This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 03/07/2018 at 18:20:00 (UTC).

John Doe vs Clovis Unified School

Case Summary

On 03/11/2014 John Doe filed an Other lawsuit against Clovis Unified School. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Simpson, Alan, Black, Donald and Snauffer, Mark. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0717

  • Filing Date:

    03/11/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Simpson, Alan

Black, Donald

Snauffer, Mark

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Doe, John

Roe, Mary

Defendants

Clovis Unified School District

Racca, Kelly

Guardian Ad Litems

Doe, Linda

Roe, Jane

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Guardian Ad Litem Attorney

Cornwell, Stephen R.

Cornwell & Sample 7045 N. Fruit Ave.

Fresno, CA 93711

Defendant Attorneys

Shapazian, Larry H.

Schachter, Alesa M.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Entry of Dismissal filed

Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service; Comment: Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

Opposition to Request for Pre-Trial Discovery filed

Opposition

Opposition filed

Opposition; Comment: Defendant Clovis Unified School District's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to File Third Amended Complaint

Request for Pre-Trial Discovery filed

Request

Declaration Filed

Declaration Filed; Comment: of Stephen R. Cornwell in support of motion to file third amended complaint

Notice of Motion

Notice of Motion; Comment: and Motion to: to file third amended complaint

Order filed

Civil Document; Judicial Officer: Black, Donald; Comment: Order On Request For Pretrial Discovery Conference

Request for Pre-Trial Discovery filed

Civil Document; Comment: Forwarded to Dept 502

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Notice of Settlement filed

Notice

Request for Pre-Trial Discovery filed

Request

Order Received for Signature

Proposed Order; Comment: Order to file third amended complaint ***PENDING REVIEW*** Until Hearing

Amended Document Filed

Civil Document; Comment: Notice of Motion to file Third Amended Complaint

Opposition to Request for Pre-Trial Discovery filed

Civil Document; Comment: forwarded to Dept 502

Notice of Entry of Judgment

Notice of Entry of Judgment

Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial filed

Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial filed; Judicial Officer: Simpson, Alan; Comment: Trial continued to: 3/6/17 @ 9 am in Dept 501 3/3/17 @ 9:30 am in Dept 501 2/15/17 @ 10 am in Room 575 signed by Judge Simpson

Answer Filed

Civil Document

Answer Filed

Civil Document; Comment: to second amended complaint

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/27/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Request for Dismissal filed; Judgment Type: Request for Dismissal filed; Party Names: Doe, John; Doe, Linda; Roe, Mary; Clovis Unified School District; Racca, Kelly; Roe, Jane; Black, Donald; Comment: with prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2017
  • Continued 225 Dismissal- Hearing Time: 1:00 PM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2017
  • Jury Trial- Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Settled

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2017
  • Trial Readiness- Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Hearing Time: 9:30 AM; Cancel Reason: Settled

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2017
  • Mandatory Settlement Conference- Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Settled

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice of Entry of Dismissal filed- Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service; Comment: Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review- Request for Dismissal; Comment: Request for Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Minute Order Attachment- Minute Order Attachment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2016
  • CRC225 Dismiss After Settlement- Hearing Time: 1:00 PM; Result: Heard

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2016
  • Motion - Amend- Judicial Officer: Black, Donald; Hearing Time: 3:28 PM; Cancel Reason: Settled; Comment: Stephen Cornwell Third amended complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
204 More Docket Entries
  • 07/14/2014
  • Financial: Clovis Unified School District; Total Financial Assessment $210.00; Total Payments and Credits $210.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2016
  • Financial info for Doe, John: Counter Payment Receipt # CIVIL-2016-00018930 Doe, John $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2016
  • Financial info for Doe, John: Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2015
  • Financial info for Doe, John: Counter Payment Receipt # 198292 Doe, John $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2015
  • Financial info for Doe, John: Transaction Assessment $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2014
  • Financial info for Doe, John: Counter Payment Receipt # 191177 Doe, John $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2014
  • Financial info for Doe, John: Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2014
  • Financial info for Doe, John: Counter Payment Receipt # 187923 Doe, John $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2014
  • Financial info for Doe, John: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2014
  • Financial: Doe, John; Total Financial Assessment $665.00; Total Payments and Credits $665.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

