Negligent Supervision in California

What Is Negligent Supervision?

Parental Duty In General

Under California tort law, parents have a duty to supervise and control their children. (Williams v. Garcetti (1993) 5 Cal.4th 561, 571-572, fn.7; see also Costello v. Hart (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 898, 899-901, finding duty and reversing nonsuit in favor of defendant grandmother where her four year old grandson ran out from underneath a clothes rack in a store and tripped plaintiff; Ellis v. D'Angelo (1953) 116 Cal. App. 2d 310, 312, 317, 320, finding complaint stated cause of action for negligence where it was alleged that: (1) that four-year-old child shoved and pushed the plaintiff "violently to the floor" and (2) defendant parents knew that child habitually engaged in violent conduct and failed to warn plaintiff, who had been hired to act as a babysitter).

However, there must be the manifestation of specific dangerous tendencies to trigger a parental duty to exercise reasonable care to control the minor child in order to prevent harm to third persons. (Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School District (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 934-935.) This duty is based on § 316 in the Second Restatement of Torts, which states:

“A parent is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control his minor child as to prevent it from intentionally harming others or from so conducting itself as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them, if the parent

  1. knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control his child, and
  2. knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control.”

The Restatement Illustration

“1. A is informed that his six-year-old child is shooting at a target in the street with a .22 rifle, in a manner which endangers the safety of those using the street. A fails to take the rifle away from the child, or to take any other action. The child unintentionally shoots B, a pedestrian, in the leg. A is subject to liability to B.”

§ 1714.1(a) states that any act of willful misconduct of a minor that results in injury or death to another person shall be imputed to the parent for all purposes of civil damages, and the parent shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages resulting from the willful misconduct. As noted above, California common law holds parents responsible for harm caused by their children only when it has been shown that the parents, as reasonable persons, previously became aware of habits or tendencies of the child which made it likely that the child would misbehave. (Reid v. Lund (1971) 18 Cal. App. 3d 698, 702) § 1714.1, by making parents financially liable for the conduct of a minor, is in derogation of the common law and, accordingly, should be strictly construed. (Cynthia M. v. Rodney E. (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 1040, 1046.)

As originally enacted, parental liability statutes were intended to make parents legally responsible for the tortious acts of their minor children and were generally aimed at acts of juvenile delinquency, vandalism and malicious mischief. (Id. at 1044.) For example, the original version of § 1714.1 enacted in 1955 was limited to property damage. (Id.) The statute was amended 10 years later to make parents liable for personal injuries as well as property damage willfully caused by their children and to increase the maximum liability to $500. (Id.) Subsequent amendments increased the maximum liability, added a section dealing with defacement of property, extended liability to guardians as well as parents, and restricted liability to parents and guardians who have custody and control of the minor. (Id.) The 1983 amendment also included the following language:

“This act is part of the Crime Victim Restitution Program of 1983 in that it increases the ability of victims of juvenile crime to obtain restitution by doubling parental liability for crimes committed by minors.” (Id.)

Claims Under Parental Liability for Negligence Supervision

“While it is the rule in California . . . that there is no vicarious liability on a parent for the torts of a child there is ‘another rule of the law relating to the torts of minors, which is somewhat in the nature of an exception, and that is that a parent may become liable for an injury caused by the child where the parent’s negligence made it possible for the child to cause the injury complained of, and probable that it would do so.’” (Ellis v. D’Angelo (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 310, 317.) Specifically, parents can be liable for their minor child’s torts if they knew or had reason to know (typically, from past conduct) that it was necessary to control and supervise the child to prevent future harm to others and they failed to exercise reasonable care to do so. (See, e.g., Singer v. Marx (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 637, 646, holding that evidence of the mother’s knowledge of her child’s prior habit of rock throwing was sufficient to present a jury issue as to her negligence, but evidence was insufficient as to the father who had no personal knowledge of prior rock throwing).

To prevail on a claim for parental liability for negligent supervision, Plaintiff must establish:

  1. that Defendants were aware of the minor’s habits or tendencies that created an unreasonable risk of harm to other persons,
  2. that Defendants had the opportunity and ability to control the conduct of the minor,
  3. that Defendants were negligent because they failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the minor’s conduct or take reasonable precautions to prevent harm to others,
  4. that the plaintiff was harmed, and
  5. that Defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in causing the alleged harm.

CACI No. 428.

Rulings for Negligent Supervision in California

Cross-defendants/parents Samuel Upton and Carole Effinger demur to the causes of action for negligent supervision and declaratory relief. Negligent Supervision To set forth a claim for negligent supervision, a plaintiff must allege, inter alia, that “plaintiff was harmed because of defendant’s negligent supervision.” CACI 428. Cross-defendants argue cross-complainants lack standing to raise this issue. It was the minor, not cross-defendants, who was harmed by the parents’ alleged negligent supervision.

  • Name

    EVA MARIE UPTON VS MOSS & COMPANY INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC703461

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2019

Doe, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Veronica Ferreira, filed a complaint against defendant Inglewood Unified School District for negligence and negligent supervision, hiring, and/or retention. Plaintiff alleges that when he was a student, in June 2015, physical education teacher Mark Grandpre bullied, harassed, and physically assaulted plaintiff. Discussion The court has reviewed the petition and finds the settlement to be fair and reasonable.

  • Name

    JOHN D A DOE ET AL VS INGLEWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    BC641997

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2018

Plaintiff filed this complaint on December 30, 2022, alleging five causes of action for (1) sexual assault of a minor, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) negligent supervision, hiring, and retention, (4) negligent supervision of a minor, and (5) negligence. TENTATIVE RULING Demurring Parties demurrer is OVERRULED.

