Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/28/2019 at 03:29:22 (UTC).

MARLENE GARCIA ET AL VS ROBERT J OWIECKI ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/11/2017 MARLENE GARCIA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ROBERT J OWIECKI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9114

  • Filing Date:

    10/11/2017

  • 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

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Guardian Ad Litem

GARCIA MARLENE

Defendants and Respondents

WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

OWIECKI ROBERT J.

DOES 1 - 20

Minor

J. J.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Minor Attorney

LI TERESA

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

RIBEIRO DAVID D. ESQ.

WADLINGTON MARLON C.

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANT WHITTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5/1/2018: DEFENDANT WHITTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Declaration

1/15/2019: Declaration

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

1/15/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Opposition

2/8/2019: Opposition

Declaration

3/1/2019: Declaration

Declaration

3/1/2019: Declaration

Declaration

3/1/2019: Declaration

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

3/1/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Ex Parte Application

3/4/2019: Ex Parte Application

Application

3/4/2019: Application

Minute Order

3/4/2019: Minute Order

Stipulation and Order

3/19/2019: Stipulation and Order

Motion to Seal

5/2/2019: Motion to Seal

Request for Judicial Notice

5/2/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1/8/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/22/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

10/11/2017: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

SUMMONS

11/9/2017: SUMMONS

19 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/02/2019
  • Separate Statement; Filed by Whittier City School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • Motion to Seal (Motion to Seal Exhibit "G" to District's Motion for Summary Adjudication and Proposed Order); Filed by Whittier City School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • Declaration (Compendium of Evidence and Declarations); Filed by Whittier City School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • Motion for Summary Adjudication; Filed by Whittier City School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • Notice of Lodging (Notice of Lodging Exhibit "G" Under Seal); Filed by Whittier City School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff J.J.) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( to Shortening Time to Hear the Motion for Protective Order) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Shortening Time to Hear t...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
28 More Docket Entries
  • 12/12/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Marlene Garcia (Plaintiff); J. J. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • Summons Issued; Filed by Marlene Garcia (Plaintiff); J. J. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • Summons Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Marlene Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC679114    Hearing Date: April 13, 2021    Dept: C

GARCIA v. OWIECKI, et al.

CASE NO.:  BC679114

HEARING 4/13/21 @ 2:30 PM

#8

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Whittier City School District’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED without leave to amend.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Whittier City School District (“District”) moves for judgment on the pleadings on the 10th cause of action for Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Plaintiff, a special education minor, alleges that Defendants Owiecki and the District subjected Plaintiff to verbal, psychological, and physical abuse. The Complaint asserts causes of action for:

1. Violation of 42 USC § 1983

2. ADA Discrimination

3. Violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

4. Violation of CC § 52.1

5. Battery

6. IIED

7. Negligence

8. Negligent Supervision

9. Violation of Mandatory Duty

10. Violation of CC § 51

11. Violation of Educ. Code § 220

Timeliness

Plaintiff contends the motion is untimely. However, “[a] motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself.” (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 877.) The court finds the motion is timely.

Merits

On 11/13/20, the California Court of Appeal held that public school districts are not subject to CC § 51 because public school districts are not business establishments under the Unruh Act. (Brennon B. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 367.) Additionally, Brennon B. explicitly rejected the argument that CC § 51(f) stands for the proposition that “any violation of the ADA by any person or entity is also a violation of the [Unruh] Act.” (Id. at 398.) To the contrary, it determined that CC 51(f) “makes explicit that any violation of the ADA by a business establishment is also a violation of the Unruh Act.” A school district is not a business establishment, and therefore, a school district’s violation of the ADA does not permit application of the Unruh Act.

Defendant filed its motion on 1/13/21, and at that time, Brennon B. was controlling precedent.

On 2/24/21, the California Supreme Court granted review, which altered Brennon B.’s precedential effect, allowing for citation “for potentially persuasive value only.” (CRC § 8.1115(e)(1).)

The court finds Brennon B. is persuasive authority on this issue.

Plaintiff contends that Brennon B. is against the “great weight of authority,” however, Plaintiff does not cite a single California case holding that public schools are subject to the Unruh Act. Plaintiff relies primarily on federal authority, which is non-binding on this court. Mackey v. Bd of Trs. Of Cal. State Univ. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 640, on which Plaintiff also relies, did not address application of the Unruh Act to public schools, and therefore did not engage in a comprehensive analysis of this issue. By contrast, the Brennon B. Court thoroughly explained the legislative history and analyzed in depth the pertinent state and federal authorities on this issue.

