Introduction

A California federal court recently denied a group of former University of San Francisco (USF) baseball players’ bid to pursue a class action lawsuit alleging that former coaches at the university fostered a sexually abusive environment.[i]

The plaintiffs had sought to certify a class comprising all USF baseball players since 2000, potentially encompassing hundreds of individuals and more than two decades of conduct. However, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the legal and factual questions at issue were sufficiently common and central to all members of the proposed class.

Facts

The underlying lawsuit accuses the university of negligent supervision of former baseball coaches Anthony Giarratano and Troy Nakamura, alleging that the university failed to properly train and oversee them despite multiple parental complaints, at least one Title IX investigation, and an unusually high rate of player attrition. Both coaches were terminated in 2022, shortly after the filing of the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs, who proceed anonymously as “John Does”, allege egregious misconduct by the coaches, including appearing nude during practice, exposing themselves to players, compelling players to mimic sexual acts, discussing players’ sexual preferences, penalizing errors by requiring removal of clothing, and distributing sex toys as rewards. As a result, the plaintiffs assert they have suffered significant psychological harm, including anxiety and depression.

While the plaintiffs contended that USF’s alleged knowledge of and deliberate indifference to a sexually hostile environment constituted a unifying basis for the claims, the court found that the events cited—ranging from alleged complaints in 2000, 2013, 2014, and 2021—did not establish a consistent pattern of notice applicable to the entire class. Judge Beeler noted that if a factfinder were to determine that only the more recent complaints constituted adequate notice, the claims would not be capable of resolution on a class-wide basis.

The plaintiffs also alleged that USF maintained a uniform policy of deliberate indifference to reports of sexual misconduct. However, the court observed that the university’s responses varied—earlier complaints were allegedly ignored, whereas later incidents led to internal investigations. The parties also disputed whether the university’s relevant policies changed over the duration of the proposed class period.

As to the retaliation claims, the plaintiffs argued that retaliatory conduct against one player discouraged others from reporting abuse. Nonetheless, the court found insufficient evidence to show that such a deterrent effect extended uniformly to all potential class members over the 20-year span. Although one plaintiff testified that players were afraid to raise concerns, the judge emphasized that this testimony alone was insufficient to support class wide inference of deterrence.

Given the distinct circumstances of each alleged incident, Judge Beeler further noted that questions regarding the reasonableness of USF’s responses to complaints would likely require individualized assessments. Additionally, while some issues—such as whether the coaches acted within the scope of their employment—could be common to the class, they were not dispositive in establishing that all class members suffered the same harm.

Conclusion

Although the court’s ruling did not favor Plaintiffs, they may pursue a bellwether trial strategy to test individual claims. However, such an approach carries uncertainty and may not yield the systemic leverage Plaintiffs seek.

A bellwether trial, by design, involves trying a small subset of representative claims to gauge how a jury might respond. However, the outcome of a single case may have limited predictive value given the individualized nature of the claims—particularly where allegations of harassment, retaliation, or institutional indifference are fact-specific and not easily generalized.

Even if a bellwether plaintiff were to obtain a favorable judgment, it would not necessarily translate into liability across the broader group of claims. USF would retain the opportunity to contest each case on its individual merits, including factual disputes and legal defenses related to notice, causation, and the scope of employment of any actors involved.

Rather than accelerating resolution, a bellwether trial could further underscore the individualized challenges Plaintiffs face and highlight weaknesses in certain claims.

Moreover, while Plaintiffs may seek public attention or reform through litigation, the courtroom is ultimately a forum for legal—not policy—determinations.

In short, while Plaintiffs may view a bellwether trial as a path forward, its strategic value remains uncertain and may, in fact, reinforce the strength of the university’s individualized defense.

Keep Reading

Environmental Friendly Class Action Against Maker of Gore-Tex Based on Speculation Why I Chose to Become an Attorney Salty Situation: Class Action Lawsuit Against Salt Manufacturer Alleges Improper Levels of Heavy Metals Grow Your Legal Practice with Returning Clients and Referrals Strategic Anchoring: Using Cognitive Bias to Win Negotiations Laughing Gas Is No Laughing Matter: New Lawsuit May Impose Strict Liability on Nitrous Oxide Manufacturers for Marketing Practices In Florida, What You See is What You Get Whether You Click on It or Not Don’t Let It Be “A License to Kill Your Case” — How to Vet Investigators Effectively Trial Prep: Expectation vs. Reality

More by this author

Salty Situation: Class Action Lawsuit Against Salt Manufacturer Alleges Improper Levels of Heavy Metals You’re Out? Additional Litigation Uncertain After Judge Denies Certifying Class of Ex-NCAA Baseball Players It Ends with Lawsuits for Hollywood Co-Stars Stale Bread: Workers Accuse Panera of Wage Theft Red Hot Water: Former Chili Pepper Guitarist Sued in Wrongful Death Action A Seat at the Table: Supreme Court Rules Insurers Have a Right to Be “Heard on Any Issue” in Chapter 11 Cases To Speak or Not to Speak: Appellate Court Rules on Doctors’ Defamation Lawsuit Modern Headache: Actress Sofia Vergara is Sued for $1.7 Million by Former Contractor A League of Their Own: Sports Leagues’ Novel Argument Fails to Persuade California Appellate Court

Sources

[i] John Doe 1, et al. v. Nat’l. Collegiate Athl. Assoc., 3:22-cv-01559, (N.D.C.A.)