John Doe Versus ESD School of Dallas

CAUSE NO. ________________
JOHN DOE, individually and as next
friend for JOHN DOE, JR., a minor,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE EPISCOPAL SCHOOL OF
DALLAS, INC.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
_JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, JOHN DOE, individually and as next friend for JOHN DOE,
JR., a minor, and files this Original Petition complaining of and against Defendant, THE
EPISCOPAL SCHOOL OF DALLAS, INC., and, in support thereof, would respectfully show
unto the Court as follows:
I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1. In accordance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 190.4, Plaintiff alleges that
discovery is intended to be conducted under Level 3.
II.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiffs, JOHN DOE and JOHN DOE, JR., a minor and the son of JOHN DOE
(collectively, "Plaintiffs"), are residents of Texas, and may be served for all purposes through
their Counsel of Record as designated below.
3. On information and belief, Defendant, THE EPISCOPAL SCHOOL OF
DALLAS, INC. ("Defendant" or "ESD" or the "School"), is a Texas domestic non-profit
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION PAGEl
DC-15-04152 Tonya Pointer
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
4/13/2015 3:14:05 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK

corporation that that is organized and authorized to conduct business in the State of Texas.
Defendant ESD may be served with process through its registered agent, Robert Buchholz, 4100
Merrell Road at Midway, Dallas, Texas 75229, or wherever else he may be found.
III.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
4. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court as the damages fall within the jurisdictional
limits of this Court.
5. Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas, as Dallas County is where the principal
office of the Defendant is located, and because Dallas County is the county in which all or a
substantial part of the acts or omissions which give rise to the claims set forth below occurred.
See TEX. CN. PRAC. & REM. CODE§ 15.002. Venue is further permissive in Dallas County for
breach of a written contract pursuant to TEX. CN. PRAC. & REM. CODE§ 15.035, et seq.
IV.
PLAINTIFF'S RULE 47 STATEMENT
6. Pursuant to TEX. R. CN. P. 47, Plaintiffs seek monetary relief over $1,000,000.00
and a demand for judgment for all the other relief to which Plaintiffs deems themselves justly
entitled, including damages of any kind, penalties, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees.
v.
FACTS
7. Plaintiffs' claims arise out of Defendant's wrongful and tortious conduct against
John Doe, John Doe, Jr., and John Doe's family during John Doe, Jr.'s tenure as a student at
ESD.
8. ESD, a well-known private preparatory school in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas
Metroplex, represents itself as being one of the top preparatory schools in the nation that
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE2

"prepares young men and women for lives of intellectual discovery, integrity, and purpose."
ESD claims that the "Founding Tenets" upon which it prepares these young men and women are
"Daily Worship," "Community," "Ethical Decision Making," and "Service." ESD represents to
its students and their families that "[t]he Episcopal School of Dallas is a faith-centered
community in which we all work together to maintain an atmosphere of mutual trust and
respect," and claims that a "successful school year" is one "in which each student's intellectual,
emotional, and social growth is accompanied by spiritual and moral growth." In fact, ESD's
Code of Conduct specifically provides that:
"All adults in the community- faculty, staff, independent contractors, Board
members, and parents - are expected to embrace the Code of Conduct and
related principles, expectations, and supporting policies in any situation that
involves the School and its good name. Students look to adults as role models
and for examples of appropriate boundaries.
ESD believes that working with students is best done in partnership with
their families. Faculty and staff strive to maintain positive and professional
communication, act as role models, and work to protect the physical and
emotional safety of their students." (emphasis added)
Needless to say, ESD's reputation and financial viability wholly rest upon these representations,
and ESD expects its students, their parents, and their families (or potential students, parents, and
families) to rely on these representations, the expectation of an environment built on "mutual
trust and respect," the expectation that ESD will foster each student's "intellectual," "emotional,"
"social," "spiritual," and "moral" growth, and alleged "partnership" with its student's families.
In fact, families-like that of John Doe, Jr.-spend several hundreds of thousands of dollars each
year in tuition and donations solicited by ESD simply to ensure that their child receives the best
education and development possible.
9. Ironically, ESD does not always "practice what it preaches," as was the case with
John Doe, Jr.

10. John Doe, Jr. enrolled as a student at ESD in 2008 and has consistently been an
exceptional student-both academically and behaviorally-at ESD. John Doe, Jr. had no record
of any drug, alcohol, or major academic or Honor Code violations at ESD prior to the events
giving rise to this lawsuit.
11. Since 2008, John Doe, Jr.'s family has paid ESD several hundred thousand of
dollars in tuition and private donations with the expectation that ESD would fulfill its mission,
follow its internal governance rules and regulations, and abide by its Code of Conduct while
John Doe, Jr. was enrolled as a student. ESD, however, failed to maintain these standards and
abruptly-expelled John Doe, Jr. and/or forced John Doe, Jr. to withdraw from his enrollment with
Defendant during his junior year in Fall of 2014-notwithstanding the facts that John Doe, Jr.'s
family had already paid full tuition for the 2014-2015 school year and had heavily invested in the
ESD system based on ESD's representations that the investment would benefit John Doe, Jr.'s
future collegiate and professional careers.
12. Prior to his expulsion, John Doe, Jr. had been guided by the Defendant's
"intellectual," "emotional," "social," "spiritual," and "moral" guidance of which John Doe, Jr.
relied upon Defendant's guidance to act in his best interests, and placed his trust and confidence
in Defendant and its administration.
13. In January of 2014, John Doe, Jr.'s family paid the tuition for John Doe, Jr.'s
expected enrollment in the 2014-2015 school year. As part of the payment of this tuition, John
Doe, Jr.'s father, John Doe, read and relied upon the representations made in the Episcopal
School of Dallas Enrollment and Tuition Agreement (the "Enrollment Agreement").
14. The Enrollment Agreement not only set out several contractual provisions for the
respective obligations of ESD and John Doe, but it also incorporated additional material

representations of fact concerning ESD's "principles and standards," such as those expressly
provided in ESD's "Mission Statement, Founding Tenets, Honor Code, applicable Student
Handbooks, Educational Goals, and Values as they are expressed, from time to time, on [ESD's]
website and in various [ESD] publications." According to the Enrollment Agreement, "[s]uch
principles and standards are an integral part of understanding, interpreting and performing the
duties and responsibilities represented in this Agreement." John Doe and John Doe, Jr. relied on
ESD's obligations and material representations when determining to re-enroll John Doe, Jr. for
the 2014-2015 academic school year and pre-paying his entire tuition for the year.
15. As part of the expressed representations and promulgation of ESD's duties and
obligations under the Enrollment Agreement, ESD sent its students and their families a copy of
the Episcopal School of Dallas Upper School Student and Parent Handbook 2014-2015 (the
"Handbook") in August of 2014. John Doe, Jr. and John Doe received a copy of the Handbook,
which contained express obligations and material representations by ESD. John Doe, Jr. and
John Doe expected ESD to fulfill its obligations and duties and abide by its representations
during the 2014-2015 school year for which John Doe, Jr. was enrolled in ESD's Upper School.
16. The Handbook received by and relied upon by John Doe, Jr. and John Doe
contained ESD's Code of Conduct, which included and incorporated the ESD Academic Pledge,
the ESD Responsible Use Policy, and the enrollment contract (i.e., the Enrollment Agreement).
The Handbook also requires that "[a]ll adults in the community - faculty, staff, independent
contractors, Board members, and parents - are expected to embrace the Code of Conduct and
related principles, expectations, and supporting policies in any situation that involves the School
and its good name."
17. The Handbook further expressly stated and provided notice to ESD's students and
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION PAGES

