Preview
Filed DEC18 20200 27
BRANDON E. RILEY, CLERK
By.
FULVIO F. CAJINA, State Bar No. 289126
ANDREW NEILSON, State Bar No, 221694
FILED
Superior Court Of Cali a,
Law Offices of Andrew Neilson & Fulvio F. Cajina Sacramento
528 Grand Avenue
Oakland, CA 94610 02/26/2020
Tel.: (510) 543-1912 smx-cv-UNP1-2020-10630 goers
Fax: (5 10) 350-8598
Email: fulvio@cajinalaw.com By _______, Deputy
aneilson@aneilsonlaw.com Cage Number:
Attorneys for Plaintiffs JANE DOE #1, JANE DOE #2 and 34-2020-00276 3 1
JOHN DOE
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
JANE DOE #1, an individual, JANE Case No, BY FAX
DOE #2, an individual, and JOHN DOE,
an individual, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiffs, 1- Child Sexual Abuse / Seduction
Vv. 2- Child Sexual Battery
3- Negligence
KEVIN PATRICK HOLEMAN, an 4- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
individual; MANTECA UNIFIED 5- Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
SCHOOL DISTRICT, a governmental 6- Sexual Harassment
entity; and ROES 1-20,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants,
Plaintiffs bring this action against the Manteca Unified School District, Kevin Patrick
Holeman, and Roes 1-20 for damages arising from Kevin Patrick Holman’s rape and sexual
battery of Jane Doe #1 (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiffs allege and aver the following based upon personal
knowledge as to facts known to them, and upon information and belief as to all other matters.
FACTS
1. Plaintiff JANE DOE #1 attended East Union High School from 2012 to 2016.
She was a student in the school’s Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program (“ROTC”)
and was under the care of the school and her teachers at all times relevant to this complaint.
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESeo oe IN AH FY ND
10
Kevin Patrick Holeman, a retired Lieutenant Colonel with the United States Army, was her
ROTC instructor. In 2015, Lt, Col. Holeman raped Plaintiff. She was 16 years old. Her teacher
was 51.
2. Lt. Col. Holeman’s predatory behavior began in 2014. In or about October 2014,
Lt. Col. Holeman began to “groom and condition” Plaintiff DOE #1 for a sexual relationship.
With the pretext of needing to communicate with her about ROTC matters, Lt. Col. Holeman
would ask Plaintiff to stay after school. Lt. Col. Holeman would share “personal matters” (such
as complaints about his marriage) and discuss adult topics (such as sex) in order to bond with
Plaintiff DOE #1 and establish trust. Lt. Col. Holeman would frequently contact Plaintiff DOE
#1 through a mobile game that had a chat feature. Lt. Col. Holeman would arrange meetings
with Plaintiff through the mobile game chat.
3, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Lt. Col. Holeman fostered and maintained
inappropriate relationships with several female ROTC students, all of whom were young teens,
Upon information and belief, many students and staff, including ROES 1-20, witnessed Lt. Col.
Holeman interacting inappropriately with female ROTC students, especially Plaintiff DOE #1.
For example, Lt. Col. Holeman would give Plaintiff DOE #1 rides to/from school, let her drive
his car, and drive her around the town. Lt. Col. Holeman would also spend a lot of time with
other young female ROTC students both on and off campus.
4, In 2015, Lt. Col. Holeman’s flirting with Plaintiff DOE #1 become more overt.
Lt. Col. Holeman spent excessive time with Plaintiff, both on and off campus. Lt. Col.
Holeman’s actions were so blatant and obvious that any reasonable person would have suspected
that he was engaged in inappropriate and unlawful interactions with Plaintiff. However,
Plaintiffs, all of them, are informed and believe that none of the East Union High School staff
reported any such actions as required by Penal Code section 11166, despite observing Lt. Col.
Holeman acting inappropriately with his female cadets, especially Plaintiff DOE #1. Instead East
Union High School staff, including ROES 1-20, tumed a blind eye to Lt. Col. Holeman’s
inappropriate conduct.
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESm
Co mI AH BF WN
10
Si. In spring 2015, before an ROTC event at school, Lt. Col. Holeman took Plaintiff
DOE #1 to an isolated location where he raped and sexually battered her. This was Plaintiff's
first time having sexual intercourse. Lt. Col. Holeman continued to spend excess time with
Plaintiff and sexually assaulted her over the course of the next several months. Plaintiffs, all of
them, are informed and belief that none of the East Union High School staff reported any such
actions.
6. In August 2015, police discovered that Lt. Col. Holeman was engaged in
inappropriate relationships with his female students, including Plaintiff DOE #1. The Manteca
Police Department launched an investigation, Lt. Col. Holeman was charged with three felony
counts of having unlawful intercourse with a minor (statutory rape of Plaintiff), sending lewd
materials to a minor, and contacting a minor with sexual intent. Lt. Col. Holeman pled guilty to
one or more charges and was sentenced to jail.
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 is an individual residing in the State of California. She
brings this lawsuit anonymously. In 2014-2015, Jane Doe #1 was a minor and a student at East
Union High School. East Union High School is in the Manteca Unified School District.
8. Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 is an individual residing in the State of California. She
brings this lawsuit anonymously. Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 is the mother of Jane Doe #1. Plaintiff
Jane Doe #2 has been injured due to the actions and inactions of Defendants.
9. Plaintiff John Doe is an individual residing in the State of California. He brings
this lawsuit anonymously. Plaintiff John Doe is the father of Jane Doe #1. Plaintiff John Doe
has been injured due to the actions and inactions of Defendants.
10. Defendant Kevin Patrick Holeman was, at all times material to this complaint, a
teacher employed by Manteca Unified School District. While acting in his capacity as a Manteca
Unified schoolteacher, Defendant Holeman statutorily raped and sexually abused Plaintiff DOE
#1, his student. Defendant Holeman resides in the County of Sacramento.
11. Defendant Manteca Unified School District is a governmental agency, a school
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES_
oO 2 NY DANA FF WN
district organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal offices
in the City of Manteca, located in the County of San Joaquin. At all times relevant to this
complaint, Manteca Unified School District employed defendants Kevin Patrick Lt. Col.
Holeman and ROES 1-20. Manteca Unified School District is both directly liable and
vicariously liable for its negligence and the negligence of its agents and employees.
12. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names or identities of the fictitiously named
ROE Defendants. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that ROE Defendants, and each of them,
are employees and/or agents of Manteca Unified School District, who, while acting as agents
and/or employees of Manteca Unified School District, acted unlawfully and/or negligently,
causing Plaintiffs to suffer the injuries alleged herein. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the
ROE Defendants, and each of them, were responsible for overseeing, vetting, hiring and/or
supervising Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman, and acted unlawfully and/or negligently, causing
Plaintiffs to suffer the injuries alleged herein. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint once the true
names or identities of the ROE Defendants are discovered.
, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.10 because
the acts complained of took place in the State of California. Venue is proper pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure section 395(a) because the one or more Defendants reside in Sacramento County.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Child Sexual Abuse / Seduction as to Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman)
14, The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated
herein by reference.
15. In 2014-2015, Plaintiff DOE #1 was Lt. Col. Holeman’s student and under his
supervision, care and command in the junior ROTC program at East Union High School. Lt.
Col. Holeman abused his position of power and trust by engaging in sexual relations with
Plaintiff, a minor.
16. | Asaresult of Lt. Col. Holeman’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered physical
pain and psychological injuries and continues to suffer such psychological injuries and trauma,
4
‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCowon Aw RYH
RN ee Be ee
including depression, anxiety, mental anguish, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and severe
emotional distress. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses for
treatment, and for incidental medical expenses. Plaintiff demands all available damages
according to proof.
17. Lt. Col. Holeman’s conduct as described herein was willful, despicable, knowing,
and extreme, constituting malice and oppression. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an award of
punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Child Sexual Battery as to Defendant Holeman)
18. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated
herein by reference.
19, Lt, Col. Holeman abused his position of power and trust by sexually assaulting
and battering Plaintiff DOE #1, a minor. Lt. Col. intended to cause offensive and/or harmful
contact and Plaintiff suffered sexually offensive contact. As a result of Lt. Col. Holeman’s
unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered physical pain and psychological injuries and continues to
suffer such psychological injuries and trauma, including depression, anxiety, mental anguish,
humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and severe emotional distress. Plaintiff has incurred and
will continue to incur medical expenses for treatment, and for incidental medical expenses.
Plaintiff demands all available damages according to proof.
20. — Lt, Col. Holeman’s conduct as described herein was willful, despicable, knowing,
and extreme, constituting malice and oppression. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an award of
punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence as to Defendants Manteca Unified School District and ROES 1-20)
21. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated
herein by reference.
22. Atal times relevant to this complaint, Defendants Manteca Unified School
District and ROES 1-20 owed a duty to safeguard the safety of their students, such as Plaintiff. In
>
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCe I AH BF WH |
Boe eB Be ee ee ee
oe NY DA HF wWwNH YK SS
20
effect, Defendants Manteca Unified School District and ROES 1-20 stood in the shoes of their
students’ parents, acting in /oco parentis, at all times when such students were under Defendants’
care. Additionally, Defendants ROES 1-10 had a statutory duty to mandatorily report any and all
suspected child abuse, including sexual abuse of a student by a teacher. ROES 1-10 breached
their duty by failing to report Lt. Col. Holeman, even though it was well known that Lt. Col.
Holeman maintained inappropriate relationships with the female students under his care,
especially Plaintiff DOE #1. A reasonable person would have suspected that Lt. Col. Holeman
was engaged in sexual activity with his students, including Plaintiff. Defendants ROES 1-10’s
failure to report Lt. Col. Holeman was substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ damages.
Defendants ROES 1-10’s failure to report constitutes negligence per se as their actions were in
violation of California Penal Code section 11166 et seq. Defendant Manteca Unified School
District is vicariously liable for the negligence of ROES 1-10 and their violations of California
Penal Code section 11166 et seq.
23. Defendants Manteca Unified School District and ROES 11-20 also breached their
duty of care to Plaintiff by, among other things, failing to properly train their agents and
employees on how to recognize and report suspected sexual activity between a student and a
teacher. Defendants ROES 11-20’s failure to recognize and report Lt. Col. Holeman
inappropriate relationships with female students, especially Plaintiff DOE #1, was substantial
factor in causing Plaintiffs’ damages. Defendants Manteca Unified School District and ROES
11- 20’s improper training constitutes negligence per se. Defendant Manteca Unified School
District is vicariously liable for the negligence of ROES 11-20.
24, — Defendants Manteca Unified School District and ROES 11-20 had a duty to
properly vet, train, supervise and retain East Union High School agents and employees, Among
other acts and/or failures to act, Defendants Manteca Unified School District and ROES 11-20
were negligent in their hiring, training, supervision and retention Lt. Col. Holeman. Defendants
Manteca Unified and ROES 11-20 were further negligent by failing to maintain policies and
procedures to prevent the harms suffered by Plaintiff. With deliberate indifference, Defendants
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES| Manteca Unified School District and ROES 11-20 failed to take reasonable, necessary, proper
and adequate measures in order to protect Plaintiff from a sexual predator. Defendants Manteca
Unified School District and ROES 11-20’s negligence was substantial factor in causing
| Plaintifts’ damages. Defendants Manteca Unified School District and ROES 11- 20’s negligent
hiring, training, supervision and retention Lt. Col. Holeman constitutes negligence per se.
| Manteca Unified District is vicariously liable for its negligence and negligence of ROES 11-20.
25. Asaresult of Defendants Manteca Unified and ROES 1-20’s negligent conduct,
| Plaintiff suffered physical pain and psychological injuries and continues to suffer such
psychological injuries and trauma, including depression, anxiety, mental anguish, humiliation,
loss of enjoyment of life, and severe emotional distress. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue
to incur medical expenses for treatment, and for incidental medical expenses. Plaintiff demands
all available damages according to proof.
26. Defendants ROES 1-20’s conduct as described above was despicable and
performed with a willful and knowing disregard for the rights of students, including Plaintiff.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount
according to proof.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(ntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as to Defendant Holeman)
27. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated
herein by reference.
28. Lt. Col. Holeman engaged in the extreme and outrageous conduct herein as above
alleged with wanton and reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiffs, and each of
them, to suffer severe emotional distress. Lt. Col, Holeman’s conduct included subjecting
| Plaintiff to repeated sexual assaults and repeated sexualized conversations at school. Lt. Col.
| Holeman’s conduct further violated the trust placed in him by Plaintiffs Jane Doe #2 and John
} Doe, who entrusted their daughter to his custody and care.
29. Asa proximate cause of Lt. Col. Holeman’s conduct, Plaintiffs, and each of them,
suffered severe emotional distress, mental anguish, depression, anxiety, and humiliation.
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoe YAH PF wWwNY |
ck re ee ee
BRRRPERBRPRS FeFERVURBESOR ES
Plaintiffs have sustained and continue to sustain aggravated medical problems resulting from,
among other things, depression, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiffs have
incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses for treatment, and for incidental medical
expenses; and Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer emotional pain and suffering.
Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to damages according to proof.
30. Lt. Col. Holeman’s conduct as described above was willful, despicable, knowing,
and intentional, constituting malice and oppression. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek an award of
punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress as to all Defendants)
31. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated
herein by reference.
32. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of care not to engage in actions that would
cause them emotional distress, Defendants breached said duty by their own conduct as alleged
herein, including Defendants’ failure to report and guard against Lt. Col. Holeman sex abuse of
Plaintiff. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs, and each of them, suffered serious
emotional distress, mental anguish, depression, embarrassment, anxiety and humiliation.
Plaintiffs have sustained and continue to sustain aggravated medical problems resulting from,
among other things, depression, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiffs have
incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses for treatment, and for incidental medical
expenses; and Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer emotional pain and suffering.
Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to damages according to proof.
33. Defendants Lt. Col, Holeman and ROES 1-20’s conduct as described above
constituted malice and oppression. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek an award of punitive and
exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Sexual Harassment as to all Defendants)
34. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESeC we YN AH FF WN
NON RN NN De Be Be Be ee Be ee oe
BRASRBREBBE BSE DRBAEBSHEHS
herein by reference.
35. Education Code section 220 states “[nJo person shall be subjected to
discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality,
race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the
definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity
conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance
or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.”
36. Education Code section 201 states “[a]ll pupils have the right to participate fully
in the educational process, free from discrimination and harassment [...] California's public
schools have an affirmative obligation to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of bias, and a
responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity [...] Harassment on schoo! grounds
directed at an individual on the basis of personal characteristics or status creates a hostile
environment and jeopardizes equal educational opportunity as guaranteed by the California
Constitution and the United States Constitution [...] There is an urgent need to prevent and
respond to acts of hate violence and bias-related incidents that are occurring at an increasing rate
in California's public schools (...] It is the intent of the Legislature that this chapter shall be
interpreted as consistent with [...] Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. Sec.
1681, et seq.) [...] the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Secs. 51 to 53, incl., Civ. C.), and the Fair
Employment and Housing Act (Pt. 2.8 (commencing with Sec. 12900), Div. 3, Gov. C.), except
where this chapter may grant more protections or impose additional obligations, and that the
remedies provided herein shall not be the exclusive remedies, but may be combined with
remedies that may be provided by the above statutes.”
37. The California Supreme Court has determined: “Responsibility for the safety of
public school students is not borne solely by instructional personnel. School principals and other
supervisory employees, to the extent their duties include overseeing the educational environment
and the performance of teachers and counselors, also have the responsibility of taking reasonable
measures to guard pupils against harassment . . .” C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoe NAH FF WN
DRY KR NR De He eH ee ee Re ee
RBNRRPEBSBBRBNRE Fe wWABREESTS
Dist. et. al., (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 861, 871. “A principal is liable when it ratifies an originally
unauthorized tort. The failure to discharge an agent or employee may be evidence of ratification.
. . If the employer, after knowledge or opportunity to learn of the agent’s misconduct, continues
the wrongdoer in service, the employer may become an abettor and may make himself liable in
punitive damages.” Murillo v. Rite Stuff Foods Inc., (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 833, 852 (internal
citations omitted).
38. During Plaintiff's time as a student at Manteca Unified School District, Defendant
Lt. Col. Holeman intentionally, recklessly and wantonly made sexual advances, solicitations,
requests, demands for sexual compliance based on Plaintiff's gender that were unwelcome,
pervasive and severe. The incidents of abuse outlined herein above took place while Plaintiff
was under the control of Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman, in his capacity and position as a teacher,
advisor and mentor and while acting specifically on behalf of Defendants.
39. During Plaintiff's time as a student at Manteca Unified School District, Defendant
Lt. Col. Holeman intentionally, recklessly and wantonly did acts which resulted in psychological
harm to the Plaintiff, including but not limited to, using his position as a teacher, instructor,
advisor, and mentor to sexually harass and abuse the Plaintiff, and to use his authority and
position of trust to exploit the Plaintiff emotionally.
40. Because of Plaintiff's relationship with Lt. Col. Holeman as a student at Manteca
Unified School District, and Plaintiff's young age as a minor student, Plaintiff was unable to
easily terminate the student-teacher, student-advisor, and student-mentor relationships she had
with Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman. Because of Lt. Col. Holeman’s position of authority over
Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's mental and emotional state, and Plaintiff's young age under the age of
consent, Plaintiff was unable to, and did not give meaningful consent to such acts.
41. Even though the Defendants knew or should have known of these activities by
Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman, Defendants did nothing to investigate, supervise or monitor
Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman to ensure the safety of the minor female students, but instead ratified
such conduct by retaining Lt. Col. Holeman in employment and retaining the benefits of his
10
‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoe IN DUH FF WN
10
employment.
42, Defendants' conduct was a breach of their duties to Plaintiff. Defendant Manteca
Unified School District ratified Lt. Col. Holeman’s illicit sexual harassment of Plaintiff by
retaining him in employment despite having knowledge and/or reasonable suspicion that the
sexual harassment was occurring.
43. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to
suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of
emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of
enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be
prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain
loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for
medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.
44. — The aforesaid acts directed towards the Plaintiff were carried out with a conscious
disregard of Plaintiff's right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute
oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to
punitive damages against Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman in an amount appropriate to punish and set
an example of him, and also pursuant to Civil Code section 52. Plaintiff is also entitled to
attorney’s fees and costs from Defendants pursuant to Civil Code section 52, especially given
Manteca Unified School District’s authorization or ratification of such acts by its managing
agents, officers or directors,
V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs prays for judgment as follows:
1. For compensatory damages, including all economic and noneconomic damages;
2, For exemplary and punitive damages as allowable by law;
4. For reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to all applicable statutes;
5. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
5: For costs of suit incurred herein; and
11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,Oo eI AH FF WN &
poe ee ee ee eB eB
BNRBRRPESBRHPEBSeDURBEBSHREAS
6. For such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
Dated: February 25, 2020
Respectfully Submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW NEILSON AND
FULVIO F. CAJINA
Fulvio F. Cajina 2 xs
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGet Yo yap foamnag 6 ai tromnteni beraens eff
XECENVED
i / DROP BOM
M2 FEB26 PH I:h2
iAP DOUCHOUSE
SUPRION COURT OF CALE
COLT OF SCAAMENTO
site a risiteatengne
tote?
dined ped ensad
aBrginen362 to yrwed
wo ar‘The annexed Instrument fs 2 correct copy of the
Preview
Filed DEC18 20200 27 BRANDON E. RILEY, CLERK By. FULVIO F. CAJINA, State Bar No. 289126 ANDREW NEILSON, State Bar No, 221694 FILED Superior Court Of Cali a, Law Offices of Andrew Neilson & Fulvio F. Cajina Sacramento 528 Grand Avenue Oakland, CA 94610 02/26/2020 Tel.: (510) 543-1912 smx-cv-UNP1-2020-10630 goers Fax: (5 10) 350-8598 Email: fulvio@cajinalaw.com By _______, Deputy aneilson@aneilsonlaw.com Cage Number: Attorneys for Plaintiffs JANE DOE #1, JANE DOE #2 and 34-2020-00276 3 1 JOHN DOE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION JANE DOE #1, an individual, JANE Case No, BY FAX DOE #2, an individual, and JOHN DOE, an individual, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiffs, 1- Child Sexual Abuse / Seduction Vv. 2- Child Sexual Battery 3- Negligence KEVIN PATRICK HOLEMAN, an 4- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress individual; MANTECA UNIFIED 5- Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress SCHOOL DISTRICT, a governmental 6- Sexual Harassment entity; and ROES 1-20, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants, Plaintiffs bring this action against the Manteca Unified School District, Kevin Patrick Holeman, and Roes 1-20 for damages arising from Kevin Patrick Holman’s rape and sexual battery of Jane Doe #1 (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiffs allege and aver the following based upon personal knowledge as to facts known to them, and upon information and belief as to all other matters. FACTS 1. Plaintiff JANE DOE #1 attended East Union High School from 2012 to 2016. She was a student in the school’s Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program (“ROTC”) and was under the care of the school and her teachers at all times relevant to this complaint. 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESeo oe IN AH FY ND 10 Kevin Patrick Holeman, a retired Lieutenant Colonel with the United States Army, was her ROTC instructor. In 2015, Lt, Col. Holeman raped Plaintiff. She was 16 years old. Her teacher was 51. 2. Lt. Col. Holeman’s predatory behavior began in 2014. In or about October 2014, Lt. Col. Holeman began to “groom and condition” Plaintiff DOE #1 for a sexual relationship. With the pretext of needing to communicate with her about ROTC matters, Lt. Col. Holeman would ask Plaintiff to stay after school. Lt. Col. Holeman would share “personal matters” (such as complaints about his marriage) and discuss adult topics (such as sex) in order to bond with Plaintiff DOE #1 and establish trust. Lt. Col. Holeman would frequently contact Plaintiff DOE #1 through a mobile game that had a chat feature. Lt. Col. Holeman would arrange meetings with Plaintiff through the mobile game chat. 3, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Lt. Col. Holeman fostered and maintained inappropriate relationships with several female ROTC students, all of whom were young teens, Upon information and belief, many students and staff, including ROES 1-20, witnessed Lt. Col. Holeman interacting inappropriately with female ROTC students, especially Plaintiff DOE #1. For example, Lt. Col. Holeman would give Plaintiff DOE #1 rides to/from school, let her drive his car, and drive her around the town. Lt. Col. Holeman would also spend a lot of time with other young female ROTC students both on and off campus. 4, In 2015, Lt. Col. Holeman’s flirting with Plaintiff DOE #1 become more overt. Lt. Col. Holeman spent excessive time with Plaintiff, both on and off campus. Lt. Col. Holeman’s actions were so blatant and obvious that any reasonable person would have suspected that he was engaged in inappropriate and unlawful interactions with Plaintiff. However, Plaintiffs, all of them, are informed and believe that none of the East Union High School staff reported any such actions as required by Penal Code section 11166, despite observing Lt. Col. Holeman acting inappropriately with his female cadets, especially Plaintiff DOE #1. Instead East Union High School staff, including ROES 1-20, tumed a blind eye to Lt. Col. Holeman’s inappropriate conduct. 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESm Co mI AH BF WN 10 Si. In spring 2015, before an ROTC event at school, Lt. Col. Holeman took Plaintiff DOE #1 to an isolated location where he raped and sexually battered her. This was Plaintiff's first time having sexual intercourse. Lt. Col. Holeman continued to spend excess time with Plaintiff and sexually assaulted her over the course of the next several months. Plaintiffs, all of them, are informed and belief that none of the East Union High School staff reported any such actions. 6. In August 2015, police discovered that Lt. Col. Holeman was engaged in inappropriate relationships with his female students, including Plaintiff DOE #1. The Manteca Police Department launched an investigation, Lt. Col. Holeman was charged with three felony counts of having unlawful intercourse with a minor (statutory rape of Plaintiff), sending lewd materials to a minor, and contacting a minor with sexual intent. Lt. Col. Holeman pled guilty to one or more charges and was sentenced to jail. PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 is an individual residing in the State of California. She brings this lawsuit anonymously. In 2014-2015, Jane Doe #1 was a minor and a student at East Union High School. East Union High School is in the Manteca Unified School District. 8. Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 is an individual residing in the State of California. She brings this lawsuit anonymously. Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 is the mother of Jane Doe #1. Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 has been injured due to the actions and inactions of Defendants. 9. Plaintiff John Doe is an individual residing in the State of California. He brings this lawsuit anonymously. Plaintiff John Doe is the father of Jane Doe #1. Plaintiff John Doe has been injured due to the actions and inactions of Defendants. 10. Defendant Kevin Patrick Holeman was, at all times material to this complaint, a teacher employed by Manteca Unified School District. While acting in his capacity as a Manteca Unified schoolteacher, Defendant Holeman statutorily raped and sexually abused Plaintiff DOE #1, his student. Defendant Holeman resides in the County of Sacramento. 11. Defendant Manteca Unified School District is a governmental agency, a school 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES_ oO 2 NY DANA FF WN district organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal offices in the City of Manteca, located in the County of San Joaquin. At all times relevant to this complaint, Manteca Unified School District employed defendants Kevin Patrick Lt. Col. Holeman and ROES 1-20. Manteca Unified School District is both directly liable and vicariously liable for its negligence and the negligence of its agents and employees. 12. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names or identities of the fictitiously named ROE Defendants. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that ROE Defendants, and each of them, are employees and/or agents of Manteca Unified School District, who, while acting as agents and/or employees of Manteca Unified School District, acted unlawfully and/or negligently, causing Plaintiffs to suffer the injuries alleged herein. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the ROE Defendants, and each of them, were responsible for overseeing, vetting, hiring and/or supervising Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman, and acted unlawfully and/or negligently, causing Plaintiffs to suffer the injuries alleged herein. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint once the true names or identities of the ROE Defendants are discovered. , JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.10 because the acts complained of took place in the State of California. Venue is proper pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a) because the one or more Defendants reside in Sacramento County. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Child Sexual Abuse / Seduction as to Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman) 14, The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 15. In 2014-2015, Plaintiff DOE #1 was Lt. Col. Holeman’s student and under his supervision, care and command in the junior ROTC program at East Union High School. Lt. Col. Holeman abused his position of power and trust by engaging in sexual relations with Plaintiff, a minor. 16. | Asaresult of Lt. Col. Holeman’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered physical pain and psychological injuries and continues to suffer such psychological injuries and trauma, 4 ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCowon Aw RYH RN ee Be ee including depression, anxiety, mental anguish, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and severe emotional distress. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses for treatment, and for incidental medical expenses. Plaintiff demands all available damages according to proof. 17. Lt. Col. Holeman’s conduct as described herein was willful, despicable, knowing, and extreme, constituting malice and oppression. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Child Sexual Battery as to Defendant Holeman) 18. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 19, Lt, Col. Holeman abused his position of power and trust by sexually assaulting and battering Plaintiff DOE #1, a minor. Lt. Col. intended to cause offensive and/or harmful contact and Plaintiff suffered sexually offensive contact. As a result of Lt. Col. Holeman’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered physical pain and psychological injuries and continues to suffer such psychological injuries and trauma, including depression, anxiety, mental anguish, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and severe emotional distress. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses for treatment, and for incidental medical expenses. Plaintiff demands all available damages according to proof. 20. — Lt, Col. Holeman’s conduct as described herein was willful, despicable, knowing, and extreme, constituting malice and oppression. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence as to Defendants Manteca Unified School District and ROES 1-20) 21. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 22. Atal times relevant to this complaint, Defendants Manteca Unified School District and ROES 1-20 owed a duty to safeguard the safety of their students, such as Plaintiff. In > COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESCe I AH BF WH | Boe eB Be ee ee ee oe NY DA HF wWwNH YK SS 20 effect, Defendants Manteca Unified School District and ROES 1-20 stood in the shoes of their students’ parents, acting in /oco parentis, at all times when such students were under Defendants’ care. Additionally, Defendants ROES 1-10 had a statutory duty to mandatorily report any and all suspected child abuse, including sexual abuse of a student by a teacher. ROES 1-10 breached their duty by failing to report Lt. Col. Holeman, even though it was well known that Lt. Col. Holeman maintained inappropriate relationships with the female students under his care, especially Plaintiff DOE #1. A reasonable person would have suspected that Lt. Col. Holeman was engaged in sexual activity with his students, including Plaintiff. Defendants ROES 1-10’s failure to report Lt. Col. Holeman was substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ damages. Defendants ROES 1-10’s failure to report constitutes negligence per se as their actions were in violation of California Penal Code section 11166 et seq. Defendant Manteca Unified School District is vicariously liable for the negligence of ROES 1-10 and their violations of California Penal Code section 11166 et seq. 23. Defendants Manteca Unified School District and ROES 11-20 also breached their duty of care to Plaintiff by, among other things, failing to properly train their agents and employees on how to recognize and report suspected sexual activity between a student and a teacher. Defendants ROES 11-20’s failure to recognize and report Lt. Col. Holeman inappropriate relationships with female students, especially Plaintiff DOE #1, was substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ damages. Defendants Manteca Unified School District and ROES 11- 20’s improper training constitutes negligence per se. Defendant Manteca Unified School District is vicariously liable for the negligence of ROES 11-20. 24, — Defendants Manteca Unified School District and ROES 11-20 had a duty to properly vet, train, supervise and retain East Union High School agents and employees, Among other acts and/or failures to act, Defendants Manteca Unified School District and ROES 11-20 were negligent in their hiring, training, supervision and retention Lt. Col. Holeman. Defendants Manteca Unified and ROES 11-20 were further negligent by failing to maintain policies and procedures to prevent the harms suffered by Plaintiff. With deliberate indifference, Defendants 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES| Manteca Unified School District and ROES 11-20 failed to take reasonable, necessary, proper and adequate measures in order to protect Plaintiff from a sexual predator. Defendants Manteca Unified School District and ROES 11-20’s negligence was substantial factor in causing | Plaintifts’ damages. Defendants Manteca Unified School District and ROES 11- 20’s negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention Lt. Col. Holeman constitutes negligence per se. | Manteca Unified District is vicariously liable for its negligence and negligence of ROES 11-20. 25. Asaresult of Defendants Manteca Unified and ROES 1-20’s negligent conduct, | Plaintiff suffered physical pain and psychological injuries and continues to suffer such psychological injuries and trauma, including depression, anxiety, mental anguish, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and severe emotional distress. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses for treatment, and for incidental medical expenses. Plaintiff demands all available damages according to proof. 26. Defendants ROES 1-20’s conduct as described above was despicable and performed with a willful and knowing disregard for the rights of students, including Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (ntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as to Defendant Holeman) 27. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 28. Lt. Col. Holeman engaged in the extreme and outrageous conduct herein as above alleged with wanton and reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiffs, and each of them, to suffer severe emotional distress. Lt. Col, Holeman’s conduct included subjecting | Plaintiff to repeated sexual assaults and repeated sexualized conversations at school. Lt. Col. | Holeman’s conduct further violated the trust placed in him by Plaintiffs Jane Doe #2 and John } Doe, who entrusted their daughter to his custody and care. 29. Asa proximate cause of Lt. Col. Holeman’s conduct, Plaintiffs, and each of them, suffered severe emotional distress, mental anguish, depression, anxiety, and humiliation. 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoe YAH PF wWwNY | ck re ee ee BRRRPERBRPRS FeFERVURBESOR ES Plaintiffs have sustained and continue to sustain aggravated medical problems resulting from, among other things, depression, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses for treatment, and for incidental medical expenses; and Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer emotional pain and suffering. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to damages according to proof. 30. Lt. Col. Holeman’s conduct as described above was willful, despicable, knowing, and intentional, constituting malice and oppression. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress as to all Defendants) 31. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 32. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of care not to engage in actions that would cause them emotional distress, Defendants breached said duty by their own conduct as alleged herein, including Defendants’ failure to report and guard against Lt. Col. Holeman sex abuse of Plaintiff. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs, and each of them, suffered serious emotional distress, mental anguish, depression, embarrassment, anxiety and humiliation. Plaintiffs have sustained and continue to sustain aggravated medical problems resulting from, among other things, depression, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses for treatment, and for incidental medical expenses; and Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer emotional pain and suffering. Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to damages according to proof. 33. Defendants Lt. Col, Holeman and ROES 1-20’s conduct as described above constituted malice and oppression. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Sexual Harassment as to all Defendants) 34. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESeC we YN AH FF WN NON RN NN De Be Be Be ee Be ee oe BRASRBREBBE BSE DRBAEBSHEHS herein by reference. 35. Education Code section 220 states “[nJo person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.” 36. Education Code section 201 states “[a]ll pupils have the right to participate fully in the educational process, free from discrimination and harassment [...] California's public schools have an affirmative obligation to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of bias, and a responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity [...] Harassment on schoo! grounds directed at an individual on the basis of personal characteristics or status creates a hostile environment and jeopardizes equal educational opportunity as guaranteed by the California Constitution and the United States Constitution [...] There is an urgent need to prevent and respond to acts of hate violence and bias-related incidents that are occurring at an increasing rate in California's public schools (...] It is the intent of the Legislature that this chapter shall be interpreted as consistent with [...] Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681, et seq.) [...] the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Secs. 51 to 53, incl., Civ. C.), and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Pt. 2.8 (commencing with Sec. 12900), Div. 3, Gov. C.), except where this chapter may grant more protections or impose additional obligations, and that the remedies provided herein shall not be the exclusive remedies, but may be combined with remedies that may be provided by the above statutes.” 37. The California Supreme Court has determined: “Responsibility for the safety of public school students is not borne solely by instructional personnel. School principals and other supervisory employees, to the extent their duties include overseeing the educational environment and the performance of teachers and counselors, also have the responsibility of taking reasonable measures to guard pupils against harassment . . .” C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoe NAH FF WN DRY KR NR De He eH ee ee Re ee RBNRRPEBSBBRBNRE Fe wWABREESTS Dist. et. al., (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 861, 871. “A principal is liable when it ratifies an originally unauthorized tort. The failure to discharge an agent or employee may be evidence of ratification. . . If the employer, after knowledge or opportunity to learn of the agent’s misconduct, continues the wrongdoer in service, the employer may become an abettor and may make himself liable in punitive damages.” Murillo v. Rite Stuff Foods Inc., (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 833, 852 (internal citations omitted). 38. During Plaintiff's time as a student at Manteca Unified School District, Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman intentionally, recklessly and wantonly made sexual advances, solicitations, requests, demands for sexual compliance based on Plaintiff's gender that were unwelcome, pervasive and severe. The incidents of abuse outlined herein above took place while Plaintiff was under the control of Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman, in his capacity and position as a teacher, advisor and mentor and while acting specifically on behalf of Defendants. 39. During Plaintiff's time as a student at Manteca Unified School District, Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman intentionally, recklessly and wantonly did acts which resulted in psychological harm to the Plaintiff, including but not limited to, using his position as a teacher, instructor, advisor, and mentor to sexually harass and abuse the Plaintiff, and to use his authority and position of trust to exploit the Plaintiff emotionally. 40. Because of Plaintiff's relationship with Lt. Col. Holeman as a student at Manteca Unified School District, and Plaintiff's young age as a minor student, Plaintiff was unable to easily terminate the student-teacher, student-advisor, and student-mentor relationships she had with Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman. Because of Lt. Col. Holeman’s position of authority over Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's mental and emotional state, and Plaintiff's young age under the age of consent, Plaintiff was unable to, and did not give meaningful consent to such acts. 41. Even though the Defendants knew or should have known of these activities by Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman, Defendants did nothing to investigate, supervise or monitor Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman to ensure the safety of the minor female students, but instead ratified such conduct by retaining Lt. Col. Holeman in employment and retaining the benefits of his 10 ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESoe IN DUH FF WN 10 employment. 42, Defendants' conduct was a breach of their duties to Plaintiff. Defendant Manteca Unified School District ratified Lt. Col. Holeman’s illicit sexual harassment of Plaintiff by retaining him in employment despite having knowledge and/or reasonable suspicion that the sexual harassment was occurring. 43. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. 44. — The aforesaid acts directed towards the Plaintiff were carried out with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff's right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of him, and also pursuant to Civil Code section 52. Plaintiff is also entitled to attorney’s fees and costs from Defendants pursuant to Civil Code section 52, especially given Manteca Unified School District’s authorization or ratification of such acts by its managing agents, officers or directors, V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiffs prays for judgment as follows: 1. For compensatory damages, including all economic and noneconomic damages; 2, For exemplary and punitive damages as allowable by law; 4. For reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to all applicable statutes; 5. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest; 5: For costs of suit incurred herein; and 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,Oo eI AH FF WN & poe ee ee ee eB eB BNRBRRPESBRHPEBSeDURBEBSHREAS 6. For such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper. Dated: February 25, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW NEILSON AND FULVIO F. CAJINA Fulvio F. Cajina 2 xs Attorneys for Plaintiffs 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESGet Yo yap foamnag 6 ai tromnteni beraens eff XECENVED i / DROP BOM M2 FEB26 PH I:h2 iAP DOUCHOUSE SUPRION COURT OF CALE COLT OF SCAAMENTO site a risiteatengne tote? dined ped ensad aBrginen362 to yrwed wo ar‘The annexed Instrument fs 2 correct copy of the