  • Name

    R. B., AN INDIVIDUAL VS DOE 1, A MISSOURI CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22AHCV01429

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Negligent Supervision of a Minor Plaintiffs third cause of action alleges against Moving Defendant Negligent Supervision of a Minor. To establish a cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty to use due care, that he breached that duty, and that the breach was the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury. Recovery for negligence depends as a threshold matter on the existence of a legal duty of care. ( Doe v.

  • Name

    R. W., AN INDIVIDUAL VS DOE 1, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV01386

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On February 7, 2020, plaintiff filed a FAC for (1) negligence, (2) negligent supervision, (3) negligent failure to warn, train, or educate, (4) IIED, (5) gender violence, (6) sexual battery, and (7) sexual assault. On August 17, 2020, plaintiff filed a SAC. The SAC alleges that plaintiff is a minor born in September 2012. As a minor attending Lincoln Elementary School, plaintiff was entrusted to the care, supervision, and control of defendant TUSD.

  • Name

    JANE HC DOE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GAURDIAN AD LITEM KIM S. VS TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV31405

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

Fourth Cause of Action: Negligent Supervision of a Minor DOE 1 argues that Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action for Negligent Supervision of a Minor fails because DOE 1 did not owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff. For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds there was a special relationship between DOE 1 and the alleged third-party perpetrator, DOE 3, giving rise to DOE 1s duty to protect Plaintiff from harm.

  • Name

    E. S., AN INDIVIDUAL VS DOE 1, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22NWCV01526

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BACKGROUND On November 22, 2017, Plaintiff Gerson Martinez-Vasquez (Plaintiff), a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Olga Martinez, filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles Boys and Girls Club (LABGC) and Juana Lambert (Lambert) for negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision. On October 21, 2022, Petitioner submitted a Petition for Approval of Minors Compromise to be heard on October 28, 2022.

  • Name

    GERSON MARTINEZ VASQUEZ VS LOS ANGELES BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB

  • Case No.

    BC684633

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The demurrer to the 3 rd cause of action is sustained with leave to amend so that Plaintiff can include all of the statutory bases and allegations regarding emotional distress which support his claim in his claim for negligent supervision. Defendants have failed to establish that all of the statutory bases cited in ¶¶23, 24 and 31 of the First Amended Complaint do not provide support for Plaintiff’s negligent supervision claim. ( See Motion to Strike, p.1:7-19, p.2:5-17).

  • Name

    SETH MEDINA, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOHN MEDINA VS WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV19842

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RELIEF REQUESTED Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint · 3 rd Cause of Action: Negligent Hiring and/or Retention, Negligent Supervision · 4 th Cause of Action: Negligent Supervision of a Minor Motion to Strike SUMMARY OF ACTION From1987-1992, plaintiff E.P. alleges systematic and regular sexual abuse and molestation by a defendant identified as Doe 3, while Plaintiff was both a minor and present in an unspecified facility identified as the Pacoima Congregation.

  • Name

    E. P., AN INDIVIDUAL VS DOE 1, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV01426

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Negligent Supervision 7. Business Proprietor Liability for the Criminal Conduct of Others 8. Res Ipsa Loquitur 9. Premises Liability 10. Breach of Contract 11.

  • Name

    ERICA KIM, ET AL. VS YEJUN PARK, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV41940

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(See CACI Nos. 426 (jury instructions for negligent supervision by an employer) and 428 (jury instructions for negligent supervision by a parent).) The Perlmans are neither defendant Garrett's employer, nor his parents.

  • Name

    BASS VS DELEON

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00049377-CU-PO-NC

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2018

On June 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligence, and Negligent Supervision. On September 1, 2022, the court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligence, and Negligent Supervision.

  • Name

    EVELYN GALLEGOS, ET AL. VS LUIS LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV25336

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Mercury's MSJ is focused on the intentional tort causes of action alone (tortious aiding and abetting and imputed liability for acts of a minor). The motion ignores Lira's causes of action for negligence and negligent supervision. Those causes of action allege that Defendant Kyler Speed and his parents had a duty not to subject Plaintiff Lira o an unreasonable risk of harm.

  • Name

    MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY VS. JASON MACLEAN

  • Case No.

    56-2012-00419009-CU-IC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2013

The complaint alleges various causes of action for negligence, negligent supervision and sexual abuse.

  • Name

    ANTONIO VALTIERRA VS WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

  • Case No.

    EC066477

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2019

The complaint alleges various causes of action for negligence, negligent supervision and sexual abuse.

  • Name

    JANE SMITH VS BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    BC646633

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2019

Plaintiff alleges negligence, negligent supervision of an alleged perpetrator and failure to warn Plaintiff, negligent hiring and retention, negligent supervision of a minor, negligent failure to warn, train or educate Plaintiff, and sexual abuse of a minor. The complaint arises from sexual abuse and rape that occurred between 1961 and 1963. On March 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to seal pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1. Trial is set for July 14, 2022.

  • Name

    JOHN DOE RP VS DEFENDANT DOE 1, ARCHDIOCESE

  • Case No.

    21STCV01571

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2021

(Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), LAs Best (LAB) and Daniel Khodaverdi (Khodaverdi) for sexual assault of a minor, intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual harassment, negligent hiring, supervision and retention of an unfit employee, breach of mandatory duty, failure to report suspected child abuse, negligent supervision of a minor, negligent failure to warn, train or educate and negligence.

  • Name

    S. C., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, F.G. VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV03709

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On June 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligence, and Negligent Supervision. On September 1, 2022, the court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligence, and Negligent Supervision.

  • Name

    EVELYN GALLEGOS, ET AL. VS LUIS LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV25336

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On June 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligence, and Negligent Supervision. On September 1, 2022, the court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligence, and Negligent Supervision.

