagina, the chaperone deliberately looked away. 11 33 d. Although purported ?medical examination? caused Plaintiff 12 JANE DOE 1 pain and discomfort, Plaintiff JANE trusted that 5353; TYNDALL was, in fact, conducting a legitimate medical procedure, due to :58 S. 13 his position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC and. Egg; due to the fact that a chaperone was present, yet did not object to ig?g 14 conduct. Moreover, Plaintiff had no choice but to receive 3 57", gynecological care from TYNDALL, as he was the only full-time Egg?. 3 15 gynecologist at Defendant Student Health Center. e. Because Defendant USC actively concealed myriad complaints of 20:3 16 sexually abusive behavior and failed to warn Plaintiff JANE 23 DOB 1 of his dangerous propensity to sexually abuse his young female 17 patients, Plaintiff JANE DOE 1 continued to see TYNDALL for gynecological treatment until in or around 2007. In total, TYNDALL 18 sexually abused Plaintiff JANE DOE 1 by forcing his ungloved ?ngers and/or entire ungloved hand inside of her on approximately eight separate 19 occasions. . 20 f. It was only in May of 2018, when rampant sexual abuse of the young female student-patients of Defendant USC was nationally 21 publicized by the media, that JANE DOE 1 came to learn that treatment of her was never a legitimate medical treatment, but rather was 22 sexual assault, committed for his own sexual grati?cation. 23 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE 0 ALL CLAIMS BY JANE DOE 2 .73., 24 30. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 was a graduate student and was :5 under Defendants USC, and DOES 1 through 500?s complete control, dominion, in?) fig? 26 and supervision. TYNDALL worked for, was employed by, and/or an agent/servant of the 11:32:! '27 Defendants USC and/or DOES 1 through 500, when came into contact with the 28 Plaintiff JANE DOE 2. -13- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 lrv1ne,Callforn1a 92612 Telenhnnex {949} 252-9990 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI 19l00 Von Karm?an Ave., \10all times material hereto, TYNDALL was under the direct supervision, management, agency and control of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive. TYNDALL was a gynecological physician hired, employed, superVised, and retained by Defendant USC, and DOES 1 through 500. While a gynecological physician at Defendants, employment duties included providing medical care to the female undergraduate and graduate students of Defendant USC. The purported care offered by TYNDALL included, but was not limited to, conducting gynecological examinations and providing'reproductive health treatments to the female students of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, which included Plaintiff JANE DOE 2. Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 wasa graduate student of Defendant and DOES _1 through 500 and it is under these circumstances that_Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 came to be under the direction and control of TYNDALL who used his position of authority and trust to molest and sexually abuse Plaintiff JANE DOE 2. 32. As a student of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 while TYNDALL was a gynecological physician, Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 was under direct supervision, control and care, which created a special, confidential, and ?duciary relationship between Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 and TYNDALL. Because of such relationship, TYNDALL owed Plaintiff a duty of care. Additionally, as the employers and supervisors of TYNDALL with knowledge that he was in contact with and providing medical care to young female students, Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 were also in a special, con?dential, and ?duciary relationship with Plaintiff JANE DOE 2, owing Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 a duty of care. 33. By assigning and employing TYNDALL as the sole full-time gynecologist at Defendant USC and DOES 1 through 500?s Student Health Center, Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 represented to its students, and the community, that TYNDALL was safe, trustworthy, and of high moral and ethical repute, such that students and patients need not worry about having TYNDALL interact with, and provide care to, those students. Defendants did. so in order to preserve their own public image and reputation, so they could retain past students and recruit new students, thus allowing donations and other ?nancial support to continue ?owing into their coffers for ?nancial gain. -14- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI 100 Von Karman Ave, Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' (94912523990 34. Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants knew or should haVe known that TYNDALL had engaged in unlawful sexually- abusive conduct in the past, and/or was continuing to engage in such conduct. Defendants had a duty to disclose these facts to Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 and others, but negligently and/or intentionally suppressed, concealed or failed to disclose this information. The duty to disclose this information arose by the Special, trusting, con?dential, ?duciary relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff JANE DOE 2. Speci?cally, the Defendant USC knew that TYNDALL was groping, digitally penetrating, and otherwise sexually harassing young female students in isolation with .those students, based on the following: a. Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 had never been treated by a gynecologist before when, in approximately 2008, she had her? ?rst appointment with TYNDALL at Defendant Student Health Center. On this ?rst occasion, and every other occasion thereafter, TYNDALL forced Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 to strip completely naked, so that he could leer at her for his own sexual grati?cation. g. TYNDALL then proceeded to gr0pe Plaintiff JANE DOE 2?s breasts, under the guise of performing a medical procedure. Just before groping her breasts, TYNDALL would lecherously rub his hands together in front of Plaintiff JANE DOE 2, and would say, just want to get them warm for you.? Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 is informed and believes, and on this basis alleges, that comments and hand gestures were designed to cause Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 shame, intimidation and discomfort, in furtherance of own prurient desires. Thesecomments did, in fact, shame, humiliate and embarrass Plaintiff to her substantial and emotional detriment. b. A?er groping Plaintiff JANE DOE 2, TYNDALL digitally penetrated Plaintiff JANE DOE 2?s vagina, putting his ?ngers inside of her rather than using a medical device. On one occasion, TYNDALL used his ?ngers to wipe Plaintiff JANE DOE 2?s vaginal discharge onto his ?ngers, then held his ?ngers in front of her face, in order to cause Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 shame and embarrassment. Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 now knows that digital penetration of her was not a legitimate medical procedure, but an act of sexual assault for his own sexual grati?cation. - c. In total, TYNDALL performed the sexual abuse set forth-above on Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 on at least three occasions, between in or around 2008 through in or around 2014. On each occasion, a chaperone employed by Defendant USC was also present in the examination room and witnessed sexual abuse of Plaintiff JANE DOE 2, yet took no action to prevent or report sexual abuse. h. On one occasion, Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 made an appointment with TYNDALL to receive medical care for a yeast infection. TYNDALL . proceeded to ask Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 incredibly intrusive questions about her sexual history including but not limited to ?How many people have you slept with? Did they ejaculate inside of you? Did you give them oral -15- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Dl Suite 800 NLY, STEWART FINAL 9 I I00 Von Karman Ave, Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne? (949} 252-9990 sex? Did they ejaculate in your mouth? Did you swallow?? for no other reason than to satisfy his own prurient desires. These comments did, in fact, shame, humiliate and embarrass Plaintiff to her substantial and emotional detriment, coercing her from disclosing the abuse to USC. d. On that same occasion, TYNDALL falsely told Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 that, because she had a yeast infection, she likely had AIDS, and told her to submit to an AIDS test?as soon as possible. This falsehood caused Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 extreme emotional distress, as she was forced to wait for days for her test results to confirm that she did not in fact have AIDS, all the while fearing that she might have this life-threatening disease. Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 is informed and believes, and on this basis alleges, that TYNDALL falsely told Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 that she likely had AIDS for the sole purpose of causing Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 to feel anxiety, embarrassment and regret over her sexual history, in order to shame Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 into silence and to exert his authority as a medical professional over her. e. In or around May of 2015, Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 complained of misconduct namely, his falsely telling her she likely had AIDS to Donna Beard Gilchrist, Defendant Clinical Instructor of Family Medicine." When Ms._ Gilchrist asked Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 to elaborate on treatment of her, Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 explained in detail so?called ?medical treatment,? and that although she did not know that conduct was, in fact, sexual . abuse rather than legitimate medical treatment, JANE DOE 2 told Ms. Gilchrist that it made her so uncomfortable that she had to switch practitioners. Ms. Gilchrist took written notes of Plaintiff JANE DOE 2?s complaint, and assured Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 that she would report her complaints about TYNDALL. However, Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 was never given any indication, or reason to believe, that Ms. Gilchrist reported her complaint. f. Due to the fact that a medical chaperone employed by Defendant USC was present and observed each occasion that TYNDALL sexually abused Plaintiff JANE DOE 2, yet did not intervene, Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 reasonably believed that treatment of her was a legitimate medical procedure, rather than sexual abuse. It was not until in or around May of 2018, when systematic sexual abuse of the young women of Defendant USC was nationally publicized, that JANE DOE 2 learned that treatment of her was, in fact,'sexual assault. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS BY JANE DOE 3 35. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 was a graduate student and was under Defendants USC, and DOES 1 through 500?s complete control, dominion, and supervision. Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 attended Defendant USC as an international student ?om approximately 2015 to 2016. TYNDALL worked for, was employed by, and/or an agent/servant of the Defendants USCand/or DOES 1 through 500, when TYNDALL came into contact with the Plaintiff JANE DOE 3. -16- COMPLAINT ron DAMAGES i?x) S- 131:) Suite 800 Irv1ne, California 92612 TelenhnnE? (949\ 252-9990 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI l9l00 Von Karm'an Aveall times material hereto, TYNDALL. was under the direct supervision, management, agency and control of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive. TYNDALL was a gynecological physician hired, employed, supervised, and retained by Defendant USC, and DOES 1 through 500. While a gynecological physician at Defendants, employment duties included providing medical care to the female undergraduate and graduate students of Defendant USC. The purported care offered by TYNDALL included, but was not limited to, conducting gynecological examinations and providing reproductive health treatments to the female students of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, which included Plaintiff JANE DOE 3. Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 was a graduate student of Defendant USC and DOES 1 through 500 and it is under these circumstances that Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 came to be under the direction and control of TYNDALL who used his position of authority and trust to molest and sexually abuse Plaintiff JANE DOE 3. 37. As a student of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 while TYNDALL was a gynecological physician, Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 was under direct supervision, control and care, which created a special, con?dential, and ?duciary relationship between Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 and TYNDALL. Because of such relationship, TYNDALL owed Plaintiff a duty of care. Additionally, as the employers and supervisors of TYNDALL with knowledge that he was in contact with and providing medical care to young female students, Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 were also in a special, con?dential, and ?duciary relationship with. Plaintiff JANE DOE 3, owing Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 a duty of care. 38. By assigning and employing TYNDALL as the sole full-time gynecologist at Defendant USC and DOES 1 through 500?s Student Health Center, Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 represented to its students, and the community, that TYNDALL was safe, trustworthy, and of high moral and ethical repute, such that students and patients need not worry about having TYNDALL interact with, and provide care to, those Students. Defendants did so in order to preserve their own public image and reputation, so they could retain past students and recruit new students, thus allowing donations and other ?nancial support to continue ?owing into their coffers for ?nancial gain. -17- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ANLY, STEWART FINALDI Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' (949) 252-9990 l9I00 Von Karman Ave, Suite 800 39. Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that .Defendants knew or should have known that TYNDALL had engaged in unlanul sexually- abusive conduct in the past, and/or was continuing to engage in such conduct. Defendants had a duty to disclose these facts to Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 and others, but negligently and/or intentionally suppressed, concealed or failed to disclose this information. The duty to disclose this information arose by the special, trusting, con?dential, ?duciary relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff JANE DOE 3. Speci?cally, the Defendant USC knew that TYNDALL was groping, digitally penetrating, and otherwise sexually harassing young female students in isolation with those students, based on the following: a. In or around 2015, Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 scheduled an appointment through Defendant Student Health Center?s Online reservations portal, because she was experiencing of a vaginal infection. When Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 arrived at Defendant Student Health Center, she was informed that TYNDALL would be her treating physician. At all times during the appointment, a chaperone employed by Defendant USC was present in the treatment room. b. Immediately upon meeting Plaintiff JANE DOE 3, TYNDELL ?xated on the fact that Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 is Chinese, and he told her that he had lots of Chinese patients because they were often referred to him by other doctors, for pelvic issues. 