Filed 6/4/20 (unmodified opinion attached)

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

MATTHEW BOERMEESTER,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

AINSLEY CARRY et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 B290675

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BS170473)

 ORDER MODIFYING 

 OPINION 

 [No change in the judgment]

IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed in the above-captioned 

matter on May 28, 2020, be modified as follows:

1. On the caption page, respondents’ counsel’s name is 

modified to read:

“Julie Arias Young” 

There is no change in the judgment. 

____________________________________________________________

BIGELOW, P. J. STRATTON, J. WILEY, J.
Filed 5/28/20 (unmodified opinion)

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

MATTHEW BOERMEESTER,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

AINSLEY CARRY et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 B290675

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BS170473)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County. Amy D. Hogue, Judge. Reversed and remanded 

with directions.

Hathaway Parker, Mark M. Hathaway and Jenna E. Parker 

for Plaintiff and Appellant. 

Young & Zinn, Julie Arias and Karen J. Pazzani for 

Defendants and Respondents. 

_____________________________
2

Matthew Boermeester was expelled from the University of 

Southern California (USC) for committing intimate partner violence 

against Jane Roe.1 The superior court denied his petition for writ of 

administrative mandate to set aside the expulsion. He appeals, 

contending, among other things, that the process leading to his 

expulsion violated his right to a fair hearing. We conclude USC’s 

disciplinary procedures at the time were unfair because they denied 

Boermeester a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine critical 

witnesses at an in-person hearing. We thus reverse and remand 

with directions to the superior court to grant the petition for writ of 

administrative mandate.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

Boermeester was a member of the USC football team, who 

kicked the game-winning field goal for USC at the 2017 Rose Bowl. 

Roe was also a student-athlete who played tennis for USC. 

Boermeester and Roe dated from March 2016 to approximately 

October 2016. On January 21, 2017, two USC students observed 

Boermeester put his hand on Roe’s neck and push her against a 

wall. They reported this incident to the USC men’s tennis coach, 

which resulted in the initiation of an investigation. Boermeester did 

not deny he put his hand on Roe’s neck and that she had her back 

1 Although Jane Roe has identified herself to the public in the 

events at issue, we will continue to use a pseudonym or initials to 

refer to Roe and other witnesses in this opinion. (Cal. Rules of 

Court, rule 8.90.)

2 Our recitation of facts is derived solely from the evidence in 

the administrative record, and not the declarations submitted by 

Boermeester that were not made part of the record. 
3

against a wall while he did so. He contends, however, he did not 

intend to harm her and they were merely “horsing around.” 

Initial Interview with Jane Roe

Roe agreed to meet with USC’s Title IX office3 on January 23, 

two days after the incident. Roe’s advisor was present. 

Roe reported she spent the day with Boermeester on Friday, 

January 20, 2017. He called to ask her to pick him up from a party 

at approximately 12:30 or 1:00 a.m. on January 21, 2017. She did, 

and they returned to her home after getting food. Boermeester was 

the drunkest she had ever seen. He yelled in the alley behind her 

house, trying to be funny. 

Roe had her dog, Ziggy, with her. Boermeester wanted her to 

drop Ziggy’s leash to allow him to run in the alley. He grabbed the 

back of Roe’s hair hard and said “drop the fucking leash.” Roe 

refused. Boermeester responded by increasing his hold on Roe’s 

hair, causing her to drop the leash because it “hurt.” 

Boermeester then grabbed Roe “tight” by the neck, causing her 

to cough. He laughed and let go. He grabbed her by the neck twice 

more and pushed her hard against a concrete wall that ran along the 

alley behind her duplex. Roe’s head hurt after she hit the wall. 

Three USC students, DH, TS, and MB2, exited their 

apartments. Roe believed they were woken up by the loud yelling. 

When they asked after Roe, Boermeester told them that he and Roe 

3 The University’s Policy and Procedures on Student Sexual, 

Interpersonal, and Protected Class Misconduct (sexual misconduct 

policy) prohibits conduct such as intimate partner violence. It is 

intended to comply with statutes prohibiting discrimination in 

education, including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 

(20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.) (Title IX). As a result, the office which 

implements the sexual misconduct policy is known as the Title IX 

office.
4

were just “playing around.” DH and TS, who lived on the other side 

of Roe in the duplex, took her into their apartment. Boermeester 

was asleep when she got back to her room. 

The next day, Roe told Boermeester that he scared DH and TS 

because “it looked really bad when you pushed me and it looked 

really bad with your hand around my neck.” He replied, “it was a 

joke, we were messing around, tell them to calm down” and added, 

“tell them you’re into that,” implying that it was foreplay. When 

Roe asked him, “what if you hurt me bad? Would you feel bad? 

If you were playing around and it hurt?” Boermeester told her, 

“no” because it would have been “brought on by” her. 

The Title IX coordinator explained Roe had the option to 

request an avoidance of contact order (AOC) prohibiting 

Boermeester from contacting her. Roe indicated she wanted the 

AOC as well as temporary emergency housing because Boermeester 

had a key to her house. The investigator noted Roe was crying 

throughout the meeting. 

Roe acknowledged she was in a “bad situation” but was 

conflicted about what to do because she still cared for Boermeester. 

Roe indicated she did not want to participate in an investigation and 

did not want Boermeester to be charged with anything other than 

the January 21, 2017 incident. She was informed the Title IX office 

was obligated to investigate and could proceed without her consent. 

Boermeester was charged with the January 21, 2017 incident of 

intimate partner violence4 for which there were eyewitnesses. 

4 USC’s sexual misconduct policy defines intimate partner 

violence as violence committed against a person with whom the 

accused student has a previous or current dating, romantic, 

intimate, or sexual relationship. “Violence means causing physical 

harm to the person or to their possessions. Intimate partner 
5

Boermeester is Notified of the Investigation

On January 26, 2017, USC notified Boermeester of an 

investigation into the events of January 21 and that he may have 

violated USC’s sexual misconduct policy by committing intimate 

partner violence. He was placed on interim suspension and received 

an AOC letter. 

That day, Roe exchanged a series of text messages with the 

investigator stating, I am “pretty freaked out about today. I know 

I’ve said this a lot but I really can’t emphasis [sic] enough that you 

guys please please make it clear that I did not bring this forward 

that I want nothing to do with it and I’m not pressing any charges.” 

She further stated, “He can’t know I made a statement. Can you not 

tell him I made a statement[?] Like he can’t know I met with you 

guys.” The investigator assured her Boermeester would be advised 

the investigation was initiated by the Title IX office and he would 

not be made aware of her statement until the time of the evidence 

review. 

Jane Roe Recants

Roe and her advisor met with the investigator on January 30, 

2017. Roe indicated she had reservations about the investigation 

because she felt as though her voice was not heard and that it was 

more about “burning him” than her wellbeing. Roe explained she 

thought she was in a supportive environment when she initially met 

with the Title IX office and so she freely shared her story. Although 

she understood the Title IX office was “trying to do the right thing,” 

violence may also include non-physical conduct that would cause a 

reasonable person to be fearful for their safety; examples include 

economic abuse and behavior that intimidates, frightens, or isolates.

It may also include sexual assault, sexual misconduct, or stalking. 

Intimate partner violence can be a single act or a pattern of 

conduct.” 
6

it has made things for her more “difficult.” Roe felt bullied by the 

process and no longer “fully believe[d]” many of the statements she 

initially made to the Title IX office. 

Roe also requested the AOC be lifted because she had changed 

her mind. She requested the AOC during her first meeting because 

she did not “trust” that it would be clearly conveyed to Boermeester 

that the investigation was initiated by the Title IX office, not her. 

She did not want Boermeester to be “mad” at her. She remarked 

“at the end of the day, he is like my best friend so it is like you are 

taking that away too.” She explained, “you think this is to protect 

me. Feels like I lost control on everything and I feel like you are 

controlling who I can talk to.” Roe stated that she did not feel she 

was in danger. She was upset they could not speak. She believed 

that the investigation was too harsh and that instead, Boermeester 

should be mandated to go to counseling and be placed on probation. 

The next day, Roe texted the investigator, “Will I know 

tomorrow if I can get rid of my statement because I really don’t want 

it used and I don’t even think it is fair because I still disagree with 

somethings I said so to use it wouldn’t be accurate and I just have 

been stressing about if it’s being used or not so will [the coordinator] 

have an answer for me tomorrow?” 

Meanwhile, media attention surrounding the suspension had 

begun. Roe’s roommate reported Roe was worried about the impact 

the publicity would have on Boermeester’s future career and NFL 

prospects. On February 8, Roe tweeted in response to media reports 

about Boermeester: “I am the one involved in the investigation with 

Matt Boermeester. The report is false. @Deadspin @latimes 

@ReignofTroy.” 
7

Boermeester’s Statement

On January 30, 2017, Boermeester was interviewed by the 

investigator with a USC administrative assistant present. 

Boermeester’s mother attended as his advisor. Boermeester 

generally confirmed the events of January 21 as Roe had described 

them; however, he denied intending to hurt her. 

He reported he and Roe ate at the Cheesecake Factory at 

approximately 4:00 p.m. Later that night, he text messaged Roe to 

pick him up from a party because he was unable to drive. He had 

three glasses of wine at the restaurant and four to five beers at the 

party. When they arrived at Roe’s home after picking up food, they 

began playfully throwing french fries at one another. 

Boermeester wanted to watch Roe’s dog run around so he 

asked her to let the dog go. They were standing by a wall when he 

instructed her to release the dog. He acknowledged he put his hand 

around her neck while she stood against the wall, but denied they 

were arguing or that he was angry. He also denied choking her or 

slamming her head against the wall. He believed Roe felt safe with 

him. He asserted he did not have a tight grip on her. 

Boermeester reported he and Roe spent the next three nights 

together and were sexually intimate. They saw each other every day 

until she left for a tennis match on January 26, 2017. Boermeester 

recalled he and Roe laughed about TS and DH assuming it was “real 

violence.” 

Boermeester believed the eyewitnesses misinterpreted what 

they saw. Although he understood how it looked to them, he 

thought it was ridiculous they wanted her to spend the night over at 

their home rather than sleep with him. 
8

He explained he and Roe sometimes put their hands on each 

other’s necks during sex. When asked what impact this has had on 

him, he stated, “I know to never do anything that resembles 

domestic violence in public again. To be aware of my surroundings.” 

The investigator asked, “just in public?” He responded, “Well no, 

just to never give the impression of domestic violence.” Boermeester 

stated, “I feel like a monster even though I didn’t do anything. I 

can’t go to class, rehab, etc. I’m kinda sleeping, it’s on my mind all of 

the time.”5 

On February 14, 2017, the Title IX office notified Boermeester 

he would also be investigated for violating the AOC. He provided a 

written response by email denying contact with Roe in any format. 

He asserted he had moved home to San Diego and had remained 

there aside from meeting with his lawyer. 

Additional Witness Statements

USC’s Title IX investigator interviewed over a dozen people, 

including Roe, Boermeester, the eyewitnesses, Roe’s roommates and 

friends, and Boermeester’s ex-girlfriend. The investigator made it a 

general practice to re-read the statement to the person after the 

interview to confirm accuracy. 

MB2 is Roe’s neighbor. He initially reported he did not see 

any physical contact between Roe and Boermeester. He explained 

he heard an argument between a man and a woman about a dog. 

When he walked outside to take out his trash and see what was 

happening, “it kinda settled a little bit.” Roe approached him a few 

days later to ensure he did not get the wrong impression. 

5 Boermeester had knee surgery in early January 2017 and was 

scheduled to receive rehabilitation and physical therapy from USC 

staff. The Title IX office noted his treatment at USC facilities was 

not prohibited by the interim suspension. 
9

One month later, MB2 called the investigator to admit he had 

not been truthful in his initial statement because he was trying to 

“protect” Roe’s wishes to “keep it on the down low” and “downplay” 

the incident. He explained Boermeester’s attorney attempted to 

speak with him at his home in March 2017. He told the attorney 

what he initially told the Title IX investigator. However, he decided, 

“the lawyer coming to speak to me, finding my apartment, I don’t 

want to keep this any longer, perpetuating this lie.” 

During a second interview, MB2 reported he heard laughing 

and screaming sounds coming from the alley by his home, which 

initially seemed playful. The noise then changed to what sounded 

like a male trying to “assert his dominance” over a female. MB2 

looked into the alley and saw Boermeester standing in front of Roe 

with both hands around her neck. He then pushed her into the alley 

wall and she began to make “gagging” noises. MB2 added, “once he 

put his arms around her the first time she wasn’t saying anything.” 