  • Name

    EVELYN GALLEGOS, ET AL. VS LUIS LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV25336

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action for Negligent Supervision As to the sixth cause of action for negligent supervision and whether it is barred by the WCA exclusivity provisions, Plaintiff clearly alleges that the injury he suffered was a personal injury that arose out of the course of employment.

  • Name

    DOE 1 V. JACOB ROLDAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19CV-0276

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2019

Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action for Negligent Supervision As to the sixth cause of action for negligent supervision and whether it is barred by the WCA exclusivity provisions, Plaintiff clearly alleges that the injury he suffered was a personal injury that arose out of the course of employment.

  • Name

    DOE 1 V. JACOB ROLDAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19CV-0276

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2019

The operative pleading is the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) filed 10/6/21 for: (1) negligence; (2) negligent supervision; (3) negligent hiring/retention; (4) negligent failure to warn, train or educate; (5) constructive fraud; (6) breach of fiduciary duty; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) commercial sexual exploitation of a minor; (9) constructive invasion of privacy; and (10) distribution of sexually explicit materials.

  • Name

    DOE VS LA SIERRA ACADEMY

  • Case No.

    CVRI2000648

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2023

However, at issue is that Plaintiff does not establish a basis of liability for Aria and Nahid as the parents of Parviz , because Parviz is not alleged to have been a minor at the time of the incident for the negligent supervision claim , nor were Aria and Nahid involved in the incident to impose direct liability . Parental liability ceases once the child reaches the age of majority. ( See In re Jeffrey M. (2006) 141 Cal.

  • Name

    RYAN NATHAN GOLDSTEIN VS ARIA SERVATJOO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV02691

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Application for Appointment as Guardian Ad Litem for Minor. A complaint was filed on behalf of the minor plaintiff asserting causes of action for negligent supervision, vicarious liability, negligent entrustment and violation of Vehicle Code, § 17150 seeking damages for injuries alleged sustained in a golf cart accident.

  • Name

    BAXLEY V. FABER

  • Case No.

    PC-20190453

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants and each of them negligently failed to properly supervise, care for, and transport minor Madeline Suh.” (FAC, Cause of Action – General Negligence Page FOUR). It is unclear whether Plaintiff is asserting a cause of action for general negligence, or negligent supervision. The elements for negligent hiring and supervision are similar to those for general negligence: (1) duty, (2) breach, and (3) breach as a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injury. (Federico v.

  • Name

    AHRAM SHIN VS DREAM 1 EDUCATION CENTER ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC686556

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2018

BACKGROUND On November 22, 2017, Plaintiff Gerson Martinez-Vasquez (Plaintiff), a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Olga Martinez, filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles Boys and Girls Club (LABGC) and Juana Lambert (Lambert) for negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision. On February 23, 2022, Petitioner filed a Petition to Approve Minors Compromise to be heard on March 18, 2022.

  • Name

    GERSON MARTINEZ VASQUEZ VS LOS ANGELES BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB

  • Case No.

    BC684633

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Motion for Summary Judgment on T.T vs ALPHA TREATMENT RIC2000616 Complaint of T.T by ALPHA CENTERS TREATMENT CENTERS Tentative Ruling: Defendant ATC has not demonstrated that it is entitled to summary judgment on the direct liability theory of negligent supervision.

  • Name

    T.T VS ALPHA TREATMENT CENTERS

  • Case No.

    RIC2000616

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

The third cause of action for negligent supervision fails to allege facts against Doe 1, rendering the complaint uncertain as to that Defendant. The fourth cause of action for negligent supervision of a minor is redundant and duplicative of the third cause of action. In opposition, Plaintiff argues the claims are not barred by the statute of limitations, because her claims were expressly revived by statute.

  • Name

    C.B., AN INDIVIDUAL VS DOE 1, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CMCV00610

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The complaint alleges two causes of action against the City titled "Negligence, Negligent Supervision" and "Dangerous Condition Which Proximately Caused Plaintiff's Damages." Plaintiff concedes the City's demurrer to the "Negligence, Negligent Supervision" cause of action by failing to raise any arguments specific to this cause of action and instead seeking leave to amend.

  • Name

    MOORE VS STEM INSTITUTE OF EARLY LEARNING ACADEMY

  • Case No.

    37-2020-00042004-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2021

BACKGROUND On November 22, 2017, Plaintiff Gerson Martinez-Vasquez (Plaintiff), a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Olga Martinez, filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles Boys and Girls Club (LABGC) and Juana Lambert (Lambert) for negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision. On March 24, 2022, Petitioner submitted a Petition for Approval of Minors Compromise to be heard on April 12, 2022.

  • Name

    GERSON MARTINEZ VASQUEZ VS LOS ANGELES BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB

  • Case No.

    BC684633

  • Hearing

    May 12, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Negligent Supervision of a Minor Doe 2 argues that Plaintiff failed to establish a duty owed to maintain a cause of action of Negligent Supervision of a Minor. Doe 2s argument prevails. The elements for Negligent Supervision of a Minor are the same as a regular negligence claim: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Hesperia , 85 Cal.App.5th at 25. Typically, a special relationship exists between a school district and its employees and students.

  • Name

    A. B., AN INDIVIDUAL VS DOE 1, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22LBCV01005

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Here, the Court finds that the first cause of action for negligence is duplicative of the second cause of action for negligent supervision.

  • Name

    DT VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    BC692966

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2018

[FAC ¶¶20, 21] The causes of action in the FAC are: 1) negligence (all defendants), 2) negligent entrustment (Richard), 3) negligent supervision (Richard and Teresa), and 4) negligence per se (Brandon). Demurrer: Defendants demur to the third and fourth causes of action on the ground that plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute the causes of action.

