Thursday, November 13, 2025
Page 1
Judge Erred in Staying Disciplinary Hearing Pending Outcome of Civil Lawsuit—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge erred in ordering that the University of Southern California await the outcome of a lawsuit against it before resuming disciplinary proceedings against a student who allegedly engaged in disorderly conduct in his confrontations with another tenant in off-campus housing, including throwing a glass at him, Div. Five of the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday.
Justice Carl H. Moor authored the opinion unpublished opinion which reverses an order by Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis.
The stay was sought by Emery Ogah who sued USC for negligence based on failing to protect him from his fellow student and adversary Nicholas Woltersdorf.
Respondent’s Argument
Arguing on appeal that Duffy-Lewis’s order should be upheld, he said:
“To protect his constitutional and statutory rights in Superior Court, Ogah moved for injunctive relief. The relief requested was not to review USC’s disciplinary hearing. That would have been impossible, since USC did not even conduct their hearing when Ogah moved for injunctive relief.
“Rather, Ogah asked the trial court to stay USC’s disciplinary hearing until the conclusion of the negligence lawsuit. Ogah feared that USC’s disciplinary hearings would violate his constitutional and statutory rights at the Superior Court - not at the disciplinary hearing. Ogah was afraid, for example, that comments he would make during the disciplinary hearing without the protection of a lawyer and the rules of evidence, would then be used against him in the negligence lawsuit.”
Unpersuaded, Moor wrote:
“When a student’s alleged conduct simultaneously violates the university’s rules and regulations and California statutes, the university’s disciplinary process does not need to wait for the outcome of the other proceedings….Civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings against an individual, arising out of the same incident, may be conducted singly, concurrently, or successively.”
He went on to say:
“When a private organization provides an internal remedy, a plaintiff generally must exhaust the internal grievance procedures and seek review through a petition for a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 before filing a legal action challenging the administrative decision….Judicial policy dictates that the private organization consider the merits of the matter in the first instance, rather than burden the courts.”
Exception Inapplicable
Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not necessary where irreparable harm would result from the delay in going through the procedures, Moor acknowledged, but said that Ogah had not made the requisite showing. He declared:
“The university disciplinary process does not cause irreparable harm simply because a party is simultaneously engaged in concurrent civil or criminal proceedings with greater formality and different protections. Ogah has not identified any unique harm in this case that would be different from the other disciplinary proceedings permitted to take place concurrently with civil or criminal actions.”
The case is Ogah v. University of Southern California, B344610. USC was represented by Scott P. Dixler. Jeremy B. Rosen and Sheridan L. Caldwell of the Burbank/San Francisco firm of Horvitz & Levy and by Nathan A. Oyster, Caylin W. Jones and Sydney M. Gronroos of the downtown Los Angeles firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP. Beverly Hills attorney Yisrael Gelb acted for Ogah.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company