MB2 believed, “this guy is violent. He domestically was abusing 

her.” He stated, “truth is I really wanted to beat the shit out of this 

guy.” Because of what he saw, MB2 grabbed a trash bag and went 

outside. He asked them how things were going, which “broke it up.” 

Afterwards, Boermeester and Roe walked back to her apartment. 

DH is a member of the USC men’s tennis team and Roe’s 

neighbor. He was reluctant to participate in the investigation but 

described what he saw on the night of January 21, 2017. 

He reported he heard screaming. He heard a male voice yelling 

loudly and a female voice talking but could not make out what they 

were saying. He looked outside and saw Roe and Boermeester 

standing by the wall. He noticed Roe’s dog running in the alley, 

which made him realize something was wrong because Roe did not 

allow her dog to run freely. He saw Roe pinned against the wall by 
10

Boermeester, who had his hand around her chest/neck. DH did not 

see or hear Roe hit the wall. 

TS is also a member of the USC men’s tennis team and is DH’s 

roommate. He reported DH woke him up, urgently stating, “we 

gotta go downstairs, [Boermeester] is hitting [Roe].” When they got 

downstairs, DH asked to speak to Roe. Boermeester walked back to 

Roe’s house. DH tried to convince her to spend the night at their 

apartment. DH observed Roe was “playing casual at first” and tried 

to “downplay it.” When DH confronted her about Boermeester’s arm 

around her throat, she rationalized it by saying, “he’s just drunk.” 

About 15 to 20 minutes later, Roe returned home, crying. She then 

texted that Boermeester was asleep and stated, “I am safe. Thanks 

for looking out for me.” TS and DH reported the incident the next 

day to the men’s tennis coach. 

Roe’s roommates and friends uniformly reported that Roe and 

Boermeester’s relationship was volatile, but they did not personally 

witness any physical violence between them. Most of them did not 

believe Roe was in any physical danger. Instead, they often heard 

Roe and Boermeester demean one another by calling each other 

names. As the investigation progressed, Roe indicated to her friends 

she did not want them to participate in the investigation. 

Roe stated in a text message to TS, “Look what I want to say 

is I’m helping Matt. I know you won’t agree with it but he’s already 

gotten a shit ton of punishment for something I didn’t want to 

happen in the first place. I wanted non[e] of this to take place at all. 

He’s already suspended for probably two months and will be kicked 

off the team and has a restraining order from me. I literally wanted 

non[e] of it so what I’m asking as a friend is don’t say much. Please 

don’t fuck him over more. I’m not in danger at all I trust him I trust 
11

that he won’t ever hurt me again. I just hate that any of this is 

going on. So I’m begging you.” 

Roe confided in a few friends that Boermeester had given her 

bruises. A text message from Roe to GO also indicated Roe may 

have been in contact with Boermeester while the AOC was in place. 

Boermeester’s ex-girlfriend, AB, dated him for almost three 

years. She reported she and Boermeester would wrestle and joke 

around. It sometimes started as tickling but would end in him 

placing her in a “chokehold.” She would tell him to stop and he did. 

She estimated he had his hands around her neck five to ten times. 

When Boermeester placed his hands around her neck, “it crossed the 

line from being joking and then it would be too much.” On two 

occasions, he shoved her during an argument. 

AB’s mother thought their rough housing was “always [going] 

too far.” She “freaked out” when she saw Boermeester with his 

hands around AB’s neck and screamed, “get your arms off [my] 

daughter right now!” Boermeester apologized, but AB did not think 

he realized he was “definitely too rough.” Nevertheless, AB did not 

believe her parents were concerned about her safety when she was 

dating Boermeester. 

Surveillance Video

The investigator retrieved surveillance video of the incident 

from a camera located in the alley approximately two buildings 

away from Roe’s duplex. The recording does not contain audio and 

is grainy. It is undisputed the video depicts Boermeester and Roe 

interacting in the alley after midnight on January 21, 2017. The

video supports the trial court’s description of the events as follows:

“At 12:16:16 a.m., the video shows Petitioner shoving Roe from 

the area adjacent to the house into the alleyway. At 12:16:50, 

Petitioner appears to be holding Roe’s neck or upper body area. 
12

At 12:17:12, Petitioner grabs Roe by the neck and pushes her toward 

the wall of the alley. At 12:17:13 and 112:17:14, Roe’s head and 

body arch backwards. Between 12:17:16 and 12:17:26, Petitioner 

and Roe are against the wall and barely visible from the camera. 

At 12:17:26, Petitioner backs away from the wall and re-enters the 

camera’s view. At 12:17:28, Roe re-enters the camera’s view. Roe 

and Petitioner proceed to push each other. At 12:17:38, Petitioner 

moves toward Roe and appears to be pushing her against the wall. 

At 12:17:40, a dog can be seen running across the alley. At 12:17:57, 

a third party enters the camera’s view and walks in the direction of 

Petitioner and Roe. At that moment, Petitioner and Roe walk away 

from the wall and back towards the house. At 12:18:19, the third 

party walks over to the dumpster, places a trash bag inside, and 

walks back toward the house.” 

USC’s Findings and Disciplinary Action

Based on the evidence obtained, the investigator found 

Boermeester violated USC’s misconduct policy by engaging in 

intimate partner violence and violating the AOC. The investigator 

submitted her findings to the Misconduct Sanctioning Panel, which 

is comprised of two staff or faculty members and an undergraduate 

student. The panel decided upon a sanction of expulsion. 

Boermeester appealed the findings of fact and determination 

of violation to the Vice President for Student Affairs. An appellate 

panel found the evidence supported the findings, but recommended 

a two-year suspension because Boermeester’s conduct could have 

been “reckless” rather than intentional. The Vice President for 

Student Affairs rejected the appellate panel’s recommendation and 

affirmed the decision to expel Boermeester, reasoning the sanction 

was appropriate under the sexual misconduct policy regardless of 

whether Boermeester intended to harm Roe or not. 
13

Proceedings in the Superior Court

Boermeester filed a petition for writ of mandate in the 

Superior Court under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. 

The court denied the petition for writ of mandate. Boermeester 

appealed.

DISCUSSION

Boermeester contends he was denied notice of the allegations 

against him and that interim measures were improperly imposed. 

We find these contentions meritless.6 Boermeester also contends he 

was entitled to a live evidentiary hearing where he can crossexamine witnesses. We find Boermeester’s fair hearing argument 

supported by caselaw and thus reverse and remand. 

Because we conclude Boermeester was deprived of a fair 

hearing for lack of a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine 

critical witnesses at an in-person hearing, we decline to address 

whether USC’s policy was also unfair because the Title IX 

investigator held the dual roles of investigator and adjudicator. 

We also need not address Boermeester’s other claims of error, 

including whether substantial evidence supported USC’s findings.

6 To the extent Boermeester argues USC’s Title IX office was 

biased against him, an argument that appears throughout his 

appellate briefs, he has presented no legal or factual basis to support 

this argument other than to say its decisions were not in his favor. 

Boermeester has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate 

prejudicial error in this regard. (In re Marriage of McLaughlin 

(2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 327, 337.) Boermeester also complains Roe 

was not provided proper notice she was a suspected victim and 

intended reporting party in the proceedings. Boermeester lacks 

standing to assert Roe’s rights in this matter. (Angelucci v. Century 

Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160, 175; see Code Civ. Proc., § 367.)
14

I. Standards of Review

In an appeal from a judgment on a petition for writ of 

mandate, the scope of our review is the same as that of the Superior 

Court, that is, we review the agency’s decision rather than the 

Superior Court’s decision. (Doe v. University of Southern California 

(2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 221, 239 (USC I).) We determine “whether 

the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; 

whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any 

prejudicial abuse of discretion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. 

(b).) “Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not 

proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is 

not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by 

the evidence.” (Ibid.)

“The statute’s requirement of a ‘ “fair trial” ’ means that there 

must have been ‘a fair administrative hearing.’ ” (Gonzalez v. Santa 

Clara County Department of Social Services (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 

72, 96.) “A challenge to the procedural fairness of the 

administrative hearing is reviewed de novo on appeal because the 

ultimate determination of procedural fairness amounts to a question 

of law.” (Nasha v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 470, 

482.) However, we review for substantial evidence USC’s 

substantive decisions and factual findings. (USC I, supra, 246 

Cal.App.4th at p. 239; Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (c).)

II. Boermeester Received Sufficient Notice 

Boermeester complains he was not provided full notice that 

the Title IX investigation would “extend to his entire relationship 

history with [Roe], nor his relationship history with a previous 

girlfriend who did not attend USC.” Thus, he claims he was 

unaware the investigator was “collecting evidence to support her 

opinion about an alleged ‘pattern’ of intimate partner violence, nor 
15

that he needed to produce evidence to combat [the investigator’s] 

preconceived notions about domestic violence.” We disagree.

“Generally, a fair procedure requires ‘notice reasonably 

calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the 

action . . . and an opportunity to present their objections.’ 

[Citations.] With respect to student discipline, ‘[t]he student’s 

interest is to avoid unfair or mistaken exclusion from the 

educational process, with all of its unfortunate 

consequences . . . Disciplinarians, although proceeding in utmost 

good faith, frequently act on the reports and advice of others; and 

the controlling facts and the nature of the conduct under challenge 

are often disputed. The risk of error is not at all trivial, and it 

should be guarded against if that may be done without prohibitive 

cost or interference with the educational process.’ [Citation.] [¶] 

‘At the very minimum, therefore, students facing 

suspension . . . must be given some kind of notice and afforded some

kind of hearing.’ [Citation.] The hearing need not be formal, but ‘in 

being given an opportunity to explain his version of the facts at this 

discussion, the student [must] first be told what he is accused of 

doing and what the basis of the accusation is.’ [Citation.]” (USC I, 

supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 240, quoting Goss v. Lopez (1975) 419 

U.S. 565, 579–580 (Goss).) 

Here, USC’s misconduct policy provides that an accused 

student be given “[w]ritten notice of the alleged policy violation 

including the specific acts, the date/period of time, and [the] location

[where the act allegedly occurred].” Boermeester acknowledges USC 

complied with this policy. Indeed, USC informed him on January 

26, 2017, that it was investigating a report he committed intimate 

partner violence, “specifically, grabbing Jane Roe by the neck, and 

pushing her head into a cinder block wall multiple times on/or about 
16

January 21, 2017.” He was later notified of a second policy violation, 

“specifically, contacting and communicating with [Roe] via text, 

phone call, social media, and in-person since the issuance of the 

Avoidance of Contact Order issued by Dr. Lynette Merriman and 

served on you January 26, 2017.” 

Boermeester reviewed the evidence compiled by the 

investigator and responded to both allegations by written statement. 

In his response, he complained about the interview with his exgirlfriend and contended her statement was “completely irrelevant 

to the evidence relating to what happened on January 21, 2017.” 

Boermeester also viewed text messages from Roe to GO in which she 

indicated she had been in contact with him after issuance of the 

AOC. After reviewing the evidence related to the AOC violation, 

Boermeester responded by denying he had contact with Roe. 

Boermeester’s written statements belie his contention that he 

did not get notice of the extent of the investigation into his actions. 

Boermeester was not only provided notice of the factual basis of the 

allegations against him, he was also provided with a meaningful 

opportunity to respond to them. We find that is sufficient notice of 

the violations with which he was charged. (USC I, supra, 246 

Cal.App.4th at pp. 240–241.)

III. The Interim Suspension Was Not Unfair

Boermeester next argues his interim suspension was “patently 

unfair” because it was imposed without a hearing and he was not 

provided with the evidence supporting it. In his reply brief, 

Boermeester asserts the evidence was insufficient to support the 

interim suspension. We are not persuaded.

Goss, supra, 419 U.S. 565, cited by Boermeester, supports our 

conclusion. Goss recognized the need for interim measures, allowing 

for the immediate removal of a student without notice or hearing if 
17

the student “poses a continuing danger to persons or property or an 

ongoing threat of disrupting the academic process . . .” (Id. at p. 

582.) It held an accused student must be given “some kind of notice 

and afforded some kind of hearing” when faced with disciplinary 

proceedings. Goss did not hold a student was entitled to two 

different notices and two different hearings if interim measures 

were also imposed. (Id. at pp. 579–580.) 