0. TYNDELL then ordered Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 to remove all of her clothes and to lay down on the treatment table,'completely naked. Plaintiff now knows that TYNDELL did not force her to strip naked for any legitimate medical purposes, but rather to further his own prurient desires. d. TYNDALL then proceeded to grope Plaintiff JANE DOE 3?s breasts with ungloved hands, under the guise of performing a medical procedure. TYNDALL touched Plaintiff JANE DOE 3?s bare breasts, even though she had not made an appointment for a full physical examination, but rather merely was seeking treatment for what she suspected was a vaginal infection. Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 now knows that TYNDALL groped? her breasts purely for his own sexual grati?cation, and not for any medical purpose. e. TYNDALL then digitally penetrated Plaintiff JANE DOE 3?s vagina by forcing two of his ?ngers inside of her, rather than using a medical device. Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 explicitly told TYNDALL that his digital penetration of her was causing her pain, and she asked him to please stop, but TYNDALL continued to sexually assault her. Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 now knows that digital penetration of her was not a legitimate medical procedure, but an act of sexual assault for his own sexual grati?cation. f. Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 then asked TYNDALL to perform a pap smear test or a discharge test, as the purpose of her visit was to receive treatment for of a vaginal infection. TYNDALL refused to perform the procedure, stating that those procedures were not necessary. The fact that -18- COMPLAINT iron DAMAGES 112533 15.50 . Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne (9491 252-9990 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI 19100 Von Karman AveTYNDALL refused to perform this legitimate, standard medical procedure on Plaintiff JANE DOE 3, even though she speci?cally requested it, illustrates that aim was not to provide medical care to Plaintiff JANE DOE 3, but rather was to sexually abuse her for his own grati?cation. g. conduct made Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 feel pain, and discomfort, however, in reliance upon the fact that TYNDALL was a employed doctor and that there was a chaperone present in the treatment room during the appointment, Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 trusted that TYNDALL had provided her with legitimate medical treatment. It was not until May of 2018, when sexual abuse was nationally publicized, that Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 learned that TYNDALL had sexually assaulted her. FACTUAL ALLEGATION APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS BY JANE DOE 4 40. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 was a student at USC and was under Defendants USC, and DOES 1 through 500?s complete control, dominion, and supervision. Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 attended Defendant USC as a student from approximately i 2013 to 2017. TYNDALL worked for, was employed by, and/or an agent/servant of the 'Defendants USC and/or DOES 1 through 500, when TYNDALL came into contact with the Plaintiff JANE DOE 4. 41. At all times material hereto, TYNDALL was under the direct supervision, management, agency and control of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive. TYNDALL was a gynecological physician hired, employed, supervised, and retained by Defendant USC, and DOES 1 through 500. While a gynecological physician at Defendants, employment. duties included providing medical care to the female undergraduate and graduate studentstof Defendant USC. The purported care offered by TYNDALL included, but was not limited to, conducting gynecological examinations and providing reproductive health treatments to the female students of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, which included Plaintiff JANE DOE 4. Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 was an? undergraduate student of-Defendant USC and DOES 1 through 500 and it is under these circumstances that Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 came to be under the direction and control of TYNDALL who used his position of authority and trust to molest and sexually abuse Plaintiff JANE DOE 4. i 42'. As a. student of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 while TYNDALL was a gynecological physician, Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 was under direct supervision, -19- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (9493 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 19100 Von Karman Ave, Suite 800 Telenhnne' MANLY, STEWART FINAL control and care, which created a Special, con?dential, and ?duciary relationship between Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 and TYNDALL. Because of such relationship, TYNDALL owed Plaintiff a duty of care. Additionally, as the employers and supervisors of TYNDALL with knowledge that he was in contact with and providing medical care to young female students, Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 were also in a special, con?dential, and ?duciary relationship with Plaintiff JANE DOE 4, owing Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 a duty of care. 43. By assigning and employing TYNDALL as the sole ?ill-time gynecologist at Defendant USC and DOES 1 through 500?s Student Health Center, Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 represented to its students, and the community, that TYNDALL was safe, trustworthy, and of high moral and ethical repute, such that students and patients need not worry about having TYNDALL interact with, and provide care to, those students. Defendants did so in order to preserve their own public image and reputation, so they could retain past students and recruit new students, thus allowing donations and other ?nancial support to continue ?owing into their coffers for ?nancial gain. 44. Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that TYNDALL had engaged in unlawful sexually- abusive conduct in the past, and/or was continuing to engage in such conduct. Defendants had? a duty to disclose these facts to Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 and others, but negligently and/or intentionally suppressed, concealed or failed to disclose this information. The duty to disclose this information arose by the special, trusting, con?dential, ?duciary relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff JANE DOE 4. Speci?cally, the Defendant USC knew that TYNDALL was groping, digitally penetrating, and otherwise sexually harassing young female students in isolation with those students, based on the following: a. In or around 2015, Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 scheduled an appointment through Defendant Student Health Center because she was experiencing lower abdominal pain and thought she may have a bladder infection. When Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 arrived at Defendant Student Health Center, she was informed that TYNDALL would be her treating physician. b. TYNDALL told Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 that he was going to take a vaginal culture and ordered her to remove her clothes and dress in a gown.. At or about this same -20- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES M) ICE) 1:11: Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI Irvine, California 926l2 Telenhnne' (9491252-9990 I9100 Von Karman Avetime, TYNDELL pointed out the framed picture of a young woman and stated that he was "Sponsoring" that young woman while she attended business school. c. While in the examination room, TYNDALL penetrated Plaintiff JANE DOE 4?s vagina with his two ?ngers and thereafter penetrated her vagina with a?medical device. TYNDALL directed Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 to return to his of?ce, where he then claimed that he had forgotten to take the aforementioned vaginal culture. He directed her to again remove her clothes, dress in a gown, and return to the examination room. (1. Once in the examination room for the second tiine, TYNDALL again penetrated Plaintiff JANE DOE 4?s vagina with his two ?ngers and thereafter penetrated her vagina with a medical device. Then, TYNDALL directed Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 to return to his of?ce. Once in his office, he claimed that wanted to make sure that he obtained a suf?cient culture so he again directed her to again remove her clothes, dress in a gown, and return to the examination room. He also suggested that he conduct a skin check on Plaintiff JANE DOE 4, even though Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 never raised any dermatological concerns. e. Once in the examination room for the third time, TYNDALL again penetrated Plaintiff JANE DOE 4?s vagina with his two ?ngers and thereafter penetrated her vagina with a medical device. f. Then, under the guise of checking Plaintiff JANE DOE 4's skin, TYNDALL ordered Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 to remove all of her clothes. He then grazed his ungloved ?ngers over her the majority of her torso, including her breasts, and TYNDALL used his ungloved hands to Spread Plaintiff JANE DOE 4's buttocks checks and leered at her crevice and anus. TYNALL did not examine various areas of Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 skin that are normally examined during a medically-appropriate dermatological check. g. During the appointment, TYNDALL asked Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 inappropriate, harassing, and intrusive questions about her sexuality, her sexual orientation, the number of sexual partners she had, her feelings about oral and anal sex, and even how mUch alcohol she drank. While he had his ?ngers inside of her vagina, he commented that her vagina was "pretty small." - h. conduct was witnessed by a USC-employed chaperone, who did nothing to intervene or to protect JANE DOE 4. i. JANE DOE 4 now knOws that digital penetration of her vagina and his spreading of her buttocks were not legitimate, medical procedures and were, instead, acts of sexual assault for his own sexual grati?cation. j. In reliance upon the fact that TYNDALL was a USC-employed doctor and that there was a chaperone present while TYNDALL penetrated her vagina with his ?ngers and spread her buttocks cheeks, Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 trusted that TYNDALL had provided her with legitimate medical treatment. It was not until May of 2018, when sexual abuse was nationally publicized, that Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 learned that TYNDALL had sexually assaulted her. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS BY ALL PLAINTIFFS 45. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that while Plaintiffs were young female student of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, Defendants engaged in -21- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES if}? Sunte 800 (949} 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI Telenhnne' [9100 Von Karman Avepattern and practice of ignoring complaints, failing to investigate sexual harassment and abuse complaints, deliberately concealing information from abuse victims, and contributed to a sexually hostile environment on campus at Defendant USC. 46. It is upon information, and therefore belief, that Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 had history and systemic problem in properly handling sexual harassment and sexual abuse allegations, contrary to their Federal mandates under Title IX. This pattern and practice was evidenced by, inter alia, the US. Department of Education?s 2013 investigation of Defendant handling of numerous rape cases, during which over 100 USC students came forward to complain of Defendant ?gross mishandling? of those rape cases. Furthermore, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the numerous complaints lodged against TYNDALL that were actively concealed by Defendant USC illustrate that Defendant USC had and continues to have a culture of ignoring, minimizing and sanitizing complaints from sexual abuse victims. By Defendant own admission, in the course of its 2016 investigation of complaints against TYNDALL, ?a review of ?les kept by Dr. Larry Neinstein, a forrner health center director from 1995-2014 (who is now deceased), showed earlier patient complaints about TYNDALL, including complaints about his clinical practice. The files contained eight complaints logged between 2000 and 2014 that were concerning.? Despite the fact that direct supervisor, Dr. Neinstein, possessed documented complaints against TYNDALL dating back to the year 2000, and the fact that those documented complaints were cited as evidence in Defendant 2016 investigation of TYNDALL, Defendant USC continued to allow TYNDALL to retain his position, thereby granting him unfettered sexual access to its young female students. 47. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants knew, or should have known, of propensity and disposition to engage in sexual misconduct with young female patients before he sexually abused and molested Plaintiffs, and knew of the probability that he would molest student patients with whom he came into contact, including but not limited to Plaintiffs. Namely, by Defendant own admission, numerous documented . complaints were lodged with Defendant USC regarding sexually abusive behavior, dating back to at least the year 2000. Moreover, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that, virtually -22- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DI MANLY, STEWART FINAL l9100 Von Karman Ave. Suite 800 California ?26l2 Telenhnne' {9491252-9990 every time TYNDALL sexually abused a minor female student at Defendant Student Health Clinic, a USC-employed chaperone was present, witnessing the sexual abuse yet doing nothing to intervene. 48. Defendants failed to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by TYNDALL in the future, including avoiding placement of TYNDALL in a position where contact and interaction with vulnerable patients and students is an inherent function. Defendants ignored and suppressed the past sexual misconduct TYNDALL had engaged in. A 49. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants were apprised, knew or should have known and/or were put on notice of past sexual abuse of young female students, past complaints and/or investigations, and his propensity and disposition to engage in such unlawful activity and unlawful sexual activity withpatients, such that Defendants knew or should have known that TYNDALL would commit wrongful sexual acts with young female patients,- including Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that personnel and/or employment records and other records of Defendants? re?ect numerous incidents of inappropriate sexual contact and conduct with patients by TYNDALL and other professionals, employees, assistants, agents, supervisors and others, on the physical premises of such Defendants. Based on these records, Defendants knew and/or should have known of history of sexual abuse, past claims and/or past investigations, and his propensity and disposition to engage inlunlawful activity and unlawful sexual activity with patients, such that Defendants knew or should have known that TYNDALL would Commit wrongful sexual acts with those patients, including Plaintiffs. . 50. Because of the relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants, Defendants had an obligation and duty under the law not to hide material facts and information about past, and his deviant sexual behavior and propensities. Additionally, Defendants had an af?rmative duty to inform, warn, and institute appropriate protective measures to safeguard patients who were - reasonably likely to come in contactwith TYNDALL. Defendants willfully refused to notify, give -23- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ,3 1 i .r 1133? (9491252-9990 Irvine, California 926l 2 100 Von Karman Aye.,Su1te 800 Telenhnne? ?g NLY, STEWART . adequate warning and implement appropriate safeguards, thereby creating the peril that ultimately damaged Plaintiffs. 