Graham v. Western University of Health Sciences CA2/7

── Graham v. Western University of Health Sciences CA2/7 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/15/26 Graham v. Western University of Health Sciences CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN CATHERINE GRAHAM, B349398 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 24STCV11955) WESTERN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Maurice A. Leiter, Judge. Affirmed. Catherine E. Graham, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Pazzani & Sandhu, Karen J. Pazzani and Lester F. Aponte for Defendants and Respondents. ______________________________  Catherine Graham appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court sustained the demurrer filed by the Western University of Health Sciences (University) and related defendants without leave to amend. Graham alleged, among other claims, that the University and individual defendants fraudulently concealed facts in their recruitment information, including the school’s “cult-like” culture, and the information the University provided informed her decision to enroll in the college of optometry’s doctorate program, from which she was dismissed. On appeal, Graham challenges only the court’s order sustaining the demurrer to her fraudulent concealment cause of action. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The Second Amended Complaint Graham filed this action on February 1, 2023. After the trial court sustained demurrers to her initial and first amended complaints, on February 3, 2025 Graham filed her second amended complaint (complaint). The complaint alleged six causes of action against the University, its board of trustees, and five individuals: Elizabeth Zamora (chair of the board), Elizabeth Hoppe (dean of the optometry school), Dr. Ida Chung (associate dean of academic affairs), Naida Jakirlic (optometry school instructor), and Andrea Quezada (admissions counselor) (collectively, the University defendants).1 1 The complaint also named Crystal Sin, a graduate of the college of optometry. According to the University, Sin was never served, and she was not a party to the demurrer. However, the 2  The complaint alleged Graham attended the college of optometry’s doctorate program starting in August 2018. After she appealed a “[trivial] grade discrepancy” in April 2019, Chung retaliated against her by placing her on academic probation, and in January 2020 she was dismissed from the college. Graham subsequently reenrolled, but from August 2021 to June 2022 the University “operated under a ‘cult-like’ covert culture, engaging in harassment, unauthorized use of her data, and false advertising practices.” Further, in May 2022 Graham “reported various incidents” to the University’s board of trustees, “including unauthorized processing of her information by . . . Quezada and cyber law violations.” The complaint alleged causes of action for fraudulent concealment, intentional misrepresentation, violation of the Comprehensive Computer Data and Access Fraud Act (Pen. Code, § 502), negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and failure to prevent harassment (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (k)).2 With respect to the fraudulent concealment cause of judgment dism