USC’s policy comports with Goss. It states that interim 

protective measures, including interim suspension, may be imposed 

when there is information the accused student poses a substantial 

threat to the safety or well-being of anyone in the university 

community. In deciding whether to impose interim protective 

measures, the policy sets forth specific factors for consideration, 

including whether the reported behavior involved the use of a 

weapon or force, the risk of additional violence or significant 

disruption of university life or function, whether there have been 

other reports of prohibited conduct by the respondent, and the 

university’s obligation to provide a safe and non-discriminatory 

environment. It further states, “[a] student or organization subject 

to interim protective measures is [to be] given prompt written notice 

of the charges and the interim measure. An opportunity for review 

of the measure is provided within 15 days of the notice by the Vice 

President for Student Affairs or designee.” 

Consistent with its policy, USC provided Boermeester with 

notice of the charges against him and a review of the interim 

suspension. Boermeester was notified of the charges against him, 

the interim suspension, and the AOC, by letter dated January 26. 

The letter advised him to schedule a meeting with the Title IX 

investigator, at which time he would be able to “review the basis for 

the investigation,” review his procedural rights, ask questions, 
18

provide a statement, and submit relevant information or the identity 

of potential witnesses. Thereafter, on January 30, Boermeester met 

with the investigator. The record shows USC reviewed the basis for 

the investigation with him at the meeting. On the same day, 

Boermeester requested the interim suspension be discontinued or 

modified because two witnesses “misinterpreted” the incident and 

because it placed an undue burden on him. The request was denied 

by USC’s Vice President of Student Affairs on January 31. In sum, 

Boermeester was informed of the evidentiary basis for the interim 

suspension and was provided with a hearing. His contentions to the 

contrary are thus meritless. 

It appears Boermeester is actually asserting USC should have 

provided him with a preliminary hearing prior to the full 

evidentiary hearing. However, Boermeester presents no authority 

for this proposition. Nor does he present any authority for the 

proposition USC was required to share its ongoing investigation 

with him. 

In his reply brief, Boermeester asserts there was insufficient 

evidence he posed a threat to Roe or any other student to support 

the interim suspension. As an initial matter, we may disregard 

arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. (WorldMark, 

The Cloud v. Wyndham Resort Development Corp. (2010) 187 

Cal.App.4th 1017, 1030, fn. 7.) In any case, sufficient evidence 

supported the interim suspension. Roe stated Boermeester pulled 

her hair, pushed her against a wall, and put his hand on her neck. 

DH’s statements supported Roe’s version of the events. Further, 

Boermeester admitted he had his hand on her neck and she was 

against a wall. While there was also evidence Boermeester did not 

pose a threat to Roe, we decline to reweigh the evidence. 
19

IV. Fair Procedure Requires Boermeester Be Given the 

Opportunity to Cross-Examine Critical Witnesses at An 

In-Person Hearing 

We find meritorious Boermeester’s contention that he should 

have had the right to cross-examine the witnesses against him at an 

in-person hearing. In reaching this conclusion, we reject a number 

of forfeiture-related arguments advanced by USC and the dissent. 

We also find the errors identified are not harmless. We thus reverse 

and remand.

A. Relevant Legal Authorities

California has long recognized a common law right to 

“fair procedure” when certain private organizations have rendered a 

decision harmful to an individual. (Doe v. Allee (2019) 30 

Cal.App.5th 1036, 1061 (Allee); Doe v. University of Southern 

California (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1212, 1232, n. 25; Doe v. Regents of 

University of California (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 44, 56 (UC Santa 

Barbara); Pomona College v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 

1716, 1729–1730.) Courts have applied the right to fair procedure to 

disciplinary proceedings involving sexual misconduct by students at 

private universities.7 These opinions uniformly hold the disciplinary 

7 Unlike private universities, the requirements for disciplinary 

hearings at public universities are grounded in constitutional due 

process principles. (Allee, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 1061.) Some 

courts have observed that the common law requirements for a fair 

disciplinary hearing at a private university “mirror” the due process 

protections that must be afforded a student at a public university.

(Ibid.) Other courts merely find due process jurisprudence 

“instructive” in cases involving private universities. (Claremont 

McKenna, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 1067, fn. 8.) In either case, 

we may rely on cases involving public university disciplinary 

proceedings.
20

proceedings need not include all of the safeguards and formalities of 

a criminal trial and the formal rules of evidence do not apply. 

(Allee, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 1062; UC Santa Barbara, supra,

28 Cal.App.5th at p. 56.) Instead, fair hearing requirements are 

“ ‘flexible,’ ” and do not mandate any “ ‘rigid procedure.’ ” (Allee, 

supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 1062.) 

Courts also agree fundamental fairness requires the accused 

be given “ ‘ “a full opportunity to present his defenses.” ’ ” (Allee, 

supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 1062, quoting Doe v. Regents of 

University of California (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1104 (UC San Diego).) 

A university must balance its desire to protect victims of sexual 

misconduct with an accused’s need to adequately defend himself or 

herself. Added to these competing interests is the university’s desire 

to avoid diverting its resources and attention from its main calling, 

which is education. (Doe v. Claremont McKenna College (2018) 25 

Cal.App.5th 1055, 1066 (Claremont McKenna).) “ “Although a 

university must treat students fairly, it is not required to convert its 

classrooms into courtrooms.’ ” (UC San Diego, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th

at p. 1078.)

In examining what kind of hearing comports with fair 

procedure, California courts have concluded a university must 

provide the following to the parties involved in a sexual misconduct 

disciplinary proceeding: notice of the charges and the university’s 

policies and procedures (USC I, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 241); 

compliance with those policies and procedures (UC San Diego, 

supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 1078); access to the evidence (UC Santa 

Barbara, supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at pp. 57–59); an in-person hearing 

that includes testimony from critical witnesses and written reports 

of witness interviews (Doe v. Westmont College (2019) 34 

Cal.App.5th 622, 637 (Westmont College); and direct or indirect 
21

cross-examination of critical witnesses in cases where credibility of 

the witnesses is central to a determination of misconduct (Doe v. 

Occidental College (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 208, 224 (Occidental 

College); Allee, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 1039). 

B. USC’s Sexual Misconduct Policy in 2017

USC’s student handbook includes its policies and procedures 

governing investigations into student sexual misconduct.8 Stalking 

and intimate partner violence were identified as some of the 

prohibited conduct. USC’s policy dictated an investigation was to be 

a “neutral, fact-finding process. Reports [were] presumed to be 

made in good faith. Further, Respondents [were] presumed not 

responsible.” The presumption of non-responsibility was overcome 

when a preponderance of evidence established the respondent 

committed the prohibited conduct. 

The handbook required the Title IX office to contact the 

reporting party and the respondent at the initiation of an 

investigation to explain their rights and to schedule a meeting.9 

An investigator was assigned to the matter and interviewed 

witnesses and assembled other evidence. 

The rules of evidence and discovery generally did not apply. 

Sexual history was relevant “[w]hen there [was] evidence of 

substantially similar conduct by a Respondent, regardless of a 

finding of responsibility.” The sexual history evidence could be used 

8 USC’s sexual misconduct policy has been amended since 2017. 

However, we review the policy as it existed at the time of the 

disciplinary proceedings against Boermeester.

9 Regardless of who reported the student misconduct, USC 

designated the individual who experienced the prohibited conduct as 

the “reporting party.” The “respondent” was the individual accused 

of committing the misconduct. 
22

“in determining the Respondent’s knowledge, intent, motive, 

absence of mistake, or modus operandi[.]” 

After the investigation, the parties could review the evidence 

in a process known as “Evidence Review.” Once the parties 

completed Evidence Review, the Title IX coordinator and assigned 

investigator conducted separate hearings, known as “Evidence 

Hearings,” where each party could present a statement or evidence 

at the Title IX offices. Each party was permitted to submit 

questions to be asked by the Title IX coordinator at the other party’s 

Evidence Hearing. The Title IX coordinator had discretion to 

exclude inflammatory, argumentative, or irrelevant questions. Any 

“new information” shared by a party during the Evidence Hearing 

was relayed to the other party for a response. 

After the Evidence Hearing, the Title IX office prepared a 

Summary Administrative Review (SAR), which presented and 

analyzed the information collected. The investigator made findings 

of fact in consultation with the Title IX coordinator and using a 

preponderance of the evidence standard, determined whether a 

violation occurred. 

A “Misconduct Sanctioning Panel,” comprised of three 

members of the USC community, determined the appropriate 

discipline after review of the SAR. The parties could appeal the 

disciplinary action to USC’s Vice President for Student Affairs. 

An appellate panel, comprised of three anonymous individuals from 

the USC community, reviewed the appeal and made a 

recommendation to the Vice President for Student Affairs, who could 

accept or reject the recommendation. 

C. Forfeiture

We address the threshold issue of whether Boermeester has 

preserved his right to assert on appeal that he was improperly 
23

denied cross-examination of witnesses at a live evidentiary hearing. 

We find he has.

USC contends Boermeester forfeited the issue when he failed 

to request cross-examination of third-party witnesses and waived it 

when he refused to submit written questions for Roe. We decline to 

fault Boermeester for failing to request cross-examination of other 

witnesses because such an objection was not supported by the law at 

the time and would have been futile in any case. (People v. Brooks

(2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 92 [“ ‘Reviewing courts have traditionally excused 

parties for failing to raise an issue at trial where an objection would 

have been futile or wholly unsupported by substantive law then in 

existence.’ ”]; see also Corenbaum v. Lampkin (2013) 215 

Cal.App.4th 1308, 1334 [“An appellant may challenge the admission 

of evidence for the first time on appeal despite his or her failure to 

object in the trial court if the challenge is based on a change in the 

law that the appellant could not reasonably have been expected to 

foresee.”].) 

At the time of these disciplinary proceedings in 2017, neither 

the law nor USC’s sexual misconduct policy contemplated crossexamination of third-party witnesses at an in-person hearing. Allee, 

which extends cross-examination rights to third-party witnesses, 

was not published until January 4, 2019. In 2016, the existing law 

on this point was set forth in USC I, which cited with approval a 

case that held, “ ‘[a]lthough we recognize the value of crossexamination as a means of uncovering the truth [citation], we reject 

the notion that as a matter of law every administrative 

appeal . . . must afford the [accused] an opportunity to confront and 

cross-examine witnesses.’ ” (USC I, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at 
24

p. 245.) Under these circumstances, Boermeester could not 

reasonably have been expected to foresee Allee’s holding.

10 

Moreover, any objection would have been futile because the 

Title IX office had made it clear they were not going to deviate from 

USC’s sexual misconduct policy and procedures. This is 

demonstrated by USC’s denial of Boermeester’s request that Roe’s 

answers to his questions at the Evidentiary Hearing be transmitted 

to him “unfiltered,” meaning verbatim, and prior to the SAR. The 

Title IX coordinator replied, “The process does not afford that. 

Please review our policy.” It is reasonable to conclude a request to 

question other witnesses would likewise have been denied and an 

objection is futile under such circumstances. (See People v. Hopkins 

(1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1699, 1702 [after mistrial objection overruled 

on a legal ground, defense counsel could reasonably have believed 

further objections would be fruitless]; In re Antonio C. (2000) 83 

Cal.App.4th 1029, 1033 [“[W]here an objection would have been 

futile, the claim is not waived.”].) 

Because we conclude Boermeester did not forfeit his right to 

cross-examine third-party witnesses, we likewise conclude there was 

no waiver of his right to an in-person hearing. 

10 The dissent asserts Boermeester could have foreseen Allee 

because his attorney also represented the accused student in Allee. 

In 2019, Boermeester’s attorney persuaded the Allee court to rely on 

Doe v. University of Cincinnati (S.D. OH 2016) 223 F.Supp.3d 704, 

711, which held that cross-examination was essential in student 

disciplinary proceedings. As discussed above, however, California 

authority was to the contrary when Boermeester’s proceedings 

occurred. (USC I, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 245.) Boermeester’s 

attorney in 2017 could not have foreseen that California law would 

change in 2019 as a result of an Ohio case. We decline to charge 

attorneys with such foresight.
25

We also decline to find forfeiture based on Boermeester’s 

refusal to submit questions for Roe. The record shows Boermeester 

did object to the process by which Roe would be questioned. 

Specifically, he asked for Roe’s answers to be relayed to him 

“unfiltered” or word-for-word so he could use them in his formal 

statement to USC. He explained, “The failure to record or 

transcribe any of the interviews and the admission by at least one 

witness that he lied during his initial interview [referring to MB2] 

have shaken our confidence in the accuracy of this investigation.” 

Boermeester declined to submit questions for Roe only after his 

request was rejected.