families that "the Handbook is subject to amendment as necessary at any time during the school
year," and that "any such changes in policy and procedure will be announced and reflected in the
online version."
18. Following several months of evaluating, considering, and debating the "best way
to structure [ESD's] system for the greatest benefit to [its] students," on or about September 23,
2014, ESD sent its enrolled students and families-including John Doe, Jr. and John Doe-the
September 23, 2014 Letter to Upper School Families (the "Letter Amendment"), which
contained further express obligations and material representations regarding the quality of
services provided by ESD to its students, including John Doe, Jr. The September 23, 2014 Letter
to Upper School Families also made the following material representations and warranties to
ESD's students and families:
• "Clear boundaries, expectations and repercussions support the development of self-
discipline. [ESD's] Code of Conduct provides a reasonable, consistent, and fair
disciplinary structure."
• "ESD's disciplinary system is not punitive in nature."
• "We take to heart, that in most cases, students should be given a chance to redeem
themselves. We are not a zero-tolerance school."
• "The vast majority of consequences in the following Response Chart and
Consequence Matrix are NOT new changes in policy. These are the responses that
that [sic] school has been issuing for these offenses for many years; we are now
formally published [sic] them."
• " ...We believe in protecting privacy whenever possible and giving students a chance
to change their behavior and learn from experiences."
• "We will not impose a consequence without verifiable evidence. We will act when
we have actual evidence, but gossip, rumors, and second and third hand information
are not sufficient. If your own child was involved, you would want the school to be
certain of the facts before acting."
(emphasis added). The Letter Amendment expressly and materially amended several of ESD's

policies, obligations, and duties as contained in the Handbook-specifically those policies
concerning ESD's General Response Chart for Upper School Discipline and Code of Conduct
Violations and Alcohol and Drug Related Offenses. John Doe, Jr. and John Doe relied on these
representations when continuing to remain enrolled at ESD for the 2014-2015 academic school
year.
19. ESD made further material representations to Plaintiffs by and through ESD's
General Response Chart for Upper School Discipline (the "Response Chart") and Code of
Conduct Violations and its Consequence Matrix and the Consequence Matrix - Alcohol and
Drug Related Offenses (the "Consequence Matrix"), both of which are incorporated into and
made a part of the parties' obligations under the Enrollment Agreement.
20. The Consequence Matrix represented that, for off-campus offenses without major
incident or effect on the reputation of the school, that ESD would simply "call [the student's]
parents to inform them of the information/rumors of which the school has knowledge." If the
student was actually responsible for the incident, then an additional "two detention halls" might
be issued for the student. The Consequence Matrix contains no representations that a student
would be forced to withdraw or be expelled for such violations-especially where ESD's
administrative officials, admittedly, possessed no verifiable proof (at the time of the expulsion)
that any such violation actually occurred.
21. For purposes of on-campus instances of drug or alcohol use where the student was
involved in an alcohol or drug offense without consumption or possession, the Consequence
Matrix represented that the response would be. "one day of Community Separation." If the
student actually consumed or possessed alcohol or drugs on campus, then the student might be
subject to a "minimum one day of suspension," might be "required to attend a drug or alcohol

education class," "Disciplinary Probation," and may be "required to submit to random testing for
a time determined by the school."
22. Per the representations contained in the Consequence Matrix, ESD represented
that only circumstances in which a "separation" could even potentially be consequence for a
student was by: (a) a "Second" or "Third" Offense of Consumption or Possession on campus or
at a School event; (b) a "Violation of required testing" stemming from consumption or
possession on campus or at a School event; or, (c) a "Refusal to be tested" stemming from
consumption or possession on campus or at a School event.
23. John Doe, Jr. and John Doe materially and justifiably relied on these express
obligations and material representations made by ESD when deciding to re-enroll John Doe, Jr.
and/or continue his enrollment at ESD. Contrary to these representations, warranties, and
expressed obligations of ESD as part of the Enrollment Agreement, however, ESD expelled John
Doe, Jr. and/or forced John Doe, Jr. to withdraw from his enrollment with Defendant in direct
violation of its obligations, among others, without any "verifiable evidence" against John Doe,
Jr.
24. As grounds for expelling John Doe, Jr. and/or forcing John Doe, Jr. to withdraw
from his enrollment with Defendant, ESD alleged that on or about September 30, 2014, John
Doe, Jr. was involved in certain acts which ESD claimed were in violation of its Code of
Conduct. ESD "framed" John Doe, Jr. and fabricated a scenario-without any actual evidence
and based on second and third-hand hearsay and gossip about events-by alleging "multiple"
violations of ESD's policies by John Doe, Jr. ESD singled-out John Doe, Jr., arbitrarily applied
consequences in direct contradiction of its prior material representations and express obligations
contained in ESD's materials (e.g., the Response Chart and Consequence Matrix), and forced
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION PAGES

