This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/27/2022 at 22:07:40 (UTC).

JANE DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/25/2017 JANE DOE filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are SHIRLEY K. WATKINS, ELAINE W. MANDEL and DENNIS J. LANDIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9059

  • Filing Date:

    04/25/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

SHIRLEY K. WATKINS

ELAINE W. MANDEL

DENNIS J. LANDIN

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

DOE JANE

Defendants and Respondents

GARCIA DANIEL

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

DOES 1 TO 60

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT A PUBLIC ENTITY

Material Witness

LOS ANGELES POLIC DEPT. CUSTODIAN OF RECO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

RING DAVID M. ESQ.

RING DAVID MCDONALD

TAYLOR JOHN

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

PERLMUTTER BEN H.

CHO CHUNG

GUTIERREZ PRECIADO & HOUSE LLP

PRECIADO ART

Not Classified By Court Attorney

FEUER MICHAEL NELSON ATTORNEY FOR NON-PARTY WITNESS

 

Court Documents

Declaration - DECLARATION OF NATALIE WEATHERFORD IN SUPP OR PLFF'S OPP

7/17/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF NATALIE WEATHERFORD IN SUPP OR PLFF'S OPP

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLFF'S OPP TO DEF LAUSD MSJ

7/17/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLFF'S OPP TO DEF LAUSD MSJ

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JANE DOE (SF) IN SUPP OF PLFF'S OPP

7/17/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JANE DOE (SF) IN SUPP OF PLFF'S OPP

Separate Statement

7/17/2019: Separate Statement

Motion to Bifurcate

7/18/2019: Motion to Bifurcate

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

7/26/2019: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Reply - REPLY DEF REPLY FURTHER SUPPORT OF SEPARATE STATEMENT

7/26/2019: Reply - REPLY DEF REPLY FURTHER SUPPORT OF SEPARATE STATEMENT

Objection - OBJECTION DEF OBJ TO PLT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLT OPPOSITION TO MOTION

7/26/2019: Objection - OBJECTION DEF OBJ TO PLT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLT OPPOSITION TO MOTION

Motion to Bifurcate

7/30/2019: Motion to Bifurcate

Order - ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

7/30/2019: Order - ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT], FILED 7-30-2019

7/31/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT], FILED 7-30-2019

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT) OF 07/31/2019

7/31/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT) OF 07/31/2019

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE (KATHERINE M. STRIDE, CSR #11773)

7/31/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE (KATHERINE M. STRIDE, CSR #11773)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

7/31/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLFF'S OPP TO DEF LAUSD'S MTN TO BIFURCATE

8/5/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLFF'S OPP TO DEF LAUSD'S MTN TO BIFURCATE

Request for Judicial Notice

8/9/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Reply - REPLY DEF LAUSD REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION

8/9/2019: Reply - REPLY DEF LAUSD REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE)

8/16/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE)

146 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/20/2022
  • Hearing09/20/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department T at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Case Management Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/23/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department T; Further Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/21/2022
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/21/2022
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/23/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department T, Shirley K. Watkins, Presiding; Further Status Conference - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/23/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Further Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/14/2022
  • DocketDeclaration (by Plaintiff's Counsel Re: Status of Appeal); Filed by Jane Doe, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Nadine F. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/21/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department T; Further Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/05/2022
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Court's Order re Further Status Conference); Filed by Jane Doe, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Nadine F. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/30/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department T; Non-Appearance Case Review (for receipt of remittitur) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
252 More Docket Entries
  • 08/10/2017
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Jane Doe, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Nadine F. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/02/2017
  • DocketOrd Apptng Guardian Ad Litem (FOR JANE DOE (SAMANTHA F.)D ); Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/02/2017
  • DocketOrd Apptng Guardian Ad Litem; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/26/2017
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/26/2017
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM, EX PARTE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/26/2017
  • DocketApplication-Miscellaneous (FOR JANE DOE(SAMANTHA F.) GUARDIAN AD LITEM ); Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/25/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Nadine F. (Legacy Party); Jane Doe, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Nadine F. (Plaintiff); Nadine F. (Non-Party)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/25/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jane Doe, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Nadine F. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/25/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/25/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****9059    Hearing Date: August 12, 2020    Dept: T

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE TENTATIVE WAS REVISED AT 3:45 P.M. ON 8/11/20

JANE DOE, etc.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; et. al.

Defendants.

CASE NO: ****9059

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Dept. T

8:30 a.m.

August 12, 2020

[TENTATIVE] ORDER: The Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint is DENIED. Both parties’ requests for judicial notice are GRANTED.

Introduction

Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”) moves to strike from the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) the portions related to a cover up and treble damages under CCP ;340.1.

Per the case law submitted by both parties, the immunity from punitive damages under GC ;818 is narrow and applicable to damages whose purpose is “simply and solely punitive or exemplary.” Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. Authority v Sup. Ct. (2004) 123 Cal. App. 4th 261, 275; Archibald v Cty. Of San Bernardino (C.D. Cal. 2018) 2018 US Dist. LEXIS 79449, *1-2. As drafted and put into effect on January 1, 2020, CCP ;340.1 makes no reference to punitive damages but authorizes the Court with discretion to award “up to treble damages.” CCP ;340.1(b)(1). The statute does not reference “punitive” damages. Defendant argues that the treble damages is akin to punitive damages due to the “up to” qualifier. Although the “up to” language is seen as a hallmark of punitive damages, it is noted that the statute’s legislative history makes no reference to treble damages being a punishment. The legislative intent for treble damages was to compensate the victim. (Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) Exh. 1, pg. 2, Exh. 6, pg 2; Exh. 7, pg. 2, Exh. 8, pg. 4.) Defendant also cites to the legislative history to support its contention but the citations merely show that there would be high fiscal impact upon school districts if found liable for a cover up. (Defendant’s RJN Exhs. B & C.) Nothing in the legislative history provided by Defendant shows any intent to interpret treble damages as punishment. Because the treble damages herein are not for punishment but for compensation, the immunity under GC ;818 is inapplicable. The court will not strike the treble damages from the FAC.

Minority Status of Hazel

Defendant argues that the FAC fails to allege minor status of Hazel in the complaint. Plaintiff claims treble damages. Treble damages are available under CCP 340.1(b)(1) if plaintiff proves that she was sexually assaulted as a result of alleged cover up of the sexual assault of a minor. Plaintiff claims that there was cover up of defendant Garcia’s relationship with a student, Hazel. The FAC does not say that Hazel was a minor.

CCP 340.1(b)(1) In an action described in subdivision (a), a person who is sexually assaulted and proves it was as the result of a cover up may recover up to treble damages against a defendant who is found to have covered up the sexual assault of a minor, unless prohibited by another law.

The issue of whether the plaintiff can claim treble damages under CCP section 340.1 has to do with the element of proof and is properly before the court at the time of trial when the jury is instructed on the element needed to prove treble damages. Paragraph 30, however, does allege that the cover-up involved sexual assault of minors. Additionally, there is nothing which prohibits plaintiff from arguing that the cover-up of Hazel, if she was a student but no longer a minor, relates to her compensatory damages. The court cannot say as a matter of law that the inclusion of the allegations re Hazel will not be relevant to any damages claimed by the plaintiff. The court will not strike the allegations as they pertain to Hazel.

Request for Judicial Notice

Request for judicial notice of legislative history is proper when the party identifies each separate document for which judicial notice is sought as a separate exhibit; and supports the request with a memorandum of points and authorities citing authority why each such exhibit constitutes cognizable legislative history. Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 26, 31-38. The requests are granted.