modifies the tentative ruling as follows: (1) As to defendant, Racca, the demurrers to the first and fourth causes of action are sustained, with leave to amend, on the additional ground that plaintiffs are required to plead each of their respective claims separately and with particularity; (2) As to defendant, CUSD, the demurrer to the first, fifth and sixtfi causes of action is sustained, with leave to amend, on the additional ground that plaintiffs are required to plead eaéh of their respective claims separately and with particularity; (3) As to both defendants, in light of the rulings on defendants' demurrers to the Bane Act claims, the motions to strike are granted, with leave to amend, as to both defendants, as to the prayers for treble damages, penalties, and attorneys' fees.”

4. The First Amended Complaint was filed on or around July 18, 2014.

5. On or about August 29, 2014, demurrers were filed on behalf of CUSD and Racca. The ihearing occurred and on approximately December 17, 2014, the court published its ruling, vs}hich stated in relevant part: “To SUSTAIN with leave to amend Defendant Racca's demurrer to Plaintiffs' first and fourth causes of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure séction 430.10, subdivision (). To FIND MOOT Defendant Racca's motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs' amended complaint. To SUSTAIN with leave to amend Defendant CUSD'S demurrer to Plaintiffs' first cause of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (¢). o OVERRULE Defendant CUSD's demurrer to Plaintiffs' first cause of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f). To OVERRULE Defendant CUSD's demurrer to Plaintiffs' second, fifth, and sixth causes of actiofi pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (¢) and (f). To SUSTAIN WITHOUT leave to amend Defendant CUSD's demurrer to | Plaintiffs' sé:venth cause of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10,

subdivision "(e). To FIND MOOT Defendant CUSD's demurrer to Plaintiffs' seventh cause

serve a second amended complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., 472a, subd. (c).) All new allegations in the second amended complairitboldface type.” |

6. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on or about January 16, 2015.

7. Defendant Racca and CUSD separately filed a demurrer and a motion to strike the amendments to the SAC, the latter on the grounds that the amendments went beyond the leave of court.

| 8. On June 17, 2015, the court granted the motion to strike and found the demurrers moot. A true and correct copy of the court’s minute order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The motion to strike was without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking leave of court through a noticed motion process.

9. Plaintiffs seek leave of court to file the Third Amended Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit B. Good cause exists for granting such leave because the issues raised by the new causes of action arise out of the facts set forth in the Complaint. Plaintiffs attempted to plead these new causes of action when they were ascertained back in approximatély January of 2015.

10. Discovery has commenced in the present case, however neither the defendants nor the plamtlffs have been deposed.

11. The present case is set for jury trial on March 6, 2017.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was signed and dated this‘)L‘]L day of May, 2016.

F:\Cases\DOE v. CUSD\PLEADINGS\MOTIONS\MOTION TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT\DEC.SRC.doc

DECLARATION OF STEPHEN R. CORNWELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO FILE THIRD AMENDED

On December 17, 2014, in addition to sus’rommg wn’rhou’r leave to cmend overruling, and finding moot Defendcn’r CUSD's demurrer to other portions of Plaintiffs” first amended complaint, this Court sustained with leave o amend Defendant CUSD's - demurrer to Plaintiffs’ first cause of action forinterference with rights secured by the Constitution of the laws of the State of California under Civil Code section 52.1. The - Court sustained the demurrer to Plaintiffs' Bane Act cause of action because Plalm‘lffs

had failed to sufficiently allege that Defendant CUSD's. employees, for which Defendant CUSD is vicariously liable, interfered or attempted to interfere in Plaintiffs’ exercise or enjoyment of any federal or statute consfitutional or statutory right through

. threats, infimidation, or coercion, but granted Plaintiffs leave to amend to allege

additional facts in order to correct that defect. The Court did not grant Plaintiffs leave to amend to change their first cause of action from a Bane Act cause of action into a cause of action for statutory tort or to add an entirely new cause of action for breach of fiduciary duties. Therefore, Plaintiffs' new first cause of action for statutory tort and eighth cause of action for breach of fi duc10ry duties do not directly respond to the Court's reason for sustaining Defendant CUSD's demurrer-to Plaintiffs' Bane Act cause of action cmd are no’r wn‘hm ’rhe scope of the Court's order granting Ieove 1o cmend

Accordingly, 1he Coun‘ grants Defendcnt CUSD's motion 1o strike P[cln’nffs' entire first cause of action for s’ra’rutory tort and entire eighth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b} [“The court may ... [s}irike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with ... an order of the | court."].} However, this ruling does not prohibit Plainfiffs from filing a proper mofion for leave to amend to add causes of action for statutory tort and breach of fidUCIory - ~ duties o fhelr complcun’f .

Sec:ond Defendant CUSD moves to strike Plaintiffs’ entire sixth cduse of action for , respondeai superior against CUSD on the ground that the Court: previously sustained

~ without leave to amend Defendant CUSD's demurrer to Plaintiffs' respondent superior cause of action. Defendant CUSD is correct. On December 17, 2014, this Court | sustained without leave to amend Defendant CUSD's demurrer to Plaintiffs' then . seventh cause of action for respondeat superior. Therefore, Plaintiffs' sixth cause of action for respondeat superior is entirely improper. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant CUSD's motion to strike Plaintiffs’ entire sixth cause of action for respondeat superior. {Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b} [*The court may ... [s]irike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with ... an order of the court.”].) |

| -Third, Defen_dom‘ CUSD moves to strike Plaintiffs’ claim for prejudgmen’r interest af Page 25, line 9 of Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint on the ground that Plaintiffs cannot recover prejudgment interest against Defendant CUSD. While Civil Code section 3291 states that “[i]jn any action brought to recover damages for personal injury - sustained by any person resulting from ... the tort of any other person ... it is [awful for ~ the plaintiff in the complaint to claim interest on the damages alleged],]” Civil Code section 3291 also states that "[f]his section shall not apply.to a public entity” and that “the public entity ... shall [not] be liable, direcily or indirectly, fo any person for any - interest imposed by this section.” Therefore, since Defendant CUSD is a public entity, Plaintiffs have no legal authority to make a claim for prejudgment interest against Defendant CUSD in their second amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court grants

Stephen R. Cornwell, CA Bar #40737 P ACE BELO FOR FLING STANE CORNWELL & SAMPLE, LLP ‘ STANE ONLY) Attorneys at Law

7045 N. Fruit Avenue

Fresno, CA 93711

Telephone: (559) 431-3142

Facsimile: (559)436-1135

Attorney for Plaintiffs JOHN DOE, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem LINDA DOE; MARY ROE, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem JANE ROE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO CENTRAL DIVISION

JOHN DOE, a minor, by and through his ) CASE NO.: 14 CECG 00717 DSB Guardian ad Litem LINDA DOE; MARY ROE, a minor, by and through her Guardian ) ad Litem JANE ROE, Plaintiffs, THIRD AMENDED . COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES V.

CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; KELLY RACCA; and POES 1 through 25, inclusive,

Defendants.

s’ e e’

COMES NOW Plaintiff JOHN DOE (hereinafter “JOHN”), a minor, by and through his Guardian ad- Litem LINDA DOE, and Plaintiff MARY ROE (hereinafter “MARY”), a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem JANE ROE, and allege causes of action against Defendants CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KELLY RACCA, and POES 1 through 25 as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs JOHN and MARY are individualsrelevant times have been residents of Fresno County, California. Plaintiffs sue under fictitious names because they are minors, to preserve their privacy in the sensitive matters giving rise to this

suit, and to reduce their exposure to retaliatory physical or mental harm.

suit, and to reduce their exposure to retaliatory physical or mental harm. 2. Defendant CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“CUSD”) is a public entity in the State of California duly organized under the laws of the State of California, and more particularly the provisions of the Education Code, to provide, among other things, education to minors in public schools within the District. CUSD has, and at all times mentioned herein has had, its principle place of business in Fresno County, California.

2. Defendant CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“CUSD”) is a public entity in the State of California duly organized under the laws of the State of California, and more particularly the provisions of the Education Code, to provide, among other things, education to minors in public schools within the District. CUSD has, and at all times mentioned herein has had, its principle place of business in Fresno County, California.

3. Defendant KELLY RACCA (“RACCA”) is an individual. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that RACCA is, and at all relevant times has been, a resident of Fresno County, California.

4. Plaintiff JOHN is a minor. By order of this Court, LINDA DOE has been appointed as Guardian ad Litem to represent the interests of his minor child, JOHN. Plaintiff MARY is also a minor. By order of this Court, JANE ROE has been appointed as |- Guardian ad Litem to represent the interests of her minor child, MARY.

5. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of those Defendants sued herein as POES 1 through 25 and for that reason have sued such Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to identify said Defendants when their identities are ascértained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that each of said POES named as a Defendant in this action is in some fashion liable and legally responsible as alleged in this Complaint for the injuries and damages both Plaintiffs have sustained. |

6. In doing the things alleged in this Complaint, all of the Defendants were the employees, agents and/or alter egos of their co-Defendants. As agents and employees, they acted within the course and scope of such employment and agency. The conduct of each of the Defendants and their agents and employees was authorized and/or directed and/or was subsequently ratified by each of their co-Defendants.

7. Prior to the filing of this complaint, JOHN and MARY each presented a claim to CUSD pursuant to Government Code §911.2. CUSD acted on the claims by rejecting | .- them on September 25, 2013. This complaint is timely filed within the six (6) months after

the rejection of the claim.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. The jurisdiction of this Court over this action is predicated on Code of Civil Procedure §410.10. Plaintiffs also are subject to the claim requirement of Government Code §911.2 to pursue causes of action against at least some of the Defendants herein, and they have satisfied this requirement. A true and correct copy of the claim submitted for JOHN, redacted to protect his identity, is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference. A true and correct copy of the denial of JOHN’s claim, similarly redacted, is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated by reference. A true and correct copy of the claim submitted for MARY, redacted to protect her identity, is attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated by reference. A true and correct copy of the denial of MARY’s claim, similarly redacted, is attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated by reference. 9. Venue is proper in the Fresno County Superior Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §395(a) because Defendants reside or have their principle place of business in Fresno County and also because the injuries to Plaintiffs occurred in Fresno County.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Sta‘tutory Tort (Against All Defendants)

10. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 9, inclusive.

-11. JOHN and MARY were students attending Clovis North High School in Fresno, California. @They were enrolled there to obtain an education. The administration of the school was employed to operate the school in a manner consistent with the California Constitution and the Education Code of California. They were obligated by law to not promote the commission of crime by students.

12. JOHN and MARY have a Constitutional right to a public education. | California Constitution, Art. IX, Séc. S. The California Legislature has declared that

every pupil enrolled in school in the state has an inalienable right to a safe, secure, and

every pupil enrolled in school in the state has an inalienable right to a safe, secure, and peaceful existence on school campuses. Education Code §32261(a). JOHN and MARY also have the Constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unwarranted detentions and arrests and under the First Amendment to be free from retaliation for reporting the misconduct of a school counselor. Similarly, they have the statutory rights under Education Code §32261(a) to a safe, secure, and peaceful existence .on school campus, and under Education Code §44807 to be protected by adults and other school personnel from dangerous practices or illegal activities which are likely to result in Plaintiffs’ physical or emotional injuries while in the care of the school. Further, JOHN and MARY are entitled to statutory protections under Penal Code §272 that adults refrain from contributing to their delinquency by urging them to commit drug crimes prescribed by Health & Safety Code §§11054(d)(13), 11357(b), 11357(d) and (e), and 11360.

peaceful existence on school campuses. Education Code §32261(a). JOHN and MARY also have the Constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unwarranted detentions and arrests and under the First Amendment to be free from retaliation for reporting the misconduct of a school counselor. Similarly, they have the statutory rights under Education Code §32261(a) to a safe, secure, and peaceful existence .on school campus, and under Education Code §44807 to be protected by adults and other school personnel from dangerous practices or illegal activities which are likely to result in Plaintiffs’ physical or emotional injuries while in the care of the school. Further, JOHN and MARY are entitled to statutory protections under Penal Code §272 that adults refrain from contributing to their delinquency by urging them to commit drug crimes prescribed by Health & Safety Code §§11054(d)(13), 11357(b), 11357(d) and (e), and 11360.

13. In addition, Defendants and each of them had a mandatory duty under Penal Code §273a to refrain from willfully causing or permitting a minor student to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health may be endangered. In addition, Health and Safety Code §11353 forbids, inter alia, any person from inducing, | soliciting, or intimidating any minor to unlawfully transport or carry any controlled substances. In doing the acts herein alleged in this complaint, the Defendants, acting in the course and scope of their employment with CUSD, committed violations of the aforementioned statutes, and other official rules, regulations, or guidelines applicable to Defendants’ conduct. . These are rights secured by' the laws of the State of California. |

14. Defendants had a duty to supervise the students and their conduct on the CUSD school grounds, and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary for the protection of students, including the Plaintiffs. Defendants further had a duty to exercise ordinary care to protect students from the possibility of physical and/or emotional injury as a result of the type of actions described herein. Education Code

§44807 imposes on school authorities a general duty to supervise pupils on school

§44807 imposes on school authorities a general duty to supervise pupils on school property during school hours in order to regulate their conduct so as to prevent disorderly and dangerous practices or illegal activities which are likely to result in physical or emotional injury to them while entrusted to the school’s care. These are rights secured by the laws of the State of California.

property during school hours in order to regulate their conduct so as to prevent disorderly and dangerous practices or illegal activities which are likely to result in physical or emotional injury to them while entrusted to the school’s care. These are rights secured by the laws of the State of California.

15. At the same time, students, including JOHN DOE and MARY ROE, have obligations and requirements as students on a CUSD campus. CUSD’s administrators, teachers, and counselors, including RACCA and another administrator, Wesley Flowers, are authority figures on campus, and CUSD Board Policy No. 2101 requires that students “respect constituted authority” and “[sJubmit to the authority of the staff of the school.” Both by law, at 5 Code of California Regulations §300, and by CUSD- policy, at CUSD Board Policy No. 2012(1)(G), students are required to “obey promptly all the directions” of teachers and all others in authority. Education Code §48900 authorizes the suspension or expulsion of students who have “willfully defied the valid authority of supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials, and other school personnel engaged In the performance of their duties.” CUSD Board Policy No. 2102(1)(A) also provides that failure of a student to obey the directives of school authorities may result in other disciplinary action against the student including suspension, court ordered - exclusion, expulsion, or involuntary transfer to a continuation school. CUSD Board Policy No. 2102(1)(B) also provides other methods of correction for disobedient students, including counseling, parent conferences, program changes, restriction on the student’s participation in school sponsored activities, referral to a supervised resource classroom, community service, an Alternative Education Program, Saturday school, and assignment to detention. In addition, student disobedience may be recorded in the student’s perinanent record. | This could impact the student’s future academic endeavors including admission to college, eligibility for scholarships and other financial aid, and ultimately career opportunities and job availability. |

15. At the same time, students, including JOHN DOE and MARY ROE, have obligations and requirements as students on a CUSD campus. CUSD’s administrators, teachers, and counselors, including RACCA and another administrator, Wesley Flowers, are authority figures on campus, and CUSD Board Policy No. 2101 requires that students “respect constituted authority” and “[sJubmit to the authority of the staff of the school.” Both by law, at 5 Code of California Regulations §300, and by CUSD- policy, at CUSD Board Policy No. 2012(1)(G), students are required to “obey promptly all the directions” of teachers and all others in authority. Education Code §48900 authorizes the suspension or expulsion of students who have “willfully defied the valid authority of supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials, and other school personnel engaged In the performance of their duties.” CUSD Board Policy No. 2102(1)(A) also provides that failure of a student to obey the directives of school authorities may result in other disciplinary action against the student including suspension, court ordered - exclusion, expulsion, or involuntary transfer to a continuation school. CUSD Board Policy No. 2102(1)(B) also provides other methods of correction for disobedient students, including counseling, parent conferences, program changes, restriction on the student’s participation in school sponsored activities, referral to a supervised resource classroom, community service, an Alternative Education Program, Saturday school, and assignment to detention. In addition, student disobedience may be recorded in the student’s perinanent record. | This could impact the student’s future academic endeavors including admission to college, eligibility for scholarships and other financial aid, and ultimately career opportunities and job availability. | 16. In and about March, 2013, RACCA was an employee of CUSD and worked at Clovis North High School within the District as a counselor. She thus was a school authority figure who JOHN and MARY, by statute, regulation, and CUSD policies, were required to obey. RACCA, without any apparent law enforcement background, developed‘ a plan to uncover the sale of marijuana on the Clovis North High School campus. According to this plan RACCA would use students to conduct sting operations to uncover the sale of marijuana by student dealers on 'the_campus.

16. In and about March, 2013, RACCA was an employee of CUSD and worked at Clovis North High School within the District as a counselor. She thus was a school authority figure who JOHN and MARY, by statute, regulation, and CUSD policies, were required to obey. RACCA, without any apparent law enforcement background, developed‘ a plan to uncover the sale of marijuana on the Clovis North High School campus. According to this plan RACCA would use students to conduct sting operations to uncover the sale of marijuana by student dealers on 'the_campus.

17. RACCA had befriended student MARY, a student ;at Clovis North High School. RACCA called MARY out of class one day and confided in her that RACCA’s job was in jeopardy. She asked MARY to assist her with her plan to uncover some |student misconduct in order to get credit for catching a student engaged in wrongdoing and improve her job standing. Specifically, she asked MARY to find out the identity of a student who was reported to be illegally selling marijuana on campus. RACCA proposed that, with funds supplied by RACCA, MARY would purchase marijuana from the dealer and bring it to RACCA.

18. MARY was hesitant to be involved in RACCA’s plan. At the same time, given her obligation to obey school authorities, including RACCA, MARY felt that she had to comply with RACCA’s directives. One afternoon, a few days after RACCA asked for her help, MARY went to Student Services where RACCA had her office. MARY spent her entire 4t period class telling RACCA what she had learned about a particular student who was selling marijuana lollipops on campus. MARY then returned to class for 5™ period, but within just a few minutes, RACCA called her out of class and had further discussions about the plan to buy some marijuana undercover and catch the guilty student. At this time, RACCA gave MARY cash to buy some of the illegal drugs.

~19. MARY spent the majority of her 6™ period in touch with her friend JOHN, also a student at Clovis North High School, to tell him about RACCA’s plan and ask for his advice and help. RACCA found JOHN and MARY on the way to their

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligent Supervision — Government Code §§ 815.2, 820 (Against all Defendants)

50.: Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 49, inclusive.

51. Defendant RACCA and other CUSD administrators acting in the course and | scope of their employment with CUSD failed to use ordinary care in the supervision of the

51. Defendant RACCA and other CUSD administrators acting in the course and | scope of their employment with CUSD failed to use ordinary care in the supervision of the Plaintiff students, and acted with indifference and conscious disregard for the rights, safety, and well-being of Plaintiffs.

Plaintiff students, and acted with indifference and conscious disregard for the rights, safety, and well-being of Plaintiffs.

52. RACCA and the Poe Defendants, as well as other school and district administrators, personnel, and counselors, in doing the thi'ngs alleged herein, were acting in the course and scope of their employment with Defendant CUSD. The liability of Defendant CUSD for the acts of these individuals, including RACCA and the Poe Defendants, is based on Government Code §§815.2 and 820 and the Constitutional and statutory violations alleged above. The individuals, including RACCA and the Poe Defendants, have no immunity for their acts, based on the referenced Constitutional and statutory provisions and also on Government Code §820.

53. As a direct and legal result of the aforementioned negligent acts and/or omissions by the agents, servants, and employees of Defendant CUSD, Plaintiffs have | suffered the personal injuries alleged herein.

54. As a further approximate result of the negligence and carelessness of the Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs have incurred, and will continue to incur, economic damages because of these incidents. Plaintiffs will prove said amount of economic damages at the time of trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Against All Defendants)

55. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 54, inclusive.