51. California Penal Code 11160(a)(2)provides: ?Any health practitioner employed in a health facility, clinic, physician?s office, local or state public health department, or a clinic or other type of facility Operated by a local or state public health department who, in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment provides medical services for a physical condition to a patient whom he or she knows or reasonably suspects is a person described as follows, shall immediately make a report in accordance with subdivision Any person suffering from any wound or other physical injury in?icted upon the person where the injury is the result of assaultive or abusive conduct.? Penal Code 11160(b) mandates that such reports be made to a local law enforcement agency by telephone, .?immediately or as soon as is practicable,? and by written report ?within two working days of receiving the information regarding the person.? By and through its health practitioner employees and/or agents, Defendant USC repeatedly violated the foregoing Penal Code provisions by failing to report TYNDALL to law enforcement each time it witnessed and/or received reports of TYNDALL committing a sexual assault or battery on a female patient. Furthermore, Defendant USC has deliberately attempted to conceal its recurring failures to comply with Penal Code 11160 by publicly and falsely claiming that it had no legal duty to report sexually abusive behavior to law enforcement. 52. Additionally, Defendant own Code of Conduct mandates that-?no faculty member may commit sexual assault, de?ned as any physical sexual act (including, but not limited to, actual or attempted intercourse, sexual touching, fondling, or groping) perpetrated upon a person.? Defendant own Code of Ethics further states: ?At the University of Southern California, ethical behavior is predicated on two main pillars: a commitment to discharging our obligations to others in a fair and honest manner, and a commitment to respecting the rights and dignity of all persons. As faculty, staff, students, and trustees, we each bear responsibility not only for the ethics of our own behavior, but also for building stature as an ethical institution.? In direct'eontravention of their own Codes, Defendant USC actively concealed -24- CONIPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 00 STEWART FINALD Irvine, California 92612 (949) 252-9990 IOO Von Karman Ave.,Su1te 8 Telenhnne? NLYsexually abusive behavior for nearly thirty years, thereby exposing Plaintiffs to his sexual assault, harassment and molestation. I 53. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that as part of Defendants? Conspiratorial and fraudulent attempt to propensity .to sexually abuse and molest young female students, and prior sexual misconduct with patients, from public scrutiny and criminal investigation, Defendants implemented various measures designed to make conduct harder to detect and ensure that other patients and students with whom he came into contact, such as Plaintiffs, would be sexually abused, including: a. Permitting TYNDALL to remain in a position of authority and trust after Defendants knew or should have known that he molested his young female patients; b. Placing TYNDALL in a separate and secluded environment, at Defendant USC and DOES 1 through 500, which granted him unfettered access and control over patients even when he was purporting to conduct extremely sensitive gynecological - treatment, thereby allowing TYNDALL to. physically and sexually interact with the young female students of USC, including Plaintiffs; c. Failing to disclose and actively concealing prior record of misconduct, sexual abuse, harassment and molestation and his propensity to commit such acts towards students and patients in Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500?s Student Health Center, from its students, the public at large, and law enforcement; d. Allowing TYNDALL to have unfettered and un-controlled access to young female patients, including the Plaintiffs; e. Holding out TYNDALL to Plaintiffs, other patients at Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, the alumni members of the Trojan family, and the public at large as a trustworthy and honest person of high ethical and moral repute who was capable and worthy of being granted unsupervised access to the student patients of Defendants USC and DOES ?1 through 500; f. Failing to investigate or otherwise con?rm or deny such facts about TYNDALL, including prior complaints, claims and investigations for sexual abuse; g. Failing to inform, and actively concealing ?'om Plaintiffs and law enforcement of?cials the fact that Plaintiffs and others were or may have been sexually abused, harassed and molested, after Defendants knew or should have known TYNDALL may have sexually abused Plaintiffs or others, thereby enabling Plaintiffs to continue to be endangered and sexually abused, harassed, molested, and/or creating the circumstance where Plaintiffs and others were less likely to receive proper medical treatment, thus exacerbating the harm to Plaintiffs; h. Holding out TYNDALL to' Plaintiffs and to the community as being in good standing and trustworthy; - _2 5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES in?! it? "3 @313 1233 Suite 800 (949\ 252-9990 1rv1ne, California 92612 Telenhnne' MANLY, STEWART FINALDI 19100 Von Karman AyeCloaking prior sexual misconduct with student patients within the facade of normalcy, thereby disguising the nature of his sexual abuse and contact with young female patients; . j. Failing to take reasonable steps and to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by TYNDALL such as avoiding placement of TYNDALL in functions or environments in which his intimate contact with yOung female patients was inherent; k. Failing to put in place a system or procedure to supervise or monitor physicians, chaperones, and agents to insure they do not molest or abuse patients in Defendants' care, and that they further report all reasonable suspicions of sexual assault and battery to law enforcement pursuant to Penal Code 11160. 54. By his position within the Defendants' institutions, TYNDALL attained a position of in?uence over Plaintiffs, and others. Defendants' conduct created a situation of peril that was not, and could not, be appreciated by Plaintiffs. By virtue of Defendants' conspiratorial and fraudulent conduct, and in keeping with their intent to fail to disclose and hide past and present conduct from the community, the Trojan family, the public at large and law enforcement, Defendants allowed TYNDALL to remain in a position of in?uence where his unsupervised or negligently supervised conduct with patients made the molestation and abuse of those individuals, including the Plaintiffs, possible. 55. By his position within the Defendants' institutions, Defendants and TYNDALL demanded and required that Plaintiffs respect TYNDALL in his position as a gynecological physician for Defendant USC and DOES 1 through 500. In fact, Plaintiffs had no choice but to see TYNDALL, as he was the only full-time gynecologist employed by Defendant Student Health Center. 56. The sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiffs by TYNDALL, outlined below, took place while TYNDALL was a gynecological physician employed, retained, and supervised by Defendants USC, DOES 1 through 500, and Plaintiffs were students of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, while TYNDALL was serving as an agent and employee of Defendants-in his capacity as a physician and faculty member: a. In his capacity as a physician and faculty member with Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, TYNDALL was given custody and supervision of student patients, including Plaintiffs. TYNDALL used this position to coerce student patients to concede to his prurient sexual demands, using his authority and position of trust to exploit them physically, sexually, and emotionally; -26- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 547? an rm.) . 1.1?3. 15:53 LDI 00 (9491252-9990 lrvine,Ca1 forma 92612 19100 Von Karmlan Aye, Suite 8 Telenhnne' MANLV, STEWART FINA ~4ng Plaintiffs were students of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 in or around the 2003 to 2015. Thereafter, Plaintiffs came into contact with TYNDALL, Defendants? USC and DOES 1 through 500?s physician and faculty member. Plaintiffs are informed and believe TYNDALL would use the guise of gynecological care and treatment to normalize intimate, inappropriate, and sexually abusive contact with Plaintiffs. During this period, Plaintiffs were patients under direct supervision and control. - c. Plaintiffs are informed and believe physical and sexual abuse of Plaintiffs commenced in or around 2003 and continued through in or around 2015. During this period, Plaintiffs were students and patients under Defendants USC, and DOES 1 through 500?s direct supervision and control. Using his position as a physician, TYNDALL would interact with Plaintiffs under the guise of providing them care and treatments necessary for their health and well? being. Under these circumstances, TYNDALL would, among other abusive acts, force Plaintiffs to strip naked, grope their bare breasts and digitally penetrate their vaginas, in the presence of other medical professional staff. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that sexual abuse, molestation, and harassment of Plaintiffs occurred on the premises of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500. (1. During these occurrences, TYNDALL groped, penetrated, and otherwise sexually abused Plaintiffs, under the guise of performing medical procedures, for own sexual gratification. TYNDALL would have the Plaintiffs remove all of their clothes and lay on the treatment table naked. TYNDALL would then perform his acts of sexual abuse upon Plaintiffs, in ?'ont of another medical professionals employed as chaperones by Defendant USC. e. sexual abuse and harassment of Plaintiffs was done for personal sexual grati?cation, and it annoyed, disturbed, irritated, and offended Plaintiffs as it would have a reasonable person. Plaintiffs did not consent to the sexual abuse and harassment by TYNDALL. 57. As set forth more fully herein above, TYNDALL did sexually abuse, harass and molest Plaintiffs, who were student patients at the time of the acts at-issue. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that such conduct by TYNDALL was based upon Plaintiffs? gender, and was done for sexual grati?cation. These actions upon Plaintiffs were performed by TYNDALL without the free consent'of Plaintiffs. .58. During the period Plaintiffs were being sexually abused and harassed by TYNDALL, Defendants had the authority and ability to prevent such abuse by removing TYNDALL from his position as the gynecological physician at Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500. They failed to do so, allowing the abuse to occur and to continue unabated. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that this failure was a part of Defendants' conspiratorial 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 -27- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES C.) IL-n-v'? 1139 Suite 800 (949\ 252-9990 Irvine, California 926l2 ANLY, STEWART FINALDI Telenhnne' 100 Von Karman Avestudent?patient sexual molestation and abuse, 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 protect the monetary support of Defendants, while fostering an environment where such abuse could continue to occur. 59. As a direct result of the sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiffs by TYNDALL, Plaintiffs have had dif?culty in meaningfully interacting with others, including those in positions of authority over Plaintiffs including physicians, athletic supervisors, and superiors at work. Plaintiffs have been limited in their ability to meaningfully interact with others due to the trauma of this molestation and abuse. This inability to interact creates con?ict with Plaintiffs? values of trust and con?dence in others, and has caused Plaintiffs substantial emotional distress, anxiety, nervousness and fear. As a direct result of the sexual abuse and molestation by TYNDALL, Plaintiffs suffered immensely, including, but not limited to, encountering issues with a lack of trust, various negative and emotional sequelae, depressive eating disorders, anxiety, and nervousness. 60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? tortious acts, omissions, wrongful conduct and breaches of their duties, Plaintiffs? employment and professional development has been adversely affected. Plaintiffs have lost wages and will continue to lose wages in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiffs have suffered substantial economic injury, all to Plaintiffs? 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. 61. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful actions, as herein alleged, Plaintiffs have been hurt in their health, strength and activity. Plaintiffs. have sustained permanent and continuing'injury to her nervous system and person, which has caused and continues to cause great mental, physical and nervous pain, suffering, fright, upset, grief, worry and shock in an amount according to proof at trial but in no event less than the jurisdictional minimum requirements of this Court. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES jinn?) . NJ Suite 800 NLY, STEWART FINALDI 9 100 Von Karman Ave, lrvine, California 926l2 Telenhnne? (94912523990 (30me 62. As is set forth herein, Defendants and?each of them have failed to uphold numerous mandatory duties required of them by state and federal law, as well as their own internal written policies and procedures, including but not limited to: Duty of health care professionals to report reasonable suspicions of sexual abuse to law enforcement, pursuant to Penal Code 11160; - Duty to use reasonable care to protect participants and members from known or foreseeable dangers; Duty to enact policies and procedures that are not in contravention of the Federal Civil Rights Act, section 1983, Title IX, and the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution; 0 Duty to protect participants and members and staff, and provide adequate supervision; Duty to ensure that any direction given to participants and members is lawful, and that adults act fairly, responsible and respectfully towards participants and members; 0 Duty to properly train staff so that they are aware of their individual responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe environment; 0 Duty to review the criminal history of applicants and current employees; 0 Duty to provide diligent supervision over patients; - Duty to act and diligently and not ignore or minimize problems. - Duty to report suspected incidents of sexual abuse. 63. Defendants and each of them had and have a duty to protect students and patients, including Plaintiffs. Defendants were required to, and failed, to provide adequate supervision, and failed to be properly vigilant in seeing that supervision was sufficient at Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 to ensure the safety of Plaintiffs and others. 64. Despite having a duty to do so, Defendantsfailed to adequately train and supervise all staff to create a positive and safe environment, speci?cally including training to perceive, report and stop inappropriate sexual conduct by other members of the staff, speci?cally including TYNDALL and young female students. 65. Defendants failed to enforce their own rules and regulations designed to protect the health and safety of its students and patients. Further, they failed to adopt and implement safety -29- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES i351? I?m-3 NJ Suite 800 (949} 252-9990 California 92612 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI Telenhnne' - 9l00 Von Karman Ave2'3? 24 25 26 '27 28 measures, policies and procedures designed to protect patients, such as Plaintiffs from the sexually exploitive and abusive acts of their agents and employees such as TYNDALL. 66. i In subjecting Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants TYNDALL, USC and DOES 1 through 500 acted willfully and maliciously (with the intent to harm Plaintiffs, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs? rights, so as to constitute malice and/or oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiffs are informed, and on that basis alleges, that speci?cally, the Defendants acted in concert, and under their authority as an educational institution and medical provider, with reckless disregard for the concern of the student- patients in its charge, in order to further ?nancially bene?t its business?s growth. The Defendants acted intentionally in creating an environment that harbored molesters, put its vulnerable young students at-risk of harm, ignored clear warning signs and their duties to report sexual abusers and molesters in their ranks, to maintain a facade of normalcy, in order to maintain its funding and provide further ?nancial growth of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, on the international level. The safety of the student-patients that were entrusted to Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 and was compromised due to Defendants desire to maintain the status quo of the Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 organizations, to continue to enjoy the ?nancial support of the alumni of the Trojan family, and avoid any public scrutiny for their misconduct, Plaintiffs are informed, and on that basis allege, that these willful, malicious, and/or oppressive acts, as alleged herein above, were rati?ed by the of?cers, directors, and/or managing agents of the Defendants. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against Defendants TYNDALL, USC and DOES 1 through 500. STATUTES 0F LIMITATIONS 67. Plaintiffs were each sexually abused by TYNDALL on Defendant campus from in or around 2005 to in or around 2015, while Plaintiffs were students; at Defendant USC. Each Plaintiff was sexually abused by TYNDALL while a chaperone employed by Defendant USC witnessed the abuse and did nothing to intervene, and Defendant USC actively concealed numerous complaints of sexually abusive behavior in order to deceive Plaintiffs into. believing that his sexual abuse was a legitimate medical treatment. Indeed, Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 -30- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 once attempted to report misconduct to another health care professional of 2 Defendant USC, Ms. Gilchrist, yet was led to believe that her complaint was without merit, 3 because no one from Defendant USC contacted Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 about her complaint, or 4 otherwise took action against TYNDALL. Then, in or around June of 2017, Defendant USC paid 5 TYNDALL a ?nancial settlement in exchange for his quiet resignation, in order to continue to 6 conceal sexually abusive nature from the public and thereby insulate itself from civil 7 liability. For all of the foregoing reasons, each Plaintiff" statute of limitations was equitably tolled 8 and Defendants USC and Does through 500 are equitably estopped from asserting the statute of 9 limitations as a defense. Defendants employees and DOES 1 through 500 acted wrongfully 10 in ignoring and actively concealing myriad complaints of sexual misconduct lodged against 11 . TYNDALL, and further breached numerous mandatory duties owed to Plaintiffs by holding 9% . 3,1239% 12 TYNDALL out as a safe, legitimate medical professional and failing to warn Plaintiffs of 13 proclivity to sexually abuse young female patients. Moreover, Plaintiffs were Egg 14 coerced into not talking about the abusive acts they endured by the threatening and coercive actions E?ig 15 of Tyndall, who placed them under duress and imminent fear, and only came forward once the 223;; 16 coercive nature of his acts subsided, due to Defendant and the media?s revelation of his 2?5 17 pattern of misconduct and the subsequent police investigation allowing such victims, including 18 Plaintiffs, to come forward without fear of retribution by Defendants USC and TYNDALL. 19 68. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were led to believe that sexual abuse was not, 20 in fact, sexual abuse, but rather was legitimate gynecological treatment, due to the fact that a USC- 21 employed chaperone witnessed the sexual abuse yet did nothing to intervene. Plaintiffs were young 22 women at the time they were sexually abused by TYNDALL, and for all three Plaintiffs, their (53 23 appointments with TYNDALL were their ?rst visits to a gynecologist, such that they had no prior ,2 24 experiences of legitimate gynecological examinations to compare purported 25 treatments to. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were not, and are not, medical professionals and have no 26 I specialized medical training, and thus did not and could not have reasonably discovered their abuse - 91:35.3 27 at an earlier date than they did. As such, they were blamelessly ignorant of the true facts related to 28 their abuse until it was revealed in May of 2018, because it was not until May of 2018, when the -31- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lg.) Lj?l (9491 252-9990 NLY, STEWART FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave, Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnmaallegations of sexual misconduct against TYNDALL received national media'attention and became public knowledge, that Plaintiffs knew or had reason to know that their claims against Defendants USC, TYNDALL and DOES 1 through 500 had accrued. Thus, the Plaintiffs? claims accrued in or around May of 2018. . FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF UNRUH ACT (CIVIL CODE 51) (Against Defendant TYNDALL, USC and DOES 1 through 500) 69. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 70. The Plaintiffs? civil rights were violated by Defendant USC, when Defendant USC, through its agents, actors and employees, intentionally concealed complaints of sexual abuse, molestation and harassment by TYNDALL from Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had a right to be free from gender discrimination, sexual molestation, abuse and harassment under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. 71. The Defendants USC, TYNDALL, and DOES 1 through 500 were acting under the color of their authority and in the scope of their employment, during the instances when the Plaintiffs were student-patients at Defendant USC and DOES 1 through 500. 72. The Defendant USC denied Plaintiffs full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and healthcare services because of their gender, by allowing TYNDALL unfettered access to sexually abuse Plaintiffs, by and through his position of authority as the Student Health Center?s sole full-time gynecologist, by actively concealing from Plaintiffs its knowledge that TYNDALL was a serial sexual predator. 73. By employing and retaining TYNDALL as the sole full-time gynecologist in its Student Health Clinic, despite its knowledge of myriad reports of sexually abusive nature, Defendant USC forced its female students to seek necessary medical treatment from TYNDALL, thereby exposing Plaintiffs to sexual abuse. Thus, Defendant retention of TYNDALL denied Plaintiffs, and all of its other young female students, of full and equal access to safe medical facilities, treatment and services, based upon their gender. 74. The substantial motivating reason' for Defendant conduct of actively concealing numerous complaints of sexually abusive nature was Plaintiffs? gender, -32- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES . MANLY, STEWART FINALDI Suite 800 19100 Von Karman Ave, Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne? {9491252-9990 Defendant USC knew that only its female students would seek gynecological treatment from TYNDALL and, thus, would be unwittingly subjected to his sexual assaults. 75. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' tortuous acts, omissions, wrongful conduct and breaches of their duties, Plaintiffs? employment and professional development has been adversely affected. Plaintiffs have lost wages and will continue to lose wages in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiffs have suffered substantial economic injury, all to Plaintiffs? general, special and consequential damage in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than the minimumjurisdictional amount of this Court. . 76. As a further direct ?and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful actions, as herein alleged, Plaintiffs have been hurt in their health, strength and activity. Plaintiffs have sustained permanent and continuing injury to their nervous systems and persons, which has caused and continues. to cause great mental, physical and nervous pain, suffering, fright, upset, grief, worry and shock in an amount according to proof at trial but in no event less than the jurisdictional minimum requirements of this Court. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BANE ACT (CIVIL CODE ?52.1) (Against Defendants TYNDALL, USC and DOES 1 through 500) 77. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every'allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 78. Defendants? actions, as alleged herein, have had and will continue to interfere with Plaintiffs? right to be ?free from gender discrimination in the form of sexual harassment in the educational and collegiate athletic setting, codi?ed under 20 USC. ?1681. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs had a right to have Defendant USC respond immediately and investigate her. sexual assault, molestation and harassment by TYNDALL. I 79. During Plaintiffs? time as students at Defendant USC, Defendants engaged in oppressive and unlawful tactics in ignoring, concealing, and ultimately suppressing the Plaintiffs? complaints of being sexually abused by TYNDALL. Plaintiffs were threatened, intimidated and coerced for reporting sexually abusive conduct, by own intimidating and humiliating conduct, as well as the conspiratorial silence and inaction of Defendant -33- FOR DAMAGES ANLY, STEWART Suite 800 9 100 Von Karman Ave, lrvine, California 92612 (9491252-9990 Telenhnne' Lit-limbchaperones. These intentional acts of concealment of abusive behavior violated the Plaintiffs? right to be free from discrimination on the basis of her gender, under Title IX. 80.. Furthermore, the?Plaintiffs were deprived of Due Process of law, when various complaints to Defendant USC employees failed to trigger any report, investigation, or other action by Defendant USC, who was required to do so, both under its own policies and procedures, as well as under Federal mandate by Title IX, and the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, these actions were contrary to Plaintiffs? civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the State of California. 81. Defendants? wrongful conduct was intended to, and did successfully interfere with Plaintiffs? Constitutional Rights to be free from gender discrimination and harassment, as well as interfered with their rights of Due Process under the United States? Constitution, speci?cally the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 1 82. Defendants unlawfully and wrongfully used, or employed others to wrongfully use threats, intimidation, harassment, violence, and coercion over Plaintiffs? person, to which Plaintiffs had no relief except to submit to the Defendants? wrong?il threats, intimidation, harassment, violence, and coercion, which rendered Plaintiffs? submission involuntary. 83. Defendants? above-noted actions were the legal and proximate causes of physical, emotional, and economic damages, and damage to the Plaintiffs, who has suffered and continues to suffer to this day. The actions of Defendants have also resulted in Plaintiffs incurring, and will require them to incur into the future, expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. 84. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiffs 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 continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; have and will continue to sustain loss of earning capacity; and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling: Plaintiffs have also sufferedeconomic, vocational and employment losses, as well. ?34- CONIPLAINT FOR DAMAGES if}? Sutte 800 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' (0491252-9990 l9100 Von Karman Avesubjecting Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment described herein, Defendants acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiffs, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs? rights, entitling Plaintiffs to compensatory damages in a sum to. beshown according to proof, emotional distress damages in a sum to be shown according to proof, punitive and/or exemplary damages, attorney?s fees, other damages pursuant to Civil Code section and a temporary restraining order or a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering Defendants to refrain from conduct or activities as alleged herein, stating OF THIS ORDER IS A CRIME PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 422.77 OF THE PENAL and other such relief as the court deems proper. . THIRD CAUSE OF .ACTION .. SEXUAL ABUSE AND HARASSMENT IN THE EDUCATIONAL SETTING (EDUCATION CODE ?220) (Against Defendants TYNDALL, USC and DOES 1 through 500) 86. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though?fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 87. Plaintiffs were harmed by being subjected to sexual abuse, harassment and molestation at Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 because of the Plaintiffs; gender and Defendants are responsible for that harm. 88. The Plaintiffs suffered harassment that was so severe, pervasive, and offensive that it effectively deprived Plaintiffs of the right of equal access to educational bene?ts and opportunities. 89. Defendants had actual knowledge that this sexual harassment, abuse, and molestation was occurring. Speci?cally, Defendant USC, by and through its employees, witnessed abuse ?rsthand, as it was witnessed by multiple USC-employed chaperones. Further, Defendant USC received, and then actively suppressed and ignored, numerous complaints of sexual abuse, dating back to at least the year 2000. 90. In the face of this knowledge of sexual abuse, harassment, and molestation that was being perpetrated upon the Plaintiffs, by TYNDALL, Defendants acted with deliberate indifference towards responding to these alarms and preventing further abuse. Defendants allowed -35- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ?lm rm} Is.) :22) 535:3 Suite 800 ANLY, STEWART 8: FINALDI lrv1ne,Cal1forn1a 92612 Telenhnne' (949i 252-9990 100 Von Karman AyeTYNDALL to remain as a physician at Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, to sexually harass, abuse and molest other patients. It was not until June of 2017 that Defendants allowed TYNDALL to resign, with a monetary settlement, that sexual abuse of young female students of Defendant USC ?nally abated. I 91. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiffs 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 continues 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 treatment, therapy, and counseling. 92. In subjecting the Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants TYNDALL and DOES 1 through 500, acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiffs, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs? rights, so as to constitute malice and oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the recovery of punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against TYNDALL, USC and DOES 1 through 500, in a sum to be shown according to proof. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION TITLE IX (20 USC. ?1681) (Against Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500) 93. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 94. The Plaintiffs were subjected to sexual harassment, abuse and molestation by TYNDALL, as young students and medical patientsat Defendants? institution. 95. Defendant USC was a private institution that nevertheless received federal ?nancial assistance for its various programs. 96. Defendant USC, with authority to institute corrective measures, had actual notice that TYNDALL posed a substantial risk of sexual abuse; harassment and molestation to the young female student-patients who sought treatment through Defendant Student Health Clinic. -3 6- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ci) Cw 1 Suite 800 {9491252-9990 1rv1ne, California 92612 MANLY, STEWART FINALD Telenhnne? 19100 Von Karm'an AveSpeci?cally, Defendant IUSC received numerous complaints of sexual abuse, ,yet allowed such sexual abuse to continue unabated. 97. 1 Defendant USC and DOES 1 through 500 weredeliberately indifferent to the- substantial risk of sexual abuse, harassment, and molestation posed to student-patients who came into contact with TYNDALL at Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500. After receiving actual notice of the Plaintiffs? complaints of being sexually abused by TYNDALL, Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, through their employees, agents, and servants, ignored the sexual abuse that TYNDALL in?icted on Plaintiffs and allowed him to continue treating young female students. It was this conduct that constitutes Willful indifference towards the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated student-patients who would be subjected to unfettered sexual misconduct. 98. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiffs 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 eamings and earning capacity, and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. 99. In subjecting the Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants USC, TYNDALL, and DOES 1 through 500, acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiffs, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs? rights, so as to constitute malice and oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the recovery of punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against TYNDALL, USC and DOES 1 through 500, in a sum to be shown according to proof. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs request the award of attorneys? fees pursuant to 42 USC. 1988. . FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION GENDER VIOLENCE (Against Defendant TYNDALL) 100. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. -37- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES pa: Suite 800 NLY, STEWART FINALDI 9 I 100 Von Karmlan Ave, Irvine, California 926l2 (9491252-9990 \1020101. . acts committed against Plaintiffs, as alleged herein, including the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of the Plaintiffs constitutes gender violence and a form of sex discrimination in that one or more of 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. 102. acts committed against Plaintiffs, as alleged herein, including the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of the Plaintiffs constitutes gender violence and a form of sex discrimination in that conduct caused a physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature upon Plaintiffs under coercive conditions, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction. 103. As a proximate result of acts, Plaintiffs are entitled to actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, any combination of those, or any other appropriate relief. Plaintiffs are also entitled to an award of attomey?s fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code 52.4, against TYNDALL. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL HARASSMENT (CIVIL CODE ?51.9) (Against Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500) 104. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 105. During Plaintiffs? time as students at Defendants USC 1 through 500, TYNDALL intentionally, recklessly and wantonly made sexual advances, solicitations, requests, demands for sexual compliance of a hostile nature based on Plaintiffs? gender that were unwelcome, pervasive and severe, including but not limited to TYNDALL groping and fondling the'Plaintiffs? breasts and vagina, all under the supervision of Defendants, who were acting in the course and scope of their agency with Defendants and each of them. 106. The incidents of abuse outlined herein above took place while Plaintiffs were under the control of TYNDALL and Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, in their capacity and -3 8- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (9491252-9990 lrvme, California 92612 19100 Von Karman Ave, Suite 800 TelenlmnE' MANLY, STEWART FINALDI position as supervisors of physicians, medical professionals, and staff at Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, and while acting speci?cally on behalf of Defendants. 107. During Plaintiffs? time as students at Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, TYNDALL intentionally, recklessly and wantonly did acts which resulted in harmful and offensive contact with intimate parts of Plaintiffs? persons, including but not limited to, using his position of authority and age to force Plaintiffs to give into sexual suggestions. 108. Because of Plaintiffs? relationships with TYNDALL and Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, status as the only full-time gynecologist employed by Defendant Student Health Center, and Plaintiffs? young age as students of Defendant USC, Plaintiffs were unable to easily terminate the relationship they had with the Defendants. . 109. Because of age and position of authority, physical seclusion of the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs? mental and emotional state, and Plaintiffs? young age, Plaintiffs were unable to, and did not and could not, give consent to such acts. 110. Even though the Defendants knew or should have known of these activities by TYNDALL, Defendants did nothing to investigate, supervise or monitor TYNDALL to ensure the safety of the student?patients in their charge. 111. Because of Plaintiffs? relationships with Defendants, as a student-patients of Defendants, and Plaintiffs? young age, Plaintiffs were unable to easily terminate the doctor?patient relationship they had with Defendants. 112. A corporation is a "person? within meaning of Civil Code section 51.9, which subjects persons to liability for sexual harassment within?a business, service or professional relationship, and such an entity defendant may be held liable under this statute for the acts of its employees. CR. v. enet Healthcare Corp, (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1094. Further, principles of rati?cation apply when the principal rati?es the agent's originally unauthorized harassment, as is alleged to have occurred herein. 113. Defendants? conduct (and the conduct of their agents) was a breach of their duties to Plaintiffs; -39- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 STEWART FINALDI Irvine, California 92612 (949} 252-9990 19100 Von Karman Ave, MANLY114. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress including embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliations, 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/or have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL ASSAULT (Against Defendant TYNDALL) 115_. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 116. TYNDALL, in doing the things herein alleged, including intending to subject Plaintiffs to numerous instances of sexual abuse and molestation during Plaintiffs? time with Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, beginning on or around 2005, and lasting for the duration of Plaintiffs? tenure with these Defendants, in or around 2015, including but not limited to instances of TYNDALL groping and fondling the Plaintiffs vagina, all while TYNDALL acted in the course and scope of his agency/employment with Defendants, and each of them and were intended to cause harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiffs? persons, or intended to put Plaintiffs in imminent apprehension of such contact. 117. In doing the things herein alleged, Plaintiffs were put in imminent apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact by TYNDALL and actually believed TYNDALL had the ability to make harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiffs? person. 118. Plaintiffs did not consent to TYNDALL intended harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiffs? persons, or intent to put Plaintiffs in imminent apprehension of such contact. 119. In doing the things herein alleged, TYNDALL violated Plaintiffs? right, pursuant to Civil Code section 43, of protection from bodily restraint or harm, and from personal insult. In doing the things herein alleged, TYNDALL violated his duty, pursuant to Civil Code section 1708', to abstain from injuring the person of Plaintiffs or infringing upon their rights. -40- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ?Ti 1an Pry-.3 [mull m, 15-. NLY, STEWART FINALDI 00 Von Karman Ave.,Su1te 800 Irvine, California 92612 (949} 252-9990 120: As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress including embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of enjoyment of life; have 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/or have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. 121. Plaintiffs are informed and based thereon alleges that the conduct of Defendants was oppressive, malicious and despicable in that it was intentional and done in conscious disregard for the rightsiand safety of others, and were carried out with a conscious disregard of their right to be free from such tortious behavior, such" as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294, entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages against Defendants in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of Defendants. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL BATTERY: Civil Code 1708.5 (Against Defendant TYNDALL) 122. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 123. During Plaintiffs? time as students with Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, TYNDALL intentionally, recklessly and wantonly did acts which were intended to, and did result in harmful and offensive contact with intimate parts of Plaintiffs; persons, including but not limited to being subjected to numerous instances of sexual abuse by TYNDALL, during Plaintiffs? time with Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, beginning on or around 2005, and lasting for the duration of Plaintiffs? tenure with Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, in or around 2015, including but not limited to instances of TYNDALL groping and fondling the Plaintiffs? vaginas, all while TYNDALL acted in the course and scope of his agency/employment with Defendants, and each of them. - 124. TYNDALL did the aforementioned acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of Plaintiffs? persons, and would offend a reasonable sense -41- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES is.) hh Era Suite 800 lrvine, California 926l2 Telenhnne? MANLY, STEWART FINALDI (94912523990 19100 Von Karman Avepersonal dignity. Further, said acts did cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of Plaintiffs? persons that would offend a reasonable sense of persdnal dignity. 125. Because of position of authority over Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs? mental and emotional state, and Plaintiffs? young age, Plaintiffs did not give meaningful consent to such acts. 126. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the acts of TYNDALL, Plaintiffs sustained serious and permanent injuries to their persons, all of his damage in an amount to be shown according to proof and within the jurisdiction of the Court. 127. As a direct result of the sexual abuse by TYNDALL, Plaintiffs have dif?culty in reasonably or meaningfully interacting with others, including those in_ positions of authority over_ Plaintiffs including teachers, and supervisors, and in intimate, con?dential and familial relationships, due to the trauma of the sexual abuse in?icted upon them by Defendants. This inability to interact creates con?ict with Plaintiffs? values of trust and confidence in others, and has caused Plaintiffs substantial emotional distress, anxiety, nervousness and fear. As a direct result of the sexual abuse and molestation by TYNDALL, Plaintiffs suffered immensely, including, but not limited to, encountering issues with a lack of trust, various sequelae, depressive anxiety, nervousness, and self-medicating behavior. 128. Plaintiffs are informed and based thereon alleges that the conduct of TYNDALL was oppressive, malicious and despicable in that it was intentional and done in conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others, and were carried out with a conscious disregard of her right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice purSuant to California Civil Code section 3294, entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages against TYNDALL in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of TYNDALL. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (BUSINESS PROFESSIONS CODE ?17200) (Against DefendantsUSC, TYNDALL and DOES 1 through 500) 129. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporatebyreference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. -42- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES r31) an raves Imps-?5. cw Sunte 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' (949} 252-9990 MANLY, STEWART 8: FINALDI l9100 Von Karman Ave13d. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that TYNDALL and Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 have engaged in unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices including allowing TYNDALL to engage in repeated harassment of student- patients, including Plaintiffs, and failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment and abuse from occurring. The unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices also included failing to adequately investigate, vet, and evaluate individuals for employment with Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, refusing to design, implement, and oversee policies regarding sexual harassment and abuse of student-patients in a reasonable manner that is customary in similar educational environments. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that TYNDALL and Defendants USC and DOESI, through 500, have engaged in unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices including concealing sexual harassment, abuse and/or molestation claims by student-patients, such as Plaintiffs, so as to retain other similarly situated individuals within Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 who were not apprised of such illicit sexual misconduct by TYNDALL. 131. Plaintiffs are informed and- believes that Defendants engaged in a common scheme, arrangement or plan to actively conceal allegations against sexual abusers who were employees, agents, members, and/or participants at Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, including TYNDALL, such that Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 could maintain their public image, and avoid detection of such abuse and abusers. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants actively concealed these allegations, such that Defendants would be insulated from public scrutiny, governmental oversight, and/or investigation ?om various law enforcement agencies, all done in order to maintain the false sense of safety for participants and their families and to perpetuate the program ?nancially. 132. By engaging in unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices, TYNDALL and Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 bene?tted ?nancially to the detriment of its competitors, who had to comply with the law. -43- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 {9491252-9990 lrv1ne, California 92612 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI Telenhnne' 19100 Von Karm'an Ave28. 133. Unless restrained, Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 will continue to engage in the unfair acts and business practices described above, resulting in great and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and/or other similarly situated participants and members. 134. Plaintiffs seek restitution for all amounts?improperly obtained by TYNDALL and Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 through the use of the above-mentioned unlawful business practices, as we'll as the disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains and restitution on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated student?patients who were also subjected to the TYNDALL and Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 illegal and unfair business practices. 135. Pursuant to section 17203 of the California Business and Professions Code and available equitable?powers, Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining TYNDALL, Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 from continuing the unlawful and unfair business practices described above. Further, Plaintiffs seek the appointment of a court monitor to enforce its orders regarding client safety. In addition, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code and section 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICT ION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Against Defendants USC, TYNDALL and DOES 1 through 500) 136. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 137. Defendants TYNDALL, USC and DOES 1 through 500?s conduct toward Plaintiffs, as described herein, was outrageous and extreme. 138. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of Plaintiffs by TYNDALL, and Defendants? knowledge and callous indifference thereof. Plaintiffs had great trust, faith and con?dence in in Defendants, which, by virtue of TYNDALL and Defendants' wrongful conduct, turned to fear. 139. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate Defendants putting TYNDALL who was known. to Defendants to have physically and sexually abused other student-patients, in a position of care of Plaintiffs and other patients, which enabled TYNDALL to have access to other -44- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 113:? 1w iw?u'u E) 1! QB Suite 800 (9491252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI Telenhnne' 19100 Von Karman Ave, .RUJN Nam patients so that he could commit wrongful sexual acts, including the conduct described herein, with young female students, including Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had great trust, faith and con?dence/in Defendants, which, by virtue of Defendants' wrongful conduct, turned to fear. . 140. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate the Defendants and their agents to be incapable of supervising and/or stopping participants and members of Defendants, including TYNDALL, from committing wrongful sexual acts with other patients, including Plaintiffs, or to supervise TYNDALL. Plaintiffs had great trust, faith and con?dence in Defendants, which, by virtue of Defendants' wrongful conduct, turned to fear. 141. Defendants' conduct described herein was intentional and malicious and done for the purpose of causing or with the substantial certainty that Plaintiffs wOuld suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress. 142. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress including embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; have suffered and continue to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performng daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and?counseling. 143. In subjecting Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants TYNDALL, USC and DOES 1 through 500 acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiffs, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs? rights, so as to constitute malice and/or Oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiffs are informed, and on that basis alleges, that these willful, malicious, and/0r oppressive acts, as alleged herein above, were rati?ed by the officers, directors, and/or managing agents of the Defendants. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against TYNDALL, USC and DOES 1 through 500.? I . -45- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (9491 252-9990 lrv1ne, California 92612 I9IOO Von Karman Ave, Suite 800 Telenhnne: MANLY, STEW-ART FINALDI 10ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD (Against Defendants USC, TYNDALL and DOES 1 through 500) 144. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully 'set forth and brought in this cause of action. 145. By holding TYNDALL out as an agent of Defendants, and by allowing him to undertake the medical care of young patients such as_Plaintiffs, Defendants entered into a con?dential, ?duciary, and special relationship with Plaintiffs. 146. By holding themselves out as a preeminent collegiate facility, thereby enticing Plaintiffs to attend Defendant USC as undergraduate and graduate students, Defendants entered into a con?dential, ?duciary and special relationship with Plaintiffs. I 147. Defendants breached their con?dential, ?duciary duty and ?special duties to Plaintiffs by the wrongful and negligent conduct described above and incorporated into this cause of action, and in so doing, gained an advantage over Plaintiffs in matters relating to Plaintiffs? safety, security and health. In particular, in breaching such duties as alleged, Defendants were able to sustain their status as an institution of high moral repute, and preserve their reputation, all at the expense of Plaintiffs? further injury and in violation of Defendants' mandatory duties. 148. By virtue of their con?dential, ?dUciary and special relationship with Plaintiffs, Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to: 3. Investigate or otherwise con?rm or deny such claims of sexual abuse; b. Reveal such facts to Plaintiffs, the community at large, and law enforcement agenc1es; c. Refuse to place TYNDALL and other molesters in positions of trust and authority within Defendants' institutions; d. Refuse to hold out TYNDALL and other molesters to the public, the community, parents and law enforcement agencies as being in good standing and, trustworthy in keeping with him and his position as a physician, faculty member and authority ?gure; e. Refuse to assign TYNDALL and other molesters to positions of power within Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, and over young students; and f. Disclose to Plaintiffs, the public, the school community, and law enforcement agencies the Wrongful, tortious, and sexually exploitive acts that TYNDALL had engaged 1n with patients. -45- CONIPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 9 mac .3 ?1:010 23?3 ?(/2101 EE- agar?: Fate; {guy?0? 3cm. :gOc _c (I) 42C .gc149. Defendants? breach of their respective duties included: a. Not making reasonable investigations of b. Issuing no warnings about c. Permitting TYNDALL to routinely be supervised only by untrained chaperones, who were consistently derelict in their duty to report sexual abuse to law enforcement; d. Not adopting a policy to prevent TYNDALL from routinely having patients and students in his unsupervised control; e. Making no reports ofany allegations of abuse of students prior to or during his employment and/or agency at Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500; and f. Assigning and continuing to assign TYNDALL to duties which placed him in positions of authority and trust over other student-patients, positions in which TYNDALL could easily isolate and sexually abuse other student-patients. 150. At the time that Defendants engaged in such suppression and concealment of acts, such acts were done for the purpose of causing Plaintiffs to forbear on their rights. 151. Defendants' misconduct did reasonably cause Plaintiffs to forbear on Plaintiffs? rights. 152. The misrepresentations, suppressions and concealment of facts by Defendants were intended to and were likely to mislead Plaintiffs and others to believe that Defendants had no knowledge of any charges against TYND-ALL, or that there were no other charges of unlawful or sexual misconduct against TYNDALL or others and that there was no need for them to take further action or precaution. I 153. The misrepresentations, suppressions and concealment of facts by Defendants was likely to mislead Plaintiffs and others to believe that Defendants had no knowledge of the fact that TYNDALL was a molester, and was known to commit wrongful sexual acts with student-patients, including Plaintiffs. 154. Defendants knew or should have known at the time they suppressed and concealed the true facts regarding others' sexual molestations, that the resulting impressions were misleading. 155. Defendants suppressed and concealed the true facts regarding TYNDAPL with the purpose of: preventing Plaintiffs and others, ?'om learning that TYNDALL and others had been -47- COMPLAINT FOR DANLAGES .Gii 1 LD 1J1 he.) f1") Q9 MANLY, STEWART 8: FINA 19100 Von Karman Ave., 00 Suite 8 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' (9491 252-9990 OO-JON and were continuing to sexually harass, molest and abuse patients, TYNDALL and Defendants' control, direction, and guidance, with complete impunity; inducing people, including Plaintiffs and other benefactors and donors to participate and financially support Defendants? program and other enterprises of Defendants; preventing further reports and outside investigations into TYNDALL 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 gymnastics community; avoiding damage to the reputation of Defendants, or Defendants' institutions; and avoiding the civil and criminal liability of Defendants, of TYNDALL, and of others. 156. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and in particular Defendants TYNDALL, USC'and DOES 1 and DOES 1 through 500, with knowledge of the tortious nature of their own and TYNDALL conduct, knowingly conspired and gave each other substantial assistance to perpetrate the misrepresentations, fraud and deceit alleged herein?covering up the past allegations of sexual misconduct lodged against TYNDALL, and allowing TYNDALL to remain in his position as a physician, faculty member and doctor, so they could maintain their reputations and continue with their positions within the organization. 157. Plaintiffs and others were misled by Defendants' suppressions and concealment of facts, and in reliance thereon, were induced to act or induced not to act, exactly as intended by Defendants. Speci?cally, Plaintiffs were induced to believe that there were no allegations of criminal or sexual abuse against TYNDALL and that. he was safe to be around patients. Had Plaintiffs, and others, known the true facts about TYNDALL, they would have not participated further in activities of Defendants, or continued to ?nancially support Defendants' activities. They would have reported the matters to the proper authorities, to other patients so as to prevent future recurrences; they would not have allowed their children, including Plaintiffs, to be alone with, or have any relationship with they would not have allowed young female students, including Plaintiffs, 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 -48- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800. STEWART 8; FINALDI Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne? (9491252-9990 19100 Von Karman Ave, MANLY, L. u? -4 17117 .sought counseling for Plaintiffs, and for other student-patients, who had been abused by TYNDALL. . 158. By giving TYNDALL the position of physician and faculty member, Defendants impliedly represented that TYNDALL was safe and morally ?t to give medical care and provide gynecological treatment. 159. When Defendants made these af?rmative or implied representations and non- disclosures of material facts, Defendants knew or should have known that the facts were otherwise. Defendants knowingly and intentionally suppressed the material facts that TYNDALL, had on numerous, prior occasions sexually, physically, and mentally abused patients of Defendants, including Plaintiffs, and knew of or learned of conduct,_or should have known of conduct by TYNDALL which placed Defendants on notice that TYNDALL had previously been suspected of felonies, including unlawful sexual conduct with patients, and was likely sexually abusing student- patients in his care. 160. Because of Plaintiffs? young age, and because of the status of TYNDALL as a trusted, authority ?gure to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs were vulnerable to TYNDALL. TYNDALL sought Plaintiffs out, and was empowered by and accepted Plaintiffs? vulnerability. Plaintiffs? vulnerability also prevented Plaintiffs from.effectively protecting themselves from the sexual advances of TYNDALL. 161. Defendants had the duty to obtain and disclose information relating to sexual misconduct of TYNDALL. 162. Defendants misrepresented, concealed or failed to disclose information relating to sexual misconduct of TYNDALL. 163. Defendants knew that they had misrepresented, concealed or failed to disclose information related to sexual misconduct of TYNDALL. 164. Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon Defendants for information relating to sexual misconduct of TYNDALL. ?165. Defendants TYNDALL, USC and DOES 1, and DOES 1 through 500, in?concert with each other and with the intent to conceal and defraud, conspired and came to a meeting of the -49- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES NJ m; (?53 Suite 800 Irvine, California 926 2 {94912523990 NLY, STEWART FINALDI IOO Von Karman Ave, Telenhnneminds whereby they would misrepresent, conceal or fail to disclose information relating to the sexual misconduct of TYNDALL, the inability of Defendants to supervise or stop TYNDALL from sexually harassing, molesting and abusing Plaintiffs, and their own failure to properly investigate, supervise and monitor his conduct with patients. 166. By so concealing, Defendants committed at least one act in furtherance of the conspiracy. 167. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress including embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of enjoyment of life; have suffered and continues to suffer andwere 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/or have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. 168. In addition, when Plaintiffs ?nally discovered the fraud of Defendants, and continuing thereafter, Plaintiffs experienced recurrences of the above-described injuries. Plaintiffs experienced extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress that Plaintiffs had been the victim of Defendants' fraud; that Plaintiffs had not been able to help other young female patients to avoid being molested because of the fraud, and that Plaintiffs had not been able because 0f the fraud to receive timely medical treatment needed to deal with the problems Plaintiffs had suffered and continues to suffer as a result of the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse. 169. In subjecting Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants TYNDALL, USC and DOES l, and DOES 1 through 500 acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiffs, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs? rights, so as to constitute malice and/or oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiffs are informed, and on that basis alleges, that these willful, malicious, and/or oppressive acts, as alleged herein above, were rati?ed by the of?cers, directors, and/or managing agents of the Defendants. Plaintiffs are thereforei'entitled'to recover punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against Defendants TYNDALL, USC and DOES 1, and DOES 1 through 500. -50- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 (9491252-9990 Irv1ne, California 92612 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI Telenhnne? 19100 Von Karman Ave, .1 . 311713TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE (Against Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500) 170. Plaintiffs re?allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though ?illy set forth and brought in this cause of action. 171. Prior to and after the ?rst incident of sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of Plaintiffs, through the present, Defendants, knew and/or should have known that TYNDALL had and was capable of sexually, physically, and mentally abusing and harassing Plaintiffs or other victims. 172. Defendants and each ofthem had special duties to protect the Plaintiffs and the young patients, when such individuals were entrusted to Defendants' care. Plaintiffs? care, welfare and physical custody was entrusted to Defendants.- Defendants? voluntarily accepted the entrusted care of Plaintiffs. As such, Defendants owed Plaintiffs, young student? patients, a special duty of care that adults and medical professionals dealing with vulnerable medical patients and young students, owe to protect them from harm. The duty to protect and warn arose from the special, trusting, con?dential, and ?duciary relationship between Defendants and Plaintiffs. 173. Defendants breached their duties of care to the Plaintiffs by allowing TYNDALL to come into contact with the Plaintiffs and other student-patients without effective supervision; by failing to adequately hire, supervise and retain TYNDALL whom they permitted and enabled to have. access to Plaintiffs; by concealing from Plaintiffs, the public and law enforcement that TYNDALL was sexually harassing, molesting and abusing patients,; and by holding TYNDALL out to Plaintiffs as being of high moral and ethical repute, in good standing and trustworthy. 174. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs by failing to investigate or otherwise con?rm or deny such facts of sexual abuse by TYNDALL, failing to reveal such facts to Plaintiffs, the community and law enforcement agencies, and by placing TYNDALL into a position of trust and authority, holding him out to Plaintiffs and the public as being in good standing and trustworthy. 175. - Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs by failing to adequately monitor and supervise TYNDALL and failing to prevent TYNDALL from committing wrongful sexual acts -51- CONIPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Chi? Suite 800 612 E52 (949125241990 Irv1ne,CalIforn1a MANLY, STEWART FINALDI Telenhnne' l9l00 Von Karman with medical patients, including Plaintiffs. Defendants? voluminous past records of sexual misconduct by TYNDALL caused Defendants to know, or gave them information where they should have known, of incapacity to serve as a team physician, physician, and faculty member at Defendants? institutions, providing for the physical care of young females. 176. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress including embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliations, 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 treatment, therapy, and counseling. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (Against Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500) 177. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 178. By virtue of Plaintiffs? special relationships with Defendants, and Defendants' relation to TYNDALL, Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to provide reasonable supervision of TYNDALL, to use reasonable care in investigating TYNDALL background, and to provide adequate warning to Plaintiffs and other patients of TYNDALL dangerous propensities and un?tness. As organizations {and individuals responsible for, and entrusted with, the welfare of patients, Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500 had a duty to protect, supervise, and monitor both the Plaintiffs from being preyed upon by sexual predators, and to supervise and monitor TYNDALL such that he would not be placed in seclusion with vulnerable medical patients, including the Plaintiffs. 179. _As representatives of Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500, where many of the patients thereof are vulnerable young women entrusted to these Defendants, these Defendants? agents expressly and implicitly represented that team physicians, faculty and staff, including -52- COMPLAINT FOR DANIAGES 1 TYNDALL, were not a sexual threat to those individuals and others who would fall under 2 TYNDALL in?uence, control, direction, and care. 3 180. Defendants, by and through their respective agents, servants and employees, knew 4 or should have known of TYNDALL dangerous and exploitive propensities and that TYNDALL 5 was an un?t agent. Despite such knowledge, Defendants negligently failed to supervise 6 TYNDALL in his position of trust and authority as a team physician, physician, faculty member 7 and authority ?gure over patients and young women, where he was able to commit wrongful acts 8 of sexual misconduct against Plaintiffs. Defendants failed to provide reasonable supervision of 9 TYNDALL, failed to use reasonable care in investigating TYNDALL, and failed to provide 10 adequate warning to Plaintiffs of TYNDALL dangerous propensities and un?tness. Defendants 11 further failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of patients, including Plaintiffs, from 5% 5353; 12 sexual harassment, molestation, and abuse. 13 181. At no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in place a Egg?E; 14 reasonable system or procedure to investigate, supervise and monitor the team physician, gag; 15 physician, faculty member or staff, including TYNDALL, to prevent pre-sexual grooming and Egg; 16 sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of those individuals, nor did they implement a system EE 17 or procedure to oversee or monitor conduct toward patients and others in Defendants' care. 18 182. Defendants were aware or should have been aware of how vulnerable medical 19 patients were to sexual harassment, molestation and abuse by physicians, team doctors, faculty 20 members and other persons of authority within Defendants? entities. 21 183. Defendants were put on notice, knew and/or should have known that TYNDALL 22 had previously engaged and was continuing to engage in unlawful sexual conduct with minors, ?El 23 patients and had committed other felonies, for his own personal sexual gratification, and that it 24 was foreseeable that he was engaging, or would engage ?in illicit sexual activities with Plaintiffs, 25 and others, under the cloak of thenauthority, confidence, and trust, bestowed uponhim through I?ll uu 13:11;- a? 1. er: 26 Defendants. 27 184. Defendants were placed on actual or constructive notice that TYNDALL had 28 molested other student?patients during his employment with Defendants. Defendants were -53- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 (9491252-9990 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI Telenhnne? 19100 Von Karman Aveinformed of molestations of patients committed by TYNDALL prior to Plaintiffs? sexual abuse, and of conduct by TYNDALL that would put a reasonable person on notice of such propensity to molest and abuse young female students. 185. Even though Defendants knew or should have known of these illicit sexual activities by TYNDALL, Defendants did not reasonably investigate, supervise 'or monitor TYNDALL to ensure the safety of the patients. 186. Defendants? conduct was a breach of their duties to Plaintiffs. 187. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty to Plaintiffs by, inter alia, by failing to adequately monitor and supervise TYNDALL and stop TYNDALL from committing wrongful sexual acts with student-patients, including Plaintiffs. 188. As a result of the above?described conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress including embarrassment, loss of self?esteem, disgrace, humiliations, 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/or have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. NEGLIGENCE PER IN VIOLATION OF MANDATED REPORTING LAWS 189. Under applicable law, Defendants, by and through their employees and agents, were medical care providers and were under a statutory duty to report known or suspected incidents of sexual molestation or abuse of student-patients or any individuals in their care to the appropriate authorities, and not to impede the ?ling of any such report. 190. Defendants knew or should have known that their gynecological physician, TYNDALL, and other staff of Defendants, had sexually molested, abused or caused touching, battery, harm, and/or other injuries to young female students including Plaintiffs, giving rise to a duty to report such conduct. . -54? CONIPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 STEWART Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' (9419\252-9990 9 I 100 Von Karman Ave191. Defendants knew, or should have known, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that an undue risk to patients, including Plaintiffs, existed because Defendants did not comply with mandatory reporting requirements. 192. By failing to report'the continuing molestations and abuse by TYNDALL, which Defendants knew or should have known about, and by ignoring the ful?llment of the mandated compliance withthe reporting requirements, Defendants created the risk and danger contemplated by the applicable mandated reporting laws, and as a result, unreasonably and wrongfully exposed Plaintiffs and other patients to sexual molestation and abuse. 193. Plaintiffs were members of the class of persons for whose protection applicable mandated reporting laws were speci?cally adopted to protect. 194. Had Defendants adequately reported the molestation of Plaintiffs and other patients, as required by applicable mandated reporting laws, further harm to Plaintiffs and other individuals would have been avoided. 195. As a proximate result of Defendants? failure to follow the mandatory reporting requirements, Defendants wrongfully denied Plaintiffs and other minors the intervention of law enforcement and the appropriate authorities. Such public agencies would have changed the then- existing arrangements and conditions that provided the access and opportunities for the molestation of Plaintiffs by TYNDALL. 196. The physical, mental, and emotional damages and injuries resulting from the sexual molestation of Plaintiffs by TYNDALL, were the type of occurrence and injuries that the applicable mandated reporting laws were designed to prevent. 197. As a result, Defendants' failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements constituted a per se breach of Defendants' duties to Plaintiffs. - 198. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty to Plaintiffs by, inter alia, by failing to adequately monitor and supervise TYNDALL and stop TYNDALL from committing wrongful sexual acts with patients, including Plaintiffs. 199. As a result of the above-described?conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional -55- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES LJ '7 PM) 1w. Suite 800 Irvine, California 926l2 Telenhnne' (949\ 252-9990 ANLY, STEWART FINALDI 100 Von Karman Avedistress including embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of enjoyment of life; have 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/or have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION. NEGLIGENT (Against Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500) 200. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each? and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 201. By yirtue of Plaintiffs? Special relationship with Defendants, and Defendants' relation to TYNDALL, Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to not hire or retain, given his dangerous and exploitive propensities, which Defendants knew or should have known about had they engaged in a reasonable, meaningful and adequate investigation of her background prior to his hiring or retaining her in subsequent positions of employment. 202. Defendants expressly and implicitly represented that the team staff, physicians, trainers, faculty members, and team physicians, including TYNDALL, were not a sexual threat to student-patients and others who would fall under TYNDALL in?uence, control, direction, and guidance. 203. At no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in place a reasonable system or procedure to investigate, supervise and monitor its Student Health Center physicians and healthcare professionals, including TYNDALL, to prevent pre-sexual grooming or sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of student-patients nor did they implement a system or procedure to oversee or monitor conduct toward student-patients and/or others in Defendants' care. 204. Defendants were aware or should have been aware and understand how vulnerable young female students were to sexual harassment, molestation and abuse by faculty members, physicians, and other persons of authority within the control of Defendants prior to Plaintiffs? sexual abuse by TYNDALL. 5 6- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 205. Defendants were put on notice, and should have known that TYNDALL had 2 previously engaged and continued to engage in unlawful sexual conduct with student-patients, and 3 was committing other felonies, for his own personal grati?cation, and that it was, or should have 4 known it would have been foreseeable that he was engaging, or would engage in illicit sexual 5 activities with Plaintiffs, and others, under the cloak of his authority, con?dence, and trust, 6 bestowed upon her through Defendants. 7 206. Defendants were placed on actual or constructive notice that TYNDALL had 8 molested or was molesting patients, both before his employment within Defendants, and during 9 that employment. Defendants had knowledge - of inappropriate conduct and molestations .10 committed by TYNDALL before and during his employment, yet chose to?allow him to remain 11 unsupervised where he sexually abused Plaintiffs. =13 3.95:9: 12 207. Even though Defendants knew or should have known of these sexually illicit 13 activities by TYNDALL, Defendants failed to use reasonable care in investigating TYNDALL and Egg; 14 did nothing to reasonably investigate, supervise or monitor TYNDALL to ensure the safety of the- Egg; 15 patients. 3:3; 16 208. Defendants' conduct was a breach of their duties to Plaintiffs. EE 17 209. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to 18 Suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional l9 distress including embarrassment, loss of self?esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of 20 enjoyment'of life; have suffered and continues to suffer and were prevented and will continue to 21 be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will 22 sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or have incurred and will continue to incur g, 23 expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. . 24 FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN, TRAIN, or EDUCATE 7 25 (Against Defendants USC and DOES 1 through 500) E: 26 210. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation 27 contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 28 i -57- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1;:th MANLY, STEWART FINALDI Suite 800 1rv1ne,Ca11forn1a 92612 '{9491 252-9990 19100 Von Karm'an Aye, Telenhnne211. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect Plaintiffs and other student?patients from the risk of sexual harassment, molestation and abuse by TYNDALL by properly warning, training or educating Plaintiffs and other about how to avoid such a risk. - 212. Defendants breached their duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect Plaintiffs and other patients from the risk of sexual harassment, molestation and abuse by TYNDALL, such as the failure to properly warn, train or educate Plaintiffs and other patients about how to avoid such a particular risk that TYNDALL posed?of sexual misconduct. 213. Defendants breached their duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect Plaintiffs and other patients ?om the risk of sexual harassment, molestation and abuse by TYNDALL, by failing to supervise and stop employees of Defendants, including TYNDALL, from committing wrongful sexual acts with student-patients, including Plaintiffs. 214. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiffs has suffered and continue to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress including embarrassment, loss of self?esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of enjoyment of life; have suffered and continues to suffer and were prevented and will continueto be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for a jury trial and for judgment against Defendants as follows: FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 1. For past, present and future non-economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 2. For past, present and future special damages, including but not limited to past, present and future lost earnings, economic damages and others, in an amount to be determined at trial; 3. Any appropriate statutory damages; -5 g- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1'7 1?33 {:33 Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 {9491252-9990 ANLY, STEWART FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., TelenhnneFor costs of suit; 6. Punitive damages, according to proof, though not as to the Negligence Causes of Action (Causes of Action 12 through 16); 7. For interest based on damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; 8. For attomey?s fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5, et seq, 52, et seq, 51, et seq, 42 U.S.C. 1988 or as otherwise allowable by law; 9. For declaratory and injunctive relief, including but not limited to court supervision of Defendant and 10. For such other and further relief as the, Court may deem proper. Dated: May 21, 2018 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI By: C. MANLY, Attorneys for Plaintiffs ANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3, and JANE DOE 4 -59- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES lk'w-3 GT3 1:5? (9491252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne: MANLY, STEWART FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 ~DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3, and JANE DOE 4, hereby demand a trial by jury. Dated: May 21, 2018 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI By: HN C: NLY, Esq. ttomeys for Plaintiffs NE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3, and JANE DOE 4 L41 3 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Bar number and address): use ONLY ?10h Manly, Esq. 49080 1 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI perior or Celiform 19100 Von Karman Ave. Suite 800 Count?" of Ln: Irvine, CA 92612 TE EP 0 END 949- 252- 9990 FAX No.: 949-252?9991 ATTORNE: Plaint1ff JANE DOE 1, et a1. HAY 2 1 2018 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STREET ADDRESS: 312 N. Spring St Shem it. i I ?Hummer? of can? MAILING ADDRESS: Deputy LOSAD 3135? CA 90012 Robinson BRANCH Spring treet Courthouse CASE NAME: JANE DOE 1, et al. v. DR. GEORGE TYNDALL, et at. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation 7 0 6 8- 4 4 Unlimited Limited C3 BC . (Amount (Amount Counter Jomder demanded demanded is Filed with ?rst appearance by defendant exceeds $25000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court. rule 3.402) DEPT: items 1?6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: (fl JUDGE: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto (22) Breach of comramvarmmy (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3400-3403) Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3.740 collections (09) I: Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) Other (Personal l?njuryiProperty i: Other collections (09) I: Construction defect (10) DamageIWrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) :1 Mass to? (40) Asbestos (04) [3 Other contract (37) Securities litigation (28) Product liability (24) Real Property I: Environmentalfl' oxic tort (30) Medical malpractice (45) Ci Eminent i:i insurance coverage Claims arising from the Other pupD/WD (23) condemnatIon (14) above listed provisionally complex case (Other) Tort (33) types (41) Ci Business tortlunfair business practice Other real property (26) Enforcement ofJudgment El Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer '3 Enforcement of judgment (20) Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint i:i Fraud (16) Residential (32) RICO (27) El Intellectual property (19) Drugs (38) Other complaint (not speci?ed above) (42) [3 Professional negligence (25) JudiCia' R?Vl?w Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other ?09 (35) [3 Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment ?3 Petition re: arbitration award (11) . Other petition (not speci?ed above) (43) CI Wrongful termination (36) Writ of mandate (02) Cl Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39) 2. This case Ci is is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses b. Extensive motion practice raising dif?cult or novel 9. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming?to resolve in other counties. states. or countries, or in a federal court C. Ci Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. monetary nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief 0. .punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specify): 14 5. This case Ij'is is not a class action suit. If there are any known related cases ?le and serve a notice of related case. You may use form (SM-015. Date: May 21 2018 JOHNC. MANLY, ESQ (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) OF OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) NOTICE . Plaintiff must ?le this cover sheet with the ?rst paperi ?led In the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases ?led under the Probate Code Family Code or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal Rules of Court rule 3.220.) Failure to ?le may result in sanctions. File this cover sheet In addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. 0 If this case is complex under rule 3. 400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court you must serve a Copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding - Unless this' Is a collections case under rule 3. 740 or a complex case this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes oniya.g e1of2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Cal Rules of Court, 2.30 3. 220 3. 400?3. 403 3. 740; Judicial Council of California CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration. std. 3.10 CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007] ., TITLE: JANE DOE 1. et al. V. DR. GEORGE TYNDALL, et al. CASE NUMBER CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION (CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION) This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.3 in all new civil case ?lings in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Item I. Check the types of hearing and fill in the estimated length of hearing expected for this case: JURY ES CLASS YES LIMITED YES TIME ESTIMATED FOR TRIAL 20 Item II. Indicate the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps If you checked "Limited Case?. skip to Item lil. Pg. 4): Step 1 After first completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet form. find the main Civil Case Cover Sheet heading for your case in the left margin below. and. to the right'in Column A. the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you selected. Step 2: Check one Superior Court type of action in Column below which best describes the nature of this case. Step 3: In Column C. circle the reason for the court location choice that applies to the type of action you have checked. For any exception to the court location, see Local Rule 2.3. 0111de Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (see Column below) . Class actions must be filed In the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. central district. . May be ?led in central (other county. or no bodity damage). . Location where cause of action arose. . Location where bodily injury. death or dama occurred. . Location Where performance required or de endant resides. 6. Location of property or permanentty garaged vehicte. 7. Location where petitioner resides. 8. Location wherein defendantlrespondent functions wholly. 9. Location where one or more of the arties reside. 10. Location of Labor Commissioner 0 ce 11. Mandatory Filing Location (Hub Case) Step 4: Fill in the information requested on page 4 in Item complete Item IV. Sign the declaration. Auto (22) El A7100 Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death 1.. 2.. 4. :i Uninsured Motorist (46) El A7110 Personal [niury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death?Uninsured Motorist 1.. 2.. 4. A6070 Asbestos Property Damage 2. Asbestos (04) A7221 Asbestos-Personal Death 2. Product Liability (24) El A7260 Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) 1., 2.. 3..4A7210 Medical Malpractice- Physicians&Surgeons 1..4. 3 MedicalMalpractice(45) . 5 A7240 OlherProfessionalHealth Care Malpractice a a 3 A7250 Premises Liability (e.g..slip and fall) 1 a ?5 Other Personal . . . r: Injury Property CI A7230 Intentional Bodily Injury/Properly Damage/Wrongful Death 1 4 Damage Wrongful assault. vandallsm. etc.) Death (23) El A7270 Intentional ln?iction of Emotional Distress 1" 3' l2 A7220 Other Personal lnjuryi?Pi'operty Damage/Wrongful Death 1"4' LACIV 109 (Rev 3/15) CIVIL CASE ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 1 of4 SHORT TITLE: JANE DOE 1, et al. v. DR. GEORGE TYNDALL, et ail. CASE NUMBER or: the" ?52: Hg: 5% can. Business Tort(07) 13 A6029 Other Commercial/BusinessTort (not fraud/breach of contract) 1.. 3. 1: gig Civil Rights (08) El A6005 Civil Rights/Olscrimination 1.. 2..3 a - 5 Defamation(13) A6010 Defamation (slander/libel) is Fraud (16) A6013 Fraud (no contract) .-. a 9 A6017 Legai Malpractice co 3, Professional Negligence (25) A6050 Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) 1.. 2.. 3. 5 3 Other (35) .A6025 Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort 2-.3. Wrongful Termination (36) El A6037 Wrongful Termination 1.. 2,3 0 . 3? A6024 OtherEmploymentComplaintCase Other Employment (15) IE [1 A6109 LaborCommissionerAppeals 10. El A6004 Breach of Rental/LeaseContract (not unlawfuldetainerorwrongful 2 5 eviction) UW Breac 0 C1356 arranty A6008 -Sel er Plaintiff (nofraudlnegligence) 2"5' insurance) A6019 1"2"5' El A6028 Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) 1" 2" 5' El A6002 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff 2..5..6. 11 3 Collections (09) A6012 Other Promissory Note/Collections Case 2.5. 11 0 El A6034 Collections Case-Purchased Debt (Charged Off Consumer Debt 5. 6. 11 Purchased on or after January 1. 2014) insurance Coverage (18) El A6015 lnsurance Coverage (not complex) El A6009 Contractual Fraud 1..2..3..5. OtherContract (37) El A6031 Tortious Interference 1.. El A6027 Other Contract Dispute(not 1.. 2,3,8. Eminent Domain/inverse . . E, Condemnation (14) El A7300 Eminent DomaInICondemnation Number of parcels 2. ID D. 6.9 Wrongful Eviction (33) A6023 Wrongful Eviction Case 13 A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure 2..6. Other Real Property (26) A6032 Quiet Title .. El A6060 Other Real Property (not eminent domain. landlordlienant. foreclosure) 2.. . I Unlawful Detagtgr-Commermai El A6021 Unlawful Detainer-Commercial{not drugs orwrongful eviction) 2..6. a, I Unlawful Deta?ger-Remdential El A6020 Unlawful Detainer-Residential(notdrugs orwrongful eviction) 2.6. . Unlawful Detamer? . - 5 Post-Foreclosure(34) El 2..6. Unlawful Detainer-Drugs (38) El A6022 Unlawful Detainer?Drugs 2., 6. 109 (Rev 3/15) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 2 of4 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER JANE DOE 1, et al. v. DR. GEORGE TYNDALL, et al. Asset Forfeiture (05) .. El A6108 Asset Fo?eiture Case 2..6. 3 Petition re Arbitration(11) El A6115 Petition to CompellCon?nnNacateArbitration 2.5. .2 a . 35? El A6151 Writ-Administrative Mandamus 2,8. 5?5 Writ of Mandate (02) El A6152 Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter 2. El A6153 Writ-Other Limited Court Case Review 2 OtherJudicialReview(39) El A6150 OtherWn'tl'Judicial Review 2..8. AntilrustlT rade Regulation (03) El A6003 Antitrust/Trade Regulation 1..2., 8. a Construction Defect (10) Cl A6007 Construction Defect 1..2.. 3. .g 05"? M355 A6006 Claims Involving Mass Tort 1.. 2., 3. D. 8 Securities Litigation (28) CI A6035 Securities Litigation Case 1..2..8. 2 . Toxic Tort - - C: '02, Environmental (30) El A6036 TOXIC Tort/Envrronmental 1., 2.. 3.. 8. '5 0 Insurance Coverage Claims -. . from Complex Case (41) El A6014 Insurance Coverage/Subrogatlon(complex case only) El A6141 SisterSlate Judgment 2.. 9. .- El A6160 Abstract ofJudgment 2.. 6. a Enforcement El A6107 Confession 2., 9. 'g ofJudgment(20) [21 A6140 AdministrativeAgencyAward (not unpaid taxesA6114 PetitionlCerli?catefor Entry ofJudgmenton Unpaid Tax 2..8. Cl A6112 Other Enforcement ofJudgment Case RICO (27) El A6033 Racketeering (RICO) Case u, .E . r_u A6030 Declaratory ReliefOnly 3% Other Complaints Ci A6040 lnjunctive Relief Only (not domesticlharassment) 2..8. d) . . Speleled Above) (42) Cl A6011 0' El A6000 OtherCivil Complaint (non-tonlnon-complex) 1..2..8. PartnershipCorporation CI A6113 Partnership and Corporate Governance Case 2 8 Governance(21) . A6121 Civil Harassment cg": Ln g! A6123 WorkplaceI-Iarassment d3 A6124 Eld ID tAd ltAb .. .. . OtherPetitions (Not er epen en. use Case 2 3 9 3 Speci?ed Above) (43) El A6190 Election Contest cn A6110 PetitionforChangeofName 2..7. {1'1 A6170 Petition for Relieffrom Late Claim Law 2..3..4..8. l: A6100 OtherCivil Petition 2.. 9. LACIV 109 (Rev 3/15) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM - Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 3 of4 SHORT TITLE: - CASE NUMBER JANE DOE 1. et al. v. DR. GEORGE TYNDALL. et al. item Statement of Location: Enterthe address ofthe accident, party's residence or place of business, performance, or other . circumstance indicated in Item Step 3 on Page 1, as the proper reason for filing in the court location you selected. we}. J- i .5 5.: ADDRESS: REASON: Check the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown 3500 South Figueroa Street under Column for the type of action that you have selected for this case. D1.D2.D3.E4.DS.D6.EI7. [18.0 9.D10.Dll. CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE: Los Angeles CA 90089 Item iV. Declaration of Assignment I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that the above-entitled matter is properly ?led for assignment to the Spring Street courthouse in the Central District of the Superior Court of California. County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc, 392 et seq.. and Local Rule 2.3, Dated; May 21, 2018 Clo/9? C. OF ATTORNEYIFILMG PARTY) PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE: 1. Original Complaint or Petition. 2 If filing a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk. 3. Civil Case Cover Sheet. Judicial Council form Gilli?010. 4 . Civil case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev. - 03/15). Payment in full of the filing fee unless fees have been waived. A signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem. Judicial Council form 0 if the plaintiff or petitioner Is a minor under 18 years of age will be required by Court In order to issue a summons. 7. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum must be served along with the summons and complaint. or other initiating pleading in the case. LACIV 109 (Rev 3/15) . CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 4 of 4