Filed 10/20/26 J.M. v. Illuminate Education, Inc. CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
J.M., a minor, etc., 2d Civ. No. B327683
(Super. Ct. No. 56-2022-
Plaintiff and Appellant, 00567324-CU-MC-VTA)
(Ventura County)
v.
ILLUMINATE EDUCATION, OPINION ON TRANSFER
INC., FROM SUPREME COURT
Defendant and Respondent.
J.M. appealed a superior court order dismissing his case for
failing to state a cause of action against Illuminate Education,
Inc. (Illuminate). We reversed in a prior opinion, concluding
J.M.’s proposed second amended complaint contained sufficient
facts to support causes of action under the Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act (CMIA; Civ. Code, § 56 et seq.1) and the
Customer Records Act (CRA; § 1789.80 et. seq.). (J.M. v.
Illuminate Education, Inc. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1125.)
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Civil Code.
Our Supreme Court granted review, reversed, and
transferred this matter to us for further proceedings. (J.M. v.
Illuminate Education, Inc. (2026) 19 Cal.5th 705, 710
(Illuminate).) Illuminate leaves “to the courts below to consider
whether, in light of [its] holdings today, J.M. may be granted
leave to amend his complaint if he so requests.” (Id. at p. 725.)
Having considered the parties’ supplemental briefs upon transfer,
we will remand the case with directions to allow J.M. to seek
leave to amend under the guidance of Illuminate.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
J.M., a minor, through his guardian ad litem, brought a
class action lawsuit against Illuminate after a 2022 data breach
exposed his confidential medical records to third parties. Our
prior opinion and Illuminate summarize his factual allegations.
We focus here on the case’s procedural history.
J.M.’s first amended complaint contained two causes of
action, i.e., one each under CMIA and CRA. Illuminate
demurred. Rather than oppose the demurrer, J.M. filed a second
amended complaint containing revised allegations and new
causes of action for negligence, breach of contract, and
misrepresentation. The trial court sustained the demurrer
without leave to amend and struck the second amended
complaint on procedural grounds. J.M. sought reconsideration.
The court again denied leave, finding the proposed second
amended complaint failed to show J.M. could state a claim under
CMIA, CRA, or on his new causes of action. It dismissed the first
amended complaint and entered judgment.
We reversed after concluding J.M. stated claims under
CMIA and CRA. We also concluded the trial court erred by
2
denying leave to because “the facts he alleged supported a cause
of action for damages” and remanded the case.
Our Supreme Court granted review to decide whether J.M.
stated a cause of action under the CMIA or the CRA. The Court
held J.M. failed to state a cause of action under CMIA because he
“has not sufficiently alleged that Illuminate is a ‘provider of
health care’ within the meaning of Civil Code section 56.06.”
(Illuminate, supra, 19 Cal.5th at p. 711.) It also held J.M. failed
to state a cause of action under the CRA because he “has not
sufficiently alleged that he is Illuminate’s ‘customer’ within the
meaning of the CRA (see [Civ. Code,] §§ 1798.80, subd. (c).”
(Ibid.) It did not opine on the viability of the additional causes of
action contained in the proposed second amended complaint.
DISCUSSION
The parties filed supplemental letter briefs in this Court
after transfer. J.M. maintains he can “readily allege that
[Illuminate’s software] . . . was used primarily for the diagnosis
and treatment of medical conditions, namely learning
disabilities.” J.M. also maintains respondent has admitted it
collects “medical information”2 that was disclosed because of the
data breach. “ ‘The plaintiff has the burden of proving that an
amendment would cure the defect.’ ” (Modisette v. Apple Inc.
(2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 136, 155; see Schifando v. City of Los
Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.)
2 The CMIA defines “medical information” as “any
individually identifiable information, . . . regarding a patient’s
medical history, mental health application information,
reproductive or sexual health application information, mental or
physical condition, or treatment.” (§ 56.05, subd. (j)(1).)
3
Exactly how J.M. intends to amend his allegations is not
clear. He did not submit a proposed third amended complaint
with his supplemental brief. He appears to allege that: educators
enter certain information about students into Illuminate’s
software; medical professionals rely on this information to
diagnose these children with conditions such as autism, dyslexia,
dysgraphia, and attention deficit disorder; educators then rely on
the diagnoses to provide treatment, e.g., behavioral therapy and
specialized instruction, at school. J.M. states he “will be able to
plead that Illuminate “utilizes software that operates as [a]
informational nexus so critical to diagnosis” and that it “provides
software necessary for the treatment of learning disabilities.” He
further claims that Illuminate takes a “wider role than merely
operating as the repository of information. Rather it is providing
information that can be viewed by medical providers as to what
treatments are being performed and allows medical personnel
[including psychologists and counselors employed by the school
districts] to monitor said treatment.”3
We will remand to the trial court where J.M. may seek leave
to amend. The trial court shall decide under the guidance of
Illuminate whether J.M. raises a “reasonable possibility that the
defect can be cured by amendment.” (Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co.
(1969) 70 Cal.2d 627, 636; Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1);
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.)
3 We grant J.M.’s July 31, 2026, unopposed request for
judicial notice of the “Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction”
entered on November 18, 2025, in an enforcement action arising
from the same data breach. (People v. Illuminate Education, Inc.
(Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2025, No. 25STCV32380).)
4
DISPOSITION
Judgment is reversed. J.M. may seek leave to file a
proposed third amended complaint within 30 days of remittitur.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CODY, P. J.
We concur:
YEGAN, J.
BALTODANO, J.
5
Benjamin F. Coats, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Potter Handy, Mark D. Potter, and James M. Treglio for
Plaintiff and Appellant.
Kirkland & Ellis, Devin S. Anderson and Tammy A.
Tsoumas for Defendant and Respondent.