56. A special relationship existed between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in that the Plaintiffs were students at the school of which Defendants had the charge of educating students and protecting them from illegal activity and keeping them safe. The parents of the Plaintiffs entrusted their children to the care of the Defendants with the

exception that Defendants would follow all laws and act in the best interest of students.

exception that Defendants would follow all laws and act in the best interest of students. 57. In March 2013, while acting within the course and scope of her employment with CUSD, RACCA encouraged Plaintiffs to engage in the éting operation which was illegal, and RACCA provided the funds to purchase, possess, and transport an illegal drug. These actions were outrageous, abused the position of trust RACCA had with the students, were intentional and offensive, unlawfully contributed to the delinquency of these minors, and may have been criminal. During these events the circumstances led to MARY and JOHN both being interrogated by the police, MARY was arrested, and JOHN was held and Mirandized. |

57. In March 2013, while acting within the course and scope of her employment with CUSD, RACCA encouraged Plaintiffs to engage in the éting operation which was illegal, and RACCA provided the funds to purchase, possess, and transport an illegal drug. These actions were outrageous, abused the position of trust RACCA had with the students, were intentional and offensive, unlawfully contributed to the delinquency of these minors, and may have been criminal. During these events the circumstances led to MARY and JOHN both being interrogated by the police, MARY was arrested, and JOHN was held and Mirandized. |

58. The conduct was intended to and likely would cause Plaintiffs severe | emotional distress. It was engaged in with reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiffs severe emotional distress and anxiety, and was for purposes totally unrelated to the best interest of Plaintiffs or their reason for attending school. As a result of said outrageous conduct, Plaintiffs were forced to endure suffering, mental anguish, anxiety, and fear and a diminution in the quality of their lives and ability to learn.

59. CUSD denied both Plaintiffs access to their parents, which both had | requested, before subjecting them to a police interrogation. CUSD, through its employees and agents, also assisted RACCA to try to cover up the incident, assisted RACCA to try to influence MARY to retract her story of the marijuana buy, directly encouraged MARY to retract her statements, and discouraged MARY from seeking legal advice. CUSD denied JOHN access to his father despite advising him of his rights and interrogated him despite his requests.. Both RACCA and Flowers have disclosed Plaintiffs’ true identities to other students on campus, further increasing the danger they may become victims of retaliation and causing them further fear and anxiety. Further, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that RACCA was not subjected to any discipline for her actions, and she remains an employee of CUSD with access to other students.

60. RACCA and the Poe Defendants, as well as other school and district administrators, personnel, and counselors, in doing the things alleged herein, were acting in

the course and scope of their employment with Defendant CUSD. The liability of

the course and scope of their employment with Defendant CUSD. The liability of Detendant CUSD for the acts of these individuals, including RACCA and the Poe Defendants, is based on Government Code §§815.2 and 820 and the Constitutional and statutory violations alleged above. The individuals, including RACCA and the Poe Defendants, have no immunity for their acts, based on the referenced Constitutional and statutory provisions and also on Government Code §820.

Detendant CUSD for the acts of these individuals, including RACCA and the Poe Defendants, is based on Government Code §§815.2 and 820 and the Constitutional and statutory violations alleged above. The individuals, including RACCA and the Poe Defendants, have no immunity for their acts, based on the referenced Constitutional and statutory provisions and also on Government Code §820.

61. The actions and inactions of CUSD, RACCA and the Poe Defendants, as well as other CUSD personnel, were outrageous in character, violated the duty it had to students at a district school, were intentional, and were likely to result in mental distress of Plaintiffs. To the extent the actions of Defendants or other CUSD personnel were taken to cover up the wrongdoing of RACCA, CUSD i1s complicit and its acts amount to authorizing and ratifying RACCA’s conduct. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs were injured, suffering mental anguish, anxiety and fear, constituting personal injury, as well as diminution in the quality of their lives and interference with their education, in an amount to be proved at trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligent Training and Supervision (Against CUSD)

62. Plaintiffs refer fo and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 through 61, inclusive.

63. As a school district, CUSD has a special relationship to the students in the district schools, including Plaintiffs. As a result of this special relationship, CUSD had a duty to ensure the safety of its students and the competence of its employees in their interactions with the students. CUSD’s duty then required it to use reasohable care in supervising its employees.

64. According to statements made to the Plaintiffs, CUSD had serious concerns about RACCA’s competence so that RACCA felt her job was in jeopardy. |

65. Competent school employees who have contact with students should be

thoroughly familiar with the CUSD policies, including the zero tolerance policy for anyone

thoroughly familiar with the CUSD policies, including the zero tolerance policy for anyone 73. As a proximate result of these actions, Plaintiffs sustained injuries, both physical and mental, and thus have suffered general damages. In addition, as a further proximate result of Defendants acts, Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological services. The full amount of these expenses is not known tb Plaintiffs or to their Guardians ad Litem at this time.

73. As a proximate result of these actions, Plaintiffs sustained injuries, both physical and mental, and thus have suffered general damages. In addition, as a further proximate result of Defendants acts, Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological services. The full amount of these expenses is not known tb Plaintiffs or to their Guardians ad Litem at this time.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Deprivation of Civil Rights (42 USC Section 1983) (Against RACCA in her individual capacity.)

74. Plaintiffs incorporate herein each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 73 of the present Second Amended Complaint.

75. Plaintiffs had rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to “Equal Protection of the Law” and “Due Process of Law” with respect to the protection and benefits of state and federal laws intended to protect minor students. Defendant RACCA vioiated Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to Equal Protection by arbitrarily and intentionally denying Plaintiffs the benefits of legal protections accorded to other similarly situated minor students. Defendant RACCA violated Plaintiffs’ rights to Due Process by engaging in conduct so egregious, so outrageous, that it may be fairly said to shock the contemporary conscience. Defendant. RACCA acted under “color of state law” within the meaning of 42 USC Section 1983 in that although they‘had individual and personal motivations, their actions were related to the performance of their official duties as officials of an agency of the State of California. |

76. Defendant RACCA is sued herein ih her personal capacity in that she was acting in her persofial capacity in engaging in the acts alleged herein in that she wa$ seeking personal advancement. Nonetheless, although she was acting out of personal motivations, she exercised her authority over Plaintiffs as an official of CUSD with the power and authority to detain, punish, expel and instruct the plaintiffs.

76. Defendant RACCA is sued herein ih her personal capacity in that she was acting in her persofial capacity in engaging in the acts alleged herein in that she wa$ seeking personal advancement. Nonetheless, although she was acting out of personal motivations, she exercised her authority over Plaintiffs as an official of CUSD with the power and authority to detain, punish, expel and instruct the plaintiffs. 77. As a proximate result of the violations of these statutes, Plaintiffs have been injured as herein alleged according to proof. 78. Plaintiffs are also entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 USC Section

77. As a proximate result of the violations of these statutes, Plaintiffs have been injured as herein alleged according to proof. 78. Plaintiffs are also entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 USC Section

1988 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Fiduciary Duties (Against all Defendants)

-79. Plaintiffs incorporate herein each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 78 of the present Second Amended Coinplaint.

30. Defendants knowingly and voluntarily occupied a position of trust and confidence in that they were in loco parentis to Plaintiffs and had authority to instruct, punish and discipline Plaintiffs and occupied a position of authority as guidance counsellor and principal at Plaintiffs’ school. In addition, Defendants made representations appealing to Plaintiffs to put their trust in them and befriended them. In addition, Defendants knew that Plaintiffs were vulnerable to them in that Plaintiffs were minor students in their custody and control.

81. Defendants breached their fiduciary duty thus voluntarily assumed by counselling Plaintiffs to violate the law and engage in behavior that was against the best interests of the plaintiffs.

82. . As a proximate result of the violations of these statutes, Plaintiffs have been injured as herein alleged according to proof.l

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants, and each

of them, as follows:

1. For an award of past and future non-economic damages according to proof; 2. For an award of past and future economic damages according to proof; 3. For all damages alleged and referred to within each cause of action above;