Given these circumstances, Boermeester did not waive the 

right to raise the issue of Roe’s cross-examination on appeal. 

(See Warner Constr. Corp. v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 285, 

299–300, fn. 17 [no waiver where objection was overruled and 

objecting party attempted to minimize impact of admission of 

evidence].) To the extent USC contends Boermeester’s objection was 

insufficiently specific, that is, he failed to object on the ground he 

could not question Roe at an in-person hearing, we conclude that 

objection was not supported by the law at the time and would have 

been futile for the same reasons specified above.

We do not find persuasive the dissent’s invited error analysis. 

An error is invited when a party purposefully induces the 

commission of error. (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 

403.) The doctrine of invited error bars review on appeal based on 

the principle of estoppel. (Ibid.) The doctrine is intended to prevent 

a party from misleading a trial court to make a ruling, and then 

profit from it in the appellate court. (Ibid.) 

The dissent accuses Boermeester of making a tactical decision 

when he refused to submit questions for Roe. The record shows 
26

Boermeester only declined to question Roe further after his request 

to receive verbatim answers before the SAR was denied. The record 

does not demonstrate it was a tactical decision designed to induce 

USC to make an erroneous decision that Boermeester could then 

challenge on appeal. Instead, the record demonstrates a 

disagreement about the process by which Roe would be questioned. 

It is clear Boermeester merely abided by USC’s established 

rules and procedures. USC’s policy did not allow for Roe to be 

questioned at an in-person hearing that Boermeester could attend. 

Neither did it contemplate questioning third party witnesses at an 

in-person hearing. The doctrine of invited error does not apply when 

a party, while making the appropriate objections, acquiesces to an

established procedure such as this one. (See K. G. v. County of 

Riverside (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1379 [“ ‘ “ ‘An attorney who 

submits to the authority of an erroneous, adverse ruling after 

making appropriate objections or motions, does not waive the error 

in the ruling by proceeding in accordance therewith and endeavoring 

to make the best of a bad situation for which he was not 

responsible.’ ” [Citations.]’ ”].) Here, Boermeester objected to the 

format of his questions to Roe and we find that any request to 

question third party witnesses would have been futile. Boermeester 

did not invite the error by acquiescing to USC’s sexual misconduct 

procedure.

Finally, we reject the contention Boermeester forfeited this 

issue when he failed to raise it in his administrative appeal. 

Boermeester was prohibited from arguing the proceedings were 

unfair in his administrative appeal. An appeal on this basis would 

have been futile. (In re Antonio C., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 1033.)
27

D. Merits

We now reach the merits of Boermeester’s challenge to the 

fairness of the disciplinary proceedings against him. Relying on 

Allee, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at page 1039, he primarily takes issue 

with the investigator’s “overlapping and conflicting” roles in the 

proceedings and the denial of his right to cross-examine witnesses. 

(Id. at p. 1069.) 

Allee involved a student’s expulsion from USC for 

nonconsensual sex with another student. Division 4 of this court 

concluded USC’s disciplinary procedure failed to provide the accused 

student with a fair hearing. (Allee, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at 1039.) 

The Allee court held that “when a student . . . faces severe 

disciplinary sanctions, and the credibility of witnesses (whether the 

accusing student, other witnesses, or both) is central to the 

adjudication of the allegation, fundamental fairness requires, at a 

minimum, that the university provide a mechanism by which the 

accused may cross-examine those witnesses, directly or indirectly, at 

a hearing at which the witnesses appear in person or by other 

means (e.g., videoconferencing) before a neutral adjudicator with the 

power independently to find facts and make credibility 

assessments.” (Id. at p. 1069.) 

At the time of the disciplinary proceedings in Allee, USC’s 

sexual misconduct policy did not require an in-person hearing and 

the Title IX investigator served multiple roles in the proceedings. 

(Allee, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 1069.) The Allee court found fault 

with the investigator’s “unfettered” discretion to conduct the 

investigation, determine credibility, make findings of fact, and 

impose discipline. (Id. at p. 1070.) 

The court reasoned, “The notion that a single individual, 

acting in these overlapping and conflicting capacities, is capable of 
28

effectively implementing an accused student’s right of cross–

examination by posing prepared questions to witnesses in the course 

of the investigation ignores the fundamental nature of crossexamination: adversarial questioning at an in person hearing at 

which a neutral fact finder can observe and assess the witness’

credibility.” (Allee, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 1068.) The court 

concluded, “a right of ‘cross-examination’ implemented by a single 

individual acting as investigator, prosecutor, factfinder and 

sentencer, is incompatible with adversarial questioning designed to 

uncover the truth. It is simply an extension of the investigation and 

prosecution itself.” (Ibid.) 

Since Allee, Divisions 6 and 7 of this court have reached 

similar conclusions regarding the need for some form of crossexamination at a live hearing. In Westmont College, supra, 34 

Cal.App.5th 622, a student was suspended after a three-member 

panel determined the evidence supported an accusation he sexually 

assaulted another student. The trial court granted the accused 

student’s petition for a writ of administrative mandamus on the 

ground the college did not give him a fair hearing. (Id. at p. 625.)

Division 6 affirmed, finding the college’s investigation and 

adjudication of the complainant’s accusation “was fatally flawed.” 

(Westmont College, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 625.) The Court of 

Appeal found fault with the panel’s failure to hear testimony from 

critical witnesses, even though it relied on their prior statements to 

corroborate the complainant’s account and to impeach the accused’s 

credibility. It also found the panel improperly withheld material 

evidence from the accused that its own policies required it to turn 

over and did not give the accused the opportunity to propose 

questions to be asked of the complainant and other witnesses. (Id. 

at pp. 625–626, 636–639.) Because the record indicated two panel 
29

members relied on the credibility determination of the investigator, 

who was the third panel member, the court also held each member 

of the panel must hear from the critical witnesses—in person, by 

videoconference, or some other method—before assessing credibility. 

(Id. at p. 637.) 

In Occidental College, supra, 40 Cal.App.5th 208, Division 7 

applied the holding in Westmont and found a student expelled for 

sexual assault had received a fair hearing. In Occidental College, an 

external adjudicator heard testimony from the parties, the 

investigator, and five witnesses during a live hearing. The 

adjudicator recommended disciplinary action after considering the 

testimony, summaries of witness interviews, and the investigative 

report. (Occidental College, supra, at p. 219.) The court found 

“Occidental’s policy complied with all the procedural requirements 

identified by California cases dealing with sexual misconduct 

disciplinary proceedings: both sides had notice of the charges and 

hearing and had access to the evidence, the hearing included live 

testimony and written reports of witness interviews, the critical 

witnesses appeared in person at the hearing so that the adjudicator 

could evaluate their credibility, and the respondent had an 

opportunity to propose questions for the adjudicator to ask the 

complainant.” (Id. at p. 224; accord Claremont McKenna, supra, 25 

Cal.App.5th at p. 1070 [“where the accused student faces a severe 

penalty and the school’s determination turns on the complaining 

witness’s credibility . . . the complaining witness must be before the 

finder of fact either physically or through videoconference or like 

technology to enable the finder of fact to assess the complaining 

witness’s credibility in responding to its own questions or those 

proposed by the accused student”].)
30

We agree with the above authorities: In a case such as this 

one, where a student faces a severe sanction in a disciplinary 

proceeding and the university’s decision depends on witness 

credibility, the accused student must be afforded an in-person 

hearing in which he may cross-examine critical witnesses to ensure 

the adjudicator has the ability to observe the witnesses’ demeanor 

and properly decide credibility. (Occidental College, supra, 40 

Cal.App.5th at p. 224; Claremont McKenna, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th 

at p. 1070; Allee, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 1066.) In reaching this 

conclusion, we agree with the prevailing case authority that crossexamination of witnesses may be conducted directly by the accused 

student or his representative, or indirectly by the adjudicator or by 

someone else. (Ibid.) We further agree the cross-examiner has 

discretion to omit questions that are irrelevant, inflammatory, or 

argumentative. (UC San Diego, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1086–

1087.) 

Although we refer to an “in-person hearing,” we do not mean 

to say that the witnesses must be physically present to allow the 

accused student to confront them. Instead, the witnesses may 

appear in person, by videoconference, or by another method that 

would facilitate the assessment of credibility. (Claremont McKenna, 

supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 1070; Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati (6th Cir. 

2017) 872 F.3d 393, 406 (Univ. of Cincinnati) [university’s 

procedures need only provide “a means for the [review] panel to 

evaluate an alleged victim’s credibility, not for the accused to 

physically confront his accuser.”].) 

Boermeester did not receive this type of hearing under USC’s 

2017 sexual misconduct policy. USC’s policy to hold separate 

Evidentiary Hearings and limit cross-examination does not meet the 
31

fair procedure requirements identified in Allee, Westmont College, 

Occidental College, and Claremont McKenna. 

Under the separate Evidentiary Hearing procedure, the 

reporting party could respond to the evidence collected and answer 

any questions submitted by the respondent without the respondent’s 

presence. This procedure effectively denied Boermeester a hearing. 

An accused student is not given a meaningful opportunity to 

respond to the evidence against him if he is not allowed to attend 

the very hearing at which the evidence is presented. (Goldberg v. 

Regents of University of Cal. (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 867, 882 [due 

process requires students be “given ample opportunity to hear and 

observe the witnesses against them”].)

Even if the Evidence Hearings were not separate and 

Boermeester was allowed to attend, the limited cross-examination 

afforded by USC prevented him from fully presenting his defense, as 

required by fair procedure. (UC San Diego, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at 

p. 1104.) Under the sexual misconduct policy, Boermeester could 

only submit questions for Roe to be asked by the Title IX coordinator 

at the Evidence Hearing. Boermeester had no opportunity to 

question any other witness or ask follow-up questions of Roe. 

These limitations prevented Boermeester from fully presenting his 

defense, which was that the eyewitnesses misunderstood what 

happened between him and Roe on January 21, 2017. Allowing 

Boermeester to submit questions for critical witnesses, such as AB, 

MB2, DH, and TS, at a live hearing would further truth finding by 

allowing him to test their recollection, their ability to observe the 

incident, and any biases they may have. It is well established 

“ ‘cross-examination has always been considered a most effective 

way to ascertain truth.’ ” (Univ. of Cincinnati, supra, 872 F.3d at 

pp. 401–402.) 
32

In short, an in-person hearing coupled with indirect or direct 

cross-examination would enable the adjudicator to better assess 

witness credibility in a case where credibility is central to a 

determination of sexual misconduct. (Univ. of Cincinnati, supra, 

872 F.3d at pp. 401–402; Elkins v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 

1337, 1358 [“Oral testimony of witnesses given in the presence of the 

trier of fact is valued for its probative worth on the issue of 

credibility, because such testimony affords the trier of fact an 

opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses.”]; Doe v. Baum 

(6th Cir. 2018) 903 F.3d 575, 586.)

USC contends the holdings in Allee and the other university 

sexual misconduct cases should not be extended to an intimate 

partner violence case on the ground those cases only apply to sexual 

assault or similar sexual misconduct. According to USC, crossexamination is required in sexual misconduct cases because the 

misconduct takes “place behind closed doors, with no witnesses 

other than the parties, and the key issue in dispute [is] consent.” 

USC claims the situation is different here because the misconduct 

“took place in public, was witnessed by at least two individuals, and 

was captured on video.” 

The dissent similarly distinguishes a university sexual 

misconduct case from an intimate partner violence case. In a sexual 

misconduct case, according to the dissent, the accused seeks crossexamination to “shake” the accuser’s story that their sexual 

encounter was not consensual. The dissent asserts the sexual 

misconduct case is different because it does not involve a domestic 

relationship and the victim does not recant.

We disagree. Sexual misconduct cases may also arise from 

domestic relationships and victims also recant in such cases. 

Further, from a procedural standpoint, we see little difference 
33

between a sexual misconduct case such as that described by USC 

and the dissent and an intimate partner violence case such as this 

one. Both cases require the university to make credibility 

determinations based on conflicting statements. It is irrelevant to 

us whether the conflict exists because the man and the woman have 

competing narratives or the man and woman’s narrative competes 

with that of third party witnesses. 

USC was presented with two versions of the January 21 

incident. On the one hand, Roe and Boermeester claimed it was 

playful and not violent. On the other hand, the third party 

witnesses and Roe, in her initial statement, claimed it was violent 

and not playful. Given this conflict, “the credibility of witnesses 

(whether the accusing student, other witnesses, or both) is central to 

the adjudication of the allegation” in this case, just as it was in Allee 

and the other university sexual misconduct cases. (Allee, supra, 30 

Cal.App.5th at p. 1069; see also Claremont McKenna, supra, 25 

Cal.App.5th at p. 1070.) 

