Background
J.M., a minor proceeding through a guardian ad litem, brought a class action against Illuminate Education, Inc. after a 2022 data breach allegedly exposed his confidential medical records to third parties. His first amended complaint asserted one cause of action under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and another under the Customer Records Act. After Illuminate demurred, J.M. filed a second amended complaint rather than opposing the demurrer, revising his allegations and adding negligence, breach-of-contract, and misrepresentation claims.
The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, struck the second amended complaint on procedural grounds, and later denied reconsideration, finding the proposed pleading failed to state a statutory claim or support the additional causes of action. It dismissed the first amended complaint and entered judgment. The Court of Appeal initially reversed, concluding the proposed second amended complaint sufficiently supported CMIA and CRA claims.
The California Supreme Court then granted review, reversed, and transferred the matter for further proceedings. It held that J.M. had not sufficiently alleged that Illuminate was a provider of health care for CMIA purposes or that J.M. was Illuminate's customer under the CRA, but it did not opine on the viability of the additional causes of action and left the lower courts to consider whether J.M. could be granted leave to amend if he requested it.
The Court’s Holding
On transfer, the Court of Appeal considered supplemental letter briefs. J.M. maintained he could allege Illuminate's software was used primarily to diagnose and treat learning disabilities and that Illuminate had admitted collecting medical information disclosed in the breach. The court identified the governing burden: the plaintiff must prove that an amendment would cure the pleading defect. It also noted J.M. had not submitted a proposed third amended complaint, leaving his intended allegations unclear.
The court described J.M.'s apparent theory — educators entering student information into the software, medical professionals using it to diagnose conditions, and educators using the diagnoses to provide treatment — as his position, not a finding that amended claims would succeed. It therefore remanded with directions to allow J.M. to seek leave to amend; the trial court must decide, under Illuminate, whether J.M. raises a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. The court did not itself grant leave to amend.
The disposition reverses the judgment, permits J.M. to seek leave to file a proposed third amended complaint within 30 days of remittitur, and orders each party to bear its own costs on appeal. The court also granted J.M.'s unopposed July 31, 2026 request for judicial notice of a final judgment and permanent injunction in a separate enforcement action arising from the same breach. The opinion is not certified for publication and may not be cited under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a).
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court's holdings defeated the CMIA and CRA claims as pleaded but did not resolve whether further amendment should be permitted, and it did not opine on the negligence, contract, or misrepresentation claims.
- The Court of Appeal did not grant leave to amend itself; it reversed and remanded with directions that J.M. may seek leave within 30 days of remittitur, leaving the reasonable-possibility-of-cure decision to the trial court.
- J.M. bears the burden of proving that an amendment would cure the identified pleading defects.
- The appellate court recounted J.M.'s proposed diagnostic-and-treatment theory without finding it states a viable claim under any statute.
- The opinion is unpublished and not citable or reliable as precedent under rule 8.1115(a).
Why It Matters
The decision separates the legal insufficiency of the existing statutory allegations from the distinct procedural question whether those defects can be cured. Rather than treating the Supreme Court's reversal as automatically ending the case, the Court of Appeal provides a structured opportunity for J.M. to present a proposed third amended complaint for the trial court to assess in the first instance.
The ruling preserves an important limit on what has been decided: the appellate court recounts J.M.'s proposed theory without finding it satisfies the CMIA, the CRA, or any other claim. The immediate outcome is reversal, a deadline to seek amendment, and a cost allocation — not a final determination of liability or the ultimate viability of the lawsuit.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket