Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 03/04/2019 04:28 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Bolden,Deputy Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mikayla Gow Kellogg, Esq. (SBN 268185) mkellogg@kva-law.com Kelly D. Van Aken, Esq. (SBN 274175) kvanaken@kva-law.com KELLOGG & VAN AKEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 539-3100 Facsimile: (415) 539-3101 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOHN DOE 1, et al. 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 JOHN DOE 1, an Individual; JOHN DOE 2, an Individual; JOHN DOE 3, an Individual; JOHN DOE 4, an Individual; JOHN DOE 5, an Individual; JOHN DOE 6, an Individual; ALI JALAL-KAMALI, an Individual; ALLEN PEARCY GALEANA, an Individual; JOHN DOE 7, an Individual; JOHN DOE 8, an Individual; JOHN DOE 9, an Individual; JOHN DOE 10, an Individual; JOHN DOE 11, an Individual; JOHN DOE 12, an Individual; JOHN DOE 13, an Individual; JOHN DOE 14, an Individual; JOHN DOE 15, an Individual; JOHN DOE 16, an Individual; JOHN DOE 17, an Individual; JOHN DOE 18, an Individual; and JOHN DOE 19, an Individual, Plaintiffs, v. 22 23 24 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation; DENNIS A. KELLY, M.D., an Individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No: 19STCV04543 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. SEXUAL BATTERY (Civil Code § 1708.5); 2. BATTERY; 3. GENDER VIOLENCE (Civil Code Section 52.4); 4. SEXUAL HARASSMENT (Civil Code Section 51.9); 5. VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH ACT (Civil Code Section 51); 6. VIOLATION OF THE BANE ACT (Civil Code Section 52.1); 7. SEXUAL ABUSE AND DISCRIMINATION IN AN EDUCATIONAL SETTING (Education Code Section 220); 8. NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION; 25 26 Defendants. 27 28 -1FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 9. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION; 10. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION; 11. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT; 12. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 13. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; 14. NEGLIGENCE; and 15. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.); 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 10 11 12 13 Plaintiffs JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3, JOHN DOE 4, JOHN DOE 5, 14 JOHN DOE 6, ALI JALAL-KAMALI, ALLEN PEARCY GALEANA, JOHN DOE 7, JOHN 15 DOE 8, JOHN DOE 9, JOHN DOE 10, JOHN DOE 11, JOHN DOE 12, JOHN DOE 13, JOHN 16 DOE 14, JOHN DOE 15, JOHN DOE 16, JOHN DOE 17, JOHN DOE 18, and JOHN DOE 19 17 (hereinafter, “Plaintiffs”) for causes of action against Defendants UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN 18 CALIFORNIA (hereinafter, “USC”), DENNIS A. KELLY, M.D. (hereinafter, “Dr. Kelly”) and 19 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) hereby 20 allege as follows: 21 INTRODUCTION 22 1. This action arises from the discrimination, sexual assault, battery, and abuse of 21 23 young gay and bisexual men, and men whose sexual partners were men, while they were students 24 at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, California. Dr. Dennis A. Kelly, the only 25 full-time men’s sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, used his position of 26 trust, authority, and power to sexually abuse, harass, and molest Plaintiffs and discriminate against 27 them based on their sexual orientation and/or gender. Dr. Kelly’s conduct included, but was not 28 -2FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 limited to: shaming, humiliating, and judging Plaintiffs for engaging in sexual acts with men; 2 questioning Plaintiffs’ sexual history using demeaning and derogatory terms, including whether 3 Plaintiffs gave “rim jobs,” “ate ass,” and “sucked dick”; demanding Plaintiffs remove their pants 4 and underwear in front of Dr. Kelly while he refused to leave the room or provide Plaintiffs with 5 privacy; directing Plaintiffs to climb onto the medical examination table and get on their hands 6 and knees while they were naked from the waist down without any standard medical covering, 7 drapery, or robe for privacy; refusing to provide Plaintiffs with a standard medical covering, 8 drapery, or a robe for privacy during examinations despite Plaintiffs’ requests; making 9 inappropriate comments to Plaintiffs during consultations or examinations regarding their physical 10 appearance or sexual practices; insisting on performing unnecessary “genital examinations” on 11 Plaintiffs; failing to provide explanations for the purpose or reason behind performing “genital 12 examinations” on Plaintiffs; failing to answer Plaintiffs’ questions regarding the purpose or reason 13 behind performing “genital examinations” on Plaintiffs; insisting on performing unnecessary 14 “rectal examinations” on Plaintiffs; failing to provide explanations for the purpose or reason 15 behind performing “rectal examinations” on Plaintiffs; failing to answer Plaintiffs’ questions 16 regarding the purpose or reason behind performing “rectal examinations” on Plaintiffs; penetrating 17 Plaintiffs’ anuses with his finger(s) and/or medical devices without telling Plaintiffs what he was 18 doing during the examination; and penetrating Plaintiffs’ anuses with his finger(s) and/or medical 19 devices without any legitimate medical purpose and for no other reason than to satisfy his own 20 prurient sexual desires and/or to shame, humiliate, and embarrass Plaintiffs as a result of their 21 sexual orientation and sexual practices. 22 2. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Dr. Kelly was targeting 23 the gay and bisexual male student population – all of whom were young adults and many of whom 24 were visiting the doctor without a parent for the first time – by subjecting them to intrusive and 25 medically unnecessary “rectal examinations.” Dr. Kelly did not treat men he knew to be 26 heterosexual or men who were not interested in men in a similar manner and did not penetrate 27 their anuses or perform rectal examinations. Because Dr. Kelly was the only men’s sexual health 28 doctor at USC, Plaintiffs were forced to receive medical treatment from him for any concern -3FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 related to their sexual health which continuously subjected Plaintiffs to Dr. Kelly’s abusive and 2 discriminatory conduct. Defendant USC entrusted the Plaintiffs’ safety and care to Dr. Kelly. 3 Despite receiving repeated complaints regarding Dr. Kelly’s misconduct, USC actively and 4 deliberately failed to investigate, discipline, or address Dr. Kelly’s sexually abusive and 5 discriminatory behavior and instead, continued to employ Dr. Kelly for years, allowing him 6 unencumbered access to sexually abuse, harass, and discriminate against Plaintiffs and other male 7 gay and bisexual USC students in his care. 8 9 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 3. Plaintiffs John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, John Doe 10 6, Ali Jalal-Kamali, Allen Pearcy Galeana, John Doe 7, John Doe 8, John Doe 9, John Doe 10, 11 John Doe 11, John Doe 12, John Doe 13, John Doe 14, John Doe 15, John Doe 16, John Doe 17, 12 John Doe 18, and John Doe 19, at all relevant times herein, resided in the County of Los Angeles, 13 State of California. 14 4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant University of 15 Southern California is, and at all times relevant herein was, a California Corporation, having its 16 principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and was doing 17 substantial business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 18 5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Dennis A. 19 Kelly, M.D., at all times relevant herein, was and is an adult male individual over the age of 18 20 who resides in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 21 6. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as 22 Does 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by these fictitious names. 23 Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of these defendants 24 when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the 25 fictitiously named defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged in this 26 Complaint, and that Plaintiffs’ damages alleged in this Complaint were proximately caused by 27 those defendants. 28 -4FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times 2 herein, Defendants and each of them, in addition to acting for himself, herself, or itself and on his, 3 her, or its own behalf individually, is and was acting as the principal, agent, partner, joint venturer, 4 officer, director, controlling shareholder, subsidiary, affiliate, parent corporation, successor in 5 interest, predecessor in interest, servant, employee and/or representative of, and with the 6 knowledge, consent, and permission of, and in conspiracy with, each and all of the Defendants and 7 within the course, scope, and authority of those relationships. 8 9 8. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that each Defendant acted pursuant to and within the scope of the relationships alleged above, and that each Defendant 10 knew or should have known about and authorized, ratified, adopted, approved, controlled, and 11 aided and abetted the conduct of all other Defendants. 12 13 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. At all times relevant herein, all Plaintiffs resided in the County of Los Angeles. 14 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that all Defendants reside in the County of 15 Los Angeles. The conduct described herein was committed in the County of Los Angeles. 16 17 JOHN DOE 1 10. Plaintiff John Doe 1 is a male who was born in 1989 and who currently resides in 18 the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff John Doe 1 was an undergraduate student at USC from 2009 19 to 2011. 20 11. In or around December 2009, John Doe 1 made an appointment with USC’s 21 Student Health Center for a routine comprehensive check-up, including testing for sexually 22 transmitted diseases, as part of his general and sexual health regimen. 23 12. Plaintiff John Doe 1 went to his appointment on December 10, 2009 at the Student 24 Health Center on USC’s campus. Shortly before the appointment began, John Doe 1 met with a 25 female medical assistant and/or nurse who took his vitals and asked him a series of questions, 26 including whether John Doe 1 had been sexually active and whether he had ever had sex with 27 men. John Doe 1 responded that he had had sex with men in the past, but that he had not been 28 sexually active since his last men’s health visit. John Doe 1 informed the medical assistant and/or -5FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 nurse that the purpose of his visit was more about his general health and well-being rather than his 2 sexual health. 3 13. John Doe 1 was taken by USC staff to an examination room. Dr. Kelly entered the 4 room shortly thereafter so that it was just John Doe 1 and Dr. Kelly in the examination room. 5 Almost immediately after entering the room, Dr. Kelly began asking John Doe 1 a series of 6 questions regarding his sexual history, including whether he had ever had sex with men and 7 whether he had given or received anal sex or oral sex. John Doe 1 replied that he had, but that he 8 had not been sexually active since his last check-up and testing. 9 14. After John Doe 1 informed Dr. Kelly that he had been sexually active with men in 10 the past, Dr. Kelly began lecturing John Doe 1 in a judgmental and shaming manner, including 11 informing John Doe 1 that being sexually active with men put him at high risk for diseases. Dr. 12 Kelly continued invasive questioning, asking very detailed and specific information about John 13 Doe 1’s sexual activities, including whether he shared sex toys, watched internet porn, or “hooked 14 up” with people on the internet, making John Doe 1 feel uncomfortable, unsafe, and shamed for 15 his sexual orientation and activities. During Dr. Kelly’s questioning, John Doe 1 informed Dr. 16 Kelly that he did not have any symptoms or concerns related to his sexual health and he was 17 visiting the doctor as part of his routine wellness testing. 18 15. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 1’s lack of symptoms and lack of sexual activity since 19 his last men’s health visit, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 1 have a rectal examination. John Doe 20 1 was alarmed, and he protested the rectal examination, which he had never had before, as all of 21 John Doe 1’s prior testing for sexually transmitted diseases had been done by blood or urine tests. 22 Plaintiff John Doe 1 questioned Dr. Kelly as to whether the rectal examination was necessary. Dr. 23 Kelly insisted it was necessary, and he instructed Plaintiff John Doe 1 to remove his shorts and 24 underwear and climb onto the examination table on his hands and knees. Dr. Kelly did not leave 25 the room while John Doe 1 undressed, and Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 1 with any 26 sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, making John Doe 1 feel 27 exposed and extremely uncomfortable. 28 -6FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 16. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 2 expect, as John Doe 1 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table undressed 3 from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 1 suddenly felt a squirt of cold lubricant around his anus 4 and a sharp pain as a circular device was inserted into his rectum without warning. After Plaintiff 5 winced in pain and tensed up his muscles after the device was inserted into him, Dr. Kelly made 6 the demeaning and vulgar comment that Plaintiff “need[ed] to learn how to relax.” Plaintiff is 7 informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s statement was designed to shame, 8 humiliate, and control John Doe 1 so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could 9 continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of young gay and bisexual males at USC without 10 11 restraint. 17. The rectal examination continued for approximately 45 seconds to 1 minute, and at 12 no time did Dr. Kelly explain what he was doing or what the examination entailed. During the 13 examination, Dr. Kelly was completely silent as Plaintiff John Doe 1 was splayed on his hands 14 and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, and distressed. Although 15 he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 1 now knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing 16 legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him to further his own 17 prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as a result of his 18 sexual orientation. 19 18. Plaintiff John Doe 1’s experience with Dr. Kelly was so uncomfortable, upsetting, 20 and disturbing that he requested to see a different provider at USC relating to his health on 21 multiple occasions. USC refused, stating that Dr. Kelly was the only men’s health doctor at USC, 22 and that Plaintiff had to be treated by him. 23 19. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported, “medical examination” caused Plaintiff John Doe 24 1 to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, Plaintiff John Doe 1 trusted 25 that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his position of 26 authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, Plaintiff had no choice but to 27 receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men’s health physician at Defendant 28 USC’s Student Health Center. -7FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 20. It was only after May 2018, after the Los Angeles Times published an article 2 exposing USC’s gynecologist George Tyndall of rampant sexual abuse of female students for 3 decades at USC, and USC’s knowledge and concealment of such abuse, that John Doe 1 realized 4 that Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual 5 abuse committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or for Dr. Kelly’s 6 own sexual gratification. 7 8 9 10 11 JOHN DOE 2 21. Plaintiff John Doe 2 is a male who was born in 1992, and who currently resides in the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff John Doe 2 was an undergraduate student at USC from approximately 2010 to 2014. 22. In or around early 2013, Plaintiff John Doe 2 was referred to Dr. Kelly by another 12 doctor at USC related to symptoms John Doe 2 was experiencing pertaining to his sexual health. 13 Prior to Plaintiff John Doe 2’s appointment with Dr. Kelly, the referring doctor specifically 14 informed Dr. Kelly that John Doe 2 was interested in men and had been practicing receptive anal 15 intercourse. 16 23. Plaintiff John Doe 2 had an appointment with Dr. Kelly on March 7, 2013. 17 Plaintiff John Doe 2 was taken by USC staff to an examination room. Dr. Kelly entered the 18 examination room and began asking Plaintiff John Doe 2 a series of invasive and uncomfortable 19 questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including whether he had sex with men; 20 whether he was a “top or a bottom;” whether he used or shared sex toys; whether he watched porn 21 and if so, how often and the length of time he spent watching it; whether he used condoms; how 22 he met men, including whether he met them in class, in person, or on dating apps; and how long 23 he would know a person before “hooking up” with them. In response to Dr. Kelly’s questions as 24 to whether he used condoms, Plaintiff John Doe 2 responded that he sometimes did use condoms 25 and he sometimes did not. In response, Dr. Kelly told John Doe 2, “That is why you have the 26 problems that you do. Because you do not use condoms.” Dr. Kelly’s comment made John Doe 2 27 feel ashamed, embarrassed, and as though the symptoms he was experiencing related to his sexual 28 -8FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 health were all his fault. Throughout Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he was cold and callous, making 2 Plaintiff John Doe 2 feel uncomfortable and unsafe. 3 24. After Dr. Kelly completed his questioning of Plaintiff John Doe 2, he told him that 4 he needed to examine him. Dr. Kelly instructed John Doe 2 to take off his pants and underwear 5 and climb onto the examination table on his knees and elbows. Plaintiff John Doe 2 asked Dr. 6 Kelly if he could have some privacy while he undressed or if he could have a robe to cover his 7 body, to which Dr. Kelly refused and made the disturbing and inappropriate comment that it was 8 “just us” and that he was “going to see it anyway.” Dr. Kelly did not leave the room while John 9 Doe 2 undressed, and Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 2 with any sort of standard 10 medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, making John Doe 2 feel exposed and 11 uncomfortable. 12 25. After Plaintiff John Doe 2 climbed onto the examination table in the hands and 13 knees position undressed from the waist down, Dr. Kelly came over to him, put his bare hand on 14 his back and pushed down, ordering Plaintiff John Doe 2 to get lower and to get on his elbows. 15 Plaintiff John Doe 2 was alarmed by Dr. Kelly’s physical contact, which made him feel distressed. 16 However, given Dr. Kelly’s position of authority, and John Doe 2’s vulnerable position, Plaintiff 17 John Doe 2 complied with Dr. Kelly’s instructions. 18 26. Dr. Kelly then conducted a rectal examination of Plaintiff John Doe 2 by inserting a 19 long cotton swab into John Doe 2’s anus without providing any explanation as to what he was 20 doing during the examination. During this time, Plaintiff John Doe 2 was on his elbows and knees 21 and naked from the waist down without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated and 22 distressed. During the rectal examination, Plaintiff John Doe 2 experienced extreme pain such that 23 he cried out and told Dr. Kelly that the examination was painful. Dr. Kelly responded that the 24 swab needed to be “inserted that deep” in order for the examination to be thorough. Plaintiff John 25 Doe 2 has had other rectal examinations since leaving USC, none of which ever caused him to 26 experience pain as he did during Dr. Kelly’s examination. 27 28 27. After the examination, Dr. Kelly put gel onto Plaintiff John Doe 2’s anus and instructed him to use his hands to spread his buttocks apart while still on the examination table. -9FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 While Plaintiff John Doe 2 was on the examination table, naked from the waist down and 2 spreading his buttocks apart, Dr. Kelly was behind him and asking him questions about scheduling 3 the next appointment, making John Doe 2 feel exposed, embarrassed, humiliated and distressed. 4 28. Plaintiff John Doe 2 saw Dr. Kelly on approximately three more separate occasions 5 in March, April and May 2013 for treatment related to the sexual health symptoms he was 6 experiencing. On each occasion, despite Plaintiff John Doe 2’s continued requests for privacy, Dr. 7 Kelly refused to leave the room while John Doe 2 undressed, using excuses that no other rooms 8 were available, that it was going to take longer if he left, and that he was going to see John Doe 2 9 naked anyway. On each occasion, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 2 get on his elbows and knees 10 on the examination table for his treatment, and Dr. Kelly refused to provide any sort of standard 11 medical covering or drapery for privacy. On each occasion, Dr. Kelly instructed John Doe 2 to 12 spread his buttocks open while he was naked from the waist down on the examination table, and 13 while John Doe 2 was doing this, Dr. Kelly would stand behind him and try to make the next 14 appointment. Dr. Kelly would then leave the room through the door behind John Doe 2 while he 15 was still on the examination table, and there was no curtain or barrier between John Doe 2 and the 16 door leading to the highly trafficked hallway making John Doe 2 feel self-conscious, humiliated, 17 embarrassed, and ashamed. 18 29. During one appointment, Plaintiff John Doe 2 asked Dr. Kelly if treatment could be 19 done while he was laying on his side instead of his hands and knees so that he would be more 20 comfortable and so that the exam would be less painful. Dr. Kelly refused, stating that such an 21 examination would purportedly be less “thorough.” 22 30. On one occasion during an appointment with Dr. Kelly, Plaintiff John Doe 2 was 23 on his elbows and knees naked on the examination table and someone knocked on the door to the 24 examination room. Dr. Kelly invited the person into the room despite Plaintiff John Doe 2’s 25 extremely vulnerable and compromising position and without providing Plaintiff John Doe 2 with 26 any privacy, making Plaintiff John Doe 2 feel mortified, embarrassed, and humiliated. Plaintiff is 27 informed and believe and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly invited the stranger into the examination 28 -10FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 room while John Doe 2 was on the examination table in order to shame, humiliate, and 2 discriminate against John Doe 2. 3 31. Plaintiff John Doe 2’s experience with Dr. Kelly was so uncomfortable, upsetting, 4 and disturbing that he requested to see a different provider at USC relating to his health on 5 multiple occasions. USC refused, stating that Dr. Kelly was the only men’s health doctor at USC, 6 and that Plaintiff had to be treated by him. 7 32. On one occasion, when Dr. Kelly was unavailable, John Doe 2 received treatment 8 from a female physician at USC. She left the room while John Doe 2 undressed, and she provided 9 him with a robe for privacy. She provided medical treatment to John Doe 2 while he was laying 10 on his side, rather than his hands and knees, and she made him feel safe and comfortable. John 11 Doe 2 requested to be treated by the female physician again, but he was told that he would have to 12 return to Dr. Kelly for the remainder of his treatment. 13 33. As a direct result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff John Doe 2 was so confused, 14 shamed, and traumatized from his experience with Dr. Kelly that he avoided receiving treatment at 15 USC’s Student Health Center later known as the Engemann Student Health Center so that he 16 would not have to endure Dr. Kelly’s shaming, judgment, and painful and humiliating 17 examinations again, thereby compromising his health and wellbeing. 18 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s statements, 19 physical contact, instructions, examinations, and treatment were designed to discriminate against, 20 shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 2 so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could 21 continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of young gay males at USC without restraint. 22 35. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported, “medical examination” caused Plaintiff John Doe 23 2 to suffer physical pain and discomfort as well as embarrassment, humiliation, and shame, 24 Plaintiff John Doe 2 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure 25 due to his position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, Plaintiff 26 had no choice but to receive sexual health care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men’s 27 health physician at Defendant USC’s Student Health Center later known as the Engemann Student 28 Health Center. -11FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 36. It was only after May 2018, after the Los Angeles Times published an article 2 exposing USC’s gynecologist George Tyndall of rampant sexual abuse of female students for 3 decades at USC, and USC’s knowledge and concealment of such abuse, that John Doe 2 realized 4 for the first time that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was 5 instead conducting unnecessary, inappropriate, and painful examinations and treatment and 6 sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, 7 and embarrass him as a result of his sexual orientation. 8 9 JOHN DOE 3 37. Plaintiff John Doe 3 is a male who was born in 1987 and currently resides in 10 Denver, Colorado. Plaintiff John Doe 3 was an undergraduate student at USC from approximately 11 2007 to 2010. 12 38. While Plaintiff John Doe 3 was a student at USC, he made an appointment with 13 USC’s Student Health Center for a routine standard sexual health check-up and STD testing. This 14 was the first sexual health appointment that Plaintiff John Doe 3 had ever had as a young adult. 15 39. John Doe 3 went to the USC Student Health Center for his appointment. He was 16 taken by USC staff to an examination room. Dr. Kelly entered the room shortly thereafter so that 17 it was just John Doe 3 and Dr. Kelly in the examination room. After entering the room, Dr. Kelly 18 began asking John Doe 3 a series of invasive and uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual 19 history, including whether he had ever had sex with men and whether he was a “top or a bottom.” 20 John Doe 3 informed Dr. Kelly that he had participated in sexual activities with men, that he had 21 only had ever sex with one person with whom he had been in a monogamous relationship, and that 22 he had no symptoms or concerns related to his sexual health. Dr. Kelly continued his 23 inappropriate questioning of Plaintiff John Doe 3 and informed him that his sexual activities were 24 putting him at high risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Plaintiff John Doe 3 was 25 shocked to hear Dr. Kelly’s risk assessment – especially because Plaintiff John Doe 3 had 26 considered his sexual activity to be minimal and always responsible. Plaintiff John Doe 3 was 27 thereafter terrified that he had contracted, or was going to contract, a sexually transmitted disease 28 or that his health would be compromised. Dr. Kelly’s invasive questioning, baseless -12FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 admonishments, and harsh judgmental tone made John Doe 3 feel uncomfortable, unsafe, and 2 shamed for his sexual orientation and practices. 3 40. During one appointment, Dr. Kelly pulled out a long cotton swab. Confused, 4 Plaintiff John Doe 3 asked Dr. Kelly what the cotton swab would be used for. Dr. Kelly told 5 Plaintiff John Doe 3 that he was going to do an exam. Plaintiff John Doe 3 immediately pushed 6 back at the thought of a physical examination and asked whether an examination was necessary 7 since he had only participated in oral sex, had no other symptoms or concerns related to his sexual 8 health, and had not been recently sexually active. Dr. Kelly responded that since Plaintiff John 9 Doe 3 “had gotten rimmed,” that it was necessary to perform a rectal examination. He also told 10 John Doe 3 that the cotton swab was “smaller than a penis or a dildo.” Plaintiff is informed and 11 believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly used these derogatory terms and his position of power 12 to shame, humiliate, discriminate, and control John Doe 3 so that he would be silenced and so that 13 Dr. Kelly could continue his abuse. 14 41. Plaintiff John Doe 3 continued to protest the examination and he and Dr. Kelly 15 went back and forth as to the necessity of the examination. After Dr. Kelly continued to insist on 16 the examination, and because of Dr. Kelly’s position of power and authority and John Doe 3’s 17 vulnerability, Plaintiff John Doe 3 eventually relented. Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff John Doe 3 18 to undress, turn over, and get on his hands and knees on the examination table. 19 42. Dr. Kelly did not leave the room while John Doe 3 undressed, and Dr. Kelly did not 20 provide Plaintiff John Doe 3 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe 21 or lap draping, making John Doe 3 feel exposed, embarrassed, and extremely uncomfortable. As 22 Plaintiff John Doe 3 was on his hands and knees on the examination table without any drapery or 23 covering, he specifically remembers thinking that Dr. Kelly was enjoying forcing Plaintiff John 24 Doe 3 into an uncomfortable and humiliating position. 25 43. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 26 expect, and as John Doe 3 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table undressed 27 from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 3 felt lubricant around his anus and Dr. Kelly suddenly 28 penetrated Plaintiff John Doe 3’s rectum with a cotton swab without warning. -13FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 44. At no time during the rectal examination did Dr. Kelly explain what he was doing 2 or what the examination entailed. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was completely silent as 3 Plaintiff John Doe 3 was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling 4 exposed, humiliated, and distressed. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 5 3 now knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead 6 sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, 7 and embarrass him as a result of his sexual orientation. 8 45. Plaintiff John Doe 3’s experience with Dr. Kelly was so uncomfortable, upsetting, 9 and disturbing that he approached an employee at USC, told that employee that Dr. Kelly made 10 him feel extremely uncomfortable, and requested to see another provider for his sexual health. 11 The USC employee refused, stating that Dr. Kelly was the only men’s health doctor at USC, and 12 that Plaintiff had to be treated by him. 13 46. Plaintiff John Doe 3 was forced to visit Dr. Kelly on several other occasions during 14 his time as an undergraduate student for his routine sexual health checkups despite his protests. 15 During each occasion, Dr. Kelly condemned Plaintiff John Doe 3’s sexual behavior, made him 16 feel ashamed for his actions, and caused him to feel unsafe and bad about himself and his sexual 17 identity. 18 47. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused Plaintiff John Doe 3 19 to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, Plaintiff John Doe 3 trusted 20 that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his position of 21 authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, Plaintiff had no choice but to 22 receive sexual health care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men’s health physician at 23 Defendant USC’s Student Health Center. 24 48. It was only after May of 2018, after the Los Angeles Times published an article 25 exposing USC’s gynecologist George Tyndall of rampant sexual abuse of female students for 26 decades at USC, and USC’s knowledge and concealment of such abuse, that John Doe 3 realized 27 for the first time that Dr. Kelly’s actions were not for a legitimate medical purpose, but rather were 28 -14FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 purely motivated by his own prurient desire to sexually abuse him for his own sexual gratification 2 and/or discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender. 3 4 JOHN DOE 4 49. Plaintiff John Doe 4 is a male who was born in 1990 and currently resides in San 5 Francisco County, California. Plaintiff John Doe 4 was an undergraduate student and student 6 athlete at USC from 2011 to 2014. 7 50. In order to obtain a male sexual health examination as part of an ordinary medical 8 health regimen, Plaintiff John Doe 4 made an appointment with the only male sexual health doctor 9 on staff at USC’s student health clinic, Dr. Kelly, in or around March or April 2011. Shortly 10 before his appointment, Plaintiff John Doe 4 answered a series of questions regarding his sexual 11 history, which indicated that he was interested in men, that he never had unprotected sex, had 12 never tested positive for a sexually transmitted infection, and had no symptoms or concerns. 13 51. John Doe 4 was taken by USC staff to an examination room. Dr. Kelly entered the 14 room shortly thereafter so that it was just John Doe 4 and Dr. Kelly in the examination room. Dr. 15 Kelly began asking John Doe 4 a series of invasive and uncomfortable questions regarding his 16 sexual history and experiences, asking John Doe 4 very detailed and specific questions about his 17 sexual activities, including whether he had sex with men, shared sex toys, paid for sex or had ever 18 been paid for sex, and how John Doe 4 met his sexual partners. Notwithstanding the fact that at 19 that point John Doe 4 had not had any anal intercourse and had no symptoms or specific concerns 20 related to his sexual health whatsoever, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 4 have a rectal 21 examination. John Doe 4 had never had a rectal examination before, as all his prior testing for 22 sexually transmitted diseases had been done by blood and urine tests and sometimes throat swab 23 tests. Plaintiff John Doe 4 questioned Dr. Kelly as to why the rectal examination was necessary. 24 Dr. Kelly informed him that he needed to inspect John Doe 4’s anal cavities as part of his routine 25 “screening” for “eggs and lesions.” 26 52. Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff John Doe 4 to remove his pants and underwear in 27 front of Dr. Kelly and get on “all fours” on the examination table. Dr. Kelly did not leave the 28 room to allow John Doe 4 privacy while he undressed, and he did not offer any sort of standard -15FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 proper modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, making John Doe 4 feel exposed and 2 vulnerable. With his pants and underwear around his ankles, Plaintiff John Doe 4 proceeded to 3 climb onto the examination table and position himself on his hands and knees. 4 53. Without saying a word, Dr. Kelly began using his hands to push Plaintiff John Doe 5 4, pull Plaintiff John Doe 4’s hips and buttocks closer to him, and spread Plaintiff John Doe 4’s 6 thighs further apart. John Doe 4 was alarmed and distressed at Dr. Kelly’s invasive physical 7 contact without explanation. Plaintiff John Doe 4 waited in this position with his naked hips and 8 buttocks in the air for minutes in silence without knowing what was happening because Dr. Kelly 9 did not explain what he was doing, and John Doe 4 could not see Dr. Kelly because he was on his 10 hands and knees facing a wall. Without warning or explanation, Dr. Kelly suddenly penetrated 11 Plaintiff John Doe 4’s anus with an unknown lubricated apparatus. The rectal examination 12 continued for up to a minute, and at no point did Dr. Kelly explain to John Doe 4 what he was 13 doing or what to expect, except to tell John Doe 4 to “relax,” making John Doe 4 extremely 14 uncomfortable, distressed, and embarrassed. 15 54. Plaintiff John Doe 4 saw Dr. Kelly on approximately five or six separate occasions 16 from approximately 2011 through 2014. During each of these routine sexual health examinations 17 at Defendant USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly instructed John Doe 4 to undress in front of 18 him without offering any privacy or covering, instructed him to get on “all fours” on the 19 examination table, and insisted on a rectal examination in which he forced his fingers and/or an 20 unknown apparatus into his anus without explanation or reason. 21 55. In addition to these physical abuses, during John Doe 4’s visits, Dr. Kelly made 22 harassing, vulgar, and inappropriate comments to Plaintiff John Doe 4, including, but not limited 23 to, commenting on the size of John Doe 4’s arm muscles, stating, “you’ve been working out” and 24 “you’ve toned down since we met.” Dr. Kelly also lectured John Doe 4 in a judgmental and 25 shaming manner on each visit including informing Jon Doe 4 that being sexually active with men 26 put him at high risk for diseases, telling John Doe 4 that “I hope you know that [a prescription for 27 Truvada] doesn’t give you a free pass,” making John Doe 4 feel uncomfortable, unsafe, and 28 shamed for his sexual orientation and sexual practices. -16FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 56. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported "medical examinations" caused Plaintiff John Doe 2 4 to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance 3 upon Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator 4 and discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 5 Doe 4 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 6 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 4 had no 7 choice but to receive sexual health care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's health 8 physician at Defendant USC’s Student Health Center. 9 57. It was only in or around August of 2018, after the Los Angeles Times published an 10 article exposing USC’s gynecologist George Tyndall of rampant sexual abuse of female students 11 for decades at USC, and USC’s knowledge and concealment of such abuse, that Plaintiff John Doe 12 4 realized, for the first time, that Dr. Kelly’s actions were not for a legitimate medical purpose, but 13 rather committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or 14 were purely motivated by Dr. Kelly’s own prurient desires and sexual gratification. 15 16 JOHN DOE 5 58. Plaintiff John Doe 5 is a male who was born in 1992 and currently resides in Los 17 Angeles County, California. Plaintiff John Doe 5 was an undergraduate student at USC from 2010 18 to 2014. 19 59. In or around September 2012, John Doe 5 was in a committed relationship, and he 20 and his partner decided to seek male sexual health examinations as a part of their ordinary medical 21 health regimen and to ensure they were being safe in their sexual relationship before they began 22 having anal intercourse. Plaintiff John Doe 5 made an appointment with Dr. Kelly, the only male 23 sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, for a routine comprehensive check- 24 up, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases. 25 60. Plaintiff John Doe 5 went to his appointment on September 10, 2012 at the Student 26 Health Center on USC’s campus. Shortly before the appointment began, John Doe 5 met with a 27 female medical assistant and/or nurse who took his vitals and asked about his medical history 28 before escorting John Doe 5 to Dr. Kelly’s examination room. -17FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 61. Dr. Kelly entered the room shortly thereafter so that it was just John Doe 5 and Dr. 2 Kelly in the room. Almost immediately after entering the room, Dr. Kelly began asking John Doe 3 5 a series of invasive and detailed questions regarding his sexual history using inappropriate, 4 vulgar, and harassing language, including whether he had ever had sex with men, whether he had 5 given or received anal sex or oral sex, whether he had ever given anyone a “rim job” or gotten a 6 “rim job” from anyone, whether he was “a top or bottom” and repeatedly referring to the penis as 7 “dick” and buttocks as “ass,” including asking whether John Doe 5 ever “ate ass.” 8 9 62. When John Doe 5 indicated that he had participated in anilingus, Dr. Kelly began lecturing John Doe 5 in a judgmental and shaming manner, including saying that John Doe 5’s 10 sexual activity with men put him at a very high risk for diseases. Dr. Kelly continued his 11 questioning, asking very detailed and specific information about John Doe 5’s sexual activities, 12 including whether he paid for sex or had been paid for sex, whether he watched internet porn and 13 how often, whether he was on any “dating apps,” or whether he “hooked up” with people on the 14 internet, making John Doe 5 feel uncomfortable, unsafe, and shamed for his sexual orientation and 15 sexual practices. During Dr. Kelly’s questioning, John Doe 5 informed Dr. Kelly that he did not 16 have any symptoms or concerns related to his sexual health, that he had only ever had one other 17 boyfriend besides his current partner before, that he and his partner were in a committed 18 monogamous relationship, that he and his partner always used condoms, and that he had never 19 tested positive for any sexual transmitted infection before. 20 63. Notwithstanding John Doe 5’s lack of symptoms or concerns and lack of 21 unprotected sex since his last sexual health visit, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 5 submit to a 22 physical examination in an examination room. John Doe 5 was surprised that there would be a 23 physical examination since no one from the Student Health Center, or otherwise, had informed 24 him that a physical examination would be necessary to conduct testing for sexually transmitted 25 infections. John Doe 5 was especially surprised that a physical examination was suggested since 26 he did not have any symptoms or physical concerns that needed to be evaluated. John Doe 5 had 27 never had a rectal examination before, as his prior testing for sexually transmitted diseases had 28 been done by blood and urine test. However, this was only John Doe 5’s second men’s health -18FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 examination and one of the first doctor visits he had ever attended as an adult without a parent 2 present, and he trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact going to conduct a legitimate medical procedure 3 due to his position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. 4 64. Dr. Kelly instructed John Doe 5 to remove his pants and underwear and get on his 5 hands and knees on the examination table. John Doe 5 said, “Okay,” and sat waiting for Dr. Kelly 6 to leave the room to allow him some privacy. However, Dr. Kelly never left, instead continuing to 7 sit and stare directly at John Doe 5, making John Doe 5 feel extremely uncomfortable. After 8 almost a half a minute passed, Dr. Kelly continued to sit and stare at John Doe 5 and prompted 9 him to undress, saying, “Whenever you’re ready.” John Doe 5 understood that Dr. Kelly was 10 communicating that he would not leave the room while John Doe 5 undressed, and that he would 11 not provide John Doe 5 with any sort of standard proper modesty covering, such as a robe or lap 12 draping. John Doe 5 turned around and undressed while Dr. Kelly stood behind him without 13 turning around, making John Doe 5 feel exposed, vulnerable, and extremely uncomfortable. 14 65. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 15 expect, as John Doe 5 stood with his pants and underwear around his legs and torso bent over the 16 examination table, Dr. Kelly came up behind John Doe 5 and said, “No, not like that. Put your 17 knees up on the table and get on all fours.” Once up on the examination table, Dr. Kelly used his 18 hands to physically adjust John Doe 5 and instructed him to arch his back so that he could “get a 19 better feel” for a more “thorough” examination. Then, without any explanation or warning, Dr. 20 Kelly penetrated John Doe 5 with an unknown apparatus and/or his fingers, circling and moving 21 them around inside his anus for a prolonged period of time. 22 66. The rectal examination continued for approximately 45 seconds to 1 minute, and at 23 no time did Dr. Kelly explain what he was doing or what the examination entailed. During the 24 examination, Dr. Kelly was completely silent as Plaintiff John Doe 5 was splayed on his hands 25 and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, and distressed. After Dr. 26 Kelly completed the “rectal examination” he then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 5 to “flip over” 27 onto his back and with his genitals fully exposed, asking him to pull his shorts and underwear 28 down even further. Dr. Kelly then used his hands to physically adjust John Doe 5 and inspect his -19FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 genitals and pubic region. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 5 now 2 knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead 3 sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, 4 and embarrass him because of his sexual orientation. 5 67. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 5 to suffer 6 embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 7 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr, Kelly was a sexual predator and 8 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 9 Doe 5 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 10 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 5 had no 11 choice but to receive sexual health care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual 12 health physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 13 68. Plaintiff John Doe 5 felt so confused, shamed, and traumatized from his experience 14 with Dr. Kelly in 2012 that he became fearful of Dr. Kelly and never returned to USC’s Student 15 Health Center for male sexual health examinations again. 16 69. It was only in or around September of 2018, after the Los Angeles Times published 17 an article exposing USC’s gynecologist George Tyndall of rampant sexual abuse of female 18 students for decades at USC, and USC’s knowledge and concealment of such abuse, that Plaintiff 19 John Doe 5 realized, for the first time, that Dr. Kelly’s actions were not for a legitimate medical 20 purpose, but rather committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or 21 gender and/or were purely motivated by Dr. Kelly’s own prurient desires and sexual gratification. 22 JOHN DOE 6 23 70. Plaintiff John Doe 6 is a male who was born in 1990 and currently resides in Los 24 Angeles County, California. Plaintiff John Doe 6 was an undergraduate student at USC from 2008 25 to 2012. 26 71. In order to obtain a male sexual health examination as part of an ordinary medical 27 health regimen, Plaintiff John Doe 6 made an appointment with the only male sexual health doctor 28 on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly, in December 2008. Shortly before his -20FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 appointment, Plaintiff John Doe 6 answered a series of questions regarding his sexual history, 2 which indicated that he was interested in men and women, had never tested positive for a sexually 3 transmitted infection, and had no symptoms or concerns related to his sexual health. John Doe 6 4 then met with a medical assistant and/or nurse who took his vitals and asked him questions about 5 his medical history. 6 72. John Doe 6 was then taken by a USC staff member to an examination room. Dr. 7 Kelly entered the room shortly thereafter so that it was just John Doe 6 and Dr. Kelly in the 8 examination room. Almost immediately after entering the room, Dr. Kelly began asking John Doe 9 6 a series of invasive questions regarding his sexual history, including whether he had ever had 10 sex with men, whether he had given or received anal sex or oral sex, and whether he ever had 11 unprotected sex with a man. John Doe 6 replied that he had unprotected sex with a man, to which 12 Dr. Kelly responded that such an act was, “Dirty,” making John Doe 6 feel shamed and 13 humiliated. 14 73. After John Doe 6 informed Dr. Kelly that he had been sexually active with men in 15 the past, Dr. Kelly began lecturing John Doe 6 in a judgmental and shaming manner, including 16 telling John Doe 6 that being sexually active with men put him at high risk for diseases. Dr. Kelly 17 continued his questioning, asking very detailed and inappropriate information about John Doe 6’s 18 sexual activities, including whether he ever paid or was paid for sex, watched internet porn, or 19 “hooked up” with male partners he met on the internet, making John Doe 6 feel uncomfortable, 20 unsafe, and shamed for his sexual orientation and activities. During Dr. Kelly’s questioning, John 21 Doe 6 informed Dr. Kelly that he did not have any symptoms or concerns related to his sexual 22 health. 23 74. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 6’s lack of symptoms and a lack of sexual activity since 24 his last sexual health visit, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 6 have a rectal examination. Dr. Kelly 25 instructed Plaintiff John Doe 6 to remove his pants and underwear and climb onto the examination 26 table on his hands and knees. Dr. Kelly did not leave the room while John Doe 6 undressed, and 27 Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 6 with any sort of standard medical modesty 28 -21FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 covering, such as a robe or lap draping, making John Doe 6 feel exposed, vulnerable, and 2 extremely uncomfortable. 3 75. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 4 expect, as John Doe 6 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table undressed 5 from the waist down, Dr, Kelly suddenly penetrated Plaintiff John Doe 6’s anus with an unknown 6 lubricated apparatus and/or his fingers. The rectal examination continued for up to a minute, and 7 at no point did Dr. Kelly explain to John Doe 6 what he was doing or what to expect. 8 76. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was completely silent as Plaintiff John Doe 6 9 was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, 10 and distressed. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 6 now knows that Dr. 11 Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him 12 to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him 13 based on his sexual orientation. 14 77. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused Plaintiff John Doe 6 15 to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance 16 upon Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator 17 and discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, and Plaintiff 18 John Doe 6 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 19 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 6 had no 20 choice but to receive sexual health care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's health 21 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 22 78. A little over a week after his visit with Dr. Kelly, Plaintiff John Doe 6 emailed the 23 USC Student Health Center to request that the results of his laboratory testing be sent to him 24 electronically. The next day, Dr. Kelly replied to John Doe 6’s email stating: “Questions, other 25 than lab results are best handled in person. Please either stop by or if detailed, make a follow up 26 appointment.” Dr. Kelly also provided a list of his office hours. Horrified that Dr. Kelly was 27 asking him to come back in to see him, and to limit any additional contact with him, Plaintiff John 28 Doe 6 responded again requesting that his results be sent electronically, stating that he would -22FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 review the results and would schedule an appointment if he had any questions. Dr. Kelly then 2 responded that John Doe 6’s testing was all normal and asked John Doe 6 to let him know if he 3 could help him again. John Doe 6 did not respond and hoped that would be the end of it. A few 4 days later, Dr. Kelly emailed John Doe 6 stating that he saw that no HIV testing was done and 5 asked, “is this something that you wanted?” Again, horrified that Dr. Kelly was suggesting he 6 come back in for a visit, and to limit any additional contact with him, John Doe 6 responded that 7 he did not want HIV testing. 8 9 79. Plaintiff John Doe 6 felt so confused, shamed, and traumatized from his experience with Dr. Kelly in 2008 that he became fearful of Dr. Kelly and requested to be seen by a different 10 doctor at USC for a subsequent male sexual health examination the following year. At Plaintiff 11 John Doe 6’s subsequent male sexual health examination with Dr. Kevin Kwak, Dr. Kwak did not 12 ask Plaintiff John Doe 6 any of the same invasive questions regarding his sexual history that Dr. 13 Kelly did. He instead asked generally about John Doe 6’s sexual history and then recommended 14 that John Doe 6 provide a urine and blood sample for routine testing. Plaintiff John Doe 6 15 complained to Dr. Kwak that at his previous visit with Dr. Kelly, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 16 6 submit to a rectal examination as part of his men’s health visit. Dr. Kwak stated that a rectal 17 exam was not necessary and remarked “that shouldn’t have happened.” 18 80. Although Plaintiff John Doe 6 remained traumatized and haunted by his 2008 visit 19 with Dr. Kelly, it was only in or around September of 2018, after the Los Angeles Times 20 published an article exposing USC’s gynecologist George Tyndall of rampant sexual abuse of 21 female students for decades at USC, and USC’s knowledge and concealment of such abuse, that 22 Plaintiff John Doe 6 realized, for the first time, that Dr. Kelly’s actions were not for a legitimate 23 medical purpose, but rather committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation 24 and/or gender and/or were purely motivated by Dr. Kelly’s own prurient desires and sexual 25 gratification. 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\ -23FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 PLAINTIFF ALI JALAL-KAMALI 2 81. Plaintiff Ali Jalal-Kamali is a male who was born in 1986 and who currently 3 resides in Los Angeles County, California. At the time of filing this Complaint, Plaintiff Ali Jalal- 4 Kamali is an international student studying to obtain his PhD at USC. 82. 5 In or around September 2017, Plaintiff Ali Jalal-Kamali made an appointment with 6 USC’s Student Health Center because he was interested in obtaining a prescription for pre- 7 exposure phrophlaxis (PrEP) medication. USC scheduled Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali with the only 8 male sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center and the only provider at USC 9 who could prescribe PrEP, Dr. Kelly. 10 83. Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 11 Kelly’s private office. Dr. Kelly informed Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali that he would be asking him a 12 series of questions to see if he qualified for PrEP, but that first, he needed to go to the laboratory 13 to get tested for all sexually transmitted infections and HIV. When Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali 14 informed Dr. Kelly that he did not need to get tested for the anal gonorrhea test, Dr. Kelly 15 responded, “Why not? Are you a top only?” to which Plaintiff affirmatively responded. Dr. Kelly 16 then began asking Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali inappropriate questions including whether anyone has 17 ever “licked [his] ass,” “put a finger or toy there,” or whether anyone has ever “teased their penis” 18 around his anus such that “pre-cum” may have made contact with his anus. Dr. Kelly creepily 19 smiled at Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali during these questions, making him feel extremely uncomfortable 20 and violated. Dr. Kelly continued to insist that Plaintiff tell him if there had been any contact with 21 his anus, and Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali had to tell him on three separate occasions that there had not 22 been. Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali then went to the laboratory to obtain testing as instructed by Dr. 23 Kelly. 24 84. After Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali was tested, he returned to Dr. Kelly’s office. Dr. Kelly 25 began asking Plaintiff a series of invasive, uncomfortable, and inappropriate questions regarding 26 his sexual history and experiences, including detailed information about the ways that Plaintiff 27 Jalal-Kamali had sex, the number of his sexual partners, and the ethnicity of Plaintiff’s sexual 28 partners. Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali recalls that Dr. Kelly was condescending and forceful in -24FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 attempting to extract information from him. When Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali informed Dr. Kelly that 2 he did not feel comfortable answering his questions, Dr. Kelly aggressively told Plaintiff that if he 3 did not want his help, that he could go elsewhere, but that if he wanted his help, Plaintiff Jalal- 4 Kamali would have to answer his questions. Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali interpreted Dr. Kelly’s 5 statement to mean that he had to answer Dr. Kelly’s invasive and inappropriate questions or Dr. 6 Kelly would not provide him with medical care. Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali then started to answer a 7 series of invasive and inappropriate questions, including but not limited to, sexual positions in 8 which Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali engaged, the locations where Plaintiff had sex, what specific acts 9 Plaintiff engaged in while having sex, the ethnicity of Plaintiff’s partners, where and how he met 10 his partners, and how long Plaintiff waited before having sex with someone. Throughout Dr. 11 Kelly’s questioning, he was prying and judgmental, making Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali feel 12 uncomfortable, shamed, confused, and unsafe. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon 13 alleges that Dr. Kelly’s questioning and commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and 14 control Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the 15 sexual abuse and discrimination of young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 16 85. Dr. Kelly informed Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali that he would have to return to see him 17 on multiple occasions in order to receive a prescription for PrEP. Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali returned 18 to see Dr. Kelly for a follow-up appointment thereafter. Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali informed Dr. Kelly 19 that he was dating someone monogamously, to which Dr. Kelly began asking prying and intrusive 20 questions, including how he met his partner, how old his partner was, what his partner looked like, 21 the ethnicity of his partner, and details on why Plaintiff liked him. When Plaintiff informed Dr. 22 Kelly that he had met his partner on Grindr, Dr. Kelly immediately started scolding Plaintiff Jalal- 23 Kamali, informing him that “everyone on Grindr sleeps with everyone else” and that Plaintiff’s 24 partner “could not be trusted.” When Plaintiff informed Dr. Kelly of the ethnicity of his partner, 25 Dr. Kelly responded, “So you are into black guys? But you are a top,” making Plaintiff feel 26 extremely uncomfortable and confused. 27 28 86. In or around November 2017, Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center after concerns about possible exposure to a sexually transmitted -25FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 infection. Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali was in a monogamous relationship at the time, and he was not 2 experiencing any symptoms. Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali was scheduled with Dr. Kelly for his 3 appointment. At the appointment, Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali informed Dr. Kelly that his partner had 4 tested positive for a sexually transmitted infection and that he also wanted to get tested. Dr. Kelly 5 began scolding Plaintiff and telling him, “I told you not to trust those people.” Even though he had 6 no symptoms and he had not yet received his test results, Dr. Kelly insisted that Plaintiff Jalal- 7 Kamali take medication for the sexually transmitted infection immediately and that he submit to a 8 physical examination. 9 87. Dr. Kelly then led Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali to an examination room so that it was just 10 Jalal-Kamali and Dr. Kelly in the room. Dr. Kelly then instructed Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali to pull 11 down his pants and underwear for a genital examination. Dr. Kelly did not leave the room or turn 12 around while Jalal-Kamali undressed, and Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali with 13 any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, making Plaintiff feel 14 exposed, vulnerable, and uncomfortable. Without saying a word about the details of the 15 examination, the process, or what to expect, Dr. Kelly began examining and touching Jalal- 16 Kamali’s genitalia with his hands for a prolonged amount of time. Dr. Kelly never explained the 17 reason or necessity behind the genital examination, as the sexually transmitted infection for which 18 Jalal-Kamali was concerned did not affect the genitalia, making Jalal-Kamali feel extremely 19 unnerved, violated, and uncomfortable. 20 88. After the genital examination, Dr. Kelly insisted on performing a rectal 21 examination. Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali felt so uncomfortable that he refused to allow the rectal 22 examination to be performed. 23 89. In or around Spring of 2018, Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali made a follow-up appointment 24 with USC Student Health Center because he was again interested in receiving PrEP as he was no 25 longer in a monogamous relationship. He was again scheduled with Dr. Kelly. At the 26 appointment, Dr. Kelly asked why Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali was no longer in a relationship, 27 inquiring, “What happened? Did he cheat?” When Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali responded that the 28 relationship simply did not work out, Dr. Kelly commented, “so you are hard to get along with?” -26FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Dr. Kelly further condemned Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali’s sexual behavior, made him feel ashamed for 2 his actions, and caused him to feel unsafe and bad about himself and his sexual identity. 3 90. Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali felt so confused, shamed, and traumatized from his 4 experience with Dr. Kelly that he became fearful of him and he avoided USC’s Student Health 5 Center for sexual health examinations thereafter. Dr. Kelly further made the process of obtaining 6 PrEP so complicated and uncomfortable that Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali decided to pursue getting the 7 medication at a health care facility other than USC. 8 91. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali now knows that Dr. 9 Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him 10 to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as 11 a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. As an international student, Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali 12 did not know his rights or what was or was not medically proper, making him especially 13 vulnerable to Dr. Kelly’s misconduct. 14 92. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused Plaintiff Jalal- 15 Kamali to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali 16 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his position of 17 authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, Plaintiff had no choice but to 18 receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men’s health physician at Defendant 19 USC’s Student Health Center. 20 93. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 21 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff Jalal-Kamali realized that 22 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose but was rather sexual abuse 23 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 24 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 25 26 PLAINTIFF ALLEN PEARCY GALEANA 94. Plaintiff Allen Pearcy Galeana is a male who was born in 1996 and who currently 27 resides in Los Angeles County, California. At the time of filing this Complaint, Plaintiff Pearcy 28 Galeana is an undergraduate student at USC. -27FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 95. In or around 2015, when Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana was a freshman at USC, in order 2 to obtain a male sexual health examination as part of an ordinary medical health regimen, 3 including standard testing for sexually transmitted diseases, Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana made an 4 appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana with the 5 only male sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly. 6 96. Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana went to the USC Student Health Center for his 7 appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. Kelly’s office. As soon as Dr. Kelly closed the 8 door to his office, Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana felt very uncomfortable. Dr. Kelly began asking 9 Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana a series of invasive and uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual 10 history and experiences, including whether he had sex with men, how many partners he had, the 11 age group of his partners, whether he used dating apps, and the specific details about sexual acts in 12 which he engaged. He also provided unsolicited instruction to Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana on how to 13 perform sexual acts, including oral and anal sex. 14 97. Throughout Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he was condescending and judgmental, 15 making Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana feel uncomfortable, violated, unsafe, and shamed for his sexual 16 orientation and sexual practices. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. 17 Kelly’s questioning and commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control Plaintiff 18 Pearcy Galeana so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse 19 and discrimination of young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 20 98. Despite Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana’s lack of symptoms and the fact that he had no 21 concerns regarding his sexual health, Dr. Kelly insisted that Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana have a rectal 22 and genital examination. Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana was alarmed that Dr. Kelly was insisting on 23 such examinations given his lack of symptoms and lack of concerns, but Dr. Kelly maintained that 24 the rectal examination was a standard and required examination. 25 99. Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana to pull down his pants and underwear 26 and climb onto the examination table on his hands and knees. Dr. Kelly did not leave the room 27 while Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana undressed, and Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana 28 -28FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, making 2 Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana feel exposed and extremely uncomfortable. 3 100. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 4 expect, as Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table 5 undressed from the waist down, Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana suddenly felt a swab inserted into his 6 rectum without warning. At no time during the rectal examination did Dr. Kelly explain what he 7 was doing or why he was doing it. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff 8 Pearcy Galeana was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling 9 exposed, humiliated, and distressed. 10 101. After the rectal examination, Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana to turn 11 over and lay flat on his back on the examination table. Once Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana was on his 12 back, Dr. Kelly began examining and touching Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana’s genitalia with his hands 13 for a prolonged amount of time. Dr. Kelly never explained the reason or necessity behind the 14 genital examination, making Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana feel extremely unnerved and uncomfortable. 15 102. Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana was forced to visit Dr. Kelly on two additional occasions 16 in or around 2016 and 2017 for routine sexual health checkups, and on each occasion Dr. Kelly 17 insisted on conducting prolonged rectal and genital examination and made Plaintiff Pearcy 18 Galeana feel judged and shamed for his sexual activity and practices. 19 103. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana now knows that 20 Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing 21 him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass 22 him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 23 104. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examinations” caused Plaintiff Pearcy 24 Galeana to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable 25 reliance upon Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual 26 predator and discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, 27 Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical 28 procedure due to his position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, -29FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana had no choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full- 2 time men’s sexual health physician at Defendant USC’s Student Health Center. 3 105. Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana felt so confused, shamed, and traumatized from his 4 experience with Dr. Kelly that he became fearful of Dr. Kelly and avoided USC’s Student Health 5 Center for male sexual health examinations until he was informed that Dr. Kelly had resigned. 6 106. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 7 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff Pearcy Galeana realized 8 that Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose but was rather sexual 9 abuse committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or 10 for Dr. Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 11 12 JOHN DOE 7 107. Plaintiff John Doe 7 is a male who was born in 1996 and who currently resides in 13 Los Angeles County, California. At the time of filing this Complaint, Plaintiff John Doe 7 is an 14 undergraduate student at USC. 15 108. In or around April 2016, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination as part 16 of an ordinary medical health regimen, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases, Plaintiff 17 John Doe 7 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled John Doe 7 18 with the only male sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly. 19 109. Plaintiff John Doe 7 went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 20 Kelly’s private office. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 7 a series of invasive and 21 uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including whether he had 22 sex with men, whether he was a “top or a bottom,” and how he met men, including whether he met 23 men on dating apps like “Tinder,” “Scruff,” or “Grindr.” In response to Dr. Kelly’s questions as 24 to whether he used dating apps, Plaintiff John Doe 7 responded that he had, to which Dr. Kelly 25 responded, “You are putting yourself at risk of contracting HIV.” Dr. Kelly’s comment made 26 John Doe 7 feel frightened, ashamed, embarrassed, and unsafe. John Doe 7 informed Dr. Kelly 27 that he had participated in sexual activities with men, but that he had never been anally receptive 28 and that he was in a monogamous relationship. Dr. Kelly responded that John Doe 7 could not -30FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 trust his boyfriend to be monogamous in their relationship because he was a gay man. Dr. Kelly’s 2 response made John Doe 7 feel hurt, judged, shamed, and confused. Throughout Dr. Kelly’s 3 questioning, he was condescending and judgmental, making Plaintiff John Doe 7 feel 4 uncomfortable and unsafe. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s 5 questioning and commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 7 so that 6 he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of 7 young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 8 110. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 7’s lack of symptoms, the fact that John Doe 7 had 9 never been anally receptive, and the fact that John Doe 7 was in a monogamous relationship, Dr. 10 Kelly insisted that John Doe 7 have a rectal examination. John Doe 7 was alarmed since he was 11 only seeking routine STD testing. Dr. Kelly then led John Doe 7 to an examination room so that it 12 was just John Doe 7 and Dr. Kelly in the room. Dr. Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 7 to 13 pull down his pants and underwear and climb onto the examination table on his hands and knees. 14 Dr. Kelly did not leave the room or turn around while John Doe 7 undressed. Dr. Kelly did not 15 provide Plaintiff John Doe 7 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe 16 or lap draping, and John Doe 7 did not feel like he could ask for privacy, making John Doe 7 feel 17 exposed and uncomfortable. 18 111. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 19 expect, as John Doe 7 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table undressed 20 from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 7 suddenly felt a sharp pain as a swab or other device was 21 inserted into his rectum without warning. Plaintiff John Doe 7 winced in pain and tensed up, but 22 Dr. Kelly did not acknowledge his pain. The insertion of the swab or other device was so 23 aggressive that it caused John Doe 7 to bleed. 24 112. The rectal examination continued for approximately five minutes, and at no time 25 did Dr. Kelly explain what he was doing. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff 26 John Doe 7 was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, 27 humiliated, and distressed. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 7 now 28 knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead -31FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, 2 and embarrass him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 3 113. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 7 to suffer 4 embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 5 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 6 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 7 Doe 7 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 8 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 7 had no 9 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 10 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 11 114. Plaintiff John Doe 7 felt so confused, shamed, and traumatized from his experience 12 with Dr. Kelly in April 2016 that he became fearful of Dr. Kelly and avoided USC’s Student 13 Health Center for sexual health examinations, until Dr. Kelly had resigned in or around August 14 2018. 15 115. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 16 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 7 realized that 17 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse 18 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 19 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 20 21 22 23 JOHN DOE 8 116. Plaintiff John Doe 8 is a male who was born in 1987 and currently resides in San Diego County, California. Plaintiff John Doe 8 was a graduate student at USC from 2010 to 2012. 117. In or around July 2011, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination related 24 to symptoms John Doe 8 was experiencing pertaining to his sexual health, Plaintiff John Doe 8 25 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled John Doe 8 with the 26 only male sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly. 27 28 118. John Doe 8 was taken by USC staff to Dr. Kelly’s exam room where Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 8 a series of invasive and uncomfortable questions regarding his -32FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 sexual history and experiences, including whether he had sex with men, whether he was a “top or 2 a bottom” or both, whether he used sex toys, whether he shared sex toys with others, whether sex 3 toys he used belonged to someone else, whether he watched pornography, whether he had ever 4 been paid for sex, whether he had ever paid for sex, and how he met men, including whether he 5 met men on dating apps. John Doe 8 told Dr. Kelly that he always practiced safe sex and used 6 condoms. Despite John Doe 8’s safe practices, Dr. Kelly told John Doe 8 that using dating apps 7 would lead to the spread of disease. Dr. Kelly’s comments and questions made John Doe 8 feel 8 frightened, ashamed, embarrassed, and unsafe. Dr. Kelly further asked John Doe 8 whether he had 9 ever used his mouth to touch another man’s rectum, to which John Doe 8 answered that he had. 10 Dr. Kelly responded, “So, you enjoy rim jobs?” Dr. Kelly’s question alarmed John Doe 8 and 11 made him feel embarrassed, ashamed, and uncomfortable. Throughout Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he 12 was condescending and judgmental, making Plaintiff John Doe 8 feel uncomfortable, unsafe, and 13 shamed for his sexual orientation and activities. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon 14 alleges that Dr. Kelly’s questioning and commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and 15 control John Doe 8 so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual 16 abuse and discrimination of young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 17 119. After Dr. Kelly’s extensive invasive questioning, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 8 18 have a rectal examination. Dr. Kelly led John Doe 8 to an examination room so that it was just 19 John Doe 8 and Dr. Kelly in the room. Dr. Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 8 to remove 20 his pants and underwear and climb onto the examination table on his hands and knees. Dr. Kelly 21 did not leave the room or turn around while John Doe 8 undressed. Dr. Kelly did not provide 22 Plaintiff John Doe 8 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap 23 draping, and John Doe 8 did not feel like he could ask for privacy, making John Doe 8 feel 24 exposed and uncomfortable. 25 120. Once John Doe 8 was on the examination table, without saying a word, Dr. Kelly 26 began using his hands to push John Doe 8’s back down lower towards the examination table, pull 27 John Doe 8’s hips and buttocks closer to him, and spread John Doe 8’s legs further apart. John 28 Doe 8 was alarmed and distressed at Dr. Kelly’s invasive physical contact without explanation or -33FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 warning. Dr. Kelly then instructed John Doe 8 to use his hands to pull back his buttocks so that 2 Dr. Kelly could “get a better view.” Without warning or explanation, Dr. Kelly suddenly 3 penetrated Plaintiff John Doe 8’s anus with an unknown apparatus, causing Plaintiff John Doe 8 to 4 suffer pain and discomfort. The rectal examination continued for over a minute, and at no point 5 during the examination did Dr. Kelly explain to John Doe 8 what he was doing or what to expect, 6 except to tell John Doe 8 to “relax,” making John Doe 8 feel extremely uncomfortable, distressed, 7 and embarrassed. 8 9 121. Plaintiff John Doe 8 saw Dr. Kelly on over a dozen occasions from 2011 through 2012. During each of these sexual health examinations at Defendant USC’s Student Health 10 Center, Dr. Kelly instructed John Doe 8 to undress in front of him without offering any privacy or 11 covering, instructed him to get on “all fours” on the examination table, and insisted on a rectal 12 examination in which he painfully forced an unknown apparatus into his anus. Although he did 13 not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 8 now knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing 14 legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him to further his own 15 prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as a result of his 16 sexual orientation and/or gender. 17 122. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 8 to suffer 18 embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 19 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 20 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 21 Doe 8 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 22 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 8 had no 23 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 24 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 25 123. Plaintiff John Doe 8 felt so confused, shamed, and traumatized from his experience 26 with Dr. Kelly in 2011 to 2012 that he became fearful of Dr. Kelly and avoided USC’s Student 27 Health Center for sexual health examinations thereafter. 28 -34FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 124. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and abuse 2 became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 8 realized that Dr. Kelly’s 3 treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse committed 4 to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. Kelly’s 5 own sexual gratification. 6 7 JOHN DOE 9 125. Plaintiff John Doe 9 is a male who was born in 1998 and who currently resides in 8 Los Angeles County, California. At the time of filing this Complaint, Plaintiff John Doe 9 is an 9 undergraduate student at USC. 10 126. In or around April 2018, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination as part 11 of an ordinary medical health regimen, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases, Plaintiff 12 John Doe 9 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled John Doe 9 13 with the only male sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly. 14 127. John Doe 9 was taken by USC staff to Dr. Kelly’s private office where Dr. Kelly 15 began asking Plaintiff John Doe 9 a series of invasive and uncomfortable questions regarding his 16 sexual history and experiences, including requests for graphic detail regarding his sexual 17 encounters, whether he had sex with men, and how he met men, including whether he met men on 18 dating apps. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 9 informing Dr. Kelly that he had both male and female 19 partners, Dr. Kelly solely focused on Plaintiff John Doe 9’s encounters with male partners. Dr. 20 Kelly also asked John Doe 9 whether he had ever contracted a sexually transmitted infection, to 21 which John Doe 9 said that he had due to a sexual assault. Instead of showing compassion for 22 Plaintiff John Doe 9 regarding the sexual assault, Dr. Kelly lectured John Doe 9, stating that the 23 sexual assault was his fault because he was not more careful about who he slept with. Throughout 24 Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he was condescending and judgmental, making Plaintiff John Doe 9 feel 25 extremely uncomfortable and unsafe. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that 26 Dr. Kelly’s questioning and commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 27 9 so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and 28 discrimination of young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. -35FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 128. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 9’s lack of symptoms and the fact that John Doe 9 had 2 recently had a routine physical examination, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 9 have a rectal 3 examination. John Doe 9 was alarmed that Dr. Kelly was insisting on a rectal examination since 4 his previous visits for routine STD testing with other healthcare professionals had never involved 5 a rectal examination. Dr. Kelly then led John Doe 9 to an examination room so that it was just 6 John Doe 9 and Dr. Kelly in the room. Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff John Doe 9 to pull down his 7 pants and underwear and climb onto the examination table on his hands and knees. Dr. Kelly did 8 not leave the room or turn around; rather, he watched Plaintiff John Doe 9 while he undressed. 9 Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 9 with any sort of standard medical modesty 10 covering, such as a robe or lap draping, and John Doe 9 did not feel like he could ask for privacy, 11 making John Doe 9 feel exposed and uncomfortable. 12 129. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 13 expect, as John Doe 9 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table undressed 14 from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 9 suddenly felt a swab or other object inserted into his 15 rectum without warning. The rectal examination continued for approximately one minute, and at 16 no time did Dr. Kelly explain what he was doing or why he was doing it. During the examination, 17 Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John Doe 9 was splayed on his hands and knees without any 18 drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, and distressed. 19 130. After the rectal examination, Dr. Kelly instructed John Doe 9 to turn over and lay 20 flat on his back on the examination table. John Doe 9 complied. Once John Doe 9 was on his 21 back, Dr. Kelly began examining and touching John Doe 9’s genitalia with his hands for a 22 prolonged amount of time. Dr. Kelly never explained the reason or necessity behind the genital 23 examination, making John Doe 9 feel extremely unnerved and uncomfortable. Plaintiff John Doe 24 9 was healthy and had no symptoms or concerns in which a genital examination would have been 25 necessary. 26 131. In or around May 2018, only approximately one month after his first appointment 27 with Dr. Kelly and after his STD testing came back negative, John Doe 9 made an appointment 28 with USC’s Student Health Center because he was interested in obtaining a prescription for PrEP. -36FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Plaintiff John Doe 9 was again scheduled with Dr. Kelly for this visit. When John Doe 9 told Dr. 2 Kelly he was interested in obtaining a prescription for PrEP, Dr. Kelly was extremely judgmental 3 and advised against the prescription, informing John Doe 9 that in lieu of getting PrEP, he should 4 make different “lifestyle choices.” Dr. Kelly told John Doe 9 that if he wanted a prescription for 5 PrEP, John Doe 9 would have to undergo the same testing he had just undergone the month 6 before. Because John Doe 9 understood this to mean that he would be subjected to the same 7 intrusive physical touching, including penetration of his rectum and a prolonged genital 8 examination, John Doe 9 decided not to move forward with getting a prescription for PrEP from 9 USC’s Student Health Center. 10 132. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 9 now knows that Dr. 11 Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him 12 to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as 13 a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 14 133. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 9 to suffer 15 embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 16 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 17 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 18 Doe 9 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 19 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 9 had no 20 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men’s sexual health 21 physician at Defendant USC’s Student Health Center. Plaintiff John Doe 9 attempted to obtain 22 care elsewhere at a nearby clinic, but he was consistently unable to get an appointment. 23 134. Plaintiff John Doe 9 felt so confused, shamed, and traumatized from his experience 24 with Dr. Kelly that he became fearful of Dr. Kelly and avoided USC’s Student Health Center for 25 male sexual health examinations. 26 135. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 27 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that John Doe 9 realized that Dr. Kelly’s 28 treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose but was rather sexual abuse committed -37FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. Kelly’s 2 own sexual gratification. 3 4 JOHN DOE 10 136. Plaintiff John Doe 10 is a male who was born in 1980 and who currently resides in 5 Los Angeles County, California. Plaintiff John Doe 10 was an undergraduate student at USC from 6 approximately 1998 to 2002. 7 137. In or around 1999 or 2000, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination as 8 part of an ordinary medical health regimen, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases, 9 Plaintiff John Doe 10 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled 10 John Doe 10 with the head of the men’s health clinic at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly. 11 138. Plaintiff John Doe 10 went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 12 Kelly’s private office and conjoined examination room. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 13 10 a series of invasive and uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, 14 including whether he had sex with men, what his preferred sexual position was, and whether he 15 masturbated often. Dr. Kelly’s questions and comments regarding John Doe 10’s responses made 16 John Doe 10 feel, judged, shamed, uncomfortable and confused. John Doe 10 also observed that 17 Dr. Kelly seemed to be getting some sort of personal gratification from asking questions and 18 getting answers about specific details of John Doe 10’s sex life. Throughout Dr. Kelly’s 19 questioning, he was condescending and judgmental, making Plaintiff John Doe 10 feel 20 uncomfortable and unsafe. 21 139. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 10’s lack of symptoms while undergoing a routine 22 examination, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 10 have a “prostate exam,” explaining that it was 23 absolutely important that John Doe 10 get in the habit of getting a prostate exam as an important 24 aspect of men’s health. John Doe 10 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact requesting to conduct a 25 necessary medical procedure due to his position of authority as a physician employed by 26 Defendant USC. Dr. Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 10 to pull down his pants and 27 underwear and climb onto the examination table on his hands and knees and was further instructed 28 to lower his upper body towards the examination table so that his buttocks was up in the air. Dr. -38FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Kelly did not leave the room or turn around while John Doe 10 undressed. Dr. Kelly did not 2 provide Plaintiff John Doe 10 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe 3 or lap draping, and John Doe 10 did not feel like he could ask for privacy, making John Doe 10 4 feel exposed and uncomfortable. 5 140. John Doe 10 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table 6 undressed from the waist down and facing away from Dr. Kelly who explained that he was going 7 to insert his finger into his rectum and put pressure on his prostate. Plaintiff John Doe 10 suddenly 8 felt Dr. Kelly insert his finger into John Doe 10’s rectum as his fingers felt around and pressed 9 down hard on his anus and prostate enough to ensure that a type of bodily fluid was released from 10 his penis which Dr. Kelly said would be sent to the laboratory for testing. 11 141. The “prostate exam” lasted for approximately one minute. During the examination, 12 Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John Doe 10 was splayed on his hands and knees without any 13 drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, and distressed. Although he did not realize it at 14 the time, Plaintiff John Doe 10 now knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical 15 treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to 16 discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or 17 gender. 18 142. Because Dr. Kelly was the doctor in charge of the men’s health clinic and there 19 were no alternatives that specialized in men’s health, Plaintiff John Doe 10 was forced to visit Dr. 20 Kelly on several other occasions during his time as an undergraduate student for his routine sexual 21 health checkups. During each occasion, Dr. Kelly condemned Plaintiff John Doe 10’s sexual 22 behavior, made him feel ashamed for his actions, and caused him to feel unsafe and bad about 23 himself and his sexual identity. 24 143. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 10 now knows that Dr. 25 Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him 26 to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as 27 a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 28 -39FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 144. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 10 to 2 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 3 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 4 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 5 Doe 10 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 6 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 10 had no 7 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 8 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 9 145. It was only after Fall 2017, after the media outlets reported on longtime USA 10 Gymnastics national team doctor Larry Nassar’s rampant sexual abuse of female gymnasts that 11 John Doe 10 suspected that Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, 12 but was rather sexual abuse committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation 13 and/or gender and/or for Dr. Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 14 15 146. In January 2018, John Doe 10 made a formal complaint with USC’s Student Health Center regarding his visits with Dr. Kelly. 16 17 JOHN DOE 11 147. Plaintiff John Doe 11 is a male who was born in 1987 and currently resides in 18 Orange County, California. Plaintiff John Doe 11 was undergraduate student at USC from 19 approximately 2006 to 2010. 20 148. In or around February 2007, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination as 21 part of an ordinary medical health regimen, including standard testing for sexually transmitted 22 diseases, Plaintiff John Doe 11 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC 23 scheduled John Doe 11 with the only male sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health 24 Center, Dr. Kelly. 25 149. Plaintiff John Doe 11 went to the USC Student Health Center for his appointment 26 and was taken by USC staff to an examination room. Dr. Kelly entered the room so that it was 27 just John Doe 11 and Dr. Kelly in the examination room. Dr. Kelly then began asking John Doe 28 11 a series of invasive and uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, -40FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 including detailed questions about John Doe 11’s sex life in general, whether he had sex with men, 2 the types of men he had sex with, how he met men, where he met men, how sexually active he was 3 with his partners, and the specific sexual acts he did and did not engage in with his partners. 4 When John Doe 11 answered Dr. Kelly’s questions, Dr. Kelly made vulgar and offensive 5 comments about John Doe 11 being promiscuous. 6 150. Throughout Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he was condescending and judgmental, 7 making Plaintiff John Doe 11 feel uncomfortable, unsafe, and shamed for his sexual orientation 8 and sexual practices. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s 9 questioning and commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 11 so that 10 he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of 11 young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 12 151. Despite John Doe 11’s lack of symptoms and the fact that John Doe 11 had not 13 engaged in any anal receptive sexual activity with any individuals, all of which John Doe 11 14 communicated to Dr. Kelly, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 11 have a rectal examination. John 15 Doe 11 was alarmed that Dr. Kelly was insisting on such an examination given his lack of 16 symptoms and lack of sexual activity, but Dr. Kelly maintained that the rectal examination was a 17 standard and required examination. 18 152. Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff John Doe 11 to pull down his pants and underwear 19 and climb onto the examination table on his hands and knees. Dr. Kelly did not leave the room 20 while John Doe 11 undressed, and Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 11 with any sort of 21 standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, making John Doe 11 feel 22 exposed and extremely uncomfortable. 23 153. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 24 expect, as John Doe 11 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table undressed 25 from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 11 suddenly felt a circular device inserted into his rectum 26 without warning followed by a long cotton swab. The rectal examination continued for 27 approximately one minute, and at no time did Dr. Kelly explain what he was doing or why he was 28 doing it. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John Doe 11 was splayed on his -41FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, and distressed. 2 Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 11 now knows that Dr. Kelly was not 3 providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him to further his 4 own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as a result of his 5 sexual orientation and/or gender. 6 154. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 11 to 7 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 8 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 9 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 10 Doe 11 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 11 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 11 had no 12 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men’s sexual health 13 physician at Defendant USC’s Student Health Center. 14 155. Plaintiff John Doe 11 felt so confused, shamed, and traumatized from his 15 experience with Dr. Kelly that he became fearful of Dr. Kelly and avoided USC’s Student Health 16 Center for male sexual health examinations. 17 156. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 18 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that John Doe 11 realized that Dr. 19 Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose but was rather sexual abuse 20 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 21 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 22 23 JOHN DOE 12 157. Plaintiff John Doe 12 is a male who was born in 1985 and currently resides in Los 24 Angeles, California. Plaintiff John Doe 12 was an undergraduate student at USC from 25 approximately 2004 to 2008. 