Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
"School districts and their employees have never been considered insurers of the physical safety of their students, but rather are placed under a general duty to supervise the conduct of children on school grounds during school sessions, school activities, recesses, and lunch periods." (Bartell v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Sch. Dist., supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at 498; see Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 932-933 [duty to supervise students].)
Early California cases consistently held that a school district has no duty to safeguard students traveling, on their own, to and from school. (E.g., Gilbert v. Sacramento Unified School Dist. (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 505, 506, 510 [student killed by train while walking home from school]; Wright v. Arcade School Dist., supra, 230 Cal.App.2d at 275, 277-280 [student injured by motorist while walking to school]; Kerwin v. County of San Mateo (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 304, 306-309 [student injured in fall from bicycle on way home from school]; Girard v. Monrovia City School Dist. (1953) 121 Cal.App.2d 737, 739, 741-743 [student killed by motorist while walking home from school].)
In 1976, the Legislature enacted a law endorsing the common law principle that a school district is not legally responsible for accidents to students on their way to and from school. (Ed. Code, § 44808 [hereafter, § 44808]; Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 508, 516-517.)
§ 44808 provides:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, no school district, city or county board of education, county superintendent of schools, or any officer or employee of such district or board shall be responsible or in any way liable for the conduct or safety of any pupil of the public schools at any time when such pupil is not on school property, unless such district, board, or person has undertaken to provide transportation for such pupil to and from the school premises, has undertaken a school-sponsored activity off the premises of such school, has otherwise specifically assumed such responsibility or liability or has failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances, [...] In the event of such a specific undertaking, the district, board, or person shall be liable or responsible for the conduct or safety of any pupil only while such pupil is or should be under the immediate and direct supervision of an employee of such district or board." (Cerna v. City of Oakland (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1352-53.)
With a single exception (Joyce v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 292, 301), every court that has considered the matter since Hoyem, supra, 22 Cal.3d 508, has interpreted § 44808 to provide that school districts are not responsible for the safety of students outside school property absent a specific undertaking by the school district and direct supervision by a district employee. (Bassett, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th 863, 870–872; Mosley v. San Bernardino City Unified School Dist. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1264–1265 [36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 724]; Guerrero, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th 264, 269–272; Ramirez v. Long Beach Unified School Dist. (2002) 105 Cal.App.4th 182, 188–192 [129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 128]; Wolfe v. Dublin Unified School Dist. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 126, 129 [65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280]; Torsiello v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1987) 197 Cal. App. 3d 41, 47?49 [242 Cal. Rptr. 752] (Torsiello).)
“In Torsiello, we considered § 44808's provision that no school district is liable for the safety of any pupil not on school property, ‘unless such district ... has undertaken to provide transportation for such pupil to and from the school premises, has undertaken a school-sponsored activity off the premises of such school, has otherwise specifically assumed such ... liability or has failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.’” (Cerna v. City of Oakland (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1357 citing § 44808.) We held that the 'reasonable care' phrase is a standard of care applicable to the preceding three phrases, and does not create an independent basis for liability. (Cerna v. City of Oakland (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1357 citing Torsiello, supra, at 47–48.) “Our view has been widely endorsed.” (Id.)
“Overwhelmingly, the courts have held that § 44808 ‘grants ... immunity unless a student was (or should have been) directly supervised during a specified undertaking.’” (Id.) “The [statutory] language 'failed to exercise reasonablecare under the circumstances,;' while set off by an 'or' as if meant to be a self-sufficient basis for liability, has correctly been construed as requiring such failure during one of the mentioned ‘undertakings.’ (Id.) “To construe it as an independent basis for liability would be to say, absurdly: A district is never liable in negligence unless it acts negligently.” (Id.)
“Also, the breach must be of a duty, a duty created through one of the undertakings.” (Cerna v. City of Oakland (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1357.) “The ‘reasonable care’ phrase enunciates a standard of care and as such cannot exist in a vacuum; in the absence of a duty to which it applies, the phrase is meaningless.’” (Ramirez v. Long Beach Unified School Dist., supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at 188–189, quoting Wolfe v. Dublin Unified School Dist., supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 129, citing Torsiello, supra, 197 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 47–48.) “We believe the proper interpretation of § 44808 to be as stated in Torsiello and subsequent cases: school districts are not responsible for the safety of students outside school property absent a specific undertaking by the school district and direct supervision by a district employee.” (Bassett v. Lakeside Inn, Inc., supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at pp. 870–872; Mosley v. San Bernardino City Unified School Dist., supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at 1264–1265; Guerrero v. South Bay Union School Dist., supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at 269–272; Ramirez, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at 188-192; Wolfe, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 129; Torsiello, supra, at 47–49; see Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist, supra, 19 Cal.4th at 940 [finding no liability under § 44808 where specific responsibility not assumed; made no mention of general negligence basis for liability].)
All persons making the field trip or excursion shall be deemed to have waived all claims against the district, a charter school, or the State of California for injury, accident, illness, or death occurring during or by reason of the field trip or excursion. All adults taking out-of-state field trips or excursions and all parents or guardians of pupils taking out-of-state field trips or excursions shall sign a statement waiving all claims.
§ 35330 authorizes a district to conduct “field trips or excursions” and “creates broad immunity” in subdivision (d). (Wolfe v. Dublin Unified School Dist. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 126, 130.) This immunity was “designed to encourage the use of field trips as an important part of enhancing the educational process.” (Sanchez v. San Diego County Office of Education (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1580, 1584.)
The immunity provided in § 35330 has been held to include school district employees. (Casterson v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 177, 189.)
The applicability of § 35330, subdivision (d) immunity may depend on the nature of the activity engaged in—i.e., whether it was a field trip or excursion or whether the activity was school-sponsored and part of the school’s curriculum for which attendance credit is given. However, “under Castro, the test is not really whether the student’s participation was voluntary or not, but whether the off-premises activity was part of the school curriculum.” (Barnhart v. Cabrillo Community College (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 818, 827.)
“Students who are off of the school’s property for required school purposes are entitled to the same safeguards as those who are on school property, within supervisorial limits. Students who participate in nonrequired trips or excursions, though possibly in furtherance of their education but not as required attendance, are effectively on-their-own; the voluntary nature of the event absolves the district of liability.” (Castro v. Los Angeles Board of Education (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 232, 236.) (See, e.g., Wolfe, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at 128 [students not having consent to participate in the field trip remained at the school in alternative activities and attendance either way would count for purposes of state funding apportionment].)
“California law has long imposed on school authorities a duty to supervise at all times the conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary to their protection.” (Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 741, 743.) Either a total lack of supervision or ineffective supervision may constitute a lack of ordinary care on the part of those responsible for student supervision. (Id.) “Under § 815.2, subdivision (a) of the Government Code, a school district is vicariously liable for injuries proximately caused by such negligence.” (Id.)
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
HELEN BARRERA, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
18STCV04159
Mar 13, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Education Code sections 35330 and 44808 Education Code section 44808 provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, no school district, city or county board of education, county superintendent of schools, or any officer or employee of such district or board shall be responsible or in any way liable for the conduct or safety of any pupil of the public schools at any time when such pupil is not on school property, unless such district, board, or persons has undertaken to provide transportation for
HC VS PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC673143
Nov 15, 2018
Yolanda Orozco or Laura A. Seigle
Los Angeles County, CA
Brown argues that it is undisputed that the Solar Cup competition was a field trip and that Section 35330 immunity applies even where the trip is both a field trip and school-sponsored activity. The Court agrees that the “special ‘field trip’ provisions of section 35330 control over any overlapping application of the more general off-campus premises provisions of section 44808.” (Wolfe, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 135; see also Myricks v. Lynwood Unified School District (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 231, 240.)
HC VS PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC673143
Dec 11, 2018
Yolanda Orozco or Laura A. Seigle
Los Angeles County, CA
· Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) moves to strike Plaintiffs’ first cause of action in the Second Amended Complaint, on the grounds that LAUSD is immune from liability pursuant to Cal. Educ. Code §44808, Cal. Gov’t Code §815.2 and Cal. Gov’t Code §820.2 and Cal. Gov. Code 845.
FRANCISCO LORENZO, INDIVIDUALLY, AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF AMY LORENZO, DECEASED, AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF MARLENE LORENZO, DECEASED, ET AL. VS LOS MORALES TRUCKING, INC, ET AL.
19STCV23612
Jun 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff pleads that the activity in question was a school-sponsored activity and thus under the pleading, there is potential liability under Education Code 44808. Whether the facts indicate immunity based upon Education Code 35330 will require examination of specific facts. On demurrer, the Court cannot consider extrinsic evidence and denies the request to take judicial notice of the release.
CIARA ASCHERFELD VS. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
37-2017-00009250-CU-PO-CTL
Sep 12, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
(“Plaintiff”), a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, J.C., filed this action against Defendants Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (“PVPUSD”) and Ryan Brown (“Brown”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for negligence, assault and battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress relating to a May 20, 2017 incident where Brown lit a student’s hands on fire. PVPUSD filed its Answer on December 5, 2017.
HC VS PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC673143
Sep 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
"Plaintiffs' argument that section 44808 establishes school district liability whenever a school district fails to exercise reasonable care is an argument this court considered, and rejected, over 20 years ago. (Torsiello, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at pp. 47–49.)
ZERENITY GARNER VS. NICHOLAS MORGAN
56-2018-00520073-CU-PA-VTA
Sep 18, 2019
Ventura County, CA
For the fourth cause of action, Education Code section 44808 grants immunity unless a student was directly supervised during a specific undertaking. (Mosley v. San Bernardino City Unified School District (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1264–1265.) The section creates a mandatory duty when a student is directly supervised during a specific undertaking.
G. VS CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RIC2002840
Feb 22, 2021
Riverside County, CA
School District does not address why the “should be” provision in Education Code § 44808 does not apply. School District does not dispute that plaintiff is a district pupil. It does not dispute that had she been transported by School District buses and this alleged incident occurred, School District would be liable under section 44808. It is unclear why it would not be liable simply because it decided to place her in a private school.
D.J. VS BRIGHT FUTURES ACADEMY
RIC1903774
Feb 16, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Further, above the signature line, the authorization stated: "California law (Education Code Section 35330) provides that a person making a field trip or excursion waives all claims against the school district and the State of California or injury, accident, illness, or death occurring during or by reason of the field trip or excursion." Thus, when the authorization was signed, the parent acknowledged that the person taking the "field trip" waives all claims against the school district.
CIARA ASCHERFELD VS. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
37-2017-00009250-CU-PO-CTL
Jun 14, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
VS CORONA-NORCO CVRI2102375 PER SE IN VIOLATION OF EDUCATION UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CODE § 44808, AND FOR DISTRICT TO SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH ACT BY CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, STEPHEN SINGLETON, DENNIS ULLOM, DARRYL WINGATE, JEREMY GOINS Tentative Ruling: The Opposition to the Demurrer is untimely and will not be considered by the court.
A.B. VS CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
CVRI2102375
Feb 16, 2022
Riverside County, CA
BY CORONA- UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NORCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, STEPHEN SINGLETON, DENNIS ULLOM, DARRYL WINGATE, JEREMY GOINS Tentative Ruling: Grant Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (Evid. Code Section 452(d)) Overrule the Demurrer on the first and fourth causes of action. Plaintiff must allege three elements under Ed.
A.B. VS CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
CVRI2102375
Oct 13, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Education Code, §44808 reads, in pertinent part: § 44808.
RICKY SOUZA VS MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL.
STK-CV-UPI-2020-0008590
Jan 11, 2022
San Joaquin County, CA
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.
LATTIMORE VS VAL VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RIC1901532
Aug 12, 2020
Riverside County, CA
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC658007 Hearing Date: 9/5/18 Trial Date: None set [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint, Motion to Strike Background Plaintiff Taron Malkhashyan sues Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), Punjatorn Chanudomchuck, NTMA Training Center, and The Robot Marketplace for damages arising from an explosion at a robotics competition.
TARON MALKHASHYAN VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET
BC658007
Sep 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO PLTF'S 1ST,3RD,5TH FILED BY BRENTWOOD UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, LIBERTY * TENTATIVE RULING: * Before the Court is a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“MJOP”) filed by Defendants Brentwood Union School District, Brentwood Union Elementary School District, Liberty Union High School District, Contra Costa SELPA, and Contra Costa County Office of Education (collectively, the “Public Entity Defendants”).
MCKINNEY VS. MAGGIORE
MSC20-00800
Jul 09, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
Under section 44808, the school district is not liable for injuries occurring off campus and outside school hours unless they result from the school district’s negligence occurring on school grounds, or result from some specific undertaking by the school district which it performed in a negligent manner. (Bassett v. Lakeside Inn, Inc. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 863, 870 (Bassett).)
PEREZ VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM
30-2015-00807504-CU-PO-CJC
Mar 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
Law Governing School District Liability Pursuant to GC section 815(a), except as provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury arising out of an act or omission by itself or its employees. (SeeGC §§ 815(a); 811.2 (public entity includes a school district); Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 932.)
DOE V. FORT ROSS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCV-259180
Nov 16, 2018
Sonoma County, CA
"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.
SROUY VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
37-2019-00010704-CU-NP-CTL
Sep 03, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Section 44808 provides a school district with immunity for off-campus student injuries unless the school district assumed responsibility over a student’s off-campus activity. There are no allegations here that Duran harmed Plaintiff off-campus. 2. Motion to Strike PUSD moves the court for an order striking out the following portions of Plaintiff’s FAC: Item 3 of Prayer for Relief, page 21, line 25: “For attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to statute.”
ANTHONY CASTILLO VS RAFAEL DURAN, ET AL.
20STCV49270
Jun 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(Education Code § 44808 (emphasis added).) The City argues that Education Code § 44808 does not apply to a situation where, as here, Plaintiff was injured on adjacent property while attempting to access school property. The City relies on Joyce v. Simi Valley Unified School District (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 292, for this proposition. In Joyce, a student sued a school district after a car struck her in a marked crosswalk in a dangerous intersection while she was on her way to school.
ADRIANA RAMIREZ VS CITY OF BELL ET AL
BC587900
Mar 15, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff bases the fourth cause of action on Government Code section 44808, which says, “Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, no school district … shall be responsible or in any way liable for the conduct or safety of any pupil of the public schools at any time when such pupil is not on school property, unless such district, board … has undertaken a school-sponsored activity off the premises of such school, has otherwise specifically assumed such responsibility or liability or has failed to exercise
DOE VS CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RIC1902244
Sep 30, 2019
Riverside County, CA
Beverly Hills Unified School District, et al.
NIMA NOUHI,, ET AL. VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIVIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,, ET AL.
18STCV00084
Apr 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
LAUSD relies on Government code sections 820.2 and 820.8, both of which provide that “except as provided by statute...” an immunity applies. However, here, Government code section 815.2 is a specific statue that provides a liability for the actions of an employee of a public entity. As such, these immunity provisions are inapplicable. The court notes LAUSD’s reference to John R. v. Oakland Unified School District (1989) 48 Cal.3d 438. However, the Court in C.A. v.
JO F VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC646534
Jun 02, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Tentative Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication: Defendants, Enterprise Elementary School District and Boulder Creek Elementary School move for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication pursuant to CCP § 437c as to all of Plaintiff, A.J.’s causes of action. Defendants argue that there is no triable issue of fact. The motion relies heavily on the immunity provided by Education Code § 44808 and design immunity pursuant to Gov. Code § 830.6.
BULLOCK VS. ENTERPRISE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SCRDCVPM17-0187494-000
Aug 13, 2018
Shasta County, CA
On 7/16/21, Defendant/Cross-Complainant LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (LAUSD) filed an official form Cross-Complaint against GREEN DOT PUBLIC SCHOOLS CALIFORNIA, GREEN DOT PUBLIC SCHOOLS NATIONAL, ORIVERA TRUCKING, LLC; LOS MORALES TRUCKING INC; GLOBAL HAWK INSURANCE COMPANY RISK RETENTION GROUP; and STANLEY RANDLE. The causes of action are: 1) Indemnification, 2) Apportionment of Fault and 3) Declaratory Relief.
FRANCISCO LORENZO, INDIVIDUALLY, AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF AMY LORENZO, DECEASED, AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF MARLENE LORENZO, DECEASED, ET AL. VS LOS MORALES TRUCKING, INC, ET AL.
19STCV23612
Feb 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
See Evidence Code § 1151. [1] All told, the facts alleged by Plaintiff would completely undermine the legislative purpose of Section 44808. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing a triable issue of material fact as to whether the district breached its duty owed to the Plaintiff. IV. OTHER ISSUES Beverlys Action It is undisputed that Plaintiffs mother Beverly is not a student at the school. District did not owe Beverly a duty of care. (Opposition at p. 11.)
BEVERLY MORIMOTO,, ET AL. VS KARLA PACHECO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT OF ANGELINA DIODATA, A MINOR, ET AL.
20STCV22477
Nov 22, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The motion for summary judgment, filed by defendant Santa Maria Joint Union High School District ("District"), is denied. Preliminary Matters In light of the ruling on the motion, it is unnecessary to rule on the District's evidentiary objections. Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).
ZARATE VS. VARSITY SPIRIT LLC
37-2016-00044599-CU-PO-CTL
Jul 26, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Manhattan Beach City School District, supra, controls, and held that a school district may be liable “whenever the school district … has failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.” (Id. at 517.) The opinion in Cerna contains a lengthy and useful discussion about the internally inconsistent statements in Hoyem regarding school district liability based on “failure to exercise reasonable care” (Id. at 1355-1358), noting that “[w]ith a single exception (Joyce v.
PEREZ VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM
30-2015-00807504-CU-PO-CJC
Oct 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
Action taken by the California Supreme Court in Brennon B. will very likely determine whether a cause of action can be stated against a school district under the Unruh Act.
A.P. VS. VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
56-2020-00546339-CU-CR-VTA
Mar 25, 2021
Ventura County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Code, § 44808.) Nevertheless, [i]f a supervisory or administrative employee of the school district is proven to have . . . negligently expos[ed] [P]laintiff to a foreseeable danger of molestation . . . , resulting in his injuries . . . , liability falls on the school district . . . . ( C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 865866.)
JOHN DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
20STCV10698
Jan 18, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Code §§ 44807 and 44808, and Gov. Code § 815.2. As an initial matter, Educ.
MYKAI, SKINNER, A MINOR THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AT LITEM BRENDA RHONA NONETTE VS DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
20STCV21816
Sep 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Code § 44808 is GRANTED in the District’s favor. Government Code § 815.2 makes a public entity vicariously liable for an act or omission of an employee, and immunizes the public entity if the employee is immune. Education Code §44808 provides that a school district or employee is not liable for the conduct or safety of any pupil “when such pupil is not on school property” except for limited circumstances. Ed. Code, § 44808.
AJIT MOHAN ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST ET AL
BC616639
Sep 14, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Department of Corrections & Rehab. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 844, 850] Here, the Plaintiffs allege a cause of action for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Defendant Parlier Unified School District. To reiterate, Gov. Code § 810 et seq. abolishes all common law liability. See Tuthill, supra. Therefore, the general demurrers will be sustained. The special demurrers are rendered moot.
JUAN ESTRADA AND ANGELICA HERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLYAND AS GUARDIANS AD LITEM FOR ZUJEY RAMIREZ, A MINORV. PARLIER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND JESUS ANDROSENDO MACIEL
15CECG02396
Jun 20, 2016
Jeff Hamilton
Fresno County, CA
UTESCH VS TEMECULA MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BY MCC2001116 VALLEY UNIFIED DEFENDANT TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL DISTRICT Tentative Ruling: Defendant Temecula Valley Unified School District’s unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
UTESCH VS TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
MCC2001116
Feb 16, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Hart Union High School District (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1166, the courts held that this claim could not be brought unless the plaintiff identifies a specific statute declaring the public entity to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care by the agency in favor of the injured party. (de Villers, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at pp. 247; William S. Hart, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1173.)
JANE DOE VS. MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
56-2010-00384675-CU-PO-SIM
Feb 08, 2011
Ventura County, CA
Windsor Unified School District Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication GRANTED for summary judgment based on immunity under Education Code section 35330. Facts Plaintiffs complain that Plaintiff Ray Pacheco (“Ray”) suffered injuries in a school wrestling match against Austin Fredrickson (“Fredrickson”), a student of Defendant Windsor Unified School District (“District”), when Fredrickson employed an illegal move during the match.
PACHECO VS. WINDSOR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCV-271027
Jan 10, 2024
Sonoma County, CA
For the fourth cause of action, Education Code section 44808 grants immunity unless a student was directly supervised during a specific undertaking. (Mosley v. San Bernardino City Unified School District (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1264–1265.) The section creates a mandatory duty when a student is directly supervised during a specific undertaking.
DOE VS CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RIC1902244
Feb 22, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Because Plaintiffs in that matter had sufficiently alleged that the Defendant school district had failed to exercise reasonable care while the son was on school premises, Education Code section 44808 did not bar that action. (Id. at pp. 512, 517.) In Perna v.
JOHN DOE #3 V. SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND JUSTIN SELL
22CV01608
Jan 17, 2024
Santa Barbara County, CA
Motion: Motions for Summary Judgment by Defendants Fresno Unified School District and Dwanice Williams Tentative Ruling: To grant the motions for summary judgment in favor of defendants Fresno Unified School District and Dwanice Williams. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c.) The prevailing parties shall submit a judgment consistent with the court’s order within 10 days.
ESPINO V. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
16CECG01117
Oct 10, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles Unified School District, et al.
AJ DOE ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC682731
Feb 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court in C.A. held "[i]f a supervisory or administrative employee of the school district is proven to have breached that duty by negligently exposing plaintiff to a foreseeable danger of molestation by his guidance counselor, resulting in his injuries, and assuming no immunity provision applies, liability falls on the school district under section 815.2." (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 865–66.)
NICHOLAS RATTAN VS MARISA GARCIA
37-2017-00014120-CU-PO-CTL
Sep 07, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendants Newhall School District, Kim Sorenson-Howe and Michelle Morse demur to the Complaint and move to strike portions thereof. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Newhall School District, Kim Sorenson-Howe and Michelle Morse’s demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to the third cause of action and OVERRULED as to the fourth and fifth causes of action and prayer for punitive damages.
(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)
18STCV075659
Apr 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The school district is liable for injuries which result from a failure of its officers and employees to use ordinary care in this respect.” [Citations Omitted.] ( J.H. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist . (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 123, 139.) Additionally, an employer/school district can be liable to a third person for negligently hiring, supervision, or training and unfit employee. ( Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1054.)
I. H. VS LESLIE SALCEDO, ET AL.
19STCV32148
May 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Finally, the Supreme Court rejected premising liability on Education Code Section 44808, which provides for liability when a school district specifically assumes responsibility or liability for the conduct or safety of a student when not on school property.
JOSIAH S. VS. PITTSBURG U.S.D.
MSC16-02301
Apr 12, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
Counsel’s declaration sets forth that (1) liability was vigorously litigated as Defendant Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District strenuously denied liability from the outset, taking the position that it is immune from liability, Defendant Ryan Brown argued the incident was just an accident, and both Defendants claimed Plaintiff and her parents signed a waiver that waived liability against them; (2) Defendants challenged the nature and extent of Claimant’s burn injuries and medical care; (3) there were
HC VS PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC673143
Aug 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Western Pacer Unified School District (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 1163, 1179, the court refused to apply discretionary act immunity to a whistleblower retaliation claim asserted by a teacher who was denied tenure.
PIERRE DEMIAN VS MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A LOCAL PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ET AL.
21STCV46429
Jul 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Why do you believe the Los Angeles Unified School District is responsible?” plaintiff responded, “Pursuant to Government Code 815.2 and Educational [sic] Code 44808, the employees of Los Angeles Unified School District has [sic] a duty to supervise and control stu[d]ents when they are in school. Due to their negligence they breached this duty towards cl[a]imant, resulting in claimant’s damages.”
JADE MILLER VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BC662305
Jul 30, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court found the school district could be vicariously liable because school personnel owe students under their supervision a protective duty of ordinary care and a school district may be held vicariously liable for breaches of this duty. Id. Thus, if a supervisory employee of the school district is proven to have breached that duty, the school district could be held liable under Gov. Code § 815.2. Id. at 865-66.
JMG ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC521713
Mar 10, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court Case No. 14CECG00396 Hearing Date: March 14, 2024 (Dept. 501) Motion: by Defendant Monson-Sultana Joint Union Elementary School District to Amend Answer Tentative Ruling: To grant leave to amend only to add the proposed sixteenth affirmative defense, but to deny as to the proposed seventeenth affirmative defense.
J. L. VS. DAVID BLANCAS
14CECG00396
Mar 14, 2024
Fresno County, CA
GLENDORA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. , Defendant (s) . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO . : 19STCV03475 (C/W Case No. 19STCV10543) [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT GLENDORA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Dept . 27 1:30 p.m. April 13 , 20 2 1 I. INTRODUCTION On January 31, 2019, Plaintiffs Frank J. Rios (“Mr. Rios”) , Erika Susana Rios (“M r s.
FRANK J. RIOS, ET AL. VS GLENDORA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
19STCV03475
Apr 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The Demurrer of defendants Santa Ana Unified School District, Orange County Department of Education, Cindy Landsiedel and Jeanette McMahon to plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is sustained with 15 days leave to amend. Defendants’ Motion to Strike is thereby moot. A public entity’s tort liability must be based on a statute. Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 876, 899; San Mateo Union High School District v. County of San Mateo (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 418, 427.
S.P. VS. SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
30-2017-00909206-CU-PO-CJC
Aug 31, 2017
Orange County, CA
Cause of Action No. 5 (Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act) This cause of action fails because the school district is not a “business establishment” under the Unruh Act. See Brennon B. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 367,381.
GRUM VS SKY COUNTRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
RIC1824259
Mar 05, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Cause of Action No. 5 (Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act) This cause of action fails because the school district is not a “business establishment” under the Unruh Act. See Brennon B. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 367,381.
GRUM VS SKY COUNTRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
RIC1824259
Mar 06, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Cause of Action No. 5 (Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act) This cause of action fails because the school district is not a “business establishment” under the Unruh Act. See Brennon B. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 367,381.
GRUM VS SKY COUNTRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
RIC1824259
Mar 07, 2022
Riverside County, CA
In the trial court, the school district successfully asserted it was immune from liability under Education Code section 44808. There have been no changes in that statute since it was enacted in 1976. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment in favor of the school, citing Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 508, 517, fnt. 2: “That the ‘reasonable care’ exception in the statute is not accidental is clear from the legislative history.
LOGOLUSO V. CUSD
15CECG00077
Sep 27, 2016
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Code, § 44808), and field trips or excursions on the other hand (Ed. Code, § 35330).” (Myricks v. Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 231, 238.)
THOITS LAW VS JONATHAN DRAKE ET AL
22CV407208
Jan 29, 2024
Santa Clara County, CA
Code, § 44808), and field trips or excursions on the other hand (Ed. Code, § 35330).” (Myricks v. Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 231, 238.)
THOITS LAW VS JONATHAN DRAKE ET AL
22CV407208
Jan 28, 2024
Santa Clara County, CA
Code, § 44808), and field trips or excursions on the other hand (Ed. Code, § 35330).” (Myricks v. Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 231, 238.)
THOITS LAW VS JONATHAN DRAKE ET AL
22CV407208
Jan 27, 2024
Santa Clara County, CA
Code, § 44808), and field trips or excursions on the other hand (Ed. Code, § 35330).” (Myricks v. Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 231, 238.)
THOITS LAW VS JONATHAN DRAKE ET AL
22CV407208
Jan 26, 2024
Santa Clara County, CA
Code, § 44808), and field trips or excursions on the other hand (Ed. Code, § 35330).” (Myricks v. Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 231, 238.)
THOITS LAW VS JONATHAN DRAKE ET AL
22CV407208
Jan 25, 2024
Santa Clara County, CA
Code, § 44808), and field trips or excursions on the other hand (Ed. Code, § 35330).” (Myricks v. Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 231, 238.)
THOITS LAW VS JONATHAN DRAKE ET AL
22CV407208
Jan 24, 2024
Santa Clara County, CA
Code, § 44808), and field trips or excursions on the other hand (Ed. Code, § 35330).” (Myricks v. Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 231, 238.)
THOITS LAW VS JONATHAN DRAKE ET AL
22CV407208
Jan 23, 2024
Santa Clara County, CA
The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the third cause of action and eighth cause of action to the extent that they are asserted against Defendants LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, and LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION.
GATEWAY SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INC ET AL VS LA UNIFIED SCHO
BC606315
Dec 13, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NO.: 20STCV21816 HEARING: 9/26/23 @ 10:30 AM #1 TENTATIVE ORDER Defendants Nunley and Bashmens demurrer to Plaintiffs third amended complaint is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend. Moving Parties to give NOTICE. Defendant Downey Unified School District (District) demurs to all causes of action on the grounds that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
MYKAI, SKINNER, A MINOR THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AT LITEM BRENDA RHONA NONETTE VS DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
20STCV21816
Sep 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Codes 220, 221.5, 233, 234, 39800, 39830, 44805, 44807, 44808, 48900, 48950, 49020, 49380, 5 CCR 300, 303, 306, 700, 4600, 4910, 4913, 4915, 4960, 4962, and the South Hills High School Handbook. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s authorities do not provide a basis for application of Gov. Code 815.6 because they generally establish legislative policies, not a mandatory duty, directing the school district to take any specific action. (Clausing v.
A G VS COVINA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC657981
Feb 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Western Placer Unified School District (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1163, the court reached the same conclusion with respect to Education Code sections 44113 and 44114: “[§] 820.2 provides for the discretionary immunity of the act or omission of a public employee only where ‘the act was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested’ in the employee. A supervisor employee has no discretion, vested or otherwise, under the Act to recommend the removal of [an employee] in violation of section 44113.
SUSANNA CONTRERAS SMITH ET AL VS MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL
BC666775
May 07, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Otherwise, Nolte was following the duties prescribed to her by school district policies. This would make her decisions ministerial in nature. Because of this, immunity would not be available under Gov. Code § 820.2, though it would still be available under Civ. Code § 47. Based on the foregoing, there is no triable issue of material fact for causes of action one through three because of the immunity granted to Nolte.
SOLOMON PERKINS VS SAUGUS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
20STCV44865
Jan 26, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
It is settled law that a school district cannot be held vicariously liable for the sexual misconduct of its teachers. John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 438. However, it can be held liable for breach of its duty to exercise reasonable care in its hiring or supervising employees. Both parties included a full summary of facts, which task this Court need not duplicate.
C A VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BC510666
Jan 03, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
The Supreme Court concluded that the discretionary act immunity granted by section 820.2 prohibits suits under FEHA against public employees or officials as individuals when the suit challenges a personnel action that amounts to "a basic policy decision," such as the selection or dismissal of the chief operating official of a school district.
WESLEY-WILLIS VS CAJON VALLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
37-2018-00044369-CU-CR-CTL
May 30, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
DEMURRER ON COMPLAINT FOR FOX VS RIVERSIDE CVRI2301666 CIVIL RIGHTS (OVER $25,000) OF UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ZION FOX Tentative Ruling: Sustained with 20 days leave to amend. First Cause of Action: Plaintiff has not sufficiently pleaded a threat of violence to her person or property. Second Cause of Action: This claim is barred under the holding in Collins v. Thurmond (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 879.
FOX VS RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
CVRI2301666
Feb 07, 2024
Riverside County, CA
Education Code section 44808 states in relevant part that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this code, no school district, city or county board of education, county superintendent of schools, or any officer or employee of such district or board shall be responsible or in any way liable for the conduct or safety of any pupil of the public schools at any time when such pupil is not on school property, unless such district, board, or person . . . has undertaken a school-sponsored activity off the premises
TARON MALKHASHYAN VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET
BC658007
May 17, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
In Fall River Joint United School District, the plaintiff’s tort claim stated he was entering a campus building when the door closed with sufficient force to slam his head against the steel door frame. At the time of the accident, the door was in a dangerous and defective condition for several reasons, including but not limited it closing with excessive force. (Fall River Joint United School District, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at p. 434.)
MATTHEW ALLEN HAUGLE JR ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
BC709005
May 09, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Conejo Valley Unified School District (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 29, and Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 508, 517. These three cases reject the categorical premise that schools can never be liable for after-school activities and instead predicate the analysis on the “failure to exercise reasonable care.” Plaintiffs provide effective opposing arguments to all of Defendant’s contentions. Defendant did not submit a reply.
PHENG PORT, ET AL. VS MELISSA LOUISE SMITH, ET AL.
20STCV22217
Jan 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Conejo Valley Unified School District (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 29, and Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 508, 517. These three cases reject the categorical premise that schools can never be liable for after-school activities and instead predicate the analysis on the “failure to exercise reasonable care.” Plaintiffs provide effective opposing arguments to all of Defendant’s contentions. Defendant did not submit a reply.
PHENG PORT, ET AL. VS MELISSA LOUISE SMITH, ET AL.
20STCV22217
Jan 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public entity; ALEJANDRO BOTERO, an individual; and DOES 1 to 20. CASE NO.: 22STCV25035 DEMURRER WITH MOTION TO STRIKE MOVING PARTY : Defendant Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) RESPONDING PARTY : Plaintiff N.D.
N. D. VS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
22STCV26035
Aug 30, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
SCOTTS VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. DEMURRER The demurrer is sustained, in part with leave to amend and in part without leave to amend. Plaintiff is directed to conform the amended complaint to Cal.
H. N. VS SCOTTS VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL
22CV01828
Jan 10, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
SCOTTS VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. DEMURRER The demurrer is sustained, in part with leave to amend and in part without leave to amend. Plaintiff is directed to conform the amended complaint to Cal.
H. N. VS SCOTTS VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL
22CV01828
Jan 12, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
SCOTTS VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. DEMURRER The demurrer is sustained, in part with leave to amend and in part without leave to amend. Plaintiff is directed to conform the amended complaint to Cal.
H. N. VS SCOTTS VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL
22CV01828
Jan 11, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
SCOTTS VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. DEMURRER The demurrer is sustained, in part with leave to amend and in part without leave to amend. Plaintiff is directed to conform the amended complaint to Cal.
H. N. VS SCOTTS VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL
22CV01828
Jan 13, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
F-49 Date: 9-1-22 Case # 21STCV25336 Trial Date: Not Set DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Los Angeles Unified School District, et al.
EVELYN GALLEGOS, ET AL. VS LUIS LOPEZ, ET AL.
21STCV25336
Sep 01, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Code § 44808
AIMEE HERNANDEZ ET AL VS ANNETTE GREEN ET AL
BC678601
Jan 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ZIXIANG "LEO" LIN,, ET AL. VS PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
19STCV07963
Aug 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, COLLEGE HOSPITAL, LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ABC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, WILLIAM GEE, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 21STCV21246 Hearing Date: 3/11/24 Trial Date: N/A [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Defendant County of Los Angeless Demurrer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint [CRS# 4712]. I. Pleadings A.
S. C. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
21STCV21246
Mar 11, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The power to expel students from public schools has been entrusted to the governing board of the school district, which must exercise this power pursuant to statutory guidelines (Ed. Code, §§ 48912-48915.5) and its own rules and regulations. (Ed. Code, § 48918.) Accordingly, the decision falls squarely within the discretionary immunity provision of Government Code section 820.2.
GANT VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
37-2020-00021936-CU-PO-CTL
Sep 02, 2021
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Code § 820.2 immunity does not apply to claims arising thereunder. (Conn v. Western Placer Unified School District (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1163.) As noted, however, neither party provides briefing or analysis as to the application of Gov. Code § 820.2 as to any of the other statutes at issue. Of the remaining statutes, the Court concludes Gov. Code §§ 8547.3 and 8547.8 also abrogate the immunity. Like Ed.
SUSANNA CONTRERAS SMITH ET AL VS MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL
BC666775
Dec 18, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.)
JANE DOE 1, AND JANE DOE 2 V. UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
19CV348167
Oct 10, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
The Court OVERRULES DEFENDANT CRUZ’S demurrers, based on Immunity in Govt Code § 820.2. Defendant has not established the immunity applies including discussion of the principles of discretionary vs. ministerial conduct that govern the immunity. San Mateo Union High School District v. County of San Mateo (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 418, 433–34. The Court SUSTAINS DEFENDANT CRUZ’ general demurrer to the 1st Cause of Action for Conversion for failure to plead sufficient facts.
DEL VECCHIO V. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
30-2016-00868149-CU-NP-CJC
Oct 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
Motions: (1) Summary Judgment by Defendant Fresno Unified School District; (2) Summary Judgment by Defendant Michelle Coyne; (3) Summary Judgment by Defendant Joshua Gehris Tentative Ruling: To grant each Defendant’s request for judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d)(1). To deny each Defendant’s motion on the grounds that the Defendant has not met the burden of proof set forth in CCP § 437c(p)(2). As a result, the burden of proof has not shifted to the Plaintiff.
JANE DOE VS. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
16CECG02217
Oct 01, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
HEARING ON DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of COPOLLA FILED BY ACALANES UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, CHRIS CLARK * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendants Acalanes Union High School District and Chris Clark’s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is sustained. Plaintiff has filed this action against a public entity, Acalanes Union High School District. Because the present case involves claims against a public entity, it is controlled by the California Tort Claims Act. (Government Code §810 et seq.)
JONATHAN COPPOLA VS. ACALANES
MSC16-00794
Sep 01, 2016
Contra Costa County, CA
Board of Education for the Los Angeles Unified School District, et al. MOVING PARTIES: Defendants, Board of Education for the Los Angeles Unified School District, Amy Diaz and Christian Villanueva OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff, S.W., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Rashunda Pitts TRIAL DATE: Not Set.
S. W., ET AL. VS BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR THE LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
22STCV25903
Jun 08, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Thus, under the newly expanded statute, children who are sexually abused within the California public school system have at least 22 years to file suit against the perpetrator and the responsible public school district.
JOHN ROE 1, ET AL VS MOUNTAIN VIEW WHISMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL
22CV02834
Jul 25, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
Thus, under the newly expanded statute, children who are sexually abused within the California public school system have at least 22 years to file suit against the perpetrator and the responsible public school district.
JOHN ROE 1, ET AL VS MOUNTAIN VIEW WHISMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL
22CV02834
Jul 27, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
Thus, under the newly expanded statute, children who are sexually abused within the California public school system have at least 22 years to file suit against the perpetrator and the responsible public school district.
JOHN ROE 1, ET AL VS MOUNTAIN VIEW WHISMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL
22CV02834
Jul 26, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
Thus, under the newly expanded statute, children who are sexually abused within the California public school system have at least 22 years to file suit against the perpetrator and the responsible public school district.
JOHN ROE 1, ET AL VS MOUNTAIN VIEW WHISMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL
22CV02834
Jul 29, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
Thus, under the newly expanded statute, children who are sexually abused within the California public school system have at least 22 years to file suit against the perpetrator and the responsible public school district.
JOHN ROE 1, ET AL VS MOUNTAIN VIEW WHISMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL
22CV02834
Jul 28, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
Thus, under the newly expanded statute, children who are sexually abused within the California public school system have at least 22 years to file suit against the perpetrator and the responsible public school district.
JOHN ROE 1, ET AL VS MOUNTAIN VIEW WHISMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL
22CV02834
Jul 30, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
Thus, under the newly expanded statute, children who are sexually abused within the California public school system have at least 22 years to file suit against the perpetrator and the responsible public school district.
JOHN ROE 1, ET AL VS MOUNTAIN VIEW WHISMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL
22CV02834
Jul 31, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
Defendant's motion is premised on the assertion that the San Ysidro School District ("SYSD" or "District") board approved a settlement with the alleged whistleblower Jose Gonzalez, who had provided a letter via his attorneys to the District advising Jose Gonzalez was being represented regarding his termination by the District.
SAN DIEGANS FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT VS FONSECA
37-2017-00007369-CU-MC-CTL
Jan 24, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Defendant Antelope Valley Union High School District ("AVUHSD) was, and is, a public entity that oversees multiple schools, including Lancaster High School. On March 6, 2019, Cheyenne Jones, Alysa Jones, and Theresa Hampton (collectively Plaintiffs) filed their Complaint. The operative pleading is the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) filed on December 16, 2019 and containing causes of action for Statutory Negligence and Negligent Supervision.
CHEYENNE JONES, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, THERESA HAMPTON, ET AL. VS ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
19AVCV00188
Jun 16, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.