John Doe, Jr.'s expulsion in violation of its representations and obligations to John Doe, Jr. and
John Doe. On information and belief, this wanton and reckless fabrication of events was
motivated by one or more of ESD's administrators for personal reasons.
25. Prior to the alleged incidents in question, John Doe, Jr. had .!!Q prior record of rule
violations as alleged by ESD. Nevertheless, acting on unverifiable proof of John Doe's
involvement obtained by non-credible, "second and third hand information," ESD and its
administration expelled, directly or indirectly, or otherwise force John Doe, Jr. to withdraw from
his enrollment at ESD in direct violation of its obligations, fiduciary duties, and material
representations and warranties to John Doe, Jr., John Doe, and the Doe family.
26. Furthermore, notwithstanding these representations and warranties that ESD is
"not a zero-tolerance school" and rather than follow its own "General Response Chart for Upper
School Discipline and Code of Conduct Violations," ESD imposed its most severe punishment
against John Doe, Jr.-a minor, without any prior record of the actions alleged by ESD-by
expelling and/or forcing John Doe, Jr. to withdraw from his enrollment at ESD. ESD's decision
to expel and/or force John Doe, Jr. to withdraw follows its prior representations to its students,
including John Doe, Jr., made just one week prior to the events in question specifically regarding
consequences and actions that ESD represented were, at most, only punishable by a phone call to
John Doe, Jr.'s family, a possible 1-day suspension or drug testing, and/or handled by the ESD
Honor Counsel (or, at most, 2-3 day suspensions)-all of which being contingent upon the fact
that John Doe, Jr. had actually been found guilty of the acts for which ESD had alleged,
27. All of the actions follow a practice and pattern of ESD's school officials of
selective enforcement of its policies and procedures. For example, another minor individual,
G.B., who was also implicated by ESD in the same exact allegations along with John Doe, Jr.-

if not even more involved by virtue of the fact that he actually admitted to the wrongdoing-only
received a one-day suspension rather than an expulsion. Such lesser punishment imposed by
ESD for G.B., when G.B. actually admitted to partaking in the alleged actions, constitutes direct
violations ofESD's contractual and fiduciary obligations to John Doe, Jr.
28. Furthermore, on information and belief, the very same school officials who were
involved in choosing John Doe, Jr.'s punishment have, themselves, acted against ESD's
proclaimed policy of "clear boundaries, expectations and repercussions" during instances in
which their own children have used or served alcoholic beverages at the houses of these school
officials and with their knowledge. Such lesser, selective, and self-interested implementation of
ESD's punishments and consequences demonstrates a lack of institutional control by ESD's
administration, especially given the fact that such officials willingly disregard ESD's policies in
favor of their own children. Such conduct by ESD and its administration constitutes direct
violations ofESD's contractual and fiduciary obligations to John Doe, Jr. and John Doe.
29. As a result of Defendant's wrongful, extreme, and outrageous conduct, Plaintiffs
have suffered severe emotional distress, embarrassment, grief, shame, humiliation, and worry.
John Doe, Jr. has now been deprived of the abilities to: (a) attend the school of his choosing; (b)
participate in extracurricular activities; (c) enjoy the company of his friends and acquaintances
that he has developed during his attendance at ESD; and, (d) other opportunities. Moreover,
John Doe, Jr. has wrongfully received "black marks" against his permanent record as a student
which will undoubtedly follow him throughout the remainder of his personal, academic, and
professional careers, has been forced to enroll in a different school and start a life anew while
contemporaneously dealing with the consequences of ESD's actions, and has suffered severe
emotional distress from the stigmas attached to the actions for which he has been wrongfully