We acknowledge the dissent’s point that Roe had recanted and 

it may or may not have benefitted Boermeester to question her 

further. However, as USC indicates, it was not Roe, but the 

eyewitnesses, who were pivotal to USC’s decision. According to 

USC, they provided the necessary support for Roe’s initial account. 

Thus, even absent cross-examination of Roe, Boermeester should 

have been able to cross-examine the third-party witnesses to test 

their recollection, their ability to observe the incident, and any 

biases they may have had against him. 

USC claims credibility of witnesses was not central to the 

adjudication in this case due to the extensive corroborating evidence, 

including the video tape. USC overstates the evidence. The 

surveillance video is not conclusive. The picture is grainy and there 
34

is no audio. The video camera is positioned approximately two 

buildings away from Roe and Boermeester. They are small figures 

in the frame of the video. Additionally, there is a light on the left 

side of the frame, which renders the interaction between 

Boermeester and Roe when they are near the wall barely visible. At 

best, the video corroborates Roe’s initial statement, MB2’s second 

statement, and DH’s statement of what occurred on January 21, 

2017. However, both Roe and MB2 recanted their initial statements 

to the investigator. Contrary to USC’s assertion, adjudication of this 

matter rests on a determination of the credibility of inconsistent 

witnesses, just as in Allee, Occidental College, and Westmont 

College. Accordingly, these authorities apply to this intimate 

partner violence case. 

We likewise find unpersuasive USC’s argument that sexual 

assault and other sexual misconduct violations are different from 

violations involving intimate partner violence and thus should be 

treated differently. USC’s own student handbook describes only 

four “categories” of student misconduct: (1) non-academic violations; 

(2) academic integrity violations; (3) admissions violations; and (4) 

sexual, interpersonal, and protected class misconduct cases. Under 

the “University’s Policy and Procedures on Student Sexual, 

Interpersonal, and Protected Class Misconduct,” the same 

investigative and adjudicative procedure applies to each violation, 

including “sexual assault and non-consensual sexual contact,” 

harassment, stalking, and intimate partner violence. In short, USC 

does not treat sexual misconduct and intimate partner violence 

cases differently. Neither does fair procedure. 

E. Harmless Error 

Lastly, USC asserts any error was harmless, arguing, 

“[n]o amount of additional process would change what can be plainly 
35

observed on the security footage and confirmed in Boermeester’s 

own statements.” We are not convinced. As we have discussed, 

USC overstates what the surveillance video shows. At best, it 

corroborates Roe’s initial statement. Moreover, although 

Boermeester admits he put hands on Roe’s neck while she was 

positioned against the wall, he asserts it was playful. This is hardly 

a confession to intimate partner violence. 

At bottom, this case rests on witness credibility. Even if Roe

had not recanted, USC was still faced with conflicting accounts of 

the incident: Boermeester disputed the characterization of the 

incident as violent, contending they were merely “horsing around.” 

MB2, an eyewitness to the incident, admitted he lied in his initial 

statement. Given these conflicting statements, we cannot say the 

record contains such overwhelming evidence as to render harmless 

the errors identified in this case.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded to the 

superior court with directions to grant Boermeester’s petition for 

writ of administrative mandate. Should USC choose to proceed with 

a new disciplinary hearing, it should afford Boermeester the 

opportunity to directly or indirectly cross-examine witnesses at an 

in-person hearing. Each party to bear his or its own costs on appeal.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

BIGELOW, P. J.

I Concur:

STRATTON, J.
1

Boermeester v. Carry et al.

B290675

WILEY, J., Dissenting.

Unaccountably, in California’s first appellate student 

discipline case about domestic violence, the aggressor emerges as 

the victim. But the university was right to discipline this man. 

Substantial evidence shows he committed domestic violence. All 

procedures were fair. Overturning this discipline is 

unwarranted.

I

Substantial evidence reveals a textbook case of domestic 

violence. I append the victim witness interview and invite 

readers to examine it. (See appendix, post, pp. 24–37.)

A

I summarize the victim’s interview.

After midnight, a drunken man called the woman he lived 

with. It was in the early hours of Saturday, January 21, 2017. 

He wanted her to come get him at a party and drive him home. 

She obeyed. 

He was the drunkest she had seen him. She brought her 

dog Ziggy along in a cage in the car. The man was mean to Ziggy, 

and the dog was shaking. The man yelled at the dog, which 

cowered in the cage. 

They got home and went to the alley. He wanted her to 

drop Ziggy’s leash but she did not want to. The man wanted to 

see Ziggy running off the leash. The woman did not want Ziggy 

off the leash.
2

The man grabbed the back of the woman’s hair hard and 

said “drop the fucking leash.” She said no. The man grabbed the 

woman harder. It hurt, so she dropped the leash.

The man grabbed the woman by the front of her neck. He 

had done this before. He did it to “freeze her” when he wanted to 

stop her. When he did this, it sometimes scared her.

When he grabbed her by the throat this time, it was harder. 

His grip was tight. She could breathe but it hurt and she 

coughed. 

He let go and laughed. 

The man chose this moment to comment about Westworld. 

This sci-fi show is about a theme park where robots look like 

humans. Humans pay to enter and do as they please to the 

robots. The humans can be violent and abusive without 

consequences because the robots’ programming forbids harm to 

humans.

The man told the woman about Westworld: “you can hurt 

the robots because they aren’t well.”

The man took her by the neck and pushed her hard against 

the concrete wall. Her head hit the wall. He let go and then did 

it again. 

A neighbor came into the alley. The man told the neighbor 

they were just playing around.

B

The man and the woman were students at the University of 

Southern California. The man is Matthew Boermeester. The 

woman is Jane Roe.

USC has student conduct rules. One USC rule prohibits 

intimate partner violence. The rule says intimate partner 
3

violence is also known as domestic violence and includes causing 

physical harm to another person. 

USC’s rule against violence does not contain a playing 

around defense. 

Witnesses reported Boermeester’s treatment of Roe to USC, 

which promptly launched an investigation. On Monday, January 

23, 2017, accompanied by her adviser Nohelani Lawrence, Roe 

met with a USC investigator and spoke at length. Roe cried 

throughout this interview.

C

California law is familiar with domestic violence. USC is 

too. USC is an established institution of higher education that 

has promulgated rules about domestic violence and has hired 

professionals to investigate these cases. These trained 

professionals work daily in this specialized world. Their 

firsthand experience supplements their training. It is reasonable 

and procedurally customary to ascribe expertise about domestic 

violence to USC and to its campus specialists. 

Boermeester says we should assume USC is ignorant. But 

he gives neither reason nor legal authority for his self-serving 

and illogical suggestion. 

D

Domestic violence is violence between people living 

together in an intimate relationship. (People v. Brown (2004) 33 

Cal.4th 892, 895, fn. 1 (Brown).) USC refers to this type of 

violence more generally as intimate partner violence.

Domestic violence is a serious social and legal problem in 

the United States, occurring in every economic, racial, and ethnic 

group. Compared to other crimes, domestic violence is vastly 

underreported. Until recent decades, it was largely hidden from 
4

public examination. A fundamental difference between domestic 

violence and other violence (like street violence) is domestic 

violence happens within ongoing relationships expected to be 

protective, supportive, and nurturing. The ties between victim 

and abuser often are strong emotional bonds, and victims 

frequently feel a sense of loyalty to their abusers. (Brown, supra, 

33 Cal.4th at pp. 898–899.) Often abusers use psychological, 

emotional, or verbal abuse to control their victims. (Id. at p. 907.) 

Victims who report abuse to authorities may later protect 

the abuser by recanting their own reports. This presents an 

exceptional challenge for authorities. (Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th 

at p. 899.) 

In the Brown case, an expert explained domestic violence 

victims, after describing the violence to police, often later 

repudiate their descriptions. There is typically “anywhere 

between 24 and 48 hours where victims will be truthful about 

what occurred because they're still angry, they're still scared.” 

But after they have had time to think about it, they commonly 

change their minds. About 80 to 85 percent of victims recant at 

some point in the process. Some victims will say they lied to 

authorities; almost all will attempt to minimize their experience. 

(Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 897; see also id. at p. 903 [quoting 

another expert who testified that, about 80 percent of the time, a 

woman who has been assaulted by a boyfriend, husband, or lover 

will recant, change, or minimize her story].)

Recanting is common because it is logical. The victim may 

still care for the abuser and may be hoping he will not do it again. 

(Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 897.) The abuser or the abuser’s 

family may be pressuring or threatening the victim. (Ibid.) 
5

Professionals familiar with domestic violence understand 

victims logically may recant to protect themselves because 

recanting can appease the abuser. 

The Brown opinion held expert testimony about recanting 

was admissible for the purpose of disabusing jurors of common 

misconceptions about how victims behave. (Brown, supra, 33 

Cal.4th at pp. 905–908.) Part of the court’s logic was, “when the 

victim’s trial testimony supports the defendant or minimizes the 

violence of his actions, the jurors may assume that if there really 

had been abusive behavior, the victim would not be testifying in 

the defendant’s favor.” (Id. at p. 906.) In many or even most 

cases, however, that assumption would be incorrect.

USC presumably knows all this. There is no basis for 

presuming it is ignorant.

E

Substantial evidence permitted the USC investigator to 

understand Roe’s account as a classic case of domestic violence. 

Roe’s lengthy interview record, which appears at the end of this 

dissent, is substantial evidence. 

Roe’s account revealed Boermeester stayed at her 

apartment for a semester. Boermeester controlled her. He told 

her when she could speak and when she was too close to him. He 

used physical abuse when she did not obey. He poked and hit 

her, causing bruising. He told her to shut up. He kicked her 

when she got too close. He took her by the neck to “freeze her” 

when he wanted to stop her. 

Boermeester made Roe feel worthless. He told her she was 

stupid and a lousy tennis player. (Roe was a nationally ranked 

member of the USC tennis team.) He was rude to her parents 
6

and her friends, thus undermining her emotional support system 

and imposing a me-or-them choice.

Boermeester punished Roe if she misbehaved and made her 

feel as though problems were her fault, not his. He refused to 

return her apartment key, despite paying no rent and having no 

right to be there. He never apologized or took responsibility. 

When she asked if he would feel bad or sorry if he hurt her, he 

said no, because she brought it on herself.

In this domestic relationship, Boermeester grabbed Roe by 

the neck on January 21, 2017. He pushed her hard against a 

concrete wall, she hit her head, he let go, and then he did it 

again. He did not stop until a neighbor appeared, and then 

Boermeester said they were just playing around.

On January 23, 2017, Roe asked USC for an Avoidance Of 

Contact order against Boermeester. She requested emergency 

housing. The implication is unmistakable: she was scared of 

Boermeester and wanted to get away from him.

F

The domestic violence victim recanted. On Tuesday, 

January 24, 2017, Roe began recanting, and she continued in the 

following days. On February 7, 2017, Roe tweeted to the media 

that the charges against Boermeester were false. Roe became 

increasingly extensive in her recantation, through to the end of 

USC’s investigation.

II

USC’s investigation was thorough and fair. 

The investigator interviewed 18 witnesses and wrote a 78-

page single-spaced report. The report included lengthy 

statements from Boermeester and from Roe that vigorously 

asserted his innocence. 
7

The amount of process was considerable. Accompanied by 

his mother, who is an attorney, Boermeester gave his side of the 

story during the investigation. Boermeester retained a law firm. 

On March 10 and 22, 2017—twice—he had the opportunity to 

review all information and documents the investigator gathered. 

Boermeester and his retained attorney reviewed this evidentiary 

record. Boermeester then had the opportunity to submit 

questions for Roe, but (through his attorney) he declined to do so. 

After reviewing the evidence, Boermeester had the opportunity to 

respond to the evidence, to answer questions posed by Roe, and to 

submit new information. Neither Boermeester nor Roe 

submitted questions for each other or for anyone else. Both opted 

to skip their hearings and to submit written statements in lieu of 

meeting. 

USC’s process involved four layers of review.

First was the investigation. Upon concluding the extensive 

investigation, the investigator determined Boermeester was 

responsible for intimate partner violence. 

The second layer was a separate panel. The sanctions 

panel reviewed the record and decided to expel Boermeester. 

The third layer was the Misconduct Appellate Panel. 

Boermeester appealed to this separate panel. Pages 494 and 495 

of the Administrative Record spell out the duties of this 

Misconduct Appellate Panel. These rules empowered the 

Misconduct Appellate Panel to decide whether substantial 

evidence supported the investigator’s fact finding. The 

Misconduct Appellate Panel also was to determine whether this 

fact finding supported the investigator’s conclusions about policy 

violations. 
8

This Misconduct Appellate Panel exercised independent 

judgment. It recommended a two-year suspension rather than 

expulsion for Boermeester. 

The fourth layer was USC’s Vice President for Student 

Affairs, who was USC’s final decisionmaker on student discipline. 

This USC Vice President overruled the Misconduct Appellate 

Panel’s recommendation and determined the appropriate 

sanction was expulsion. 

Boermeester applied for a fifth layer of review by filing in 

the Superior Court. On March 21, 2018, the trial judge rendered 

a comprehensive and thoughtful 22-page opinion rejecting 

Boermeester’s claims. 

The trial court found substantial evidence supported USC’s 

decision to discipline Boermeester. 

The trial court emphasized the contemporaneous nature of 

Roe’s initial statement on January 23, 2017, noting the law 

ascribes more reliability to statements made right after a 

stressful event than to statements made only after witnesses 

have had time to ponder the consequences of their words. 

The judge quoted from the Brown case, reciting the 

established tendency of domestic violence victims to recant as 

part of the behavior patterns common in abusive relations. The 

judge wrote the “tendency is so well established that it is 

admissible, in the form of expert testimony, in prosecutions of 

domestic violence cases.”

The judge canvassed California law and rejected 

Boermeester’s claim that USC had denied him due process. The 

court found USC accorded Boermeester ample process.

In sum, Boermeester got full notice of the charges and the 

evidence against him. He had multiple opportunities to respond. 
9

The process took more than a year and generated a record 

exceeding 2,000 pages. 

The process’s conclusion was Boermeester took Roe by the 

throat and shoved her against a concrete wall, which was 

intimate partner violence. USC deliberated about the penalty 

and decided to expel Boermeester.

USC’s process was careful and fair. Its conclusion was 

straightforward: Boermeester should be disciplined for his 

domestic violence.

III

Boermeester’s least specious argument about his 

supposedly unfair treatment concerns live witness crossexamination. (I agree Boermeester’s notice was ample and his 

suspension was proper.) But Boermeester refused to submit 

cross-examination questions for Roe. No wonder. His tactical 

reason was that questioning Roe was the last thing Boermeester 

wanted, now that she had recanted completely and had come over 

to his side in a public way, on Twitter and all the rest. 

Questioning Roe—chancing any opportunity for her to modify or 

to contradict her recantation—offered Boermeester only peril. 

From Boermeester’s perspective, Roe’s recantation was perfect as 

it stood. Additional questioning could only spoil a good thing. So 

naturally Boermeester’s lawyer refused to submit questions for 

Roe. 

That means the cross-examination issue on appeal is 

entirely manufactured. It is not unfair to deny someone 

something they did not want.

Lest there be doubt, study the exact words in the record. 

USC asked Boermeester’s attorney to submit questions for Roe 

and, through counsel, Boermeester refused. In response to USC’s 
10

invitation to propose questions for Roe, Boermeester’s lawyer told 

USC “I am not interested in having [Roe] come in and being put 

on the spot yet again.” The italics are mine.

Boermeester and his lawyer were free to ask for anything 

they wanted because the USC investigator created a continuously 

productive and collegial working relationship during the 

investigation. When Boermeester’s lawyer peppered USC with email questions, USC responded promptly and professionally.

For example, Boermeester’s lawyer e-mailed USC that he 

could not access a document from his desktop computer. USC 

wrote back within five minutes: “I just checked and you were 

granted access. I went ahead and re-invited you. Let me know if 

it works.” 

Sometimes USC did not grant Boermeester and his lawyer 

everything they wanted. But other times USC did accommodate 

Boermeester and his lawyer. USC’s written rules did not 

mandate or require these accommodations. USC gave them 

anyway, because it was behaving fairly and reasonably.

For instance, USC offered Boermeester and his lawyer a 

second time to examine the evidentiary record—an invitation 

Boermeester and his lawyer accepted. No USC rule required 

this.

In another situation, Boermeester’s lawyer asked USC to 

give Boermeester access to a telephone while examining evidence 

because the lawyer had “run into a serious snag here.” USC 

granted his request: “No problem.” 

It was 4:59 p.m. when Boermeester’s lawyer e-mailed this 

request for a favor. It was 8:09 p.m. that same day when USC 

granted the favor Boermeester’s lawyer requested. 
11

USC literally was working overtime to be responsive to 

Boermeester and his lawyer.

Through all this free give and take, Boermeester’s lawyer 

never requested live cross-examination. Rather, he expressly 

disavowed it and instead asked that USC e-mail questions to Roe. 

USC agreed to do that. USC’s response was: “You send me the 

questions and we will ask them of [Jane Roe].” 

Boermeester’s lawyer wrote “We would want to have 

questions sent to [Jane Roe] to respond and answers sent to us 

unfiltered.” 

USC said it indeed would not filter. It would provide the 

answers verbatim, and he would get them before any Summary 

Administrative Review.

The sole difference between Boermeester’s lawyer and USC 

during this e-mail exchange was whether Boermeester would or 

would not get Roe’s answers that same afternoon—an immaterial 

timing detail Boermeester never mentions in briefing to this 

court. 

Boermeester claims this one exchange about filtering shows 

he adequately preserved for appeal all issues regarding crossexamination. This is incorrect. USC told Boermeester it would 

give him Roe’s unfiltered answers. True, there was an issue 

about timing, but Boermeester has abandoned this timing issue. 

He has never raised it in this appeal. His issue now is crossexamination. But Boermeester wrote USC “I am not interested 

in having [Roe] come in and being put on the spot yet again.” 

Grasp the strangeness of this situation. To USC in 2017, 

Boermeester’s lawyer said he did not want Roe to come in and be 

put on the spot again. On appeal in 2020, Boermeester’s lawyer 
12

now says it is reversible error because Roe did not come in and 

was not put on the spot again. 

To rule for Boermeester on this issue in this situation is 

unusual. Accepting such an argument in this context is 

unprecedented.

The same goes for witnesses besides Roe. Boermeester 

never sought those cross-examinations, and for good reason. 

These witnesses offered Boermeester nothing but danger.

Recall the context. The looming problem was Roe’s detailed 

and damning original statement, the one appended to this 

opinion. An objective reading of that statement reveals it as the 

most powerful evidence in the case. 

Boermeester admitted the basic physical facts. He told 

USC “[m]y hand was on her neck, but it was normal.” When 

asked whether Roe made contact with the alley wall, 

Boermeester responded, “I mean, we were standing next to it. It 

was a sexual thing.” 

Given that Boermeester’s defense was his actions were 

mere horseplay—horseplay that Roe understood and accepted—

there was no point in cross-examining witnesses besides Roe.

Cross-examining DH could not matter. DH saw Roe pinned 

against the wall by Boermeester, who had his hand on her. DH

did not see or hear Roe hit the wall. DH’s account was consistent 

with Boermeester’s version of events. 

Cross-examining TS could not matter. TS did not report 

seeing Boermeester put hands on Roe. TS arrived in the alley 

after the event. He was not an eyewitness to the disputed event.

Cross-examining MB2 was like cross-examining Roe: a 

good thing for Boermeester to avoid. MB2 initially minimized 

having seen much in the alley. Then his guilty conscience made 
13

MB2 contact USC on his own initiative. MB2 had initially 

minimized because Roe asked him to protect Boermeester and to 

downplay the event. But MB2 confessed his initial lie was 

bothering him. What he had actually seen, he now revealed, was 

that Boermeester “domestically was abusing [Roe].” He said the 

“truth is I really wanted to beat the shit out of this guy 

[Boermeester].” 

Cross-examining a witness like that is playing with fire. 

Boermeester sensibly passed on this opportunity to play Russian 

roulette. Boermeester’s reasonable litigation strategy was to 

disparage MB2’s second statement as a contradiction and to 

avoid giving MB2 a soapbox on which to vent.

In sum, there is good reason why Boermeester never asked 

to cross-examine witnesses other than Roe. These witnesses 

either did not matter or were hazardous to question further. 

Boermeester sensibly avoided further questions to these 

witnesses. 

There was no deprivation of a right to confrontation. 

Rather, there was no request for it. This was a thoughtful 

litigation strategy by competent counsel to avoid confrontation 

and to leave the record as it stood. As it stood, the record was not 

pretty, but defense counsel had to play the hand his client dealt 

him. Adding questioning—adding confrontation—was not going 

to help. It was likely to backfire. The choice was to argue the 

case as it stood or to risk making the record worse. Counsel 

chose to steer clear of the risk. That was reasonable. But that 

also should have shut off any appeal on the topic.

Boermeester claims futility. He says it would have been 

futile to ask for what he now says was indispensable. That is 

incorrect. His attorney was vigilant and aggressive. When he 
14

wanted something, he asked for it. Sometimes USC 

accommodated him; sometimes not. Every institution is free to 

depart from written procedures when both sides agree that is the 

fair and reasonable thing to do. Nothing barred Boermeester 

from asking for further questions for any witness. 

Boermeester did not ask for questions, not because it was 

futile to do so, but because he did not want further questions. As 

we have seen, the record contradicts his claim it was futile for 

him to request questioning.

Boermeester cites In re Antonio C. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 

1029, 1033, but there the prosecution conceded futility. That also 

is true of People v. Hopkins (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1699, 1702, 

where there is no sign the parties contested the issue of futility 

and consequently no analysis of the issue. These cases are 

irrelevant.

To show it is futile to object, counsel generally must show it 

is costly to assert your rights. (E.g., People v. Hill (1998) 17 

Cal.4th 800, 820.) There was nothing like that in the civil and 

productive working relationship between Boermeester and USC. 

To reverse USC for failing to grant Boermeester something he 

never requested is unwarranted. It would be unprecedented, and 

an unwise retreat from the usual rule.

The usual rule is you must ask for something you later 

claim on appeal was vital, so the school can know what you want 

and can resolve your issue short of litigation. (Doe v. Occidental 

College (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1003, 1018 (Occidental I) [issue 

must be raised in the first instance at the hearing or appellant 

forfeits it]; Doe v. Occidental College (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 208, 

225 (Occidental II) [“By failing to make the argument until his 
15

appeal to this court, [the complaining student] forfeited it.”] 

[collecting forfeiture authorities].)

The rationale for this rule is fairness and efficiency. A 

school is entitled to learn the contentions of interested parties 

before litigation is instituted so it can gain the opportunity to act 

and to render litigation unnecessary. (See Sierra Club v. City of 

Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 535.) 

Boermeester asks to be excused from this rule of fairness 

and efficiency, so on appeal he can get what he never requested 

during the school’s proceedings. 

I would stick with the usual rule: if you want something, 

ask for it. Stockpiling secret grievances should not be acceptable.

Boermeester also makes a different argument than futility. 

This argument is unforseeability. Boermeester now claims he 

could not reasonably have been expected to foresee the holding in 

Doe v. Allee (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1036 (Allee) requiring crossexamination. Boermeester makes this unforseeability argument 

as another excuse for attacking USC about the crossexaminations he never asked USC to give him.

Boermeester’s unforseeability argument is insupportable. 

In 2016, before the events in Boermeester’s case, a court already 

had held “cross-examination was essential to due process” in a 

student discipline case. (Doe v. University of Cincinnati

(S.D.Ohio 2016) 223 F.Supp.3d 704, 711.) This ruling was 

affirmed on appeal. Represented by the same lawyer now 

representing Boermeester, student Doe in the Allee case relied 

heavily on this University of Cincinnati precedent. The Allee

court followed this lawyer’s lead, repeatedly citing and discussing 

both the trial and appellate rulings in the University of 
16

Cincinnati case. (Allee, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1059, 1061, 

1062, 1064, 1066, 1068.) 

In short, Boermeester’s lawyer in 2017 indeed could have 

foreseen something written into law in 2016.

So the strangeness remains. Boermeester’s lawyer was 

comfortable asking USC for favors because USC was responsive 

and professional. Boermeester’s lawyer had legal authority for 

demanding cross-examination. Yet this lawyer never requested 

cross-examination. It was the opposite: Boermeester’s lawyer 

wrote he did not want it. But now Boermeester’s lawyer says 

USC treated him unfairly for not giving him what he did not 

want. That is strange. 