26 158. In or around 2006, while Plaintiff John Doe 12 was a student at USC, he made an 27 appointment with USC’s Student Health Center for a routine standard sexual health check-up and 28 STD testing. This was the first sexual health appointment that Plaintiff John Doe 12 had ever had, -42FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 and the first doctor’s appointment he had been to without a parent present. Moreover, Plaintiff 2 John Doe 12 had only recently had sexual activities for the first time and still had not “come out” 3 as gay to his family. USC scheduled John Doe 12 with the only make sexual health doctor on staff 4 at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly. 5 159. John Doe 12 went to the USC Student Health Center for his appointment. He was 6 taken by USC staff to an examination room. Dr. Kelly entered the room shortly thereafter so that 7 it was just John Doe 12 and Dr. Kelly in the room. After entering the room, Dr. Kelly began 8 asking John Doe 12 a series of invasive and uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history, 9 including whether he had ever had sex with men, whether he gave his sexual partner a “blow job,” 10 whether he had participated in analingus with his sexual partner, and whether he was a “top or a 11 bottom.” John Doe 12 informed Dr. Kelly that he had participated in sexual activities with men 12 but was not having anal sex, and that he had no symptoms or concerns related to his sexual health. 13 When Dr. Kelly began asking for details and descriptions of what sexual activities had been 14 performed on John Doe 12 and what sexual activities John Doe 12 had performed on his sexual 15 partners, John Doe 12 interrupted, saying “I’m just here for the test.” Dr. Kelly demanded, “You 16 have to tell me these things, I need to know.” Feeling like he had no choice, feeling even more 17 ashamed of his sexual practices, and due to his inexperience with sexual health visits, John Doe 12 18 relented. Dr. Kelly continued his inappropriate questioning of Plaintiff John Doe 12 and informed 19 him that his sexual activities were putting him at high risk for contracting sexually transmitted 20 diseases and that, as a result, he would have to perform a physical exam on John Doe 12. Dr. 21 Kelly’s invasive questioning, baseless admonishments, and harsh judgmental tone made John Doe 22 12 feel uncomfortable, unsafe, and shamed for his sexual orientation. Plaintiff is informed and 23 believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s questioning and commentary were designed to 24 shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 12 so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly 25 could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of young gay and bisexual males at USC 26 without restraint. 27 28 160. Dr. Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 12 to undress and climb onto the examination table and with his hands together and elbows and legs spread apart. When John Doe -43FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 12 stood standing in shock and confusion, Dr. Kelly instructed John Doe 12 to get into a “doggy- 2 style” position. Dr. Kelly did not leave the room or turn around but instead watched while John 3 Doe 12 undressed from the waist down, and Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 12 with 4 any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, and John Doe 12 did 5 not feel like he could ask for privacy, making John Doe 12 feel exposed and uncomfortable. 6 161. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 7 expect, as John Doe 12 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table undressed 8 from the waist down with his head facing the wall, Plaintiff John Doe 12 suddenly felt Dr. Kelly 9 insert his lubricated fingers inside his rectum. The rectal examination continued for approximately 10 one minute, and at no time did Dr. Kelly explain what he was doing or why. During the 11 examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John Doe 12 was splayed on his hands and knees 12 without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, and distressed. 13 162. Plaintiff John Doe 12 was forced to visit Dr. Kelly on several other occasions 14 during his time as an undergraduate student for his routine sexual health checkups, several of 15 which included the same physical examination and rectal penetration. During each occasion, Dr. 16 Kelly condemned Plaintiff John Doe 12’s sexual behavior, made him feel ashamed for his actions, 17 and caused him to feel unsafe and bad about himself and his sexual identity. During one of 18 Plaintiff John Doe 12’s visits, Dr. Kelly also began examining and touching John Doe 12’s penis 19 and scrotum with his hands for a prolonged period of time. During another visit in which Plaintiff 20 John Doe 12’s sought testing and treatment for a urinary tract infection, Dr. Kelly insisted upon 21 conducting a physical examination of Plaintiff John Doe 12’s genitalia, which included Dr. Kelly 22 touching John Doe 12’s penis with his hands. 23 163. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 12’s now knows that 24 Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing 25 him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass 26 him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 27 28 164. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 12 to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon -44FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 2 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 3 Doe 12 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 4 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 12 had no 5 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 6 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 7 165. It was only in or around December 2018, when discussing the scandal regarding 8 USC and its former gynecologist George Tyndall with a friend who was a medical resident at the 9 time and who informed him that the examinations John Doe 12 had received were not medically 10 necessary, that John Doe 12 realized for the first time that Dr. Kelly’s actions were not for a 11 legitimate medical purpose, but rather were purely motivated by his own prurient desire to 12 sexually abuse him for his own sexual gratification and/or discriminate against him based on his 13 sexual orientation and/or gender. 14 15 JOHN DOE 13 166. Plaintiff John Doe 13 is a male who was born in 1986 and currently resides in Los 16 Angeles County, California. Plaintiff John Doe 13 was a part-time undergraduate student at USC 17 from 2004 to 2009 and returned to USC in 2014 to finish his degree. 18 167. In or around December 2009, John Doe 13 made an appointment with USC’s 19 Student Health Center related to symptoms he was experiencing pertaining to his sexual health. 20 USC scheduled John Doe 13 to see a physician’s assistant for diagnoses and treatment. On 21 December 1, 2009, John Doe 13 saw the physician’s assistant at the USC Student Health Center, 22 who examined, diagnosed and treated John Doe 13 for an infection. Shortly after this treatment, 23 Plaintiff John Doe 13’s symptoms completely resolved. 24 168. After his appointment on December 1, 2009, Plaintiff John Doe 13 received 25 correspondence from USC’s Student Health Center informing him that he would need to be seen 26 again. USC scheduled John Doe 13 on December 14, 2009 with the only male sexual health 27 doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly. 28 -45FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 169. Plaintiff John Doe 13 went to his appointment on December 14, 2009 and was 2 taken by USC staff to an examination room. When John Doe 13 asked why he was being called 3 back in for an appointment, Dr. Kelly explained that the physician’s assistant had not conducted 4 the examination the way Dr. Kelly would have conducted it. He further told him that he needed to 5 conduct a more thorough examination. Dr. Kelly then began asking Plaintiff John Doe 13 a series 6 of invasive and uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including 7 detailed information as to what sexual practices he engaged in, whether he used sex toys, and 8 whether he had sex with men, to which John Doe 13 responded that he did. Throughout Dr. 9 Kelly’s questioning, he was condescending and judgmental, making Plaintiff John Doe 13 feel 10 uncomfortable and unsafe. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s 11 questioning and commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 13 so that 12 he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of 13 young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 14 170. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 13’s lack of symptoms and the fact that his previous 15 issues had fully resolved, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 13 submit to an HIV test, vaccination 16 for Hepatitis C, and a rectal examination. Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff John Doe 13 to pull down 17 his pants and underwear and climb onto the examination table on his hands and knees. Dr. Kelly 18 did not leave the room or turn around while John Doe 13 undressed. Dr. Kelly did not provide 19 Plaintiff John Doe 13 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap 20 draping, and John Doe 13 did not feel like he could ask for privacy or protest the exam, making 21 John Doe 13 feel exposed, uncomfortable, and extremely nervous. 22 171. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 23 expect, as John Doe 13 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table undressed 24 from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 13 suddenly felt Dr. Kelly lubricate his anus and insert a 25 device into his rectum without warning. 26 172. The rectal examination continued for approximately one minute, and at no time did 27 Dr. Kelly explain what he was doing or why he was doing it. During the examination, Dr. Kelly 28 was silent as Plaintiff John Doe 13 was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery or -46FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, and distressed. Although he did not realize it at the time, 2 Plaintiff John Doe 13 now knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to 3 him but was instead sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to 4 discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or 5 gender. 6 173. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 13 to 7 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 8 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 9 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 10 Doe 13 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 11 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 13 had no 12 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 13 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 14 174. Plaintiff John Doe 13 felt so confused, shamed, and traumatized from his 15 experience with Dr. Kelly in or around December 2009 that he became fearful of Dr. Kelly and 16 never forgot his name, even long after having graduated from USC. The “#MeToo Movement” 17 and USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal were constant reminders of John Doe’s experience with 18 Dr. Kelly. 19 175. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 20 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 13 realized that 21 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose but was rather sexual abuse 22 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 23 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 24 25 JOHN DOE 14 176. Plaintiff John Doe 14 is a male who was born in 1997 and who currently resides in 26 Los Angeles County, California. At the time of filing this Complaint, Plaintiff John Doe 14 is an 27 undergraduate student at USC. 28 -47FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 177. In or around March 2017, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination as 2 part of an ordinary medical health regimen, including to obtain a prescription for pre-exposure 3 prophylaxis (PrEP) medication, Plaintiff John Doe 14 made an appointment with USC’s Student 4 Health Center. USC scheduled John Doe 14 with the only male sexual health doctor on staff at 5 USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly. USC informed John Doe 14 that Dr. Kelly was the only 6 provider at USC who could prescribe PrEP. 7 178. Plaintiff John Doe 14 went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 8 Kelly’s private office. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 14 a series of invasive and 9 uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including whether he had 10 sex with men, whether he was a “top or a bottom,” how he met men, and graphic questions about 11 sex toy use, including asking for the specific brand and type of toys he used and whether he used 12 them with partners. He also asked John Doe 14 to provide him with details about any instances of 13 having multiple partners at the same time. Dr. Kelly told John Doe 14 that his questions were 14 from the standard questionnaire he was required to use to prescribe PrEP. When John Doe 14 told 15 Dr. Kelly his sexual history, including that his partners were men, Dr. Kelly responded that John 16 Doe 14 was at “extreme high risk” and that John Doe 14 would have to submit to a physical 17 examination, despite having no symptoms or concerns related to his sexual health. Dr. Kelly’s 18 questions and comments made John Doe 14 feel hurt, judged, shamed, and confused. Throughout 19 Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he was condescending and judgmental, making Plaintiff John Doe 14 feel 20 uncomfortable and unsafe. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s 21 questioning and commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 14 so that 22 he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of 23 young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 24 179. Dr. Kelly led John Doe 14 to an examination room so that it was just John Doe 14 25 and Dr. Kelly in the room. Dr. Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 14 to pull down his pants 26 and underwear and climb onto the examination table and lay flat on his back. Dr. Kelly did not 27 leave the room or turn around while John Doe 14 undressed. John Doe 14 did not feel like he 28 could ask for privacy, making John Doe 14 feel exposed and uncomfortable. Once John Doe 14 -48FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 was on his back, Dr. Kelly began examining and touching John Doe 14’s genitalia with his hands 2 for a prolonged amount of time. Dr. Kelly never explained the reason or necessity behind the 3 genital examination, making John Doe 14 feel extremely unnerved and uncomfortable. 4 180. Dr. Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 14 to turn around and get onto his 5 hands and knees on the examination table. Without saying a word about the details of the 6 examination, the process, or what to expect, as John Doe 14 was on his hands and knees on the 7 medical examination table, Plaintiff John Doe 14 suddenly felt a sharp pain as a swab or other 8 device was inserted into his rectum without warning. 9 181. The rectal examination continued for approximately 2 minutes, and at no time did 10 Dr. Kelly explain what he was doing or why he was doing it. During the examination, Dr. Kelly 11 was silent as Plaintiff John Doe 14 was splayed on his hands and knees with his buttocks and anus 12 exposed, feeling exposed, humiliated, and distressed. Although he did not realize it at the time, 13 Plaintiff John Doe 14 now knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to 14 him but was instead sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to 15 discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or 16 gender. 17 182. Plaintiff John Doe 14 was forced to visit Dr. Kelly five to six times before Dr. 18 Kelly retired in August 2018 for his routine checkups to renew his prescription for PrEP. At 19 almost every appointment, Dr. Kelly insisted on performing the same physical examination and 20 rectal penetration even though John Doe 14 always told Dr. Kelly that he did not have symptoms 21 or concerns related to his sexual health. During each visit, Dr. Kelly condemned Plaintiff John 22 Doe 14’s sexual behavior, made him feel ashamed for his actions, and caused him to feel unsafe 23 and bad about himself and his sexual identity. 24 183. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 14 now knows that Dr. 25 Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him 26 to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as 27 a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 28 -49FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 184. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused Plaintiff John Doe 2 14 to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, Plaintiff John Doe 14 3 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his position of 4 authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, Plaintiff had no choice but to 5 receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men’s health physician at Defendant 6 USC’s Student Health Center. 7 185. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 8 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 14 realized that 9 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose but was rather sexual abuse 10 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 11 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 12 13 JOHN DOE 15 186. Plaintiff John Doe 15 is a male who was born in 1987 and currently resides in San 14 Miguel County, Colorado. Plaintiff John Doe 15 was an undergraduate student at USC from 2005 15 to 2009. 16 187. In or around 2008, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination as part of an 17 ordinary medical health regimen, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases, Plaintiff John 18 Doe 15 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. Plaintiff had never had a sexual 19 health check-up or STD testing before. USC scheduled John Doe 15 with the only male sexual 20 health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly 21 188. Plaintiff John Doe 15 went to his appointment at USC’s Student Health Center. 22 Shortly before the appointment began, John Doe 15 met with a female medical assistant and/or 23 nurse who, among other things, took his vitals and asked about his medical history before 24 escorting John Doe 15 to Dr. Kelly’s examination room. 25 189. Dr. Kelly entered the room shortly thereafter so that it was just John Doe 15 and 26 Dr. Kelly in the room. Almost immediately after entering the room, Dr. Kelly began asking John 27 Doe 15 a series of invasive and detailed questions regarding his sexual history using inappropriate, 28 vulgar, and harassing language, including whether he had ever had sex with men, whether anyone -50FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 had ever licked his anus, and whether he was “a top or bottom.” John Doe 15 informed Dr. Kelly 2 that he had no symptoms or concerns related to his sexual health and that he had never been anally 3 receptive. When John Doe 15 said that he had received anilingus, Dr. Kelly began lecturing John 4 Doe 15 in a judgmental and shaming manner, including saying that John Doe 15’s sexual activity 5 with men put him at a high risk for diseases. Dr. Kelly’s response made John Doe 15 feel hurt, 6 judged, shamed, and confused. Throughout Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he was condescending and 7 judgmental, making Plaintiff John Doe 15 feel uncomfortable and unsafe. Plaintiff is informed 8 and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s questioning and commentary were designed to 9 shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 15 so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly 10 could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of young gay and bisexual males at USC 11 without restraint. 12 190. Notwithstanding John Doe 15’s lack of symptoms or concerns and the fact that 13 John Doe 15 had never received anal sex, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 15 submit to a physical 14 examination. John Doe 15 had never had a rectal examination before, however, this was John Doe 15 15’s first men’s sexual health examination and one of the first doctor visits he had attended as an 16 adult without a parent present, and he trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact going to conduct a 17 legitimate medical procedure due to his position of authority as a physician employed by 18 Defendant USC. 19 191. Dr. Kelly instructed John Doe 15 to remove his pants and underwear and get on his 20 hands and knees on the examination table. Dr. Kelly did not leave the room or turn around but 21 instead watched while John Doe 15 undressed from the waist down, and Dr. Kelly did not provide 22 Plaintiff John Doe 15 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap 23 draping, and John Doe 15 did not feel like he could ask for privacy, making John Doe 15 feel 24 exposed and uncomfortable. 25 192. Then, without any explanation or warning, Dr. Kelly penetrated John Doe 15 with 26 an unknown metal apparatus and/or his fingers, and simultaneously leaned in to whisper in John 27 Doe 15’s ear and said, “how often do you let your partner cum in you?” John Doe 15 understood 28 this to be a rhetorical question and was horrified and confused, especially since he had already told -51FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Dr. Kelly that he had never been anally receptive. John Doe 15 remained silent and did not 2 answer while Dr. Kelly continued to probe his rectum with an unknown object for a prolonged 3 period of time. 4 193. The rectal examination continued for approximately one minute, and at no time did 5 Dr. Kelly explain what he was doing or what the examination entailed. Aside from whispering 6 this disturbing comment, Dr. Kelly was completely silent during the examination as Plaintiff John 7 Doe 15 was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, 8 humiliated, and distressed. Following his visit, Dr. Kelly never sent John Doe 15 any test results 9 or called him to inform him of any test results. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff 10 John Doe 15 now knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but 11 was instead sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, 12 humiliate, and embarrass him because of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 13 194. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 15 to 14 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 15 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr, Kelly was a sexual predator and 16 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 17 Doe 15 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 18 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 15 had no 19 choice but to receive sexual health care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual 20 health physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 21 195. Plaintiff John Doe 15 felt so confused, shamed, and traumatized from his 22 experience with Dr. Kelly that he became fearful of Dr. Kelly and never returned to USC’s 23 Student Health Center for male sexual health examinations again. 24 196. It was only after May 2018, after the Los Angeles Times published an article 25 exposing USC’s gynecologist George Tyndall of rampant sexual abuse of female students for 26 decades at USC, and USC’s knowledge and concealment of such abuse, and discussing his 27 experience with Dr. Kelly with a friend, that John Doe 15 realized that Dr. Kelly’s treatment of 28 him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse committed to -52FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. Kelly’s own 2 sexual gratification. 3 JOHN DOE 16 4 197. Plaintiff John Doe 16 is a male who was born in 1998 and currently resides in Los 5 Angeles County, California. At the time of filing this Complaint, Plaintiff John Doe 16 is an 6 undergraduate student at USC. 198. 7 In or around October 2017, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination as 8 part of an ordinary medical health regimen, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases, 9 Plaintiff John Doe 16 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled 10 John Doe 16 with the only male sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. 11 Kelly. This was John Doe 16’s first sexual wellness visit after engaging in sexual activity with a 12 man. 13 199. John Doe 16 was taken by USC staff to Dr. Kelly’s examination room where it was 14 just Dr. Kelly and Plaintiff John Doe 16 in the room. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 15 16 a series of invasive and uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, 16 including whether he had sex with men, whether he used sex toys, and whether he met men on 17 dating apps such as “Grindr.” Dr. Kelly also commented that Plaintiff John Doe 16 was engaged 18 in risky behavior and was at risk for diseases. Throughout Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he was prying, 19 condescending, and judgmental, making Plaintiff John Doe 16 feel uncomfortable and unsafe. 20 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s questioning and 21 commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 16 so that he would be 22 silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of young males 23 at USC without restraint. 24 200. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 16’s lack of symptoms and lack of concerns regarding 25 his sexual health, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 16 have a rectal and genital examination. John 26 Doe 16 was alarmed that Dr. Kelly was insisting on such examinations, but he complied since Dr. 27 Kelly represented that the examinations were standard and necessary. 28 -53FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 201. Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff John Doe 16 to pull down his pants and underwear. 2 Dr. Kelly did not leave the room or turn around while Plaintiff John Doe 16 undressed. Dr. Kelly 3 did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 16 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as 4 a robe or lap draping, and John Doe 16 did not feel like he could ask for privacy, making John 5 Doe 16 feel exposed and uncomfortable. Dr. Kelly began examining and touching John Doe 16’s 6 genitalia with his hands for a prolonged amount of time, making John Doe 16 feel extremely 7 uncomfortable and unnerved. Dr. Kelly never explained the reason or necessity behind the genital 8 examination. 9 202. Dr. Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 16 to climb onto the examination table 10 on his hands and knees. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, 11 or what to expect, as John Doe 16 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table 12 undressed from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 16 suddenly felt a swab or other object inserted 13 into his rectum without warning. At no time during the rectal examination did Dr. Kelly explain 14 what he was doing or why he was doing it. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as 15 Plaintiff John Doe 16 was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling 16 exposed, humiliated, and distressed. Plaintiff John Doe 16 attempted to dispel some of the tension 17 by making a joke during the examination, but Dr. Kelly did not respond and remained silent, 18 making John Doe 16 feel even more humiliated and uncomfortable. 19 203. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 16 now knows that Dr. 20 Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him 21 to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as 22 a result of sexual orientation and/or gender. 23 204. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 16 to 24 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 25 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 26 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 27 Doe 16 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 28 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 16 had no -54FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men’s sexual health 2 physician at Defendant USC’s Student Health Center. 3 205. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 4 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that John Doe 16 realized that Dr. 5 Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose but was rather sexual abuse 6 committed to discriminate against him based on sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 7 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 8 9 JOHN DOE 17 206. Plaintiff John Doe 17 is a male who was born in 1998 and who currently resides in 10 Los Angeles County, California. At the time of filing this Complaint, Plaintiff John Doe 17 is an 11 undergraduate student at USC. 12 207. In or around August 2017, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination as 13 part of an ordinary medical health regimen and to renew his prescription for pre-exposure 14 prophylaxis (PrEP), Plaintiff John Doe 17 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health 15 Center. After a Physician’s Assistant ordered laboratory tests for sexually transmitted infections 16 and all test results came back negative, USC scheduled John Doe 17 with the only male sexual 17 health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly, to review the results and renew 18 his prescription for PrEP. This was the first doctor’s appointment Plaintiff John Doe 17 had made 19 as a student at USC. 20 208. Plaintiff John Doe 17 went to his appointment and was first taken to Dr. Kelly’s 21 private office where Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 17 a series of invasive and 22 uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including whether he had 23 sex with men, how he met men, whether he met men on dating apps like “Grindr,” and how 24 frequently he met with different men. Plaintiff John Doe 17 informed Dr. Kelly that he had used 25 dating apps, to which Dr. Kelly responded, “anonymous hookups increase your risk of STDs” and 26 “using Grindr is risky as a practice.” Plaintiff John Doe 17 was taken aback that Dr. Kelly was 27 repeatedly characterizing his use of a dating app as participating in “anonymous hookups,” which 28 he had not done and which he reiterated to Dr. Kelly multiple times. John Doe 17 protested Dr. -55FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Kelly’s characterization, stating, “all that should matter is whether I am doing an act with 2 someone, not whether I use the app.” Dr. Kelly responded, “Grindr is the new bathhouses” and 3 warned him, “risky actions can affect your health.” In response to being asked how many times 4 Plaintiff John Doe 17 recently engaged in different forms of sexual activity with different men, Dr. 5 Kelly retorted “you’ve had an exceptionally high number of partners.” Dr. Kelly’s comments 6 caused John Doe 17 to feel angry and confused because John Doe 17 did not consider his behavior 7 risky, he did not engage in “anonymous hookups,” and he felt Dr. Kelly’s comments were not 8 directed at any specific medical concern but rather made as a personal denigration with the intent 9 to shame. 10 209. Dr. Kelly’s comments made John Doe 17 feel ashamed, embarrassed, and 11 uncomfortable for his sexual orientation and practices. Throughout Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he 12 was condescending and judgmental, making Plaintiff John Doe 17 feel humiliated and unsafe. 13 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s questioning and 14 commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 17 so that he would be 15 silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of young gay 16 and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 17 210. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 17’s lack of symptoms or concerns regarding his sexual 18 health, and the fact that all of laboratory results for sexually transmitted infections came back 19 normal before the appointment, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 17 have a physical examination 20 before refilling his prescription for PrEP. John Doe 17 protested and asked whether a physical 21 examination was really necessary considering he had no symptoms or concerns related to his 22 sexual health, had never had an STD before, and all the doctors he had seen to get routine testing 23 for PrEP in the past did not require a physical examination. However, Dr. Kelly insisted that it 24 was necessary for him to conduct a physical examination. John Doe 17 felt like he had no choice 25 but to undergo the physical examination and so he relented. 26 211. Dr. Kelly next led John Doe 17 from his private office to an examination room so 27 that it was just John Doe 17 and Dr. Kelly in the examination room. Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff 28 John Doe 17 to undress from the waist down. Dr. Kelly did not leave the room or turn around -56FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 while John Doe 17 undressed. Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 17 with any sort of 2 standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, and John Doe 17 did not feel 3 like he could ask for privacy, making John Doe 17 feel exposed, vulnerable, and uncomfortable. 4 212. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 5 expect, Dr. Kelly began using his hands, feeling John Doe 17’s penis and scrotum with his fingers, 6 and looking at his genitalia for a prolonged period of time, making John Doe 17 extremely 7 uncomfortable and distressed. 8 9 213. Dr. Kelly then instructed John Doe 17 to get on the examination table on his hands and knees with his legs spread apart. As John Doe 17 was on his hands and knees on the medical 10 examination table facing away from Dr. Kelly and undressed from the waist down, without any 11 warning, Plaintiff John Doe 17 suddenly felt Dr. Kelly’s fingers feeling around his anus. As the 12 physical examination continued, at no time did Dr. Kelly explain what he was doing or why he 13 was doing it. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John Doe 17 was splayed 14 on his hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, and 15 distressed. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 17 now knows that Dr. 16 Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him 17 to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as 18 a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 214. 19 Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examinations” caused John Doe 17 to 20 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 21 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 22 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 23 Doe 17 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 24 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 17 had no 25 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 26 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 27 \\\ 28 \\\ -57FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 215. Plaintiff John Doe 17 felt so confused, shamed, and traumatized from his 2 experience with Dr. Kelly that he became fearful of Dr. Kelly and avoided USC’s Student Health 3 Center for male sexual health examinations. 4 216. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 5 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that John Doe 17 realized that Dr. 6 Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose but was rather sexual abuse 7 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 8 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 9 10 JOHN DOE 18 217. Plaintiff John Doe 18 is a male who was born in 1995 and who currently resides in 11 Los Angeles County, California. At the time of filing this Complaint, John Doe 18 is an 12 undergraduate student at USC. 13 218. In or around February 2016, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination as 14 part of an ordinary medical health regimen, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases, 15 Plaintiff John Doe 18 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled 16 John Doe 18 with the only male sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. 17 Kelly. Plaintiff John Doe 18 had never had a male sexual health examination before and was a 18 first-year student at USC. 19 219. Plaintiff John Doe 18 went to his appointment and was taken to Dr. Kelly’s private 20 office where Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 18 a series of invasive and uncomfortable 21 questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including whether he had sex with men, 22 how he met men, including whether he met men on dating apps like “Grindr.” In response to Dr. 23 Kelly’s questions as to whether he used dating apps, Plaintiff John Doe 18 responded that he had, 24 to which Dr. Kelly responded, “You shouldn’t be using that app” and “It’s not safe to be hooking 25 up with people from that app.” Dr. Kelly’s comment made John Doe 18 feel ashamed, 26 embarrassed, and unsafe. John Doe 18 informed Dr. Kelly that he identified as gay and that his 27 partners were men. Throughout Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he was condescending and judgmental, 28 making Plaintiff John Doe 18 feel uncomfortable and unsafe. Plaintiff is informed and believes -58FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s questioning and commentary were designed to shame, 2 humiliate, and control John Doe 18 so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could 3 continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of young gay and bisexual males at USC without 4 restraint. 5 220. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 18’s lack of symptoms or concerns regarding his sexual 6 health, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 18 have a rectal examination. Dr. Kelly then led John 7 Doe 18 to an examination room so that it was just John Doe 18 and Dr. Kelly in the room. Dr. 8 Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 18 to undress from the waist down and climb onto the 9 examination table on his hands and knees. Dr. Kelly did not leave the room or turn around while 10 John Doe 18 undressed, and Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 18 with any sort of 11 standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, and John Doe 18 did not feel 12 like he could ask for privacy, making John Doe 18 feel exposed and uncomfortable. 13 221. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 14 expect, as John Doe 18 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table undressed 15 from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 18 suddenly felt a sharp pain as a swab or other object 16 was inserted deep into his rectum without warning. John Doe 18 was in pain as Dr. Kelly inserted 17 the swab or other object in his rectum in what felt like was as deep as the swab or other object 18 could go and John Doe 18 felt the swab or other object press against his prostate, for what felt like 19 was approximately 15 seconds. 20 222. As the rectal examination continued, and at no time did Dr. Kelly explain what he 21 was doing. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John Doe 18 was splayed on 22 his hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, and distressed. 23 Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 18 now knows that Dr. Kelly was not 24 providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him to further his 25 own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as a result of his 26 sexual orientation and/or gender. 27 28 223. Plaintiff John Doe 18 saw Dr. Kelly at Defendant USC’s Student Health Center a few months later for another routine exam. During this visit, Dr. Kelly again instructed John Doe -59FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 18 to undress in front of him without offering any privacy or covering, instructed him to get on 2 “all fours” on the examination table, and insisted on a rectal examination in which he forced a 3 swab or other apparatus into his rectum. 4 224. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examinations” caused John Doe 18 to 5 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 6 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr, Kelly was a sexual predator and 7 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 8 Doe 18 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 9 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 18 had no 10 choice but to receive sexual health care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual 11 health physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 12 225. Plaintiff John Doe 18 felt so confused, shamed, and traumatized from his 13 experience with Dr. Kelly in 2016 that he became fearful of Dr. Kelly and avoided seeing him at 14 USC’s Student Health Center again for male sexual health examinations. 15 226. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 16 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 18 realized that 17 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse 18 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 19 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 20 21 JOHN DOE 19 227. Plaintiff John Doe 19 is a male who was born in 1992 and currently resides in Los 22 Angeles County, California. Plaintiff John Doe 19 was an undergraduate student at USC from 23 2014 to 2016. 24 228. In or around October 2014, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination 25 related to symptoms John Doe 19 was experiencing pertaining to his sexual health, Plaintiff John 26 Doe 19 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled John Doe 19 27 with the only male sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly. This 28 -60FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 was John Doe 19’s first male sexual health examination, and his first doctor’s appointment since 2 moving out of his family home to attend college. 3 229. Plaintiff John Doe 19 went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 4 Kelly’s examination room where Dr. Kelly asked about John Doe 19’s general symptoms and 5 sexual experience, to which John Doe 19 responded that he had recently had a sexual encounter 6 with another man. Dr. Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 19 to remove his pants and 7 underwear. Dr. Kelly did not leave the room while John Doe 19 undressed in front of him, and 8 Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 19 with any sort of standard medical modesty 9 covering, such as a robe or lap draping, making John Doe 19 feel exposed, vulnerable, and 10 extremely uncomfortable. Dr. Kelly then immediately began conducting a physical examination 11 on John Doe 19’s genitalia using his hands and a swab without providing explanations for what he 12 was doing. 13 230. After the physical examination, Dr. Kelly then led John Doe 19 back to his private 14 office where he began asking Plaintiff John Doe 19 a series of invasive and uncomfortable 15 questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including how he met men, and whether he 16 met men on dating apps like Grindr. John Doe 19 told Dr. Kelly that he had used Grindr, to which 17 Dr. Kelly responded, “What are you doing on that app?” and remarked, “I don’t know what it is 18 with your generation,” and further remarked, “It’s disgusting.” When John Doe 19 informed Dr. 19 Kelly that he had participated in oral sex with a man, Dr. Kelly commented that performing any 20 act of oral sex would likely result in the transmission of STDs. Dr. Kelly’s comments and 21 questions made John Doe 19 feel ashamed, embarrassed, and unsafe. Throughout Dr. Kelly’s 22 questioning, he was condescending and judgmental. Plaintiff is informed and believes and 23 thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s questioning and commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, 24 and control John Doe 19 so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the 25 sexual abuse and discrimination of young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 26 27 231. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 19 now knows that Dr. Kelly was not conducting a legitimate medical examination but was instead sexually abusing him 28 -61FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as 2 a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 3 232. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 19 to 4 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 5 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 6 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 7 Doe 19 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 8 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 19 had no 9 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 10 11 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 233. Plaintiff John Doe 19 felt so confused, shamed, and traumatized from his 12 experience with Dr. Kelly in October 2014 that he became fearful of Dr. Kelly and insisted upon 13 seeing a different doctor at USC’s Student Health Center for sexual health examinations. 14 234. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 15 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 19 realized that 16 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse 17 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 18 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 19 20 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELEVANT TO ALL PARTIES 235. Plaintiffs were young male gay or bisexual undergraduate students at USC when 21 they were subjected to the unlawful behavior by Dr. Kelly, as described herein. Many were 22 inexperienced in the kinds of intimate examinations that gave rise to the claims asserted herein. 23 236. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Dr. Kelly received his 24 medical degree in 1972 from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, and he received his 25 medical license on March 20, 1974. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege 26 that Defendant USC thereafter hired Dr. Kelly as a full-time physician to address men’s sexual 27 health at its Student Health Center later known as the Engemann Student Health Center. 28 -62FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 237. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that during his tenure at 2 USC, Dr. Kelly sexually abused and molested dozens of young male gay and bisexual students, 3 including Plaintiffs, through the use of his position, power, authority, and trust as the only full- 4 time men’s health specialist employed by USC Student Health Services. At all times alleged 5 herein, Dr. Kelly was an employee, agent, and/or servant of Defendant USC and Does 1 through 6 100, and/or was under their complete control and/or direct supervision. 7 238. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Dr. Kelly was retained as 8 a men’s health physician to provide medical care and treatment to young men attending USC as 9 undergraduate and graduate students, most of whom were very young adults and many of whom 10 had never had any sexual health visits prior to attending USC. It was through this position of trust 11 and confidence that Dr. Kelly exploited Plaintiffs in perpetrating his sexual abuse and battery upon 12 Plaintiffs and discriminating against Plaintiffs based on their sexual orientation and/or gender. 13 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that all of the sexually abusive, harassing, 14 and discriminatory conduct alleged herein was done to satisfy Dr. Kelly’s own prurient sexual 15 desires and/or to shame, humiliate, and embarrass Plaintiffs as a result of their sexual orientation. 16 239. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that in hiring Dr. Kelly as its 17 only full-time men’s sexual health physician, Defendant USC gave Dr. Kelly full power, control, 18 and authority to treat and provide men’s sexual health medical care to its undergraduate and 19 graduate students. By continuing to employ Dr. Kelly, USC held Dr. Kelly out to be a 20 professional and legitimate men’s health physician. 21 240. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times relevant 22 herein, Defendant USC owned, operated, maintained, controlled, and staffed its Student Health 23 Center later known as the Engemann Student Health Center. Defendant USC promoted its Student 24 Health Center as a safe place where students could obtain high quality medical treatment, and 25 USC encouraged men to receive regular sexual health checkups to ensure their health and 26 wellness. 27 28 241. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs were under Defendants USC, Dr. Kelly, and Does 1 through 100’s complete -63FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 control, dominion, and supervision when they were subjected to the discriminatory behavior and 2 sexual misconduct of Dr. Kelly as described herein. 3 242. All Plaintiffs were undergraduate students and paid for health services at USC. 4 Defendant USC caused them to be directed to its Student Health Center later known as the 5 Engemann Student Health Center for, among other things, men’s sexual health care. The Student 6 Health Center assigned these Plaintiffs to see Dr. Kelly for any and all examinations, treatment, 7 testing, and/or concerns related to their sexual health. Some of the Plaintiffs had never received 8 any examination, treatment, or testing related to their sexual health before seeing Dr. Kelly. 9 Plaintiffs put their full trust and confidence in Dr. Kelly, assuming his advice, conduct, and 10 11 treatment during the examinations were necessary and appropriate. 243. At all times relevant herein, a special relationship arose among Defendants USC 12 and Dr. Kelly, acting on its own or through the Student Health Center, on the one hand, and each 13 Plaintiff, on the other hand, and Defendants stood in the position of a fiduciary toward each of the 14 Plaintiffs by virtue of (1) the patient-health care provider relationship that arose; (2) the superior 15 knowledge that Defendants possessed with respect to standards of care, discriminatory conduct, 16 and allegations against Dr. Kelly; and (3) each Plaintiff’s dependence upon the Defendants for 17 information regarding their treatment. 18 244. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that because of the 19 relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants, Defendants had an obligation and a duty under the 20 law to, among other things, make a full and fair disclosure to each Plaintiff of all facts which 21 materially affected his rights and interests and to disclose to each Plaintiff the full extent of Dr. 22 Kelly’s discriminatory and sexual misconduct and/or Defendant USC’s errors, omissions, and 23 concealments related to Dr. Kelly’s discriminatory and sexual misconduct. Additionally, each 24 Plaintiff had the right to make an informed decision about whether to subject himself to treatment 25 by Dr. Kelly. 26 245. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that because of the 27 relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants, Defendants had an obligation and duty under the 28 law not to hide material facts and information about Dr. Kelly’s past sexual misconduct and -64FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 discrimination. Defendant USC failed to fulfill its fiduciary duty to disclose Dr. Kelly’s wrongful 2 actions. Additionally, Defendants had an affirmative duty to warn, inform, and institute 3 appropriate protective measures to safeguard patients who were reasonably likely to come in 4 contact with Dr. Kelly. Defendants willfully refused to notify, give adequate warning, or 5 implement appropriate safeguards, and that failure was willful, intentional, and in reckless 6 disregard for the Plaintiffs’ respective rights and safety. That failure was the product of Defendant 7 USC’s selfish desire to promote or preserve its own reputation and revenues without regard for the 8 Plaintiffs’ rights, choices, and safety. 9 246. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that during Dr. Kelly’s 10 employment with Defendant USC, Dr. Kelly discriminated against, sexually battered, abused, 11 harassed and engaged in other unlawful behavior with young male gay and bisexual students, 12 other than Plaintiffs, who saw Dr. Kelly for treatment, examinations, and/or consultations. 13 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that young male gay and bisexual students 14 other than Plaintiffs made complaints to USC regarding Dr. Kelly’s misconduct, but USC failed to 15 take any action related to such complaints. 16 247. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant USC knew, 17 should have known, and/or were put on notice of Dr. Kelly’s past sexual abuse and discrimination 18 toward young gay and bisexual male students, and USC intentionally failed to take any 19 appropriate action to protect gay and bisexual male students from unlawful behavior by Dr. Kelly 20 in order to protect the reputation and revenues of USC and to avoid legal liability. 21 248. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant USC 22 concealed the fact that gay and bisexual male students had complained about Dr. Kelly in order to 23 protect the revenues and reputation of USC and to avoid legal liability. 24 249. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants failed to 25 implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual misconduct and discrimination 26 by Dr. Kelly in the future, including avoiding placement of Dr. Kelly in a position where contact 27 and interaction with vulnerable patients and students is an inherent function. 28 -65FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 250. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants failed to 2 adequately train and supervise all staff to create a positive and safe environment, specifically 3 including training to perceive, report, and stop inappropriate sexual misconduct and discrimination 4 by other members and staff. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that 5 Defendants failed to adopt and implement safety measures, policies, and procedures designed to 6 protect patients such as Plaintiffs from sexually exploitative and discriminatory acts by 7 Defendants’ agents and employees. 8 251. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants USC and Dr. 9 Kelly entered into a conspiracy, the object of which was to conceal the fact that students and/or 10 Defendant USC employees had complained of sexually improper behavior and discriminatory 11 behavior by Dr. Kelly, to conceal the fact that Dr. Kelly had been known to sexually batter gay 12 and bisexual male patients, and to enable Dr. Kelly to continue practicing medicine without 13 restriction. 14 252. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants USC and Dr. 15 Kelly conspired to conceal Defendant USC’s negligence in supervising Dr. Kelly and acted in 16 furtherance of that conspiracy. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that 17 in furtherance of that conspiracy, Defendant USC and Dr. Kelly ensured that complaints of sexual 18 misconduct, suspected sexual misconduct, or discrimination by Dr. Kelly towards male gay and 19 bisexual patients were effectively ignored, inadequately investigated, or falsely found to be 20 without merit. 21 253. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that in furtherance of the 22 above conspiracy, rather than reporting Dr. Kelly to any legal authorities and/or the California 23 Medical Board, and/or the students and staff at USC, including Plaintiffs, Defendant USC sought 24 to preserve its reputation and ensure that USC’s fundraising efforts were not adversely affected, 25 and actively concealed and allowed Dr. Kelly to continue his abuse, harassment, and 26 discrimination of young male gay and bisexual students at USC. 27 28 254. It was not until after media reports, including a publication by the Los Angeles Times in May 2018 exposing USC’s gynecologist Dr. George Tyndall of rampant sexual abuse of -66FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 female students for decades at USC, and USC’s concealment and knowledge of such sexual abuse, 2 that Plaintiffs became aware that Dr. Kelly’s behavior during their examinations was unlawful and 3 not for a legitimate medical purpose and that his actions during the examination were committed 4 to discriminate against them based on their sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. Kelly’s 5 own prurient interests and sexual gratification. 6 255. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant USC engaged 7 in a pattern and practice of ignoring complaints, failing to investigate sexual abuse and 8 discrimination complaints, deliberately concealing information from victims, and contributed to a 9 sexually hostile and discriminatory environment on campus at USC. Plaintiffs are further 10 informed and believe and thereon allege that USC had and continues to have a pattern and practice 11 of putting their profits, reputation, and prospect of financial gain over the health, safety, and well- 12 being of its students. For example, according to media reports which emerged in or around the 13 summer of 2018, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant USC knew 14 of gynecologist Dr. George Tyndall’s sexual abuse of female students since at least 1990 or 1991 15 when female patients, students, and USC employees complained about Dr. George Tyndall’s 16 inappropriate sexual misconduct. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that 17 instead of informing students of Dr. George Tyndall’s behavior, reporting him to the California 18 Medical Board, reporting him to legal authorities, or terminating his position at USC, USC 19 actively concealed Dr. George Tyndall’s unlawful behavior, allowed Dr. George Tyndall to 20 continue treating patients for decades, and permitted Dr. George Tyndall to quietly resign his 21 position and paid him a generous monetary settlement in or about June 2017. 22 256. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that it was not until after such 23 media reports in or around May 2018 that Plaintiffs realized that USC similarly failed to take 24 appropriate action with respect to complaints regarding Dr. Kelly, failed to protect its students 25 from Dr. Kelly’s conduct, allowed Dr. Kelly to continue treating patients for years, and actively 26 concealed complaints of Dr. Kelly’s misconduct. 27 28 257. In subjecting Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment described herein, Defendants Dr. Kelly, USC, and Does 1 through 100 acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm -67FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Plaintiffs and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and safety so as to constitute malice 2 and/or oppression under Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon 3 allege that Defendants, under the authority as an educational institution and medical provider, 4 acted with reckless disregard for the concern of its student-patients in its charge in order to 5 maintain funding and further financially benefit its business’s growth. Plaintiffs are further 6 informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants acted intentionally in creating an 7 environment of sexual abuse and discrimination, in putting its vulnerable young students at risk of 8 harm, and in ignoring warning signs and complaints about ongoing sexual abuse and 9 discrimination, all to maintain a façade of normalcy in order to uphold its funding and provide 10 Defendants with further financial growth. The safety of the student-patients that were entrusted to 11 Defendants was compromised due to Defendants’ desire to maintain the status quo and to continue 12 to enjoy the financial support of the alumni of USC and to avoid any public scrutiny. Plaintiffs are 13 thus informed and believe and thereon allege that these willful, malicious, and/or oppressive acts, 14 as alleged herein, were ratified by the officers, directors, and/or managing agents of the 15 Defendants, and Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount to be 16 determined by proof against Defendants at trial. 17 258. As a direct result of the sexual abuse, harassment, and discrimination by Dr. Kelly, 18 and USC’s pattern and practice of concealment, fraud, and endangerment of their student 19 population for the benefit of their own reputation and financial gain, Plaintiffs have had difficulty 20 in meaningfully interacting with others including family, friends, and partners, and those in 21 positions of authority over Plaintiffs including physicians, supervisors, and superiors at work. It 22 has further caused Plaintiffs to suffer special and general damages, including but not limited to 23 severe emotional distress, lack of trust, nervousness, anxiety, worry, mortification, humiliation, 24 embarrassment, depression, shame, sadness, anger and fear. 25 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Sexual Battery in Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.5 (Plaintiffs Against Defendant Dr. Kelly and Does 1 through 100) 26 27 28 259. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. -68FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 260. California Civil Code section 1708.5 provides: A person commits a sexual battery 2 who does any of the following: (1) acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with 3 an intimate part of another, and a sexually offensive contact with that person directly or indirectly 4 results; (2) acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with another by use of his 5 or her intimate part, and a sexually offensive contact with that person directly or indirectly results; 6 (3) acts to cause an imminent apprehension of the conduct described in paragraph (1) or (2) and a 7 sexually offensive contact with that person directly or indirectly results. 8 9 10 11 12 261. California Civil Code section 1708.5(d) defines “intimate part” as the sexual organ, anus, groin, or buttocks of any person, or the breast of a female. 262. California Civil Code section 1708.5(f) defines “offensive contact” to mean contact that offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity. 263. Plaintiffs allege that during Plaintiffs’ time as students with Defendant USC, 13 Defendant Dr. Kelly committed the act of civil sexual battery in violation of California Civil Code 14 section 1708.5 when he intentionally, recklessly, and wantonly did acts which intended to, and did 15 result in, harmful and offensive contact with intimate parts of Plaintiffs’ persons, including but not 16 limited to inappropriately probing, touching, fondling, and/or penetrating Plaintiffs’ anuses, 17 beginning in or around 2007 and lasting through the duration of Plaintiffs’ tenure with Defendants 18 USC to in and around 2014. Such contact offended Plaintiffs’ reasonable sense of personal 19 dignity. 20 264. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dr. Kelly’s unlawful conduct as 21 alleged herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, emotional distress, 22 humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, 23 loss of enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 24 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 25 265. The aforementioned conduct by Defendant Dr. Kelly was willful, wanton, and 26 malicious. At all relevant times herein, Dr. Kelly acted with conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs’ 27 rights and feelings. Dr. Kelly also acted with the knowledge of or with reckless disregard for the 28 fact that his conduct was certain to cause injury and/or humiliation to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are -69FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 further informed and believe and thereon allege that Dr. Kelly intended to cause fear, physical 2 injury, humiliation, embarrassment and/or pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs. By virtue of the 3 foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages from Dr. Kelly according to proof at 4 trial. 5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Battery (Plaintiffs Against Defendant Dr. Kelly and Does 1 through 100) 6 7 8 9 266. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 267. In performing the acts described herein, Dr. Kelly acted with the intent to make a 10 harmful and offensive contact with Plaintiff’s person and did, in fact, bring himself into offensive 11 and unwelcome contact with Plaintiffs ask described above. 12 268. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs found the contact by Dr. Kelly to be offensive to 13 their person and dignity. At no time did Plaintiffs knowingly consent to any of the acts by 14 Defendant Kelly as alleged herein. 15 269. As a result of Dr. Kelly’s acts described above, Plaintiffs were harmed and/or 16 offended by Dr. Kelly’s conduct, and a reasonable person in Plaintiffs’ situation would have been 17 harmed and/or offended by the touching. 18 270. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dr. Kelly’s unlawful conduct as 19 alleged herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, emotional distress, 20 humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, 21 loss of enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 22 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 23 271. The aforementioned conduct by Defendant Dr. Kelly was willful, wanton, and 24 malicious. At all relevant times herein, Dr. Kelly acted with conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs’ 25 rights and feelings. Dr. Kelly also acted with the knowledge of or with reckless disregard for the 26 fact that his conduct was certain to cause injury and/or harm to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are further 27 informed and believe and thereon allege that Dr. Kelly intended to cause fear, physical injury, 28 -70FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 humiliation, embarrassment and/or pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs. By virtue of the foregoing, 2 Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages from Dr. Kelly according to proof at trial. 3 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Gender Violence in Violation of Civil Code § 52.4 (Plaintiffs Against Defendant Dr. Kelly and Does 1 through 100) 4 5 6 7 272. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 273. Dr. Kelly’s acts committed against Plaintiffs, as alleged herein, including the 8 sexual abuse, harassment, molestation and discrimination of Plaintiffs constitutes gender violence 9 and a form of sex discrimination in that one or more of Dr. Kelly’s acts would constitute a 10 criminal offense under state law that has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of 11 physical force against the person of another, committed at least in part based on the gender of the 12 victim, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution or 13 conviction. 14 274. Dr. Kelly’s acts committed against Plaintiffs as alleged herein, including the sexual 15 harassment, molestation, and abuse of the Plaintiffs constitutes gender violence and a form of sex 16 discrimination in that Dr. Kelly’s conduct caused a physical intrusion or physical invasion of a 17 sexual nature upon Plaintiffs under coercive conditions, whether or not those acts have resulted in 18 criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction. 19 275. As a direct and proximate result of Dr. Kelly’s acts, Plaintiffs are entitled to actual 20 damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, any combination of those, 21 or any other appropriate relief. Plaintiffs are further entitled to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant 22 to Civil Code section 52.4, subsection (a). 23 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Sexual Harassment in Violation of Civil Code § 51.9 (Plaintiffs Against Defendant USC and Does 1 through 100) 24 25 26 27 28 276. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 277. During Plaintiffs’ time as students at Defendant USC and Does 1 through 100, Dr. Kelly intentionally, recklessly, and wantonly made sexual advances, requests, and demands for -71FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 sexual compliance of a hostile nature based in part on Plaintiffs’ gender and/or sexual orientation 2 that were unwelcome, pervasive, and severe, including but not limited to, Dr. Kelly 3 inappropriately probing, touching, fondling, and/or penetrating Plaintiffs’ anuses, all under the 4 supervision of Defendants, who were acting in the course and scope of their agency with 5 Defendants and each of them. 6 278. The incidents of abuse outlined herein took place while Plaintiffs were under the 7 control of Dr. Kelly and Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100, in their capacity and position 8 as supervisors of physicians, medical professionals, and staff at USC and Does 1 through 100, and 9 while acting specifically on behalf of Defendants. 10 279. During Plaintiffs’ time as students at Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100, Dr. 11 Kelly intentionally, recklessly, and wantonly did acts which resulted in harmful and offensive 12 contact with intimate parts of Plaintiffs’ persons, including but not limited to, using his position of 13 authority and age to force Plaintiffs to give into Dr. Kelly’s sexual suggestions. 14 280. Because of Plaintiffs’ relationships with Dr. Kelly and Defendants USC and Does 1 15 through 100, Dr. Kelly’s status as the only full-time men’s sexual health physician employed by 16 Defendant USC’s Student Health Center, and Plaintiffs’ young age as students of USC, Plaintiffs 17 were unable to easily terminate the relationship they had with the Defendants. 18 281. Because of Dr. Kelly’s age and position of authority, physical seclusion of the 19 Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ mental and emotional state, and Plaintiffs’ young age, Plaintiffs were unable 20 to and did not and could not give consent to such acts. 21 282. Even though Defendants knew or should have known of these activities by Dr. 22 Kelly, Defendants did nothing to investigate, supervise, or monitor Dr. Kelly to ensure the safety 23 of the student-patients in their charge. 24 283. A corporation is a “person” within the meaning of Civil Code section 51.9 which 25 subjects persons to liability for sexual harassment within the business, service or professional 26 relationship, and such an entity defendant may be held liable under this statute for the acts of its 27 employees. Further, principles of ratification apply when the principal ratifies the agent’s 28 originally unauthorized harassment, as is alleged to have occurred herein. -72FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 284. Defendants’ conduct and the conduct of their agents was a breach of their duties to Plaintiffs. 285. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dr. Kelly’s unlawful conduct as 4 alleged herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, emotional distress, 5 humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, 6 loss of enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 7 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 8 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code § 51 (Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 9 10 11 12 286. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 287. The Plaintiffs’ civil rights were violated by Defendants USC and Does 1 through 13 100 through its agents, actors, and employees, and intentionally concealed or ignored complaints 14 of sexual abuse or harassment by Defendant Dr. Kelly. Plaintiffs had a right to be free from 15 sexual orientation and gender discrimination, sexual abuse, molestation, and harassment under the 16 Unruh Civil Rights Act. 17 288. Defendants USC, Dr. Kelly, and Does 1 through 100 were acting under the color of 18 authority and in the scope of their employment during the instances when Plaintiffs were student- 19 patients at USC. 20 289. Defendant USC denied Plaintiffs full and equal accommodations, advantages, 21 facilities, privileges, and health care services because of their sexual orientation and gender by 22 allowing Dr. Kelly unfettered access to sexually abuse, harass, and discriminate against Plaintiffs 23 by and through his position of authority as the Student Health Center’s only full-time men’s sexual 24 health physician with regular availability, by actively ignoring and concealing from Plaintiffs its 25 knowledge that Dr. Kelly was discriminatory and a sexual predator. 26 290. By employing and retaining Dr. Kelly as the sole full-time men’s health physician 27 with regular availability at its Student Health Clinic, despite its knowledge of Dr. Kelly’s abusive 28 and discriminatory behavior, Defendant USC forced its male gay and bisexual patients to seek -73FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 necessary medical treatment from Dr. Kelly, thereby exposing Plaintiffs to Dr. Kelly’s sexual 2 abuse and discrimination. Thus, Defendant USC’s retention of Dr. Kelly denied Plaintiffs and all 3 of its other young male gay and bisexual students, of full and equal access to safe medical 4 facilities, treatment, and services based upon their sexual orientation and gender. 5 291. The substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ conduct, including Defendant 6 USC’s conduct of ignoring and actively concealing reports and complaints of Dr. Kelly’s 7 misconduct, was Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation and/or gender, as Defendants knew that its male 8 students, including male gay and bisexual students, would seek sexual health treatment from Dr. 9 Kelly and thus would be unwittingly subjected to his sexual misconduct and discrimination. 10 292. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dr. Kelly’s unlawful conduct as 11 alleged herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, emotional distress, 12 humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, 13 loss of enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 14 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 15 Plaintiffs are further entitled to actual damages, statutory damages, and treble damages according 16 to proof. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the Bane Act (Civil Code § 52.1) (Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 17 18 19 20 21 293. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 294. Defendants’ actions as alleged herein have had and will continue to interfere with 22 Plaintiffs’ right to be free from gender discrimination in the form of sexual harassment in an 23 educational and collegiate athletic setting, codified under 20 U.S.C., § 1681. Plaintiffs further had 24 a right to have Defendant USC respond immediately and investigate their sexual assault, 25 molestation, harassment, and discrimination by Dr. Kelly. 26 295. During Plaintiffs’ time as students at Defendant USC, Defendants engaged in 27 oppressive and unlawful tactics in ignoring, concealing, and ultimately suppressing Plaintiffs’ 28 complaints of being sexually abused and discriminated against by Dr. Kelly. Plaintiffs were -74FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 threatened, intimidated, and coerced from reporting Dr. Kelly’s abusive conduct by Dr. Kelly’s 2 own intimidating and humiliating conduct as well as the conspiratorial silence and inaction of 3 Defendant USC. These intentional acts of concealment of Dr. Kelly’s abusive behavior violated 4 the Plaintiffs’ right to be free from discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation. 5 296. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were deprived of Due Process of the law when various 6 complaints to Defendant USC failed to trigger a report, investigation, or other action by Defendant 7 USC who was required to do so under its own policies and procedures, as well as under Federal 8 mandate and the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, these actions were contrary to Plaintiffs’ 9 civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the State of California. 10 297. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was intended to, and did successfully interfere with, 11 Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights to be free from gender and sexual orientation discrimination and 12 harassment as well as interfered with their Due Process rights under the United States Constitution 13 and specifically the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. 14 298. Defendants unlawfully and wrongfully used or employed others to wrongfully use 15 threats, intimidation, harassment, violence, and coercion over Plaintiffs’ person, to which 16 Plaintiffs had no relief except to submit to Defendants’ wrongful threats, intimidations, 17 harassment, violence and coercion, which rendered Plaintiffs’ submission involuntary. 18 299. Defendants’ above-noted actions were the direct and proximate causes of physical, 19 psychological, emotional, and economic damages, and damages to the Plaintiffs, who have 20 suffered and continue to suffer to this date. 21 300. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dr. Kelly’s unlawful conduct as 22 alleged herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, emotional distress, 23 humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, 24 loss of enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 25 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 26 301. The aforementioned conduct by Defendant Dr. Kelly was willful, wanton, and 27 malicious. At all relevant times herein, Dr. Kelly acted with conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs’ 28 rights and feelings. Dr. Kelly also acted with the knowledge of or with reckless disregard for the -75FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 fact that his conduct was certain to cause injury and/or harm to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are further 2 informed and believe and thereon allege that Dr. Kelly intended to cause fear, physical injury, 3 humiliation, embarrassment and/or pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs. By virtue of the foregoing, 4 Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages from Dr. Kelly according to proof at trial. 5 302. In subjecting Plaintiffs to the treatment described herein, Defendants are entitled to 6 compensatory damages in a sum according to proof, emotional distress damages, punitive 7 damages attorney’s fees, and other damages pursuant to Civil Code section 52(b)(1) and a 8 temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction or permanent injunction ordering 9 Defendants to refrain from conduct or activities as alleged herein, and other such relief as the 10 11 12 13 14 15 Court deems just and proper. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Sexual Abuse and Discrimination in an Educational Setting (Education Code § 220) (Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 303. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 304. Plaintiffs were harmed by being subjected to discrimination, abuse, molestation, 16 sexual assault, and/or sexual harassment at USC because of Plaintiffs’ gender and sexual 17 orientation, and Defendants are responsible for that harm. 18 305. Plaintiffs suffered abuse, harassment, and discrimination that was so severe, 19 pervasive and offensive that it effectively deprived Plaintiffs of the right to equal access to 20 educational benefits and opportunities. 21 306. Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of this sexual abuse and 22 discrimination because Defendant USC received and then ignored numerous complaints of Dr. 23 Kelly’s abuse, discrimination, and/or harassment. 24 307. In the face of this knowledge of sexual abuse, harassment, and discrimination that 25 was being perpetrated on Plaintiffs by Dr. Kelly, Defendants acted with deliberate indifference 26 toward responding to these alarms and preventing further abuse. Defendants allowed Dr. Kelly to 27 remain as a physician at USC to sexually abuse, harass, and discriminate against other patients. 28 -76FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 308. As a direct and proximate result of Dr. Kelly’s unlawful conduct as alleged herein, 2 Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, emotional distress, humiliation, 3 embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, loss of 4 enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 5 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 6 309. The aforementioned conduct by Defendants was willful, wanton, and malicious. At 7 all relevant times herein, Defendants acted with conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights and 8 feelings. Defendants also acted with the knowledge of or with reckless disregard for the fact that 9 his conduct was certain to cause injury and/or harm to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are further informed 10 and believe and thereon allege that Defendants intended to cause fear, physical injury, humiliation, 11 embarrassment and/or pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs. By virtue of the foregoing, Plaintiffs 12 are entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants according to proof at trial. 13 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Hiring and Retention (Plaintiffs Against Defendant USC and Does 1 through 100) 14 15 16 17 18 19 310. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 311. Defendant USC hired Dr. Kelly to be a men’s healthy physician at its Student Health Center. 312. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Dr. Kelly was and/or 20 became unfit and/or incompetent to perform work for which he was hired because of the sexual 21 misconduct and discriminatory conduct he participated in towards young male gay and bisexual 22 students. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that Defendant USC learned that Dr. Kelly 23 had been sexually harassing, discriminating against, and abusing young male gay and bisexual 24 students and failed to take appropriate or corrective action. Plaintiffs are informed and believe 25 that had Defendant USC taken prompt and correct action against Dr. Kelly, that Plaintiffs would 26 not have been sexually battered, harassed, or discriminated against. 27 28 313. Defendants USC failed to use reasonable and ordinary care in order to avoid injury to Plaintiffs. This includes but is not limited to, Defendants’ failure to exercise a duty of care to -77FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 avoid Dr. Kelly’s sexual battery, harassment, and discrimination of gay and bisexual male 2 patients, including Plaintiffs, causing them injury. 3 314. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant USC knew or 4 should have known that Plaintiffs were being subjected to unlawful battery and discrimination 5 based on complaints that had been made to USC and its agents, employees, and staff. 6 315. Plaintiffs are informed and allege that despite being informed of Dr. Kelly’s 7 unlawful conduct, Defendant USC failed to discipline Dr. Kelly and kept him in their employ, 8 thereby ratifying his conduct. 9 316. The conduct of USC constitutes negligence and is actionable under the laws of the 10 State of California. 11 317. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs 12 have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, emotional distress, humiliation, 13 embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, loss of 14 enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 15 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 16 318. The aforementioned conduct by Defendant USC was reckless and with conscious 17 disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover punitive damages 18 from USC in an amount according to proof at trial. 19 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Supervision (Plaintiffs Against Defendant USC and Does 1 through 100) 20 21 22 23 319. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 320. Defendants had a duty to provide Plaintiffs with a men’s sexual health physician 24 who would provide each of them with a professional STD exam and advice, devoid of any 25 sexually harassing, abusive, assaulting, or discriminatory conduct. 26 27 321. Defendants and each of them owed Plaintiffs a duty of care to act in a reasonable and ordinary manner so as not to cause Plaintiffs foreseeable harm. 28 -78FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 322. Defendants failed to use ordinary and reasonable care in order to avoid injury to 2 Plaintiffs. This includes but it not limited to, Defendants’ failure to exercise ordinary care to 3 avoid Dr. Kelly’s sexual abuse and discrimination of male gay and bisexual students, including 4 Plaintiffs. 5 323. Defendant USC knew or had reason to believe Dr. Kelly was engaged in sexual 6 misconduct and discrimination against male gay and bisexual students because students 7 complained to USC regarding Dr. Kelly’s conduct, and USC knew or should have known that Dr. 8 Kelly created a particular risk to students. Defendant USC did not act in a reasonable manner 9 when it failed to take appropriate and corrective action and continued to employ Dr. Kelly as the 10 11 only men’s health physician at the Student Health Center. 324. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that despite being informed 12 of Dr. Kelly’s unlawful conduct, Defendant USC failed to discipline Dr. Kelly and kept him in 13 their employ, thereby ratifying his unlawful conduct. 14 325. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs 15 have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, emotional distress, humiliation, 16 embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, loss of 17 enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 18 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 19 326. The aforementioned conduct by Defendant USC was reckless and with conscious 20 disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover punitive damages 21 from USC in an amount according to proof at trial. 22 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Fraudulent Misrepresentation (Plaintiffs Against Defendant USC and Does 1 through 100) 23 24 25 26 327. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 328. By holding Dr. Kelly out as an agent of Defendants and by allowing him to 27 undertake the care of young patients such as Plaintiffs, Defendants entered into a confidential, 28 fiduciary, and special relationship with Plaintiffs. By holding themselves out as a preeminent -79FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 collegiate facility, thereby enticing Plaintiffs to attend USC for undergraduate and graduate 2 students, Defendants entered into a special and fiduciary relationship with Plaintiffs. 3 329. Defendant USC represented to Plaintiffs that Dr. Kelly was a safe, proper, 4 professional physician, and that they would be receiving standard and appropriate men’s sexual 5 health examinations at USC, when in truth, Dr. Kelly was participating in misconduct and 6 Plaintiffs were being abused, harassed, and discriminated against by Dr. Kelly. 7 330. Defendants’ representation was false. 8 331. Defendants knew that the representation was false when made or Defendants made 9 10 11 12 such a representation recklessly without regard for its truth. 332. Defendants intended that Plaintiffs rely on that representation, and Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants’ representation. 333. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct as alleged herein, 13 Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, severe emotional distress, 14 humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, 15 loss of enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 16 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 17 18 19 334. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendants’ representation was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 335. Defendants’ conduct was reckless and with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights 20 and safety. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendants in 21 an amount to be determined according to proof at trial. 22 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Fraudulent Concealment (Plaintiffs Against Defendant USC and Does 1 through 100) 23 24 25 26 336. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 337. By holding Dr. Kelly out as an agent of Defendants and by allowing him to 27 undertake the care of young patients such as Plaintiffs, Defendants entered into a confidential, 28 fiduciary, and special relationship with Plaintiffs. By holding themselves out as a preeminent -80FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 collegiate facility, thereby enticing Plaintiffs to attend USC for undergraduate and graduate 2 students, Defendants entered into a special and fiduciary relationship with Plaintiffs. 3 338. Defendant USC represented intentionally failed to disclose to Plaintiffs known 4 facts or facts that could have been discovered by Defendants, including that USC had received 5 complaints about Dr. Kelly’s misconduct in the past, and that Dr. Kelly engaged in inappropriate, 6 abusive, harassing, and discriminatory conduct towards the gay and bisexual male student 7 population at USC. Furthermore, USC prevented Plaintiffs from discovering such facts by failing 8 to take appropriate action with respect to complaints made regarding Dr. Kelly, including 9 investigations or reporting to the State Medical Board, silencing its students and staff to protect its 10 own reputation, and allowing Dr. Kelly to continue treating patients for years. USC’s concealed 11 this information with an intent to deceive Plaintiffs and other students at USC. 12 339. Plaintiffs were not aware of Dr. Kelly’s discriminatory and abusive misconduct, 13 and had they been aware, they would not have received medical treatment from Dr. Kelly nor 14 subjected themselves to such harm. 15 16 17 340. As a direct and proximate result of USC’s concealment, Plaintiffs were harmed and such concealment was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 341. Defendants’ conduct was reckless and with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights 18 and safety. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendants in 19 an amount to be determined according to proof at trial. 20 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Misrepresentation (Plaintiffs Against Defendant USC and Does 1 through 100) 21 22 23 24 342. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 343. Defendant USC misrepresented that Dr. Kelly was a professional men’s health 25 physician, without reasonable ground for believing it to be true (insomuch as Defendants had been 26 aware of Dr. Kelly’s sexually inappropriate and discriminatory conduct) and with the intent to 27 induce Plaintiffs’ reliance on such misrepresentation. 28 -81FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 344. Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that they were receiving a standard men’s 2 sexual health examination when in truth they were being sexually abused and discriminated 3 against by Dr. Kelly. 4 345. Plaintiffs were ignorant of the truth and justifiably relied on Defendants’ 5 misrepresentation. 6 346. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct as alleged herein, 7 Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, severe emotional distress, 8 humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, 9 loss of enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 10 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 11 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 12 13 14 15 347. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 348. By engaging in the above-described conduct, including Dr. Kelly’s pervasive 16 sexual abuse and discrimination and USC’s disregard for complaints regarding Dr. Kelly’s 17 misconduct and continued employ of Dr. Kelly, Defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous 18 conduct with the intention of causing, or with reckless disregard of the probability of causing, 19 emotional distress. 20 349. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct as alleged herein, 21 Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer severe emotional distress, including humiliation, 22 embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, loss of 23 enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 24 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 25 350. The aforementioned conduct by Defendants was willful, wanton, and malicious. At 26 all relevant times herein, Defendants acted with conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights and 27 feelings. Defendants also acted with the knowledge of or with reckless disregard for the fact that 28 his conduct was certain to cause injury and/or harm to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are further informed -82FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 and believe and thereon allege that Defendants intended to cause fear, physical injury, humiliation, 2 embarrassment and/or pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs. By virtue of the foregoing, Plaintiffs 3 are entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants according to proof at trial. 4 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence (Plaintiffs Against Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100) 5 6 7 8 9 351. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 352. Prior to and after the first incident of Dr. Kelly’s sexual harassment, abuse, and discrimination of Plaintiffs, through the present, Defendants, knew and/or should have known that 10 Dr. Kelly had and was capable of sexually, physically, and mentally abusing, harassing, and 11 discriminating against Plaintiffs or other victims. 12 353. Defendants and each of them had special duties to protect the Plaintiffs and other 13 young student-patients, when such individuals were entrusted to Defendants’ care. Plaintiffs’ care, 14 welfare and physical custody was entrusted to Defendants. Defendants voluntarily accepted the 15 entrusted care of Plaintiffs. As such, Defendants owed Plaintiffs a special duty of care that adults 16 and medical professionals dealing with vulnerable medical patients and young students owe to 17 protect them from harm. The duty to protect and warn arose from the special, trusting, 18 confidential, and fiduciary relationship between Defendants and Plaintiffs. 19 354. Defendants breached their duties of care to the Plaintiffs by allowing Dr. Kelly to 20 come into contact with the Plaintiffs and other student-patients without effective supervision; by 21 failing to adequately hire and supervise Dr. Kelly and by continuing to retain Dr. Kelly whom they 22 permitted and enabled to have access to Plaintiffs; by concealing from Plaintiffs, the public and 23 law enforcement that Dr. Kelly was sexually abusing and discriminating against patients; and by 24 holding Dr. Kelly out to Plaintiffs as being of high moral and ethical repute, in good standing and 25 trustworthy. 26 355. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs by failing to investigate or otherwise 27 confirm or deny such facts of sexual abuse and discrimination by Dr. Kelly, failing to reveal such 28 facts to Plaintiffs, the community and law enforcement agencies, and by placing Dr. Kelly into a -83FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 position of trust and authority, holding him out to Plaintiffs and the public as being in good 2 standing and trustworthy. 3 356. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs by failing to adequately monitor and 4 supervise Dr. Kelly and by failing to prevent Dr. Kelly from discriminating against, and 5 committing wrongful acts with patients, including Plaintiffs. Because of students’ complaints to 6 Defendants regarding Dr. Kelly’s conduct, Defendants knew or should have known of Dr. Kelly’s 7 incapacity to serve as a team physician, physician, and faculty member at Defendants’ institutions, 8 providing for the physical care of young male gay and bisexual students. 9 357. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct as alleged herein, 10 Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer severe emotional distress, including humiliation, 11 embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, loss of 12 enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 13 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 14 FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unfair Business Practices (Business & Professions Code § 17200) (Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 15 16 17 18 358. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 359. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants have 19 engaged in unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices including allowing Dr. Kelly to 20 engage in repeated abuse and discrimination of student-patients, including Plaintiffs, and failing to 21 take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and abuse from occurring. The unlawful, unfair 22 and deceptive business practices also included failing to adequately investigate, vet, and evaluate 23 individuals for employment with Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100, refusing to design, 24 implement, and oversee policies regarding sexual misconduct and discrimination of student- 25 patients in a reasonable manner that is customary in similar educational environments. Plaintiffs 26 are informed and believe and on that basis allege that Dr. Kelly and Defendants USC and Does 1 27 through 100 have engaged in unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices including 28 concealing sexual abuse, harassment, and/or discrimination claims by student-patients, such as -84FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Plaintiffs, so as to retain other similarly situated students and to not deter prospective students who 2 were not apprised of such illicit sexual misconduct and discrimination by Dr. Kelly. 3 360. Plaintiffs are informed and believes that Defendants engaged in a common scheme, 4 arrangement or plan to actively conceal allegations against sexual abusers who were employees, 5 agents, members, and/or participants at Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100, including Dr. 6 Kelly, such that Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100 could maintain their public image, and 7 avoid detection of such abuse and discrimination. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon 8 allege that Defendants actively concealed these allegations, such that Defendants would be 9 insulated from public scrutiny, governmental oversight, and/or investigation from various law 10 enforcement agencies, all done in order to maintain the false sense of safety for participants and 11 their families and to perpetuate the program financially. 12 361. By engaging in unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices, Dr. Kelly and 13 Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100 benefitted financially to the detriment of its competitors, 14 who had to comply with the law. Unless restrained, Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100 will 15 continue to engage in the unfair acts and business practices described above, resulting in great and 16 irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and/or other similarly situated participants and members. 17 362. Plaintiffs seek restitution for all amounts improperly obtained by Dr. Kelly and 18 Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100 through the use of the above-mentioned unlawful 19 business practices, as well as the disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains and restitution on behalf of 20 Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated student-patients who were also subjected to Dr. Kelly and 21 Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100 illegal and unfair business practices. 22 363. Pursuant to section 17203 of the California Business and Professions Code and 23 available equitable powers, Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction, 24 enjoining Dr. Kelly, Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100 from continuing the unlawful and 25 unfair business practices described above. Further, Plaintiffs seek the appointment of a court 26 monitor to enforce its orders regarding client safety. In addition, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover 27 reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code and section 28 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. -85FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 4 1. For special damages in an amount according to proof; 5 2. For general damages in an amount according to proof; 6 3. For restitution of unjust revenue collected and costs incurred; 7 4. For exemplary and punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3294 or as 8 otherwise allowed by law; 9 5. For any appropriate statutory damages; 10 6. For reasonable attorney’s fees; 11 7. For costs of suit incurred herein; 12 8. For declaratory and injunctive relief, including but not limited to court supervision 13 14 of Defendant USC; and 9. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper 15 16 17 18 19 20 DATED: March 4, 2019 KELLOGG & VAN AKEN LLP By________________________________________ Mikayla Gow Kellogg, Esq. Kelly D. Van Aken, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -86FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES