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

Tentative Rulings

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

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

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. 4^th 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. 4^th 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.