accused and expelled John Doe, Jr. and/or forced John Doe, Jr. to withdraw. Likewise, John Doe
spent and/or donated several thousands of dollars to ESD on his son's behalf in reliance on
Defendant's material representations and with the belief that he was providing his son with the
best possible "intellectual," "emotional," "social," "spiritual," and "moral" foundations for John
Doe, Jr.'s life. All of John Doe's efforts, however, have seamlessly been squandered by ESD's
wanton and reckless conduct toward his son.
30. Conversely, ESD has benefitted and become unjustly enriched at the expense of
John Doe, Jr. and John Doe due to substantial donations and tuitions paid to ESD.
31. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs now bring this Lawsuit against ESD seeking to
recover for ESD's numerous breaches of its fiduciary duties, express warranties,
misrepresentations, contractual obligations, and negligent acts against John Doe, Jr. and John
Doe, all of which have caused embarrassment, severe emotional distress, harm, and damages to
Plaintiffs.
VI.
PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS
1. Count One: Breach of Fiduciary Duties
32. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate and re-allege the allegations set forth above.
33. As described herein, Defendant maintains fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs which
arise from Defendant's moral, social, domestic, and/or personal relationship with Plaintiffs.
Since 2008, Plaintiffs have relied upon Defendant for John Doe, Jr.'s "intellectual," "emotional,"
"social," "spiritual," and "moral" guidance and to act in Plaintiffs' best interests. Plaintiffs
placed their trust and confidence in Defendant and its administration.
34. By and through the actions complained of herein, Defendant has breached its
fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs, including its duties of loyalty, due care, acting with the utmost good
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION PAGEll

faith, candor, acting with integrity of the strictest kind, fair and honest dealing, and its duties of
full disclosure.
35. Moreover, permitting Defendant to keep John Doe's tuition payments and
donations is not fair and equitable to Plaintiffs. Defendant did not make reasonable use of the
confidences that Plaintiffs placed upon it. Defendant did not act in the utmost good faith to
Plaintiffs, nor did Defendant exercise the most scrupulous honesty toward Plaintiffs. Defendant,
vis-a-vis its administrative officials, placed its own interests before that of Plaintiffs, used every
advantage against Plaintiffs to gain at the expense of Plaintiffs and for Defendant's benefit.
Defendant and its administrative officials deliberately placed themselves in a position where
their own interests collided with the interests of Plaintiffs. And, Defendant acted secretly and
failed to fully and fairly disclose all important information to Plaintiffs before John Doe paid
tuition and made substantial donations to Defendant and on John Doe, Jr.'s behalf.
36. Not only has Defendant breached its fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs, but
enforcement of the indemnity, release, waiver and/or hold harmless provisions contained in the
Agreement, including any allowance for Defendant to keep the payments made to Defendant, is
presumptively unfair when such transaction: (a) was made without full disclosure to Plaintiffs;
(b) rests on inadequate consideration in favor of Defendant; (c) was made without providing
Plaintiffs the benefit of independent advice; and, (d) was made for the significant benefit of
Defendant and at the expense of Plaintiffs given the full nature and circumstances of the
transaction.
37. As a result, Defendant's actions have caused injuries to Plaintiffs, thereby
resulting in economic, non-economic, mental-anguish, special, general, consequential, reliance,
restitution, and incidental damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

38. If there is an enforceable agreement, then Plaintiffs further seek rescission or
avoidance of the Agreement and disgorgement and/or forfeiture of any fees, profits, contractual-
consideration, or any other benefits obtained by Defendant through its wrongful conduct.
2. Count Two: Negligent Misrepresentations
40. As described herein, Defendant made representations to Plaintiffs-vis-a-vis the
School's Student Handbook, with the School's Code of Conduct, the School's Expectations of
the Code of Conduct, the School's policies, the September 23, 2014 Letter to Upper School
Families (the "Letter Amendment"), and the General Response Chart for Upper School
Discipline and Code of Conduct Violations-in the course of Defendant's business and/or in a
transaction in which Defendant held a pecuniary interest. Plaintiffs are persons or members of a
class of persons whom Defendant intended to benefit and/or whom Defendant knew would
receive such information.
41. The information and representations provided by Defendant were materially false,
misstatements of existing facts and made for the guidance of others, including Plaintiffs, in the
course of Defendant's business.
42. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in obtaining and/or communication
such information and representations contained in the School's Student Handbook, with the
School's Code of Conduct, the School's Expectations of the Code of Conduct, the School's
policies, the September 23, 2014 Letter to Upper School Families (the "Letter Amendment"),
and the General Response Chart for Upper School Discipline and Code of Conduct Violations to
Plaintiffs.
43. Plaintiffs materially and justifiably relied upon the Defendant's representations to

