Karasek
Karasek v. Regents of the University of California, The
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
BACKGROUND
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
26 I have discussed the factual background of this case in many previous orders. Here, I 27 include only those facts relevant to the current motion. A. The University’s Alleged Sexual Misconduct Failures Commins alleges that the University took or failed to take a number of actions that amount to or relate to policies of deliberate indifference to sexual misconduct. Many of Commins’s claims about the University’s broad policies are based on an audit performed by the California State Auditor that was published in June 2014. See Sixth Amended Complaint (“SAC”) [Dkt. No. 151] ¶ 19; California State Auditor, Rep. No. 2013-124 Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence (2014), https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2013-124.pdf (the “Audit”). That Audit examined four California universities’ sexual misconduct policies and responses, including the University’s. This is the second motion to dismiss this claim after appeal. See Karasek v. Regents of Univ. of California, No. 3:15-CV-03717-WHO, 2020 WL 6684869, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020) (“Prior Order”). Most relevant to the…