This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/29/2019 at 01:48:47 (UTC).

ALANAH STONE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Case Summary

On 01/12/2018 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury case was filed by ALANAH STONE against LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9978

  • Filing Date:

    01/12/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Defendants and Respondents

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

DOES 1 TO 100

Minor

STONE ALANAH

Guardian Ad Litem

WHITEHEAD NICOLE

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

3/20/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S DEMURRER 1?O PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

5/14/2018: DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S DEMURRER 1?O PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

6/21/2018: NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

6/25/2018: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

PLAINTTFFS FIRST AMENDFD COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENCE UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 815.2 AND 820(A) AND EDUCATION CODE SECTION 44807

7/10/2018: PLAINTTFFS FIRST AMENDFD COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENCE UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 815.2 AND 820(A) AND EDUCATION CODE SECTION 44807

DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8/14/2018: DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

2/25/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

2/28/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

SUMMONS

3/6/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

1/12/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/25/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District) (-FSC:11-5-19 Trial:11-18-19); Filed by Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • Answer to First Amended Complaint; Filed by Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • PLAINTTFFS FIRST AMENDFD COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENCE UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 815.2 AND 820(A) AND EDUCATION CODE SECTION 44807

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 5; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (Hearing on Demurrer; Sustained) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-06-25 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • Order; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
1 More Docket Entries
  • 05/14/2018
  • DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S DEMURRER 1 O PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Alanah Stone (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • Summons Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC689978    Hearing Date: December 12, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

ALANAH STONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

Los Angeles unified school district,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC689978

Hearing Date: December 12, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further responses

NOTICE

The Court posts this tentative in advance of the hearing. Any party who does not appear at the hearing shall waive their right to be heard and shall submit to this, or any other, order the Court issues on the pending motion.

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Alanah Stone (“Plaintiff”) allegedly was injured during a game of touch football at school and filed this action for negligence against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”). Defendant provided a roster with the names of the other students who were present at the time of Plaintiff’s accident. However, Defendant has refused to provide contact information for the students. Plaintiff seeks to compel disclosure of this information, and Defendant opposes the motion on two grounds. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not conduct an informal discovery conference, as required by the Court’s standing order. Second, Defendant argues that disclosure is prohibited by Title 20, United States Code, section 1232g(b)(1).

Plaintiff’s motion is granted. The Court conducted an informal discovery conference on December 3, 2019. Regardless, the Court would have waived the requirement in this case. Resolution of this issue rests on a purely legal issue on which the parties require a ruling from the Court, so the matter is not suitable for an informal discovery conference.

Reaching the merits of the issue, Title 20, United States Code, section 1232g(b)(1) states that funding is not available to any educational institution “which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of education records . . . without the written consent of their parents to any individual, agency, or organization . . . .” (20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1).) However, there is an exception for compliance with Court orders. (20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2).) In other words, this section does not prohibit the Court from ordering disclosure of these records, though it is incumbent upon Defendant to provide any required notice to the parents.

The Court finds that the information sought by Plaintiff is discoverable because Plaintiff must have contact information of potential witnesses in order to interview and, if necessary, subpoena them for depositions. The Court has considered the various privacy interests implicated by this issue. Following this consideration, the Court finds that disclosure is appropriate, especially because the parties have executed a protective order in this case which prohibits disclosure and ensures that Plaintiff does not misuse this information. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and orders disclosure of the students’ addresses and telephone numbers.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel and orders Defendant to produce the addresses and telephone numbers of potential witnesses (i.e., the students listed on the roster that was produced to Plaintiff). The Court orders Defendant to comply with Title 20, United States Code, section 1232g(b)(1) and provide any required notice to the students’ parents. The Court also orders that the addresses and telephone numbers shall not be produced until the protective order is signed by the Court.

The Court orders Plaintiff to bring the executed stipulation for a protective order and proposed protective order to the hearing on December 12, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. Assuming Plaintiff does so, the Court intends to order production to occur on or before January 10, 2020.

The Court provides notice that it intends to advance and vacate the current trial date in order to accommodate production of this information. The Court provides notice that it intends to set the following dates:

Final Status Conference: March 13, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.

Trial: April 3, 2020, at 8:30 a.m.

The discovery and motions cut-off shall be governed by the new trial date. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 12, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC689978    Hearing Date: December 03, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

alanah stone,

Plaintiff,

v.

los angeles unified school district,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC689978

Hearing Date: December 3, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Defendant’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY judgment

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Alanah Stone (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”) based on injuries Plaintiff sustained during a touch football game while a student at one of Defendant’s schools. Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action for negligence. Defendant moves for summary judgment, arguing that it owed no duty to Plaintiff, or in the alternative, that it satisfied its duty to protect Plaintiff from reasonably foreseeable risks. Plaintiff opposes the motion, which is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.]  There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.)  

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs asserts a claim for negligence based on Education Code section 44807. Under Education Code section 44807, “Every teacher in the public schools shall hold pupils to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or during recess.” (Ed. Code, § 44807.) This statute imposes a duty to supervise students on school districts, and “a student may recover for injuries proximately caused by a breach of this duty to supervise.” (M. W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School Dist. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 508, 518.) Therefore, the Court denies the motion to the extent Defendant argues it owed no duty to Plaintiff.

In the alternative, Defendant argues that it satisfied its duty toward Plaintiff. In support of its motion, Defendant cites Plaintiff’s response to its special interrogatory, in which Plaintiff stated that she sustained injuries “in the course of a mandatory flag football game supervised by propounding party’s employees.” (Declaration of Ty W. Vanderford, Exhibit C, p. 19.) Defendant also cites Plaintiff deposition, during which she testified that her physical education teacher, Coach Iki, was watching the flag football game at issue. (Declaration of Ty W. Vanderford, Exhibit B, p. 39.) Defendant has satisfied its burden of proffering evidence that it satisfied its duty under Education Code section 44807, shifting the burden to Plaintiff to proffer sufficient evidence to give rise to a triable issue.

Plaintiff argues that Coach Iki’s supervision was not sufficient because: (1) She increased the inherent risks of flag football by requiring inexperienced players to compete; (2) She did not inform players they could withdraw if they felt unsafe; (3) She required Plaintiff to choose between two sports (football and ultimate Frisbee), each of which involved the risk of collisions and head injury; (4) She did not inform the players that collisions could occur between the players even though the flag football game was intended to be a no-contact sport; (5) She did not intervene when play became rough and when female students began withdrawing to the sidelines; and (6) She did not provide adequate supervision to the football game because she simultaneously was watching the ultimate Frisbee game, dividing her attention between the two games. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, ¶¶ 9-18.) The Court finds that this evidence is sufficient to create a triable issue whether Defendant supervised the game appropriately, viz., by having one teacher divide her attention between two games which have a risk of physical contact. Plaintiff proffers sufficient evidence that injury was foreseeable not only because flag football can involve collisions, but also because the game became “rough” prior to Plaintiff’s injury. (Id., ¶¶ 13-15.) Indeed, Plaintiff proffers evidence that the game became “rough” and that female students started to withdraw to the sidelines, but Defendant did not intervene or inform Plaintiff (a female student) that she could cease play without jeopardizing her grade. (Ibid.) These are triable issues that must be resolved by the trier of fact.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 3, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court