  • Name

    JADYN PETERSEN VS BRANDON SCOTT WOODWARD ET AL

  • Case No.

    17CV04201

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2018

Roe 1, Case No. 22STCV12892 Hearing Date December 6, 2023 Defendant Roe 1s Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiff Jane Doe alleges she was sexually abused as a minor in 1974. Her alleged abuser was Fred Hilst, a pastor employed by a Roe 1 religious institution. Doe alleges causes of action for negligent supervision, retention and training and negligent supervision of a minor.

  • Name

    JANE DOE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ROE 1, A CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS NON-PROFIT CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    22STCV12892

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Third, Defendants demur to the second cause of action for negligent supervision for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action against District, Kuykendall, and Young. In part, Defendants assert that the second cause of action for negligent supervision fails because the complaint does not identify the particular employees that negligently supervised Jackson, leading to Jackson’s injuries.

  • Name

    JACKSON EDMUND BURESH, ET AL. VS PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV27484

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Second Cause of Action: General Negligence City argues that the second cause of action fails because City cannot be held liable for negligent supervision which is a form of direct liability.

  • Name

    ISABEL LOPEZ HERNANDEZ VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC693184

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2018

Plaintiff also alleges that his injuries were caused by Defendants Vahid and Rebecca Shahriary’s negligent supervision of Kian, who was a minor. (FAC ¶ 24.) On April 19, 2017, the Shahriarys filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s FAC. The court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. Legal Standard When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.

  • Name

    MICHAEL MARTINEZ ET AL VS KIAN SHAHRIARY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC638884

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2017

Plaintiff’s complaint includes causes of action for assault and battery, IIED, negligence, negligent supervision of students, and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention of employees. 2. Demurrer Defendant, LAUSD demurs to the first cause of action for assault and battery and the fifth cause of action for negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention. a.

  • Name

    N BECERRA VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    BC605369

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2017

First Cause of Action, Negligence Plaintiffs have broken their negligence cause of action for negligence against LAUSD into six sub-parts, including negligent supervision of a minor, negligence per se, negligent supervision, negligent hiring/retention, negligent failure to warn, and breach of mandatory duty (Gov Code §815.6).

  • Name

    JANE M.C. DOE, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV16136

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Finally, this cause of action is not duplicative of the claim for negligent supervision or the general negligence claim. The claim for negligent supervision is based on the Districts duty owed to the minor to supervise and protect the minor from unfit staff involving known or knowable dangers, failure to supervise such staff and to adequately hire and train its staff (ie., to investigate the teacher, supervise and train him, or remove him. (Complaint ¶¶ 42-43.)

  • Name

    JANE DOE E.W., AN INDIVIDUAL VS LYNWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23CMCV01645

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Code §§ 51.9 and 52) Sexual Assault of a Minor Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention of Unfit Employee Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse Negligent Supervision of a Minor Negligent Failure to Warn, Train, or Educate Negligence On January 25, 2022, this case was transferred from Department 32 of the Personal Injury Court to this instant department. A Status Conference is set for April 14, 2022.

  • Name

    B. M., ET AL. VS HACIENDA LA PUENTE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV40760

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Consequently, a cause of action for the negligent supervision of students differs from a claim for the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of employees and the second cause of action is not duplicative of the first.

  • Name

    I. H. VS LESLIE SALCEDO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV32148

  • Hearing

    May 27, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

The Court finds that the negligent hiring and the negligent supervision causes of action are duplicative and also that they fail to state a claim. There is no fact alleged in the negligent hiring cause of action that differentiates it from the negligent supervision cause of action. Furthermore, both causes of action fail to allege required elements of the claims.

  • Name

    JESSICA RAMIREZ ET AL VS GHP MANAGEMENT INC

  • Case No.

    BC634765

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2018

The complaint alleges causes of action in: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) negligent supervision; (3) negligence; (4) battery; (5) assault; (6) Civil Code section 1714.1; (7) parent vicarious liability; and (8) negligence.

  • Case No.

    BC5577960

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2017

On February 7, 2020, plaintiff filed a FAC for (1) negligence, (2) negligent supervision, (3) negligent failure to warn, train, or educate, (4) IIED, (5) gender violence, (6) sexual battery, and (7) sexual assault. The FAC alleges that plaintiff is a minor born in September 2012. As a minor attending Lincoln Elementary School, plaintiff was entrusted to the care, supervision, and control of defendant TUSD.

  • Name

    JANE HC DOE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GAURDIAN AD LITEM KIM S. VS TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV31405

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

Plaintiff further alleges that Castillo’s parents – defendants Juan Ortiz and Magdalena Rios Ortiz – are liable for negligent supervision of their minor son. Plaintiff alleges that Munoz’s mother – defendant Maria Munoz (erroneously sued as Mayra Cristina Valdez) – is liable for negligent supervision of her minor son. On July 30, 2009, the court entered the default of Mayra Cristina Valdez but that was before the complaint was amended to name Maria Munoz.

  • Name

    STEPHEN DANLEY VS OSCAR CASTILLO ET AL

  • Case No.

    1306659

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2010

DISCUSSION: Plaintiff sues LAUSD for (1) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention of Unfit Employee; (2) Failure to Report Suspect Child Abuse; and (3) Negligent Supervision of Minor.

  • Name

    JANE DOE, D.R. VS DOE #1, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV36167

  • Hearing

    Oct 12, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Negligent Supervision and Retention 3. Sexual Battery and 4. Sexual Harassment Discussion As Plaintiff has filed a FAC since the filing of CVUSDs demurrer, the demurrer is moot and taken off calendar.

  • Case No.

    22STCV149395

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BACKGROUND On December 30, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint (the Complaint) alleging: (1) negligence; (2) negligent supervision; (3) negligent hiring/retention; (4) negligent supervision of a minor; and (5) vicarious liability. On October 10, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a motion to quash service of the Complaint and dismiss the action on the grounds that there has not been proper service to establish jurisdiction over them.

  • Name

    JOHN DOE LG, ET AL. VS DOE ARCHDIOCESE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV41109

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

November 1, 2017 Claimant Heidi Fuentes Reyna (“Claimant”), a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Yasmin Reyna Miranda (“Petitioner”), filed this action for (1) negligence including negligent supervision and care of students; (2) breach of mandatory statutory duty; and (3) negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”). Claimant has agreed to settle her claims against Defendant in exchange for $2,750,000.00.

  • Name

    HEIDI FUENTES REYNA VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    BC574814

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2017

To establish a claim of negligent supervision or premises liability, a plaintiff must prove the traditional elements of actionable negligence. (Thompson v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist., 107 Cal.App.4th 1352 [negligent supervision]; Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [premises liability].)

  • Name

    MICHAEL MALUF VS. TRAVIS JAMES PECOY

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01032861-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2019

Plaintiff alleges claims for (1) Negligence, (2) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention; (3) Negligent Supervision, and (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. On April 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case. On July 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed this petition to approve the settlement. Plaintiff has agreed to accept $60,000 in settlement of her claims with the courts approval.

  • Name

    Z N, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AT LITEM, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY

  • Case No.

    20STCV00783

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2022

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff, M.W., via her guardian ad litem, alleges negligent supervision against defendant Compton Unified School District. M.W. was followed into the restroom at her middle school by male student and sexually assaulted. M.W. now petitions for Court approval of her settlement. The petition is unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the petition. II. Standard Court approval is required to establish an enforceable settlement of a minor’s claim. (Prob.

  • Name

    M W VS COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    BC635938

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2019

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PTL argues that Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligent supervision and retention fails because it had no knowledge of Lopez’s unfitness and presents evidence to demonstrate: (1) Lopez maintained a proper commercial driver’s license and active medical certification; (2) Lopez only had five minor DMV violations during his seven years of employment with PTL; and (3) in his seven years of employment with PTL, Lopez only had two minor collisions of which PTL was aware.

  • Name

    RODAS VS PERFORMANCE TEAM LLC

  • Case No.

    RIC1804978

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2021

LAUSDs liability, therefore, depends on its employees (Leslie Salcedo, Nancy Garcia, Jose Gonzalez, Christine Berni-Ramos, and Saul Rivera) allegedly negligent supervision of the minor defendants on the date of the Subject Incident, and/or knowledge of any alleged bullying that occurred prior to the date of the Subject Incident. §820 does not impose any duty to supervise. It makes a public employee liable for an injury to the same extent as a private person.

  • Name

    I. H. VS LESLIE SALCEDO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV32148

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Supervision is wholly unsupported.

  • Name

    BRIELLE SMITH, ET AL. VS FITNESS INTERNATIONAL LLC

  • Case No.

    22STCV25458

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2023

On March 15, 2016, plaintiff Janet Arredondo, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Xochitl Cid, filed a complaint against defendant Compton Unified School District for general negligence. On July7, 2016, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On September 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) for negligent supervision. On September 14, 2017, plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney, stating that minor’s new legal representative is the guardian ad litem.

  • Name

    JANET ARREDONDO VS COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    BC613793

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2018

[TENATATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REMOVAL OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM Facts Plaintiff, BT, a minor by and through her GAL, Kimberly Tucker, filed this action against Defendant, LAUSD for negligence, negligent supervision, hiring, and/or retention, and negligent failure to warn, train or educate. Plaintiff alleges she participated in an after-school program through Defendant, and the administrators failed to notify her parents that the program would be closed on the date in question.

  • Name

    B T ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC534894

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2017

In short, the Court finds that “negligent supervision of staff” does not include a negligent hiring, training and/or retention claim. Therefore, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

  • Name

    L. VS MENIFEE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    CVRI2000324

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

On 2/13/19, Plaintiff filed this action against Haggerty and the District for: (1) Sexual Abuse of a Minor (against Haggerty); (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (against Haggerty); (3) Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Retention of an Unfit Employee (against District); (4) Breach of Mandatory Duty: Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse (against District); (5) Negligent Failure to Warn, Train or Educate (against District); (6) Negligent Supervision of Minor (against District) and (7) Sexual

  • Name

    JOHN DOE 1 VS JEREMEY HAGGERTY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV05083

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The petition explains that, due to negligent supervision of minor claimant’s classroom, minor claimant, then a third-grade student, engaged in multiple instanced of sexual contacts with another student while on the premises owned, operated and controlled by WVUSD and inside WVUSD’s classroom. (Petition, ¶ 5.) Minor claimant suffered emotional distress, for which he received treatment via one visit for an initial therapy consultation at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. ( Id. , ¶¶ 6-7.)

  • Name

    D. B. VS WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20PSCV00280

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

Background Minor Plaintiff M.W. alleges that on March 14, 2016, at Vanguard Learning Center, a school operated by Defendant Compton Unified School District (“CUSD”), she was followed into the girls’ bathroom by a male student (also a minor), “A.H.,” and sexually assaulted by him. (See Complaint.)

  • Name

    M W VS COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    BC635938

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2017

  • Judge

    Steven D. Blades or Brian S. Currey

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

All that Plaintiff has alleged amounts to negligent supervision. As Plaintiff was given prior leave to correct the deficiencies in the complaint, but failed to do so, leave to amend is denied. If discovery reveals facts supporting malice, oppression, or fraud, Plaintiff may later seek leave to amend. At this juncture, there are no facts supporting punitive damages against these Defendants.

