Negligent Supervision in California

In light of Plaintiff’s admissions, Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case for either the Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Retention cause of action nor the Negligent Supervision of a Minor claim. A Negligent Hiring Claim requires the Defendant to exercise control over the alleged perpetrator and that Defendant was on notice of the alleged perpetrator’s propensities.

BACKGROUND On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff Jake Luker (Plaintiff), a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem Richard Stenlund, filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), Austyn Chade (Chade), Veronica Guinez (Guinez), and Does 1-50 for negligence, negligent supervision of students, negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention of employees, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and assault and battery.

The 11th cause of action, captioned “Negligent Supervision of a Minor”, contains no allegations regarding the negligent supervision of a minor, and hence fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and is uncertain. A school district is not a “person” for purposes of Civ. Code § 51.9, hence there is no vicarious liability against the school district.

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF A MINOR The Court requests assistance of the parties. I am currently confused and request that the parties clarify where the Court has gone wrong. The cause of action for Negligent Supervision of a Minor is governed by the clearly inapposite CACI 428. Defendant cites Z.F. v. County of Riverside (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 889 as a relevant supervision case, but this appears to be supervision of the employee, not the minor. Other cases appear to fail for the same reason.

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF A MINOR The Court requests assistance of the parties. I am currently confused and request that the parties clarify where the Court has gone wrong. The cause of action for Negligent Supervision of a Minor is governed by the clearly inapposite CACI 428. Defendant cites Z.F. v. County of Riverside (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 889 as a relevant supervision case, but this appears to be supervision of the employee, not the minor. Other cases appear to fail for the same reason.

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF A MINOR The Court requests assistance of the parties. I am currently confused and request that the parties clarify where the Court has gone wrong. The cause of action for Negligent Supervision of a Minor is governed by the clearly inapposite CACI 428. Defendant cites Z.F. v. County of Riverside (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 889 as a relevant supervision case, but this appears to be supervision of the employee, not the minor. Other cases appear to fail for the same reason.

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.

The court is inclined to grant petitioner Veronica Ferreira’s Petition to Approve Compromise of the Pending Action on behalf of minor claimant John D.A. Doe. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952(a), petitioner and minor claimant are required to attend the hearing on the petition. Background On November 28, 2016, plaintiff John D.A.

VS COUNTY OF CVME2508525 DEMURRER ORANGE Tentative Ruling: Demurrer is OVERRULED in its entirety as to the 3rd cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of unfit employee; and 4th cause of action for failure to report suspected child abuse; and 5th cause of action for negligent supervision of a minor. Sufficient facts are alleged supporting the basis for liability against the County based on respondent superior.

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.

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.

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.

Rather, like the minor in A.M., Plaintiff’s causes of action relate to a negligent act (e.g., negligent supervision) that resulted in the alleged sexual assault of a minor. The demurrer is overruled as to these causes of action on this ground. D. Direct Liability Against City—Fourth Cause of Action The City argues that Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention, fails absent statutory authority imposing direct liability on a public entity. (Citing, Herd v.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Sixth (Abuse of Process/Malicious Prosecution), Seventh (Civil Harassment), and Ninth (Negligent Supervision of a Minor) Causes of Action.

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.

Hart Union High School District, Ruth Flohr and Brenda Bennett RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Seth Medina, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, John Medina NOTICE: ok Demurrer is to 1 st , 3 rd , and 5 th causes of action: 1. Negligence Under Education Code 2. Common Law Negligence 3. Negligent Supervision 4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 5.

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.

Rather, the causes of action at issue appear allege that Defendants knew or should have known that the hotel rooms were used by minor sex workers, that Defendants negligently rented hotel rooms to minor sex workers and sex traffickers, failed to supervise their employees, and failed to supervise their minor guests. Vicarious liability for Defendants employees alleged sexual battery of Plaintiff is therefore not at issue.

Rather, the causes of action at issue appear allege that Defendants knew or should have known that the hotel rooms were used by minor sex workers, that Defendants negligently rented hotel rooms to minor sex workers and sex traffickers, failed to supervise their employees, and failed to supervise their minor guests. Vicarious liability for Defendants employees alleged sexual battery of Plaintiff is therefore not at issue.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

On 7/24/2024, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC) alleging: (1) general negligence; (2) negligent supervision of a minor; (3) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of an unfit employee; (4) negligent failure to warn, train, or educate; and (5) negligent misrepresentation.

However, Civil Code § 1714.1 expressly states that "any act of willful misconduct of a minor that results in injury...shall be imputed to the parent or guardian having custody or control of the minor..." (Emphasis added.) As addressed above, defendant Garrett was not a minor at the time of the altercation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

For indemnity to be appropriate, LAUSD must allege that Smolin is a joint tortfeasor in its negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of an unfit employee; breach of mandatory duty: failure to report suspected child abuse; negligent failure to warn, train, or educate; and negligent supervision of a minor. LAUSD has not alleged any facts to that effect because these were duties exclusive to LAUSD.

On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff Jane Doe (Plaintiff) filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against The Salvation Army, The Salvation Army Southern California Division, The Salvation Army Corps Community CenterPomona, and Does 1-100 for: (1) Negligence, (2) Negligent Supervision of Employee/Agent, (3) Negligent Hiring and Retention of Employee/Agent, (4) Negligent Supervision of a Minor, and (5) Sexual Abuse of a Minor.

Accordingly, Defendants demurrer to the entire complaint is SUSTAINED with thirty (30) days leave to amend.Negligent Supervision of a Minor Defendant next contends that Plaintiff has failed to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for negligent supervision of a minor against Defendant, the only cause of action alleged in the body of the Complaint.

Explanation: Fresno Unified School District (“FUSD”) moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for summary adjudication as to the third, fourth and fifth causes of action for negligent hiring, supervision or retention of an unfit employee, failure to report suspected child abuse, and negligent supervision of a minor.

sexual exploitation of a minor; (13) constructive invasion of privacy; and (14) distribution of sexually explicit materials.

On July 10, 2025, plaintiff E.N., a minor, and by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Joy S. (Plaintiff), filed this action against defendant Walnut Valley Unified School District (Defendant) and Does 1 through 50, alleging one cause of action for negligent supervision of students. On February 2, 2026, Defendant demurred to and moved to strike portions of Plaintiffs complaint. On March 5, 2026, Plaintiff opposed both motions. On March 11, 2026, Defendant replied.

Vargas, a minor, and Valentina L. Vargas, a minor, (Plaintiffs) filed this action against Defendants Lakewood Regional Medical Center, Dr. Mark Reynolds, M.D., Dr. Abraham Rayhaun M.D., (Defendants) and Does 1 to 100. On January 29, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint. On July 22, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint. On December 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint (TAC).

(Plaintiff), a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem Maria Roman, filed this action against Defendants Downey Unified School District (District) and Does 1-25 for vicarious liability of public employees, negligent supervision, and failure to follow mandatory duties established by law. On September 30, 2022, the Court appointed Maria Roman to serve as Plaintiffs guardian ad litem. On December 8, 2022, the District filed an answer.

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.

(Plaintiff), by and through her guardian ad litem Jamiel Fears, filed this action against Defendants Inglewood Unified School District and Does 1-100 for negligent supervision and dangerous condition of public property. On May 30, 2023, the Court appointed Jamiel Fears to serve as Plaintiffs guardian ad litem.

Code, §§ 815.2, 815.4, 815.6, 820), negligent supervision of a minor (Gov. Code, §§ 815.2, 820), breach of mandatory duty (Educ. Code, §§ 44807, 49079; Gov. Code, §§ 815.2, 815.6, 820), negligent hiring (Gov. Code, §§ 815.2, 815.4, 820), negligent supervision (Gov. Code, §§ 815.2, 815.4, 820), and negligent retention (Gov. Code, §§ 815.2, 815.4, 820).

Sexual Assault and Battery of a Minor, 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, 4. Negligent Supervision/Vicarious Liability, and 5. Violation of California Education Code On July 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a SAC for: 1. Assault & Battery, 2. Sexual Assault & Battery Of A Minor, 3. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress, and 4.

Sexual Assault Of A Minor 2. Violation Of Penal Code §§ 288(A), (B)(1), (B)(2) 3. Sexual Assault 4. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress 5. Sexual Battery 6. Gender Violence 7. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, And Retention 8. Negligent Supervision Of A Minor 9. Failure To Report Suspected Child Abuse 10. Negligence On March 22, 2024, LORI A. METCALF filed the instant motion. Discussion LORI A.

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. Code § 52.4

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.

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.

The retainer agreement states that in Minor Client Matters, If a settlement or judgment for bodily injury, property damage, and/or uninsured or underinsured motorist recovery is obtained while the client is a minor (under 18 years of age), attorneys fees shall be deducted at the rate of 25% of the gross recovery but, are subject to reasonable increase via motion and court order. Petitioner should explain why an increase from 25% ($46,250.00) to 40% ($74,000.00) is reasonable.

This personal injury action was filed on December 11, 2017 by Plaintiff AHRAM SHIN, an individual and as GAL of MADELINE SUH, a minor. Plaintiff alleges, in pertinent part: “Defendants Dream-1 Education Center and Dream-1 School and each of them, negligently took custody and control of minor Madeline Suh and transported her from Fisher Elementary School to defendants’ premises. In doing so Defendants and each of them negligently failed to properly supervise, care for, and transport minor Madeline Suh.

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.

Kelley R. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 141, 156-157 [minor sexually assaulted by boys with whom the minor left a sleepover hosted by the mother of the minor’s friend]; Romero, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at 1080 [minor sexually assaulted by another teenager while an invitee at the home of the defendant].) This rule duty of care has been applied in the foster care context. (Doe, supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at 675.)

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.

of a Minor; (6) Issue 6 Plaintiff has no evidence in support of his third cause of action for Negligent Supervision, Hiring, Retention, and Supervision of an Unfit Employee; and (7) Issue 7 Plaintiffs entire lawsuit is barred because the statute that Plaintiff brings this lawsuit under is unconstitutional.

On December 12, 2022, Minor Claimant, through her guardian ad litem, Jane BE Doe, filed a complaint against Defendant alleging three causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Supervision; and (3) Negligent Failure to Warn, Train, or Educate. On September 13, 2024, Petitioner Jane BE Doe (Petitioner) filed a petition to approve the compromise of pending action on behalf of Minor Claimant.

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

The fourth cause of action is not duplicative of the third cause of action since negligent supervision of a minor depends on the duty of care owed directly to the minor. The third cause of action alleges Defendants negligence in supervising their employee. If the Court sustains demurrer, Plaintiff asks for leave to amend.

Plaintiff Doe OQs FAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Supervision of an Alleged Perpetrator and Failure to Warn Plaintiff; (3) Negligent Hiring and Retention; (4) Negligent Failure to Warn, Train, or Educate Plaintiff; and (5) Sexual Abuse of a Minor On December 20, 2021, both actions were consolidated. Doe v. The Salvation Army (Case No. 20STCV13393) is the lead case.

On 7/24/2024, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC) alleging: (1) general negligence; (2) negligent supervision of a minor; (3) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of an unfit employee; (4) negligent failure to warn, train, or educate; and (5) negligent misrepresentation.

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.

“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 (a) knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control his child, and (b) knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control.” Rest 2d Torts (1965) § 316; Hansra, 7 Cal.App.4th at 645. Brandon is not a minor child.

District failed to investigate the conduct of Gonzalez towards minor students despite the fact that District knew or should have known that Gonzalezs conduct was inappropriate, which resulted in Gonzalezs sexual abuse of Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges three causes of action against the District within the ComplaintNegligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention (Count 3), Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse (Count 4), and Negligent Supervision of a Minor (Count 5). 2.

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.

The Court finds that Shin is only applicable to the extent it stands for the proposition that negligent supervision of medical staff constitutes professional negligence.

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.

Notably, the second cause of action distinguishes between employees and cadets and specifically alleges that a minor LAPD cadet caused the motor vehicle collision which caused Plaintiff’s injuries. (FAC p.5 paragraphs 1 and 4.) Based on the allegations in the second cause of action, the minor LAPD cadet seems more like the uncompensated volunteer in Munoz compared than employee’s such as LAPD officers.

Los Angeles Unified School District, et al., 23NWCV00598 EX PARTE This negligent supervision action was filed on February 23, 2023. Trial is scheduled to begin on May 11, 2026. Plaintiff Jane Doe, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Ms. Doe (Plaintiff) now applies ex parte to continue the trial date to a date on or after July 27, 2026, and to continue related discovery and trial deadlines.

Los Angeles Unified School District, et al., 23NWCV00598 This negligent supervision action was filed on February 23, 2023. Trial is scheduled to begin on July 27, 2026. Plaintiff Jane Doe, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Ms. Doe (Plaintiff) now applies ex parte to continue the trial date to a date on or after October 5, 2026, and to continue related discovery and trial deadlines. Plaintiff argues Plaintiff and her family have a pre-planned trip between July 10, 2026 to August 10, 2026.

, that Minor Plaintiff would lose his place on the team because he was not able to attend said voluntary sessions.”

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.

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).

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.

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.)

michael martinez, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Sophia Mendoza ; Plaintiff, vs. KIAN SHAHRIARY , et al.; Defendants. Case No.: BC638884 Hearing Date: June 6, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m.

DISCUSSION Flourish demurs to the fourth cause of action for Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention, fifth cause of action for Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse, and sixth cause of action for Negligent Supervision of a Minor. a. Fourth and Sixth Causes of Action: Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention & Negligent Supervision of a Minor Liability for negligent ... retention of an employee is one of direct liability for negligence, not vicarious liability.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(Plaintiff), by and through her guardian ad litem Jamiel Fears, filed this action against Defendants Inglewood Unified School District and Does 1-100 for negligent supervision and dangerous condition of public property. On May 30, 2023, the Court appointed Jamiel Fears to serve as Plaintiffs guardian ad litem.

Defendant GARCIA supervised another section which included minor student A.A.’ the remaining two sections were supervised by Defendants GONZALEZ and BERNI-RAMOS.” (FAC ¶21.) “During gym class, minor student J.C. approached Plaintiff on the bleachers and sat next to A.A. and I.C.” (FAC ¶29.)

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.

As against the District, the operative First Amended Complaint contains causes of action for Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Retention of Unfit Employee (3 rd cause of action), Breach of Mandatory Duty: Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse (4 th cause of action), Negligent Supervision of a Minor (5 th cause of action), and Negligent Failure to Warn, Train or Educate (6 th cause of action).

(collectively, Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint against Defendants County of Los Angeles (County), Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (LASD) (collectively, Defendants), and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive for: (1) Personal Injury: Sexual Abuse of a Minor; (2) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (3) Negligent Supervision, Training, Review, and Retention. The parties have reached a settlement in this matter.

While the Court understands Defendant is entitled to request a complete mental examination and the minor Plaintiff’s mental and emotional state are at issue in this action, the Court is also hesitant to order a minor to undergo a mental examination when the minor is clearly in a fragile condition and the examination may cause additional damage to the minor. The motion is denied without prejudice to a subsequent motion.

Defendant demurs to the FAC, first arguing that the basis of Plaintiffs FAC is that the minor plaintiff was injured due to inadequate supervision by Defendants childcare employees. Thus, Defendant argues that Plaintiff claims that Defendant negligently supervised Plaintiff while under their childcare services is duplicative of Plaintiffs first cause of action for Negligence. In that regard, the facts alleged do not constitute a separate and distinct cause of action of Negligent Supervision.

No Parent Had Prior Knowledge of Any Similar, Previous Misconduct by Any of the Richard to Hold His Parents Liable for the Negligent Supervision As set forth in the motion, ordinarily, a parent is not liable for the torts of his minor child. (MTS p. 5, citing Robertson v. Wentz (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1281, 1288.

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.

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT HEIDI FUENTES REYNA, a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem YASMIN REYNA MIRANDA, Plaintiffs, vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public entity; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendant. CASE NO: BC574814 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF MINOR Dept. 98 1:30 p.m.

BACKGROUND On July 6, 2023, Plaintiff Frankie Hernandez (Plaintiff), a minor, filed this action against Defendants Montebello Unified School District (Defendant) and Does 1-30 for general negligence, breach of duty concerning supervision of pupils (Education Code sections 44807 & 44808), negligence under vicarious liability (Government Code section 815.2), breach of mandatory duty - negligent supervision (Government Code section 815.6), and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

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].)

Under California Rules of Court, Rule 7.955(a)(1), the Court “must use a reasonable fee standard when approving and allowing the amount of attorney’s fees payable from money or property paid or to be paid for the benefit of a minor...” Also, the court must give weight to the terms of any existing representation agreement. (See CRC, Rule 7.955(a)(2).)

On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed the operative Complaint against Defendants LAUSD and Does 1-60 for (1) childhood sexual abuse, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), (3) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, (4) failure to report suspected child abuse, (5) negligent supervision of a minor, and (6) negligence. Plaintiff alleges that when she was a minor attending middle school she was repeatedly sexually abused and molested by her educator and coach, Doe 1.

The net settlement amount of $38,043.52 will be used to fund a special needs trust (SNT) for the benefit of the minor pursuant to Probate Code section 3604. Petition, page 8, ¶ b.(4). The courts file reflects that Plaintiff submitted the terms of the SNT to the Probate Division on July 7, 2022. CA R LOS ANGELES SUPER CT Rule 4.115(c).

(Plaintiff), a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem Maria Roman, filed this action against Defendants Downey Unified School District (District) and Does 1-25 for vicarious liability of public employees, negligent supervision, and failure to follow mandatory duties established by law. On September 30, 2022, the Court appointed Maria Roman to serve as Plaintiffs guardian ad litem. On December 8, 2022, the District filed an answer.

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.