Further, the Court of Appeals has determined that the Unruh Act does not apply to public entities when they are not performing a “function equivalent of a commercial enterprise.” (Carter v. City of Los Angeles (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 808, 825 - City is not subject to Unruh Act for act of maintaining access to public sidewalks – it performs this function “as a public servant, not a commercial enterprise.”; Harrison v. City of Rancho Mirage (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 162, 176 - Unruh Act does not apply to a City’s decisions to change age restrictions in municipal code; Qualified Patients Ass'n v. City of Anaheim (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 734, 764–765 - State prison is not a business establishment unless the offending behavior has “business like attributes.”)

Based on the foregoing authorities, this court finds that public school districts do not perform functions that are equivalent to a commercial enterprise, and therefore, the District is exempt from the Unruh Act.

Until the Supreme Court decides this issue, this court is persuaded by the reasoning in Brennon B. as well as the foregoing appellate authorities. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED without leave to amend.

If the Supreme Court resolves this issue prior to trial in this action, Plaintiff may seek reconsideration based on a change in law.

Case Number: BC679114    Hearing Date: January 14, 2021    Dept: C

GARCIA v. OWIECKI

CASE NO.: BC679114

HEARING: 01/14/21

#2

TENTATIVE ORDER

On January 11, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Brief in support of their Opposition to the Motion for Summary Adjudication, directing the Court’s attention to the newly published appellate decision issued on December 31, 2020 in the case D.D. v. Los Angeles Unified School District. (See Supp. Brief, Ex. A.) On January 12, 2021, Defendant/Moving Party filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief.

Given the fact that both parties filed supplemental briefs on the eve of the hearing date, this Court has not yet had the opportunity to review either the D.D. v. Los Angeles Unified School District case, or the parties’ arguments with respect to such.

Therefore, there will be no Tentative Order issued on this matter. The Court will hear oral argument, and then issue its ruling on the merits.

Case Number: BC679114    Hearing Date: July 21, 2020    Dept: SEC

CALENDAR #7GARCIA v. OWIECKI, et al.

CASE NO.: BC679114

HEARING: 7/21/20

[Remote appearances are encouraged and will be given priority.]

CALENDAR MATTER #7

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Whittier City School District’s motion to seal Exhibit “G” submitted in support of the District’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.

Plaintiffs to give NOTICE.

Defendant Whittier City School District (“District”) moves for an order sealing Exhibit “G” submitted in support of its motion for summary adjudication pursuant to CRC § 2.551.

Plaintiff, a special education minor, complains that Defendants Owiecki and the District subjected Plaintiff to verbal, psychological, and physical abuse. The Complaint asserts causes of action for:

1. Violation of 42 USC § 1983

2. ADA Discrimination

3. Violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

4. Violation of CC § 52.1

5. Battery

6. IIED

7. Negligence

8. Negligent Supervision

9. Violation of Mandatory Duty

10. Violation of CC § 51

11. Violation of Educ. Code § 220

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to the public. (CRC § 2.550(c).) Therefore, pleadings, motions, discovery documents, and other papers may not be filed under seal merely by stipulation of the parties. A prior court order must be obtained. (CRC § 2.551(a); see H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 CA4th 879, 888.) At a minimum, a party seeking to seal documents must come forward with a specific list of facts sought to be

withheld and specific reasons for withholding them. (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe, supra, 151 CA4th at 894.) In determining whether to seal records, courts must weigh constitutional requirements for disclosure against such factors as privacy rights. (Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co. (2003) 112 CA4th 97, 104; People v. Jackson (2005) 128 CA4th 1009, 1026–1027.)

To grant such an order, the court must expressly find that: 1) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record; 2) the overriding interest supports sealing the records; 3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; 4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and 5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (CRC § 2.550(d).)

Overriding interests include: the right to a fair trial (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC–TV), Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Locke) (1999) 20 C4th 1178); protection of minor victims of sex crimes from further trauma and embarrassment (Globe, 457 US 596, 607); protection of witnesses from embarrassment or intimidation so extreme that it would traumatize them or render them unable to testify (Rovinsky, 722 F.2d 197, 200); and protection of trade secrets, protection of information within the attorney-client privilege, and enforcement of binding contractual obligations not to disclose (Publicker, 733 F.2d 1059, 1073).

Defendant moves to seal Exhibit “G” submitted in support of its motion for summary adjudication. The court has reviewed “Exhibit G” and finds that it is not a matter subject to seal. The personnel record concerns a party Defendant who is accused of physical abuse. The party Defendant is not a minor.

The burden on Defendant is high. “Court records are presumed to be open,” to protect the public’s constitutional right of access. (CRC § 2.550(c).)

Only in limited circumstances have the court sealed certain records. This is not the case. Defendant has not expressed any overriding interest, and failed to cite a single case that sealed personnel records of a party Defendant. The authorities cited by Defendant in reply concerns the “confidentiality” of certain personnel records during the course of discovery. The issues upon discovery and the issues and policy considerations that this court must balance upon a motion to seal are completely different.

The motion is DENIED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT is a litigant