This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/05/2019 at 21:01:36 (UTC).

JANE AH DOE ET AL VS TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/09/2018 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury case was filed by JANE AH DOE against TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7575

  • Filing Date:

    03/09/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Torrance Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

DEIRDRE HILL

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

JG

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 20

ASHIKAWA JAMES

MOSLEY DAVID

KEALY WILLIAM

TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Minor

DOE JANE AH

Guardian Ad Litem

RH AND INDIVIDUALLY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Minor, Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MCNAIR GREGORY L. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

MOTT JONATHAN JUDD

Other Attorneys

MCNAIR GREGORY LUMMAR ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Declaration - DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS RE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11/27/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS RE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE MEDIATION COMPLETION)

10/21/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE MEDIATION COMPLETION)

Motion for Summary Judgment

9/25/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY...)

9/6/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY...)

Notice - NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION TO COMPEL MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF RH

8/23/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION TO COMPEL MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF RH

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION TO COMPEL MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF AH

8/23/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION TO COMPEL MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF AH

Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED ISSUES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL THE MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF RH

8/9/2019: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED ISSUES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL THE MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF RH

Opposition - Opposition to defendant's Special motion to strike portions of the complaint

10/22/2018: Opposition - Opposition to defendant's Special motion to strike portions of the complaint

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

11/2/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Notice - Notice of Continuance of Hearing Date on Special Motion to Strike

1/18/2019: Notice - Notice of Continuance of Hearing Date on Special Motion to Strike

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike Anti SLAPP)

1/18/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike Anti SLAPP)

Notice - Notice of Continuance of Hearing Date on Special Motion to Strike

3/7/2019: Notice - Notice of Continuance of Hearing Date on Special Motion to Strike

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike Anti SLAPP)

3/8/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike Anti SLAPP)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE ANTI SLAPP) OF 03/21/2019

3/21/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE ANTI SLAPP) OF 03/21/2019

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

6/4/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER - PROTECTIVE ORDER

6/5/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER - PROTECTIVE ORDER

SUMMONS -

6/28/2018: SUMMONS -

DECLARATION OF GREGORY L. MCNAIR IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR USE OF FICTITIOUS NAMES

3/9/2018: DECLARATION OF GREGORY L. MCNAIR IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR USE OF FICTITIOUS NAMES

38 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/28/2020
  • Hearing01/28/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2020
  • Hearing01/21/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2019
  • Hearing12/12/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketPLAINTIFFS? MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS? MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVELY SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; Filed by RH and individually (Legacy Party); Jane Ah Doe (Legacy Party); JG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketOpposition (to Defendants Separate Statement); Filed by RH and individually (Legacy Party); Jane Ah Doe (Legacy Party); JG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketDeclarations and Exhibits in Support of Opposition; Filed by RH and individually (Legacy Party); Jane Ah Doe (Legacy Party); JG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketPLAINTIFFS? MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS? MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVELY SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; Filed by RH and individually (Legacy Party); Jane Ah Doe (Legacy Party); JG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (and Exhibits Re Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by RH and individually (Legacy Party); Jane Ah Doe (Legacy Party); JG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Dismiss - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Torrance Unified School District (Defendant); David Mosley (Defendant); James Ashikawa (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
50 More Docket Entries
  • 06/28/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2018
  • DocketSummons Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL EX PARTE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketDECLARATION OF GREGORY L. MCNAIR IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR USE OF FICTITIOUS NAMES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by JG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGGES 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC697575    Hearing Date: February 28, 2020    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

JANE AH DOE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.:

BC697575

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: February 28, 2020

Moving Parties: Petitioner Rosario Holland

Responding Party: None

Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action of Minor

The court considered the moving papers.

RULING

The court is inclined to grant petitioner’s Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action on behalf of minor claimant Jane AH Doe.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952(a), petitioner and claimant are required to attend the hearing on the petition but the court finds good cause to dispense with claimant’s appearance based on the circumstances of the case.

BACKGROUND

On March 9, 2018, plaintiffs Jane AH Doe, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, RH, RH, and JG filed a complaint for (1) negligence, (2) negligent hiring, supervision, training, and/or retention of employees, (3) negligence per se, (4) breach of mandatory duties, (5) IIED, and (6) NIED. Plaintiffs allege that on November 2, 2016 during lunch recess, AH was sexually harassed, battered, and molested by two male students on the school field at the middle school.

DISCUSSION

The court has reviewed the petition and finds the settlement amount to be fair and reasonable.

The parties settled for $300,000. The following amounts are to be deducted from the gross amount: $3,465 in medical expenses, $92,718 in attorney’s fees, and $21,564.62 in costs. The balance of proceeds is $182,252.38 to be deposited into a blocked account.

The court is inclined to grant the petition.

Case Number: BC697575    Hearing Date: November 22, 2019    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

JANE AH DOE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.:

BC697575

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: November 22, 2019

Moving Parties: Defendants Torrance USD, David Mosley, James Ashikawa, and William Kealey

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Jane Ah Doe, et al.

Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Bifurcate the Legal Issue of Standing

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

The motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The request to bifurcate the issue of standing is continued to January 28, 2019, to be heard by the trial court.

BACKGROUND

On March 9, 2018, plaintiffs Jane AH Doe, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, RH, RH, and JG filed a complaint for (1) negligence, (2) negligent hiring, supervision, training, and/or retention of employees, (3) negligence per se, (4) breach of mandatory duties, (5) IIED, and (6) NIED. Plaintiffs allege that on November 2, 2016 during lunch recess, AH was sexually harassed, battered, and molested by two male students on the school field at the middle school.

DISCUSSION

Defendants request that the court dismiss plaintiff JG for lack of standing or, in the alternative, to bifurcate the issue of JG’s standing pursuant to CCP §598 to be heard before the trial.

Defendants cite to CCP §367, which states that “Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.” Defendants contend that JG is not a relative or legal guardian of plaintiff AH and never has been, and therefore lacks standing to bring claims for IIED and NIED due to lack of special relationship between him and defendants. Defendants contend that although JG alleged he is Jane AH Doe’s stepfather, at his deposition, he testified that he is the ex-boyfriend of RH, and that RH and JG were never married.

Defendants cite to no statutory authority for the court to dismiss JG at the present time. Dismissal motions are expressly authorized only on specified grounds. Defendants cite to Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 995, 1004 but in that case the complaint was dismissed by way of a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

As to whether to bifurcate the issue of JG’s standing, under CCP §598, “[t]he court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order, . . . that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case.” “A litigant’s standing to sue is a ‘threshold issue to be resolved before the matter can be reached on the merits.’” Boorstein v. CBS Interactive, Inc. (2013) 222 Cal. App. 4th 456, 465 (citation omitted).

The court determines that this issue is more appropriate for the actual trial court to decide, and this court is not the trial court.

Defendants may refile this motion as a motion in limine for the trial court to hear and decide. The court understands that the motion is normally to be heard “no later than the close of the pretrial conference . . . or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date.” CCP §598. However, given the nature of transferred personal injury cases, the court will allow this motion to be heard as a motion in limine by the trial court immediately prior to the commencement of trial.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of the ruling.