The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
CASE NAME
Do No Harm et al v. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA et al
Overview
Plaintiffs allege that the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and various UCLA officials engage in intentional discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity in the admissions process.
Details
Plaintiffs allege that UCLA's medical school adopted an "Anti-Racism Roadmap" that is used to racially balance its medical student population. Under the roadmap, Plaintiffs state that the school redefined "merit" to include DEI initiatives, committed to increasing BIPOC employees and chairs among faculty through a postdoctoral program designed for them, created special opportunities for BIPOC researchers, vowed that the medical-student body would reflect the population of California, and adopted strategic plans to increase diversity.
On July 29, 2025, Defendants filed a . They argued that Plaintiffs lacked due to not alleging that they are a genuine membership organization and that any of its members would have the right to sue on their own. Additionally, Defendants argued that the named Plaintiff, Kelly Mahoney, was not ready and able to apply due to the medical school's race neutral bar on all transfer applications. Secondly, Defendants argued that even if Plaintiffs had standing, they would be protected by .
On August 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to address Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs argued that Mahoney is ready and able to apply if not for the alleged discriminatory practices in admissions. They argued that she started at community college before transferring to UC Davis and graduating with a high GPA and MCAT score. They stated that Mahoney planned to apply to medical school again, including to UCLA this year. As for the unnamed member within Do No Harm, Plaintiffs argued that they are ready and able to apply as soon as Defendants are ordered by the court to stop its alleged discriminatory practices.
On August 27, 2025, Defendants filed another motion to dismiss the amended complaint based on similar arguments made in the first motion to dismiss. As to the unnamed member in Do No Harm, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs did not plausibly plead that the member is ready and able to reapply. The unnamed member is currently attending another medical school and UCLA does not accept transfer applications. Defendants argued that there is no basis in law for Plaintiffs to seek to stop UCLA's medical school from not accepting transfer students. As a result, they argued that the school's no transfer application policy doesn't violate any statute or constitutional provision under which Plaintiffs seeks relief.
On December 16, 2025, the court denied in part and granted in part Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint. The court ruled that the SFFA-Member 1 and Do No Harm-Member A lack standing due to Member 1 not having an MCAT score and Member A not being able to transfer due to the medical school's policy barring transfer applications. Defendants did not challenge named Plaintiff Mahoney's Article III standing. As a result, the court granted defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend with respect to Plaintiffs' standing.
Court
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Status
Filed May 08, 2025 | Ongoing
The case is currently undergoing possible consolidation with the Students Against Racial Discrimination v. The Regents of The University of California et al case.