Action Against USC Over Admission Scandal Rightly Tossed

Wednesday, October 7, 2026

Page 3

Court of Appeal:

Action Against USC Over Admission Scandal Rightly Tossed

Opinion Says Fraud Claims by Father Who Paid to Help His Son Get in Are Time-Barred, Rejects View That He Was Unaware That Coach’s Account That Donations Were Routine Was False Until Testimony at 2021 Trial

By Kimber Cooley, associate editor

Div. Four of this district’s Court of Appeal has held that a lawsuit accusing the University of Southern California of falsely representing that there was nothing illicit in making donations on behalf of applicants to help their admissions chances is time-barred because the father, who had convictions relating to his part in the so-called “Varsity Blues” scandal overturned, was on notice years before he filed the complaint that the alleged representations were false.

The plaintiff, John B. Wilson, claimed that his involvement in the scheme—by which payments were funneled through college consultant William “Rick” Singer, who paid coaches at elite universities to tag applicants as athletic recruits based on doctored profiles—was unique because his son, Johnny Wilson, was actually a star water polo player who had competed in national Junior Olympics tournaments.

He alleged that he was unaware that statements, purportedly made by then-USC Coach Jovan Vavic in 2013, that the university had a policy of giving an admission preference to children of donor families if the applicant is otherwise reasonably qualified to participate as a walk-on member of an athletic team, and that the payments were not “illicit” or “inappropriate,” were untrue.

In April 2014, John B. Wilson’s company wired $220,000 to entities he controlled by Singer, who in turn directed $100,000 to the school’s athletic fundraising arm, USC Trojan Fund. The plaintiff claimed he had no reason to suspect that he had been defrauded until Rebecca Chassin, a USC admissions officer, testified, on Sept. 21, 2021, during his criminal trial that “donations are not considered” in the athletic admissions process.

Complaint Filed

Monday’s opinion, authored by Justice Armen Tamzarian, notes that the complaint at issue was filed by John B. Wilson and his wife, Leslie Q. Wilson, on Sept. 20, 2024, and that the operative pleading asserts claims for fraud and intentional misrepresentation. The jurist rejected the plaintiffs’ assertion that their causes of action did not accrue until Chassin’s testimony alerted them to the fraudulent nature of Vavic’s statements.

He opined that the criminal charges filed in 2019 against John B. Wilson, who was convicted in 2021 relating to the payments made to Singer on behalf of his son, put the plaintiffs on notice of the facts alleged in the complaint, remarking:

“[W]e accept as true that, in contrast to other students involved in the Varsity Blues scandal, Johnny had ‘strong qualifications’ for admission into USC as a water polo applicant….These facts, however, do not change our inquiry notice analysis. Whether or not Johnny had strong qualifications is unrelated to whether Mr. Wilson’s donation was unlawful and in violation of USC’s policies and whether the Wilsons should have been suspicious that USC lied to them about the donation.”

He added:

“We conclude that the allegations in the [operative complaint] and the judicially noticeable documents support only one legitimate inference: by the time of the criminal charges in 2019 and 2020, a reasonable person would have suspected that USC’s alleged representations regarding the Wilsons’ donation were false. The three-year statute of limitations, therefore, began running on the Wilsons’ claims for fraud and intentional misrepresentation in 2019 or at the latest in 2020, making their complaint filed in 2024 untimely.”

The decision affirms a defense judgment entered on Aug. 22, 2025, after then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Holly J. Fujie (now retired) sustained a demurrer to the operative complaint without leave to amend.

Delayed-Discovery Rule

Tamzarian recognized the delayed-discovery rule postpones the accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to suspect, the factual basis for the claim. However, he said that “[t]he Wilsons are seemingly conflating ‘a factual basis’ for a claim with having the evidence to prove a claim” and commented:

“[T]he allegations in the [operative complaint] and the judicially noticeable facts show that the Wilsons were put on inquiry notice of USC’s alleged wrongdoing when Mr. Wilson was indicted in 2019. Even before the indictment, a reasonable person in Mr. Wilson’s shoes would have had some concern about USC’s alleged representations. Mr. Wilson was told to make three payments to a third party in return for ‘an admissions preference’ for his son Johnny. Vavic assured him that these payments—including a $20,000 payment directly to Singer—were not ‘illicit’ or ‘inappropriate.’ Vavic was either responding to Mr. Wilson’s inquiry about the propriety of the payments or Vavic’s statements were gratuitous.”

He continued:

“If it was the latter, a reasonable parent would wonder, ‘Why is he telling me my “donation” is not illicit and compliant with USC policies?’ But we accept as true the Wilsons’ claim that, at this point, they subjectively and reasonably believed USC’s representations and were not on inquiry notice of any alleged wrongdoing by USC officials.”

2019 Indictment

However, the jurist opined that things “changed in 2019” when “Mr. Wilson was indicted, among 49 other people, for conspiring to bribe agents of USC to secure Johnny’s admission” and “Singer, too, was charged with federal crimes in connection with Mr. Wilson’s payments.” He wrote:

“Thus, both sides of the very transaction the Wilsons contend USC misled them about were charged with committing federal crimes. These allegations would put a reasonable person on notice that perhaps Vavic’s statement to Mr. Wilson that his donation was not ‘illicit’ was false. Likewise, a reasonable person would be suspicious about…statements that a donation through Singer—the man at the center of the Varsity Blues indictments—was compliant with USC’s admissions policies.”

Tamzarian added:

“Lastly, we accept as true that the Wilsons did not subjectively believe that USC lied to them—even after Mr. Wilson, Vavic, and Singer were indicted—because the Wilsons were convinced Mr. Wilson was innocent and not similarly situated to the other Varsity Blues defendants who may have engaged in criminal conduct. Inquiry notice is triggered and the statute of limitations begins to run, however, if a reasonable person should have suspected he was lied to regarding the appropriateness of Mr. Wilson’s donation.”

The case is Wilson v. University of Southern California, B349831.

Jay L. Bhimani of the Los Angeles office of Dechert LLP, as well as Steven A. Engel of the firm’s Washington, D.C., location, together with William C. Tanenbaum of the Beverly Hills-based Law Offices of William C. Tanenbaum acted for the plaintiffs. Robert E. Dugdale and Nary Kim of the Los Angeles firm Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP represented the defendant.

In May 2023, the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated all of John B. Wilson’s convictions except one relating to the filing of a false tax return, holding that the jury was wrongly instructed that “admissions slots” are property and that the government had not proved he joined Singer’s overarching conspiracy, which let jurors hear damaging evidence about other parents’ conduct.

Vavic was convicted in 2022 of conspiracy to commit bribery and other crimes relating to his part in the scandal, and Singer pled guilty to federal charges in March 2019.