their own detriment.
resulting in economic, non-economic, special, general, consequential, reliance, restitution, and
incidental damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
3. Count Three: Common-law Fraud, fraudulent inducement, and fraud by non-
disclosure
46. As described herein, Defendant (or, the "School") made material
representations-vis-a-vis the School's Student Handbook, with the School's Code of Conduct,
the School's Expectations of the Code of Conduct, the School's policies, the September 23, 2014
Letter to Upper School Families (the "Letter Amendment"), and the General Response Chart for
Upper School Discipline and Code of Conduct Violations-to Plaintiffs in the course of
Defendant's business and/or in a transaction in which Defendant held a pecuniary interest.
These material representations were made by Defendant to Plaintiffs, either directly or indirectly,
and Defendant intended, or had reason to expect, that Plaintiffs would rely upon these
representations when enrolling at and attending the School.
47. The information and representations contained in the School's Student Handbook,
with the School's Code of Conduct, the School's Expectations of the Code of Conduct, the
School's policies, the September 23, 2014 Letter to Upper School Families (the "Letter
Amendment"), and the General Response Chart for Upper School Discipline and Code of
Conduct Violations were materially false, misstatements of existing facts and/or false promises
of future performance by Defendants. Defendants knowingly and recklessly made these
misrepresentations for the guidance of others, including Plaintiffs, in the course of its business as
a private School.

48. Additionally, Defendant concealed or failed to disclose information about its
policies and procedures. Acting in its moral, social, domestic, and/or purely personal
relationships of trust and confidence with Plaintiffs, Defendant created false impressions about
the quality and type of services it would provide to Plaintiffs by making only partial disclosures
with respect thereto. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, Defendant maintained "secret" or "alternative"
policies and procedures in direct contravention of the actual representations Defendant made to
Plaintiffs concerning its policies and procedures. These "secret" or "alternative" policies and
procedures were never disclosed to Plaintiffs prior to Plaintiffs' material and justifiable reliance.
49. Plaintiffs materially and justifiably relied upon the Defendant's representations,
omissions, or concealments to their own detrimen~.
51. Plaintiffs further seeks rescission or avoidance of the Agreement and a return of
any and all consideration paid to ESD under the Agreement, including Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
incurred herein, as the Agreement is marred by Defendant's fraud and would unjustly enrich
Defendant at the expense and to the detriment of Plaintiffs.
4. Count Four: Breach of Contract (Alternatively)
53. In the alternative to Counts 1, 2, and 3, on or about January 31, 2014, Plaintiffs
and Defendant entered into the Episcopal School of Dallas Enrollment and Tuition Agreement
(the "Agreement"). John Doe, Jr. was an intended third-party beneficiary of the Agreement, as
John Doe and Defendant intended to secure Defendant's benefits for John Doe, Jr. and entered
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION PAGElS

into the Agreement directly for John Doe, Jr.'s benefit.
54. In exchange for John Doe's agreement to pay the required tuition, Defendant
agreed to enroll John Doe, Jr. for the entire 2014-2015 academic year.
55. John Doe has fully and/or substantially performed his contractual obligations
under the Agreement.
56. Defendant, however, has materially breached the Agreement (and amendments
thereto) by failing to enroll John Doe, Jr. for the entire 2014-2015 academic year, failing to
adhere to its obligations and duties as set forth in the Agreement and/or incorporated into the
Agreement vis-a-vis subsequent amendments thereto (as described, supra).
57. Defendant further breached the Agreement by fabricating an alleged "violation"
by Plaintiff of the School's policies, the School's Student Handbook with the Code of Conduct,
and Expectations of the Code of Conduct, all of which are expressly referenced and incorporated
into the Agreement as amendments thereto. Defendant disregarded its own policies, procedures,
and guidelines contained in the School's Student Handbook, with the School's Code of Conduct,
the School's Expectations of the Code of Conduct, and the School's policies when determining
to and, in fact, expelling John Doe, Jr. and/or forcing John Doe, Jr. to withdraw from his
enrollment with Defendant.
58. Defendant's numerous breaches of the Agreement have caused injuries to
Plaintiffs, thereby resulting in economic, non-economic, special, general, consequential, reliance,
restitution, and incidental damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
59. Plaintiffs now seek unliquidated damages from Defendant in amounts within the
jurisdictional limits of this Court.
60. Plaintiffs further seek a declaratory judgment that the Agreement is invalid and

that any indemnification, release, or hold harmless provisions contained in the Agreement are
unenforceable.
61. Alternatively, Plaintiffs seek rescission of the Agreement and a return of any and
all consideration paid to ESD under the Agreement.
5. Count Five: Promissory Estoppel, Unjust Enrichment, and Money Had and
Received/Assumpsit (Alternatively)
63. In the alternative to Count 4 (Breach of Contract), Defendant made certain
promises to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs reasonably and substantially relied on the promises to Plaintiffs'
detriment. Plaintiffs' reliance was foreseeable by Defendant.
64. Alternatively, Defendant has now been unjustly enriched at the expense of and to
the detriment of Plaintiffs.
65. Alternatively, Defendants hold money that belongs to Plaintiffs. Said money
belongs to Plaintiffs in equity and good conscience.
67. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing Defendant's promises to Plaintiffs.
6. Count Six: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Alternatively)
69. Alternatively, as described herein, Defendant has committed intentional or
reckless actions against John Doe, Jr., a minor and individual, and John Doe.
70. Defendant desired to cause Plaintiffs the consequences of its acts and/or believed
the consequences of its acts were substantially certain to result. Alternatively, Defendant's
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 17

..
conduct was reckless because Defendant knew or had reason to know of facts that created a high-
degree of risk of harm to Plaintiffs, and then deliberately proceeded to act in conscious disregard
of or with indifference to that risk.
71. The emotional distress suffered by Plaintiffs is severe in degree.
72. Defendant's conduct was extreme, outrageous, and harassing in nature, especially
given the nature of the relationship between Defendant and Plaintiffs.
74. This claim is plead in the alternative to the claims asserted above and in the event
that there is no alternative cause of action which would provide a remedy for the severe
emotional distress caused by Defendant's conduct.
7. Count Seven: Respondeat Superior Liability
76. Plaintiffs were injured as a result of the tortious acts complained of herein.
77. The tortfeasors were employees of Defendant.
78. These tortious acts were committed by Defendant's employees while the
employees were acting within the scope of their employment with Defendant, in that the acts
were within the employees' general authority, in furtherance of Defendant's business, and for the
accomplishment of the objects for which these employees were hired by Defendant.
VII.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
80. Plaintiffs' injuries have further resulted from Defendant's gross negligence,
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION PAGElS

malice, and actual fraud. Plaintiffs, therefore, are entitled to exemplary damages under the Texas
Civil Practices & Remedies Code, Section 41.003.
IX.
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS
82. Plaintiffs seek to recover reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and costs
incurred to prosecute this lawsuit, including, but not limited to, recovery of attorneys' fees under
TEX. Crv. PRAC. & REM. CODE§§ 37.009 and 38.001.
X.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
83. All conditions precedent necessary for Plaintiffs to have and recover in these
actions have been performed or have occurred.
XI.
REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE
84. Please take notice that pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure, Defendant is hereby requested to disclose the information or material described in
Rule 194.2 and within the applicable time period as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
194.3(a).
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request that
citation issue and process be served on Defendants and that, upon final hearing, Plaintiffs have
and recover judgment from and against the Defendants, in the amounts set forth above, for actual
damages, exemplary damages, reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees incurred by Plaintiffs in
prosecuting this action, for costs and expenses of suit herein, for pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest on all monetary relief sought herein at the highest rates allowed by law, and for

such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.
Date: Apri113, 2015.
Respectfully submitted,
FRIEDMAN & FElGER, L.L.P.
By: /s/ Lawrence J. Friedman
Lawrence J. Friedman
State Bar No. 07469300
!friedman@fflawoffice.com
John C. Sokatch
State Bar No. 24083889
jsokatch@fflawoffice.com
5301 Spring Valley Road, Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75254
Telephone (972) 788-1400
Telecopier (972) 788-2667
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
RULE 1.08 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
Pursuant to Local Rule 1.08, the undersigned hereby provides notice to all parties that
there exists a related case currently pending in Dallas County, styled John Doe v. Jeff Laba, et
al., Cause No. DC-14-12716, in the 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas.
!sf Lawrence J. Friedman
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

John Doe Versus ESD School of Dallas

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to John Doe Versus ESD School of Dallas

Similar to John Doe Versus ESD School of Dallas (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

John Doe Versus ESD School of Dallas