IV

Boermeester seeks to import precedents into this domestic 

violence setting from outside it, but his suggestion is unsound. 

These precedents involve cross-examination when a woman and a 

man tell conflicting stories: he said nothing bad happened; she 

said oh yes it did. In those cases, disciplinarians had to decide 

which speaker to believe. The accused man wanted crossexamination to shake the woman’s story. Here, by contrast, the 

two versions came from one witness: Roe’s witness statement 

close to the event versus Roe’s later recantations. Boermeester 

did not want to cross-examine Roe because that tactic could only 

harm him. 

Boermeester cites precedents, but they never deal with a 

victim of domestic violence who recants. His citations do not 

apply here, because the worth of cross-examination to an accused 

changes fundamentally when the victim recants. An accused 

wants to confront accusers steadfast in their accusations to shake 

the force of their accusations. But when a domestic violence 
17

victim has publicly recanted, the accused already has all he 

wants. Further questioning offers him only hazard. 

Boermeester’s precedents follow a common fact pattern 

inapplicable to this case. The common fact pattern involves two 

people who do not live together: they are not cohabitants. They 

are not in a domestic relationship. And there is no domestic 

violence. Rather, there is some short-lived and unhappy sexual 

encounter, with the woman and the man maintaining different 

versions afterwards about what happened. There is never 

recantation. Thus there is never the situation where the accused 

wants to sustain, not to shake, the recantation.

There are 11 such cases. 

1. Occidental II, supra, 40 Cal.App.5th at pages 211–220 

[woman and man lived separately and disagreed 

about whether she was too incapacitated to consent to 

sexual relations after a fraternity party; no mention of 

domestic violence or a recanting witness];

2. Occidental I, supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at pages 1006–

1013 [woman and man lived separately; sexual 

penetration after a party; man said woman consented; 

woman said she did not consent; no mention of 

domestic violence or a recanting witness];

3. Doe v. Westmont College (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 622, 

627–629 (Westmont) [woman and man lived 

separately and disagreed about whether they had 

intercourse during a college party; no mention of 

domestic violence or a recanting witness];

4. Allee, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at pages 1043–1053 

[woman and man lived separately; one episode of 

intercourse; man said woman consented; woman said 
18

she did not consent; no mention of domestic violence 

or a recanting witness]; 

5. Doe v. University of Southern California (2018) 29

Cal.App.5th 1212, 1216–1229 (USC 2018) [woman and 

man lived separately and disagreed about whether the 

woman was too drunk to consent to a night of sexual 

activity; no mention of domestic violence or a 

recanting witness];

6. Doe v. Regents of University of California (2018) 28 

Cal.App.5th 44, 46–55 [woman and man lived 

separately and disagreed about whether they had 

sexual relations during a birthday party; no mention 

of domestic violence or a recanting witness];

7. Doe v. Claremont McKenna College (2018) 25 

Cal.App.5th 1055, 1058–1064 [woman and man lived 

separately and disagreed about whether the woman 

consented to intercourse; no mention of domestic 

violence or a recanting witness]; 

8. Doe v. Regents of University of California (2016) 5 

Cal.App.5th 1055, 1058–1072 [woman and man lived 

separately and disagreed about whether they had 

consensual sexual relations; no mention of domestic 

violence or a recanting witness];

9. Doe v. University of Southern California (2016) 246 

Cal.App.4th 221, 224–238 [woman and man lived 

separately and disagreed about whether the man 

failed to protect the woman from sexual assault by 

other men at a fraternity party; no mention of 

domestic violence or a recanting witness];
19

10. Doe v. Baum (6th Cir. 2018) 903 F.3d 575, 578–580 

(Baum) [woman and man lived separately and 

disagreed about whether she was too incapacitated to 

consent to sexual relations at a fraternity party; no 

mention of domestic violence or a recanting witness]; 

11. Doe v. University of Cincinnati (6th Cir. 2017) 872 

F.3d 393, 396–399 [woman and man lived separately 

and disagreed about whether their one episode of 

sexual relations was consensual; no mention of 

domestic violence or a recanting witness].

In sum, Boermeester asks this court to do what no court 

has done: overturn student discipline because the accused 

student did not get a chance to question a recanter, which is 

something the accused said he did not want and something that 

could have done him no good. 

The same is true for Boermeester’s new theory that the real 

problem was his inability to cross-examine secondary witnesses 

like MB2 and DH. If Boermeester has cited holdings to that 

effect, I have missed them. I am not familiar with a holding that 

discipline will be overturned when a school does not entertain 

cross-examination that is never requested.

The cases to date all concern the right of confrontation 

when it could possibly have done the man some good. No 

precedent deals with a situation where the man wanted to avoid 

confrontation because it offered him only peril.

V

It mystifies me how California Courts of Appeal have 

concluded the federal due process clause applies when there is no 

state action. Intermediate appellate courts have announced a 

state common law rule that procedures in private schools should 
20

mirror the federal constitution. That is a leap. State law 

governing private schools can depart from constitutional rules 

that govern state institutions. (E.g., Doe v. Trustees of Boston 

College (1st Cir. 2019) 942 F.3d 527, 533–534.) 

Someday the California Supreme Court may choose to trace 

and to evaluate this rule’s rise in the lower California courts. 

If this happens, it may be notable that the present is a time 

of ferment in the field of student misconduct discipline. 

A

The law is in ferment. 

Boermeester contends it is unconstitutional for schools to 

use a disciplinary process departing from a fully adversarial 

model. USC designed a less adversarial model we can call an 

investigatory, as opposed to an adversarial, approach. 

It may be some esteemed institutions of higher education 

prefer an investigatory approach to an adversarial one. (See 

Tamara Rice Lave, A Critical Look at How Top Colleges and 

Universities Are Adjudicating Sexual Assault (2017) 71 U.Miami 

L.Rev. 377, 393–394.) 

Perhaps there are good reasons why.

Some courts condemn the investigatory approach. (See 

Baum, supra, 903 F.3d at pp. 581–585; Allee, supra, 30 

Cal.App.5th at pp. 1067–1069 [citing Baum].)

But this position is controversial. (See Haidak v. 

University of Massachusetts-Amherst (1st Cir. 2019) 933 F.3d 56, 

68–71 [criticizing Baum; U.S. law considers the inquisitorial or 

investigatory model “fair enough for critical administrative 

decisions like whether to award or terminate disability benefits. 

See Sims v. Apfel [(2000)] 530 U.S. 103, 110–[1]11 . . . (explaining 

that Social Security proceedings are inquisitorial rather than 
21

adversarial).”]; Westmont, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 637 

[combining investigative and adjudicative functions does not, 

without more, deprive a student accused of sexual misconduct of 

a fair hearing]; USC 2018, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 1235, fn. 

29 [although investigator held dual roles as the investigator and 

adjudicator, the combination of investigative and adjudicative 

functions does not, without more, constitute a due process 

violation].) 

In sum, there is a nationwide legal debate about the right 

way to investigate claims of student misconduct. There is little 

consensus.

B

The facts are in ferment. At this moment there is 

considerable procedural experimentation. On hundreds or 

thousands of campuses across the land, informed and thoughtful 

people are discussing the right way to handle these cases. This 

discussion is in good faith and is wide open. There is ongoing 

innovation and little consensus. 

The American Law Institute (ALI) launched a project in 

2015 to evaluate this debate and to advise school decisionmakers. 

By design, the ALI’s process is deliberate and thoughtful. The 

project remains in process.

C

At this moment of discussion, a grave concern is the effect 

of mandatory cross-examination on the willingness of victims to 

report abuse. 

We are learning a lot recently about why abuse victims 

may be reluctant to report abuse and to trigger a process leading 

to more abuse. 
22

Being cross-examined is an unattractive prospect. Skilled 

cross-examiners take pride in being fearsome. We often say a 

good cross-examination “destroyed” a witness, that the crossexamination was “scathing.” These words are accurate. They are 

telling. 

The prospect of being destroyed by a scathing crossexamination can deter reporting. Fine words in opinions 

somewhere about all the possible procedural adjustments may 

mean little to a lonely and traumatized woman anguishing over 

her options. 

Striking the right balance is a challenge. It would be 

beneficial to tap the ongoing national debate and 

experimentation before promulgating some mandatory 

constitutional code of campus procedures. Judge Henry Friendly 

praised the wisdom of Justice Harlan and quoted his words: “I 

seriously doubt the wisdom of these ‘guideline’ decisions. They 

suffer the danger of pitfalls that usually go with judging in a 

vacuum. However carefully written, they are apt in their 

application to carry unintended consequences which once 

accomplished are not always easy to repair.” (Henry Friendly, 

Some Kind of Hearing (1975) 123 U.Penn. L.Rev. 1267, 1302, 

quoting Sanders v. United States (1963) 373 U.S. 1, 32 (dis. opn. 

of Harlan, J.).)

D

Striking the right balance ought to concern courts, but not 

in this case. This case was never about a denial of crossexamination—not until now, at any rate. At the university level, 

Boermeester disavowed interest in “putting Roe on the spot 

again” because his litigation strategy was to sustain her 

recantation and to avoid roiling it. Nor did Boermeester lift a 
23

finger to try to cross-examine other witnesses during USC’s 

process. 

Boermeester’s counsel has manufactured this crossexamination issue. He has done so because he hopes someone 

will accept his construct, not because cross-examination was 

anything he sought at the time. His construct makes 

Boermeester the victim. USC is the perpetrator.

This is awry. I would not intrude on USC’s 

decisionmaking, which was procedurally proper and is supported 

by substantial evidence.

WILEY, J.
24

APPENDIX

Jane Roe Intake Interview 

Source: Administrative Record pp. 183–189

Word count: 3404

Notes: “T9” presumably means Title IX

MB presumably means Matthew Boermeester 

Jane Roe Intake – (JR)

Date: January 23, 2017

Location: CUB

Advisor: Lani Lawrence

Interviewers: Lauren Elan Helsper (LEH) and Gretchen Means 

(GM)

JR has been dating Matt since March 2016. Their relationship 

was on and off for a while but that is when they started seriously 

seeing each other.

Why are you here today?

- JR knows this is a “bad situation” but she hasn’t told 

anyone. “This is the worst one, the one people know” 

(regarding the incident over the weekend which prompted 

her coming to the office)

- “I still care about him”

At the beginning of the relationship JR had bruises on her arm 

from Matt and her dad found out and wanted her to get a 
25

restraining order against him. JR told her father that the bruise 

was “circumstantial” and his concern died down. Her parents 

don’t like him.

She doesn’t know what to do or if she wants to do anything. She 

knows he can’t be in her life

Matt lived with her all fall semester. He got “screwed out” of his 

rent situation in August and it fell through. He presented it to 

JR as, “I am here all the time, I am going to live with ‘CT’ and 

pay a little there” but stay with JR really. He told her about 

living with CT and paying money there so they weren’t moving in 

together. He wasn’t paying rent to JR or to CT. Matt moved his 

stuff into her apartment and he was living with her. He never 

presented it to her though as he was going to move in. He never 

left. They broke up and he would stay or they would fight and he 

wouldn’t leave.

Now he has his own apartment since Christmas break but he has 

still been at her apartment.

Matt tells JR that he hates her and is mad at her and when she 

asks “Why are you here?” He said, “I can do whatever the fuck I 

want” and tells her to “Shut up.”

“There is no arguing with him. He doesn’t think he is doing 

anything wrong.” Matt thinks JR deserves it. They broke up 

because JR went to dinner with her ex and lied about it to Matt 

and so he sees it as her fault. The other day, JR asked Matt, 

“What if you hurt me bad. Would you feel bad? If you were 
26

playing around and it hurt?” Matt told her “no,” because it would 

have been brought on by her. He gets mad at her if she doesn’t 

back away or stop talking when he tells her too [sic].

JR acknowledges that she knows that this is not her fault.

Matt was not nice to her roommates so they didn’t like him. One 

of her roommates tried to get her evicted because he was there. 

This was in end of October. The roommate went to the landlord 

instead of talking to JR. The roommate didn’t realize that Matt 

doesn’t listen to JR when she tells him to leave and instead tells 

her that she can leave but it is her house.

She is 5”4-5”’5 [sic] and she weighs 130. He is stronger than she 

is but she doesn’t factor that into things.

On Friday they spent the day together. They are not together 

and haven’t been together for a while but he still is at her house 

often. They had a “good day.” MB went to party and was 

drinking a lot. He called her at 12:30–1am to pick him up so she 

did. (He often goes out, parties, and calls her to pick him up). 

They went to get food and came back to her place. He was the 

drunkest she has ever seen him. He was yelling at people and 

tried to be funny. There is an alley behind the house and he was 

yelling in the alley.

They got out of the car and he wanted her to drop Ziggy’s leash 

but she didn’t want to. (He is mean to Ziggy and she was shaking 

in the floor. He yells at her and she cowers in the cage). He 

grabbed the back of JR’s hair hard and said “drop the fucking 
27

leash” and she said no. Matt grabbed JR harder and then she 

dropped the leash because it “hurt.” DH heard them yelling.

Matt grabbed JR by the neck (which he has done before but this 

time it was harder). She was coughing and he let go and 

laughed. He made a comment about the show “west world” and 

how you can hurt the robots because they aren’t well. JR didn’t 

really understand it). He grabbed her by the neck, pushed her 

hard against the [concrete] wall, she hit her head, he let go and 

then did it again. DH and TS saw and another neighbor came 

out. He said that they were just “playing around.”

DH and TS took her into their apartment and Matt was asleep 

when she got back to her room.

(Regarding holding her by the neck) - Matt grabbed her from the 

front. He was holding “tight.” She could still breathe but it hurt 

and she coughed. He has done this before. But he says that he is 

“messing around.” He does it when he is rough housing (not 

sexually) or to “freeze me” when he wants to stop her. The times 

they were “messing around” she was sometimes scared.

He hits her or does something to egg her on and tries to get her to 

play and then he grabs her by the neck to stop her.

This Friday was the “worst.” Her head hurt for a little after she 

hit the wall.

She often has bruises on her legs or arms because “he is always 

doing something.”
28

If JR didn’t stay with Matt after the incident, “he wouldn’t 

understand.” For example, the next day he slept all day in her 

bed. She went to speak to DH and Matt said don’t go over there, 

“tell him to deal with his shit” and Matt was “freaking out” and 

said, “what the fuck? Why are you taking that long?” (when it 

was only 30 minutes)[.] Matt just yells at her. She didn’t want to 

make it worse and so she just does what he says to avoid yelling 

and conflict.

Bruises on arms – When JR doesn’t do what Matt wants she gets 

bruised. That is a more recent thing (when they were together, 

he would grab her arm too tight). Recently Matt is “more angry,” 

“I am too close to him or I don’t get away fast enough or if I don’t 

stop talking” then he hits her with a pointed finger so she gets 

bruises. He does that to her arm, leg, lower back, stomach. 

Sometimes he laughs. She feels like she doesn’t respond as 

“severely” as she should. She says ouch but doesn’t laugh, but 

she “downplays it” and is not firm. She does this to keep it light 

and because she is uncomfortable. She tried yesterday to be more 

serious and he said, “stop, I don’t care.” He didn’t take her 

seriously.

Matt has pulled her hair more than once. He gives her a dead 

arm/leg (punches in a certain spot so the body goes numb and it 

hurts but it goes limp). It is a hard hit. He does this when she 

doesn’t do what he wants her to do.

He thinks it is fun to “fight” and wants her to engage and eggs 

her on or when she doesn’t do what he wants. Even when she 

does engage. (He slaps her 15 times to egg her on and then 
29

finally she does it back and says stop and he says stop and then 

he will do it again and say, he had to get her back). “It is to get 

her going.” JR thinks he thinks it is having fun.

He did it yesterday when they were just watching TV and he 

started (she doesn’t know what starts it) and he starts messing 

with her, hitting her and she says stop and he will keep going.

“It feels too painful for it to just be playful but the attitude 

behind it is just being playful.” She is not sure if this is what he 

is used to from his brothers or is not realizing enough is enough.

When Matt first started hurting her, it was not often and it has 

gotten worse. “I was kind of taken aback.” The first time she 

was scared of him was when they got into a fight at the beginning 

of the relationship. He was yelling, and “shook me really hard” 

and threatened to hit her. This was the first time she was 

scared. This was a while ago. She thought about it like just a 

fight. “He said that he is only like this because she made him do 

this, or he can’t trust her or they weren’t actually together and 

that “he will get better.”

“It then started playful and it hurt but his attitude was confusing 

and it just got worse and worse and then I was like in it.”

Before Matt, JR was with someone else that was a really good 

guy. They were together for about 2 years. Matt came into her 

life. He is very manipulative and she believed that she wanted to 

be with Matt instead. “[T]he highs are very high and the lows 

are very lows [sic].” At that point her relationship with the other 
30

guy was “very solid.” “Matt was flashy” and took her on crazy 

dates that the other guy couldn’t give her. She drifted to Matt. 

He said that at first, he couldn’t be nice to her because she was 

with the other guy and that made sense to her at the time.

They had problems in the relationship. He was mean and always 

putting her down. He told her how stupid she is. Recently for a 

24 hour period she decided to write down every mean thing he 

said to her on her phone. She read a long list of things. After 

hearing how dumb she is, how bad she is at tennis, and always 

being put down, she started to believe it.

JR did not cheat on Matt but “when things got bad” (her ex was 

always sweet) [s]he sometimes would go to dinner with the other 

guy because “it was really bad” (with Matt). She slept over her 

exes [sic] house but didn’t do anything. She knew it would

sabotage the relationship with Matt. The next day, she told Matt 

and he shook her, Matt was so “mad” and somehow convinced JR 

that she needed to fix it. He made her feel bad and that she was 

imagining these problems. “So he would give me one more 

chance.” “[B]ut already then I was on his leash.” The whole time 

she had to prove herself.

In the end of October, her ex said that he had to go back to Brazil 

and that he wanted to go to dinner with her first. She went 

without telling Matt but he found out. Matt broke up with her. 

He told her that she deserved it. He told her that she could still 

prove her worth and “get me back.” He would go out nightly and 

come back to JR’s place and yell at her nightly and she would cry 

and it was “very intense.”
31

When they broke up (and in her prove herself phase) she hooked 

up with someone and he was nice to her. Matt found out and 

thought that, “I did so much wrong that I deserve this.”

He still lived in her room and slept in the same bed as JR even 

though they were broken up. That is when her roommate tried to 

evict her.

They didn’t talk for a week over New Years and then he was at 

his apartment for a week. He had surgery on his knee, he got 

sick and came back to JR’s because he said, “closer to walk 

there.” Matt told her that he came to stay with her because “You 

do what I say, I hate you but it is easier.” “I need to take care of 

him he says.”

His ego is “through the roof” since the Rose Bowl.

She spent a lot of time over the summer with his family. His dad 

is super sweet and submissive, his mom runs the family. Mom is 

a lawyer, she is very nice but in charge of the family.

JR gave a timeline of events:

December 2015–April 2016 Matt was in her life (seeing each 

other but not dating)

April 2016–end of October 2016 – they were dating

June 2016 (early) – shaking incident

1st August – he officially moved into her house

End of October 2016 – they broke up but he was still at her 

house. He was going on dates with girls and talking to girls 

while living with her
32

Matt moved out the first week of spring 2017

From April to June – there were no physical incidents

The shaking incident was in June because she went to dinner 

with her ex

June to when Matt moved-in to her place in August – the 

physical contact was not very often maybe once a week if not less. 

“It was playful but it wasn’t that bad. It has gotten stronger. It 

didn’t hurt like now.”

Her parents noticed the bruising before the June incident – Matt 

kicked her when she was in bed because she was coming closer to 

him and her kicked her arm to get her away. Her parents found 

out because she was crying and told her ex that she was scared of 

Matt and he called her parents and told them

Shaking incident – “he was mad because I didn’t want to show 

him my phone so he took it, threw it out the door” and then shook 

her.

The physical contact “became more often and more hurtful” – “I 

think it is longer than I really want to remember. In my mind I 

think it was really recently. But then I had the bruise on [my] 

arm in May.” It has been more often since they broke up if not 

before then and probably something every day but the degree 

varies if they spend solid hours together in privacy.

- He did these things privately. She doesn’t think anyone 

knew.

- Her roommates knew but her voice didn’t get the urgency 

to make them think it was bad. They knew he was verbally 

abusive.
33

The next day (after the weekend incident) she tried to talk to 

Matt and she said that he scared DH and TS and they heard him 

yelling and “it looked really bad when you pushed me and it 

looked really bad with your hand around my neck.” Matt said “it 

was a joke, we were messing around, tell them to calm down.” He 

said, “tell them you’re into that” and he implied that it was 

foreplay.

Matt is the star child and is very spoiled but if his parents knew 

they would be very mad. Matt does not talk to her nicely

Mom – [name redacted] (lawyer)

He never forced her during sex or hurt her during sex.

On Saturday he was yelling which got DH and TS’s attention, He 

was just being a loud drunk person. DH at first thought it was a 

loud drunk person and then he heard JR’s voice. At first she was 

laughing, probably they heard her say no to drop the leash. He 

woke them up and then they heard her.

He wanted to “toughen me up.” He wanted me to call him names 

back or hit him back. He thought [she] was too submissive 

because she didn’t want to.

Looking back how do you think your roommates might describe 

you as they thought something was going on?

- Her best friend wanted her out of the relationship for a 

long time. She was strong and told JR she was “weak.”
34

- DH would say she has been very “preoccupied” she can’t do 

what she wants. She is very controlled.

- People didn’t understand the severity but knew that he was 

treating her badly. They thought she was being weak or 

stupid. She was she knew because it is hard.

- “He is very good at making me feel like I need him.” 

He has torn her down so she has become dependent 

on him.

- Throughout the time, her ex was supportive and telling her 

she was the best and trying to lift her up but it wouldn’t 

register because Matt was saying negative things to her

- She still had feelings for Matt and she didn’t know why. 

She has been “holding onto the highs even though it has 

been low for a really long time.”

A week before they broke up she went to him to break up because 

he was mean and disrespecting her parents and but [sic] he told 

her “no, we aren’t breaking up.” He said “every time we get into 

a fight, you are going to run? No, we are going to work this out.”

He always said that he was the best thing that she was going to 

get. She started to believe it and she couldn’t go anywhere.

Now she is starting to realize how bad it was. She became numb 

that he treats her bad and isn’t worked up like she was in the 

past. ([T]his is after the break). She made him soup because he 

told her he was sick and she offered toast. He was so mean about 

the toast that she cried. But in the past week, she is stronger.
35

Last night, he said that he is done and that he won’t come over 

anymore. But in the past, she would say, “no, don’t go” but she 

“still can’t say get the fuck out.” She is less madly in love with 

him than she was before.

Her best friend is dating RP and he is a great guy. RP told her 

Matt is ‘bad news.’ RP asked MB for JR’s key back over break 

and Matt said no.

GM explained her options regarding moving forward:

1. Avoidance of Contact – and we will try to get the key back 

from him

2. GM explained that we have to investigate what happened on 

Friday even without her because of the witnesses and the 

neighbor

 a. This afternoon there is a panel regarding an interim 

suspension

 i. Clay already knows 

She is scared because she didn’t want “to burn him.” She knows 

that she didn’t bring it to us. GM explained that people are very 

scared for her. GM said that it will be clear it was made by T9 

and not her.

She graduates in December 2017 and he has one more year at 

USC.

DH told JR that he is not going to participate.
36

GM offered emergency housing. She wants it to feel safe. She 

wants it tonight and tomorrow night and then Sunday and 

Monday when she returns from her team tennis trip.

GM explained:

 1. The panel will meet re: to discuss whether interim action is 

necessary to protect JR and restrict him

 2. AOC will be served from T9 and Matt will not be allowed to 

contact apartment – mates (JR stated that she wants the AOC)

 3. He will be served with the charge letter for IPV

 4. He will be served with everything at once – on Thursday 

after she goes to Auburn

JR’s dad is a professor and if he calls we can explain the process 

and [what] we are doing.

Matt has the password for her computer and she is going to 

change it.

She has a hard time relating to the severity for herself and for his 

consequences

Witness – Best friend is an alum (GO);

She is going to get us the name of the neighbor – MB2

{REDACTED}

Lani’s number – GM has

JR is not participating in the investigation. JR and LL completed 

the FERPA form and the confidentiality agreement
37

GM explained academic accommodations

Investigator Notes: JR was crying throughout the meeting. She 

offered information regarding her entire history with MB. After 

GM told her that T9 was forced to go through an investigation on 

the Friday incident as there are witnesses, JR said that she 

understand[s]. JR does not want to participate in the 

investigation and did not want T9 to charge on the conduct that 

she divulged other than the Friday incident.