  • Name

    ERICA KIM, ET AL. VS YEJUN PARK, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV41940

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The information sought would tend to show whether the Student’s assault on and harassment of Plaintiff were foreseeable, which would support Plaintiff’s negligent supervision claim against Defendant. Where the right to privacy is asserted as a protection against discovery, the person raising the objection must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Williams v. Super.

  • Name

    S. B. VS. OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01029302-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2019

The FAC asserts: (1) negligence (against all);(2) negligent supervision (against SECC and NAD); (3) negligent hiring/retention (against SECC and NAD); (4) negligent failure to warn, train or educate (against SECC and NAD); (5) constructive fraud (against SECC and NAD); (6) breach of fiduciary duty (against all); (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress (against all); (8) gender violence (against Johnson); (9) commercial sexual exploitation of a minor (against

  • Name

    DOE VS LA SIERRA ACADEMY

  • Case No.

    CVRI2000648

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2021

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

The FAC asserts: (1) negligence (against all);(2) negligent supervision (against SECC and NAD); (3) negligent hiring/retention (against SECC and NAD); (4) negligent failure to warn, train or educate (against SECC and NAD); (5) constructive fraud (against SECC and NAD); (6) breach of fiduciary duty (against all); (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress (against all); (8) gender violence (against Johnson); (9) commercial sexual exploitation of a minor (against

  • Name

    DOE VS LA SIERRA ACADEMY

  • Case No.

    CVRI2000648

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2021

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

The FAC asserts: (1) negligence (against all);(2) negligent supervision (against SECC and NAD); (3) negligent hiring/retention (against SECC and NAD); (4) negligent failure to warn, train or educate (against SECC and NAD); (5) constructive fraud (against SECC and NAD); (6) breach of fiduciary duty (against all); (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress (against all); (8) gender violence (against Johnson); (9) commercial sexual exploitation of a minor (against

  • Name

    DOE VS LA SIERRA ACADEMY

  • Case No.

    CVRI2000648

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2021

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

The sixteenthth cause of action (Negligent Supervision of Minor School Children) is based on a duty of ordinary care. The eleventh – fifteenth causes of action (re hiring, retaining, training, supervising, etc. Mr. Gallegos) are based on the duty to use reasonable measures to protect students from third parties. Plaintiffs' NIED cause does not identify a separate duty and thus is redundant.

  • Name

    ROE 1 VS OXNARD UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    56-2014-00448786-CU-NP-VTA

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2014

The Court intends to rule as follows: Sustain with leave to amend as to the second cause of action for negligent supervision. The cause of action posits that defendant Hobbs had supervisorial authority over defendant Magoon. Yet, there are no specific allegations in the Second Amended Complaint that reflect that relationship. Hobbs allegedly recommended Magoon as a tutor (SAC at ¶17), but that allegation does not reflect any supervisorial relationship between Hobbs and Magoon.

  • Name

    DOE VS VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    56-2017-00498095-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2018

Notice: Okay No Opposition MP : Plaintiff RP : Summary On 12/20/22, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that, when he was a minor, he was the victim of sexual abuse by a Boy Scout adult troop leader. The causes of action are: 1. NEGLIGENCE; 2. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF A MINOR; 3. NEGLIGENCE: NEGLIGENT HIRING AND/OR RETENTION; and 4. SEXUAL BATTERY.

  • Name

    JOHN DOE L.V. VS DEFENDANT DOE 1, COUNCIL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV39436

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Demurrer filed by Defendant Annie Lo to the 2nd Cause of Action (Negligent Supervision) and the 3rd Cause of Action (Negligent Supervision) is sustained with leave to amend. Defendant's Motion to Strike is granted. A claim for Breach of Contract is sufficiently alleged. A claim for Trespass to Chattel is sufficiently alleged. As to the 2nd Cause of Action for Negligent Supervision, there are no facts to show that Doe 1 was the agent of the Defendant or that Defendant had a duty to supervise Doe 1.

  • Name

    DONALD SHERWIN TODD VS ACCESS SPECIALTY ANIMAL HOSPITAL

  • Case No.

    SC128272

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2018

The undisputed evidence indicates that defendant did not have knowledge that plaintiff was being sexually abused or reasonably suspected that she was being sexually abused. 7th cause of action for negligent supervision of a minor Plaintiff alleges that LESD was responsible for the care, custody, control, supervision, and protection of the minor students entrusted to them, like plaintiff.

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS LAWNDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC686649

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Superior Court, (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 152,154-155, a family friend was sexually abused as a minor during visits to the abuser’s home. (Ibid.) She sued the abuser’s wife under a theory of negligent supervision. (Ibid.) The Court held that the wife’s demurrer should have been sustained because the allegations were insufficient to show that the wife had actual knowledge of her husband’s deviant propensities, explaining saliently, that “[i]t is not enough to allege that the sexual misconduct was conceivable.

  • Name

    N.M. V. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    17CECG03023

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2019

Defendant argues that negligent supervision of a minor is not a separate cause of action. (Demurrer at p. 6.) A public employee may be liable for negligence in the supervision of a minor in foster care. (See Scott v. County of Los Angeles (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 125, 142.) And Defendant may be liable for these acts or omissions by its employees. (Gov. Code, § 815.2, subd. (a).)

  • Name

    HB DOE JOHN ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES A PUBLIC ENTITY ET AL

  • Case No.

    22STCV34291

  • Hearing

    Apr 20, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Park is another minor who was two years older than Plaintiff. Park touched and massaged Plaintiffs buttocks and breasts daily without Plaintiffs consent. Hoon Park and Younggeun Choi are the parents of Yejun Park. Based thereon, the FAC asserts causes of action for: 1. Sexual Assault and Battery 2. IIED 3. Negligence Per Se 4. Gross Negligence 5. Parental Negligence 6. Negligent Supervision 7.

  • Name

    LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. VS ANIVIVE LIFESCIENCES, INC.

  • Case No.

    19STCV41940

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On February 7, 2020, plaintiff filed a FAC for (1) negligence, (2) negligent supervision, (3) negligent failure to warn, train, or educate, (4) IIED, (5) gender violence, (6) sexual battery, and (7) sexual assault. The FAC alleges that plaintiff is a minor born in September 2012. As a minor attending Lincoln Elementary School, plaintiff was entrusted to the care, supervision, and control of defendant TUSD.

  • Name

    JANE HC DOE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GAURDIAN AD LITEM KIM S. VS TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV31405

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

On 8/19/20, Plaintiffs filed this action against Haggerty and the District for: (1) Sexual Abuse of a Minor (against Haggerty); (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (against Haggerty); (3) Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Retention of an Unfit Employee (against District); (4) Breach of Mandatory Duty: Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse (against District); (5) Negligent Failure to Warn, Train or Educate (against District); (6) Negligent Supervision of Minor (against District) and (7) Sexual

  • Name

    JOHN DOE 2, ET AL. VS WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV31624

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision, and “imputed liability” against the School District. The School District demurs to each of these causes of action on multiple grounds. (The court notes that while the opposing papers state that Plaintiff is a minor, no guardian ad litem has been named or appointed. The claim form includes a date of birth that would make Plaintiff an adult.

  • Name

    DYLAN JOYCE VS DIAMOND BAR HIGH SCHOOL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV09753

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2021

Plaintiff’s claim for negligence is distinct from Plaintiff’s claim for negligent supervision precisely because the former is based on a vicarious liability theory, whereas the latter concerns Defendant directly.

  • Name

    H. B., A MINOR VS. 102ND STREET EARLY EDUCATION CENTER

  • Case No.

    TC028521

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2017

  • Judge

    Brian S. Currey or John A. Slawson

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A MINOR 2. VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE 647.6(A)(1) 3. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 4. NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, AND RETENTION 5. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF A MINOR 6. FAILURE TO REPORT SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE IN VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 11165. ET SEQ. BASED ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY 7. NEGLIGENCE 8. SEXUAL BATTERY IN VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV. CODE § 1708.5 9. GENDER VIOLENCE IN VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV.

  • Name

    SALUD GONZALEZ, ET AL. VS INTERNATIONAL CHURCHES OF CHRIST, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV16430

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff alleges sexual assault of a minor, intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual harassment, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, breach of a mandatory duty, failure to report suspected child abuse, negligent supervision of a minor, negligent failure to warn, train or educate, and negligence in the complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint arises from sexual abuse that occurred in the Fall of 2017. On May 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

  • Name

    S. C., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, F.G. VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV03709

  • Hearing

    Apr 13, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

The operative FAC alleges five causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention, (3) Negligent Supervision; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (5) Violations of the Unruh Act. Defendant demurs to the FAC and moves strike portions of the FAC.

  • Name

    Z N, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AT LITEM, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY

  • Case No.

    20STCV00783

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Sexual Abuse of a Minor, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Sexual Harassment, Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention of Unfit Employee, Breach of Mandatory Duty: Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse, Negligent Supervision of a Minor, Negligent Failure to Warn, Train or Educate, and Negligence. On June 18, 2021, the court overruled the demurrer of SMUSD. SMUSD answered and filed a cross-complaint.

  • Name

    JOHN DOE VS SAN MARINO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV13351

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BACKGROUND On November 22, 2017, Plaintiff Gerson Martinez-Vasquez (Plaintiff), a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem Olga Martinez, filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles Boys and Girls Club (LABGC) and Juana Lambert (Lambert) for negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision. On November 7, 2022, the Court granted the petition to approve minors compromise filed by Petitioner Olga Martinez.

  • Name

    GERSON MARTINEZ VASQUEZ VS LOS ANGELES BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB

  • Case No.

    BC684633

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Negligent Supervision Of Students (Govt. Code §815.2) 2. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Training, And Retention (Govt. Code §§815.2, 815.6) 3. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress 4. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress 5. Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress 6. Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress

  • Name

    JANE DOE, A MINOR , BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JANE GA DOE, ET AL. VS GLENDORA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, AN ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23PSCV00285

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) brings the subject to demurrer to the first through fifth causes of action for Negligence, Negligent Hiring and/or Retention, Negligent Supervision, Negligent Failure to Warn, Train, or Educate, Negligent Supervision of a Minor, Breach of Mandatory Duty.

  • Name

    CENTURY PARK EAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION VS BRENDA DICKSON WEINBERG

  • Case No.

    23STCV14353

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) brings the subject to demurrer to the first through fifth causes of action for Negligence, Negligent Hiring and/or Retention, Negligent Supervision, Negligent Failure to Warn, Train, or Educate, Negligent Supervision of a Minor, Breach of Mandatory Duty.

  • Name

    D. M. VS DOE 1

  • Case No.

    23STCV14354

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendants' Demurrer to the 2nd Cause of Action (Negligent Supervision) and the 3rd Cause of Action (Negligent Supervision) is sustained without leave to amend. As to the Breach of Contract claim, Plaintiff is describing an oral contract. See Second Amended Complaint, Paragraphs 5 and 9. As to the Negligent Supervision claims, Dr. Lo cannot be held responsible for negligently supervising herself.

  • Name

    DONALD SHERWIN TODD VS ACCESS SPECIALTY ANIMAL HOSPITAL

  • Case No.

    SC128272

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2018

H.B., a minor v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., et al.

  • Name

    H. B., A MINOR VS. 102ND STREET EARLY EDUCATION CENTER

  • Case No.

    TC028521

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2017

  • Judge

    Steven D. Blades or Brian S. Currey or Maurice A. Leiter

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On February 7, 2020, plaintiff filed a FAC for (1) negligence, (2) negligent supervision, (3) negligent failure to warn, train, or educate, (4) IIED, (5) gender violence, (6) sexual battery, and (7) sexual assault. On August 17, 2020, plaintiff filed a SAC. The SAC alleges that plaintiff is a minor born in September 2012. As a minor attending Lincoln Elementary School, plaintiff was entrusted to the care, supervision, and control of defendant TUSD.

  • Name

    JANE HC DOE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GAURDIAN AD LITEM KIM S. VS TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV31405

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

BACKGROUND On October 13, 2016, plaintiff Jane Doe, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, T.B., filed a complaint against Robert Dean Lee and Gloria D. Lee for (1) battery, (2) assault, (3) sexual battery, (4) IIED, (5) negligence, (6) negligent supervision, (7) intentional fraud, and (8) constructive fraud.

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS ROBERT DEAN LEE ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC637135

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Bullington; (3) cover up of childhood sexual assault by J.P. and N.B. against all Defendants; (4) negligence by J.P. and N.B. against BUSD; (5) negligent supervision by J.P. and N.B. against BUSD; (6) negligent hiring and retention by J.P. and N.B. against BUSD; (7) negligent failure to warn, train, or educate by J.P. and N.B. against BUSD; (8) IIED by J.P. and N.B. against all Defendants; (9) sexual harassment by J.P. and N.B. against all Defendants; and (10) battery by J.P. and N.B. against Mr.

  • Name

    , A MINOR J.P., ET AL. VS BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22BBCV00433

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Third COA for Negligent Supervision of a Minor: Defendant argues this third COA for negligent supervision of a minor is duplicative of Plaintiff’s first cause of action for negligence, and its point is well taken. Defendant points to allegations that Defendant “had an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps and implement reasonable safeguards to protect Plaintiff from PERPETRATOR,” and that Defendant breached that duty by placing Plaintiff with her foster father. (SAC, ¶¶ 41, 42.)

  • Name

    JULIE MCILVAINE VS COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UPI-2022-0010158

  • Hearing

    Dec 26, 2023

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

The complaint, filed 4/5/18, asserts causes of action against Defendants Haynes, Ontario-Montclair School District (“District”), Ramirez and Does 1-100 for: Negligence Negligent Supervision Negligent Hiring and/or Retention Negligent Failure to Warn, Train or Educate Negligence Per Se (2 Counts) Constructive Fraud Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Sexual Harassment Sexual Harassment and Abuse in Educational Setting Breach of Fiduciary Duty Public

  • Name

    JOHN RD DOE ET AL VS HAYNES FAMILY OF PROGRAMS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC700918

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2018

Doe, a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Veronica Ferreira filed a complaint against defendant Inglewood Unified School District for negligence, negligent supervision and negligent hiring and/or retention. Plaintiffs allege that on June 9, 2015 physical education teacher Mark Grandpre bullied, harassed, and abused John D.A. Doe during school hours at Monroe Magnet Middle School. On July 10, 2018, a Notice of Settlement was filed. Discussion The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

  • Name

    JOHN D A DOE ET AL VS INGLEWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    BC641997

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2018

The Court finds the same general set of facts have been alleged in both the initial complaint and in the negligent supervision cause of action of the FAC. Plaintiff’s facts alleged in the initial complaint gave sufficient notice to Defendant of Plaintiff’s negligent supervision cause of action in the FAC. These allegations are based on the same general facts that Plaintiff slipped and fell from unsecured flooring on September 13, 2017.

  • Name

    ROBIN ROBINSON VS CROWNE TOWERS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

  • Case No.

    19STCV32250

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

In Dailey, a school was charged with negligent supervision when a student died after engaging in a slap boxing match with a schoolmate. The California Supreme Court found that another student’s misconduct could be the immediate precipitating cause of an injury without precluding a conclusion that negligent supervision was a proximate cause. (Dailey, 2 Cal.3d at p. 365.)

  • Name

    CATALINA BARRIENTOS ET AL VS LA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    BC703407

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

In Dailey, a school was charged with negligent supervision when a student died after engaging in a slap boxing match with a schoolmate. The California Supreme Court found that another student’s misconduct could be the immediate precipitating cause of an injury without precluding a conclusion that negligent supervision was not the proximate cause. (Dailey, 2 Cal.3d at p. 365.)

  • Name

    CATALINA BARRIENTOS ET AL VS LA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    BC703407

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

The court began its analysis by stating that the case was not about the possible liability of coparticipants in a recreational activity or the possible liability of a recreational activity towards a student, but, rather, about the possible liability of a school for negligent supervision. Id., at 601. The court noted that the plaintiff had evidence to support his claim of negligent supervision and that “this portion of his case is not barred by primary assumption of the risk.” Id., at 606.

  • Name

    HO JUNG JEONG VS GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE TRUE JESUS CHURCH I

  • Case No.

    BC591747

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2017

“There can be no liability for negligent supervision in the absence of knowledge by the principal that the agent or servant was a person who could not be trusted to act properly without being supervised.” (Juarez v. Boy Scouts of Am., Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 395 [emphasis added]; C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High Sch.

  • Name

    A. I-B VS SAN JACINTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    RIC1905842

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2022

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope