School District Immunity & Standard of Care

Useful Rulings on School District Immunity & Standard of Care

Recent Rulings on School District Immunity & Standard of Care

JANE JB DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Los Angeles Unified School District, et al.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JANE JG DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Los Angeles Unified School District, et al.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JENELL CONTRERAS, ET AL. VS JON PEARSON, ET AL.

Contreras”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed the instant action against Defendants Torrance Unified School District; Jon Pearson; Ben Egan; Chris Sheck; Sue Key; Andrew McCarty; and Does 1 through 50 (“Defendants”). The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Negligence; Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act (pursuant to Civil Code §§ 51 et seq.); and Violation of Bane Act (pursuant to Civil Code §§ 52 et seq.).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ASHRAH FELIX, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

However, the Court also found that the school district had also not breached any general duty of care.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ISSA AL-BAYATI VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

However, the Court also found that the school district had also not breached any general duty of care.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ZITKO VS DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

Unit members are "all full-time or part-time certificated employees in the Del Mar Union School District." (Complaint, Exhibit 1.) Plaintiff alleges her employment with Defendant terminated on May 11, 2017. (Complaint, ¶ 16.) Plaintiff did not send a letter to Defendant demanding reinstatement as a beneficiary under the Insurance Policies until June 10, 2019. (Complaint, ¶ 21.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ZITKO VS DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

Unit members are "all full-time or part-time certificated employees in the Del Mar Union School District." (Complaint, Exhibit 1.) Plaintiff alleges her employment with Defendant terminated on May 11, 2017. (Complaint, ¶ 16.) Plaintiff did not send a letter to Defendant demanding reinstatement as a beneficiary under the Insurance Policies until June 10, 2019. (Complaint, ¶ 21.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SROUY VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

"Education Code section 44808 ... applies only where a school district has 'specifically assumed' responsibility or liability 'for the conduct or safety of any pupil ... at any time when such pupil is not on school property ......" Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 940. "[T]he courts have held that section 44808 grants immunity unless a student was (or should have been) supervised during a specified undertaking.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SROUY VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

"Education Code section 44808 ... applies only where a school district has 'specifically assumed' responsibility or liability 'for the conduct or safety of any pupil ... at any time when such pupil is not on school property ......" Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 940. "[T]he courts have held that section 44808 grants immunity unless a student was (or should have been) supervised during a specified undertaking.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LISA MCDOWELL, ET AL. V. CITY OF RIO VISTA, ET AL.

City of Fillmore (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 191, 207; Fall River Joint Unified School District v. Superior Court (1998) 206 Cal.App.3d 431, 434.) The facts presented in RAFFERTY’s administrative claim must “fairly reflect” any claims now asserted in the complaint or the missing claims cannot now be pursued. (Smith v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 266, 280.) RAFFERTY’s claim form makes no mention of the internet publication at the heart of her invasion of privacy claim. (Complaint, Exhibit 4.)

  • Hearing

LATTIMORE VS VAL VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Ione Unified School District (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 542 (teacher failed to warn student of the dangers of a toy cannon made as part of the class); and Perna v. Conejo Valley Unified School District (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 292 (teacher who kept students after school hours and knew that cross guards were no longer there when students released). All of those cases involved some direct negligence of the school or teachers.

  • Hearing

ZIXIANG "LEO" LIN,, ET AL. VS PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, et al. 19STCV07963 Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District and Teresa Bello’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District and Teresa Bello’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint TENTATIVE RULING Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District and Teresa Bello’s Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

QUINN V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

County (1977) 18 Cal.3d 901 [mandatory duty under Labor Code section 3800 that required applicants for building permits to carry workers compensation insurance]; San Mateo Union High School District v. County of San Mateo (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 418.) Plaintiff also cites Guzman v. County of Monterey (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 983.

  • Hearing

LYNNEL DAVIS, ET AL. VS MONROVIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

RULING: CCP Section 425.16 Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint by Defendant Monrovia Unified School District is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

LINDA MENDOZA RAZO VS JIMMY HANG, DPT

See San Mateo Union High School District (2013) 213 CA4th 418, 424, 429-430, 434, 441. With regard to Plaintiff’s reliance on Penal Code 11162.5, Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts which establish a violation of the statute by a Regents’ employee, other than Hang. Plaintiff’s claim that Regents’ own policies and procedures regarding sexual assault were inadequate is also subject to immunity as the formulation of such policies and procedures amounts to discretionary conduct.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JUAREZ VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Defendants San Diego Unified School District, Traci Schenault, and Erica Renfree's Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Defendants' request for judicial notice of the fact that Sebastian Juarez wrote a suicide note as stated in Exhibit A, a police report, is denied. This is not a proper subject of judicial notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JUAREZ VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Defendants San Diego Unified School District, Traci Schenault, and Erica Renfree's Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Defendants' request for judicial notice of the fact that Sebastian Juarez wrote a suicide note as stated in Exhibit A, a police report, is denied. This is not a proper subject of judicial notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JANE DOE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOHN DOE V.

Union School District, et al. 348167) Currently before the Court is the demurrer by defendant Union School District (“District”) and three of its administrative staff members—defendants Jacqueline Horejs (“Horejs”), Mary Berkey (“Berkey”), and Carole Carlson (“Carlson”) (collectively, “Employees”)—to the first amended complaint (“FAC”) of plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”).

  • Hearing

PATRICIA BILGIN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Grant Joint Union High School District (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1378 where the Court of Appeal applied a materiality test to determine whether a plaintiff had suffered an adverse employment action. In Patten, the Court found that a lateral transfer, taken in context of the plaintiff’s entire situation, met the materiality test for purposes of finding an adverse employment action. (Patten v. Grant Joint Union High School District (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1387.)

  • Hearing

KM VS VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The remainder of the motion to strike is denied without prejudice to defendant's right to raise Education Code §44808 as a substantive defense later in the litigation. A motion to strike should be used cautiously and sparingly, and it should not be used as "a procedural 'line item veto' for the civil defendant." (PH II, Inc. v Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 1680, 1683.)

  • Hearing

JANE DOE VS SIMI VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST

Code sections 44807 and 44808 as well as CCR title 5, section 14103, SVUSD persuasively argues that those enactments do not impose a mandatory duty because they allow for the exercise of discretion. Moving party to give notice of this Court's ruling.

  • Hearing

MARY DOE V. NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST., ET AL.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Napa Valley Unified School District and Carliza Bataller move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on the following grounds: (1) the district does not have a duty to prevent unforeseeable incidents, and the evidence is undisputed that the incident was not foreseeable; (2) even if defendants had a duty to prevent the fight, they met that duty because they reasonably supervised students

  • Hearing

JANE DOE 1, AND JANE DOE 2 V. UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Brisbane Elementary School District (1961) 55 Cal.2d 224, 233, both cited by Defendants, are instructive as to when a grant of immunity pursuant to 820.2 is appropriate. Both cases involved the discretionary choices of an elected school board in employment of District personnel and immunity was found for acts done within the scope of their powers. (Caldwell, supra, 10 Cal.4th 972, 981; Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary School District, supra, 55 Cal.2d. 224, 230.)

  • Hearing

COOK VS SAN MARCOS UNIFIED

Sacramento City Unified School District (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1371.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

COOK VS SAN MARCOS UNIFIED

Sacramento City Unified School District (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1371.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.