Suit Against Ex-Teacher at Fallen L.A. Law School Is Revived

Wednesday, May 13, 2026

Page 3

Court of Appeal:

Suit Against Ex-Teacher at Fallen L.A. Law School Is Revived

Opinion Says Judge Erred in Dismissing Claim Alleging Discrimination by Volunteer Professor at Since-Closed Peoples College of Law Based on Issue Raised Sua Sponte on Brink of Trial

By Kimber Cooley, associate editor

Div. Seven of this district’s Court of Appeal has revived a student’s civil-rights claim against a former volunteer professor at the now-defunct Los Angeles-based Peoples College of Law over his refusal to accommodate her request to have the camera on her computer turned off during the remote final examination because she purportedly suffers from anxiety-related disorders.

The revival comes by way of an unpublished opinion, filed Monday, which declares that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Alison Mackenzie violated the plaintiff’s due process rights by dismissing the matter on the ground that the defendant was not a “business establishment” within the meaning of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, an issue raised sua sponte just before trial was scheduled to begin. That law is Civil Code §51, which provides:

“All persons…are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race,…religion,…disability, [or] medical condition,…are entitled to the full and equal accommodations…in all business establishments….”

Presiding Justice Gonzalo C. Martinez, writing for the court, opined that Mackenzie applied the wrong legal standard to determine that the defendant did not meet the statutory definition and failed to give the parties adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard. He remarked:

“On the day set for trial, and after giving the parties one day each to brief the issue, the trial court dismissed the case on its own motion based on its determination that, as a matter of law, [the defendant] was not a ‘business establishment’ subject to the Act. We reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to vacate the order of dismissal.”

Justice Natalie P. Stone and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Alexander C.D. Giza, sitting by assignment, joined in the decision.

Civil-Rights Complaint

Appealing the dismissal was Kerin Morataya, who filed the civil-rights complaint against Peoples College, also known as the Guild Law School, and her former professor, Marco Fortades, in April 2023.

Fortades, a licensed California attorney, was approved to serve as a volunteer professor of torts in 2021 at the unaccredited institution, which offered a legal education for only $5,000 a year from its two-story MacArthur Park location, despite not having any prior teaching experience. Morataya enrolled that same year, allegedly after informing the admissions department that she suffered from bipolar and anxiety disorders that would preclude any on-camera appearances.

According to the complaint, Fortades initially allowed Morataya to sit for remote classes with her computer camera disabled but revoked the accommodation for the final exam, giving her no credit after she took the test without recording it.

The plaintiff settled her claims with the unaccredited law school, which boasts some well-known graduates, including former Los Angeles mayor and current gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa (who was unable to passthe State Bar exam). The institution closed its doors in May 2024 after the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners voted to revoke the school’s certification.

A few days before the trial on the claim against Fortades was set to begin, Mackenzie raised the question of whether the defendant qualified as a “business establishment” amenable to suit under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. She ordered limited supplemental briefing on the issue, giving Fortades one day to file his brief and Morataya the same amount of time to respond.

After the parties responded, she declared that “I told the jury room not to bring up the jurors” and that “I have decided as a matter of law that Mr. Fortades doesn’t fit within the plain language of the statute.” She dismissed the case without prejudice on Sept. 19, 2024.

Final Adjudication

Martinez “first address[ed] our jurisdiction,” saying that “the signed dismissal order disposes of all remaining claims against the only remaining defendant” and so was “a final adjudication on the merits between these parties and was appealable.”

Turning to the merits, he noted:

“Morataya argues the court essentially entered summary judgment against her on the business establishment issue. Fortades argues the court was exercising its inherent powers to dismiss a legally insufficient claim. We conclude the trial court applied an incorrect legal framework and did not provide Morataya with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

Saying that “[s]everal California courts have held that employees and agents of business establishments may be individually liable under the Act for discriminatory conduct in the course of providing the business’s services,” he reasoned:

“For liability to attach to Fortades, the question is not whether Fortades, as an individual defendant, is a business establishment, but rather whether discrimination occurred in a business establishment (Peoples College) and, if so, whether Fortades may be held liable as the person who committed the discriminatory act.”

Failure to Address

Finding that Mackenzie failed to adequately address that inquiry, he wrote:

“[T]he trial court appeared to assume that Peoples College was a business establishment, so it focused on Fortades’s volunteer status. But to determine whether Fortades could be held liable under the Act necessarily turned on the nature of Fortades’s status and whether, even though he was a volunteer, he could be deemed an agent of the school who could be individually liable for discrimination committed in the course of providing the school’s services.”

He continued:

“Morataya had no opportunity to develop the factual record on these issues, including Fortades’s role and authority, the scope of his duties, and the nature of the relationship between the school and its volunteer faculty. Presumably, these facts would have been presented at trial. We conclude Morataya was prejudiced because the record does not establish that the same result would be reached on remand with an adequately developed factual record.”

Concluding that “[a] hearing at which the outcome has already been announced as a foregone conclusion does not satisfy” due process, he added:

“[T]he transcript reflects the court announced its intent to dismiss the case before hearing argument on the issue. The court did not frame its ruling as a tentative ruling that was subject to change based on the parties’ argument….Although the court then invited counsel to ‘argue why you disagree,’ the court’s earlier statements suggested that argument from Morataya would not change the result.”

Inherent Authority

Acknowledging that “courts possess inherent authority to manage their dockets and to identify legal issues that may be resolved pretrial,” Martinez commented:

“[H]owever, a court’s inherent authority must be exercised in a way that gives an affected party notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond.”

Declining to reach the substantive question of whether Fortades could be held liable under the act, he wrote:

“The parties have extensively briefed the ‘business establishment’ question and the issue of volunteer liability. These are significant questions that may involve novel applications of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Given the absence of a developed factual record, we decline to reach these questions, which are better addressed in the first instance by the trial court on proper proceedings with a developed factual record.”

The case is Morataya v. Fortades, B341752.

Frances M. Campbell and Nima Farahani of the Agoura Hills firm Campbell & Farahani LLP acted for the plaintiff. Fortades represented himself on appeal.

State Bar records reflect that Fortades is an active license holder who now runs a law firm based in the Philippines. The website does not show a license held by a “Kerin Morataya.”