Preview
FULVIO F. CAJINA, State Bar No. 289126
ANDREW NEILSON, State Bar No. 221694
Law Offices of Andrew Neilson & Fulvio F. Cajina
528 Grand Avenue
Oakland, CA 94610
Tel.: (510) 543-1912
Fax: (510) 350-8598
Email: fulvio@cajinalaw.com
aneilson@aneilsonlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff JANE DOE
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
JANE DOE, an individual, Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2020-0010680
Plaintiff, SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
y DAMAGES
KEVIN PATRICK HOLEMAN, an 1+ Child Sexual Abuse
individual; MANTECA UNIFIED 2- Child Sexual Battery
SCHOOL DISTRICT, a governmental 3- Negligence PerSe _.
entity; and ROES 1-20, 4 Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision or
Retention
Defendants. 5- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
6- Sexual Harassment
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff JANE DOE (“Plaintiff’) alleges and avers the following based upon personal
knowledge as to facts known to her, and upon information and belief as to all other matters.
FACTS
1. Plaintiff attended East Union High School from 2012 to 2016. She was a student
in the school’s Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Program (“JROTC”). Kevin Patrick
Holeman, a retired Lieutenant Colonel (“LTC”) with the United States Army, was her JROTC
instructor. After months of grooming, LTC Holeman sexually assaulted Plaintiff. The scxual
abuse and grooming began when Plaintiff was 15 years old. LTC Holeman was 51.
1
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
‘Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2020-0010630
FILE BY FAX-
wo Orn HD nH FF WN
10
2. Plaintiff is informed and believes that LTC Holeman had a multi-year history of
fostering and maintaining inappropriate relationships with female students — sexually harassing
his female students. LTC Holeman would spend inordinate amounts of time with the female
students, both on and off campus, and touch female students inappropriately. Plaintiff is
informed and believes that teachers and school staff took notice of LTC Holeman’s actions, but
said and did nothing. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that teachers and school staff were
aware of rumors and murmurings that LTC Holeman had inappropriate relations with female
students.
3. In or about October 2014, LTC Holeman began to “groom and condition” Plaintiff
for a sexual relationship. With the pretext of needing to communicate with her about JROTC
matters, LTC Holeman would ask Plaintiff to stay after school. LTC Holeman would share
“personal matters” (such as complaints about his marriage) and discuss adult topics (such as sex)
in order to bond with Plaintiff and establish trust.
4. In 2015, LTC Holeman’s conduct became more overt. For example, LTC
Holeman would give Plaintiff rides to and from school, let her drive his car, and drive her around
the town. LTC Holeman would take Plaintiff on “dates,” and touch and hug her, both on campus
and in public. LTC Holeman’s relationship with Plaintiff became increasingly physical. LTC
Holeman would kiss and fondle Plaintiff, give her extended hugs, and hold her hand. Prior to a
school-sponsored JROTC event, LTC Holeman took Plaintiff to an isolated campground and
convinced her to have sex. This was Plaintiff's first time having intercourse.
5. LTC Holeman’s sexual relationship with Plaintiff continued for months, and his
interactions with her became increasing bold. In essence, LTC Holeman treated Plaintiff as his
girlfriend. On information and belicf, ROES 1-20 witnessed LTC Holeman interacting
inappropriately with JROTC students, especially Plaintiff, yet, while working in the course and
scope of their employment as teachers, educators, and administrators, failed to report such
actions as required by California Childe Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (the “CANRA”).
6. Months and years after LTC Holeman began to interact inappropriately with
2
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2020-001 0680oe ND HH Ff WN
RN NNN Ne Be Be Be ew ee ee
RBNREEREBBEREBSEREAAEEERL GS
Plaintiff and other female students at the school, in August 2015, someone finally reported that
LTC Holeman was engaged in inappropriate relationships with his female students. The Manteca
Police Department launched an investigation. Based on their findings, LTC Holeman was
charged with three felony counts of having unlawful intercourse with a minor (statutory rape),
sending lewd materials to a minor, and conlacting a minor with sexual intent. He pled guilty to
one or more charges.
TOLLING DUE TO DISABILITY
7. Plaintiff believes that all of her claims are timely pursuant Code of Civil
Procedure § 340.1. The above notwithstanding, the wrongful acts of Defendant LTC Holeman
placed Plaintiff under severe emotional duress in an attempt to prevent her from filing suit
against him. Even after pleading guilty to scxual abuse charges in connection with Plaintiff,
LTC Holeman continued to exert influence over Plaintiff via mutual acquaintances. Specifically,
Defendant LTC Holeman continued to fratemnize with the young ‘female students at East Union
High School, including Plaintiff's best friends, even after pleading guilty to sexual abuse charges.
Through those contacts, which occurred into 2019, LTC Holeman would send greetings and
messages to Plaintiff through her friends. Through those contacts, LTC Holeman was able to
maintain influence and power over Plaintiff into 2019. Plaintiff, a teenager (a child still) and
later a young woman during that period of time, felt uneasy about the continued contact and
influence that LTC Holeman continued to have over her and her female friends. Plaintiff felt fear
and confusion about speaking out against LTC Holeman’s continued contact (and ability to keep
tabs on her), and about bringing an action against LTC Holeman, who would take Plaintiff's best
friends on camping trips and excursions even after being found guilty of sexual abuse. LTC
Holeman’s psychological influence, power and control over Plaintiff continued for years even
after he stopped having physical contact with her. “It is well settled that where delay in
commencing an action is induced by the conduct of the Defendant, he cannot avail himself of the
defense of the statute [of limitations].” (Gaglione v. Coolidge (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 518, 527,
286 P.2d 568 (internal citations omitted); see also Rupley v. Huntsman (1958) 159 Cal.App.2d
3
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
‘Case No. STK~CV-UNPI-2020-0010680oO Oo ND MH ® WN
10
307, 313, 324 P.2d 19; Langdon v. Langdon (1941) 47 Cal.App.2d 28, 32, 117 P.2d 371;
Industrial Indem. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1953) 115 Cal. App.2d 684, 689, 252 P.2d 649; Carruth
v. Fritch (1950) 36 Cal.2d 426, 434, 224 P.2d 702.) Defendant’s conduct contributed to the
Plaintiff's delay in filing suit, to the extent any such delay may exist. Bollinger v National Fire
Ins. Co. (1944) 25 C2d 399, 411.
PARTIES
8. Plaintiff JANE DOE is an individual residing in the State of California. She
brings this lawsuit anonymously. [In 2014-2015, Plaintiff was a minor and a student at East
Union High School. East Union High School is in the Manteca Unified School District.
9. 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 sexually abused and statutorily raped Plaintiff, his
student. Defendant Holeman resides in the County of Sacramento.
10. Defendant Manteca Unified School District (“MUSD”) is a governmental agency,
a school 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, MUSD employed defendants Kevin Patrick Holeman and ROES 1-20.
11. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names or identities of the fictitiously named ROE
Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes that ROE Defendants, and cach 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 and within the course and scope of their duties,
acted unlawfully and/or negligently, causing Plaintiff to suffer the injuries alleged herein.
Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Defendants ROES 1-10, and each of them, were
responsible for overseeing, vetting, hiring, training, retaining and/or supervising Defendant LTC
Holeman, and acted unlawfully and/or negligently, causing Plaintiffs to suffer the injuries alleged
herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Defendants ROES 11-20, and each of them,
acting in loco parentis had a duty toward Plaintiff to safeguard her from abuse from LTC
4
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case No. STK-~CV-UNP1-2020-0010680.o ON DH FF WN
RNY NN NY De Be ee ee ee em
RBRRERBESBRNBE EB UWUA BDBREEOKRES
Holeman, and acted unlawfully and/or negligently, causing Plaintiffs to suffer the injuries alleged
herein. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint once the true names or identities of the ROE
Defendants are discovered.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. 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 San Joaquin
County.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Child Sexual Abuse against LTC Holeman)
13. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated
herein by reference.
14. In 2014-2015, Plaintiff was LTC Holeman’s student and under his supervision,
care and command in the JROTC program at East Union High School. LTC Holeman abused his
position of power and trust by grooming and conditioning Plaintiff and engaging in sexual
relations with Plaintiff when she was a minor. Because of Defendant’s position of authority, and
Plaintiff's status as a minor, Plaintiff was unable to, and did not, consent to the aforementioncd
acts as a matter of law.
15. Asaresult of LTC’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.
16. | LTC Holeman’s acts as described herein were willful, despicable, knowing, and
extreme, constituting malice and oppression, and were carried out with a conscious disregard of
Plaintiff's rights to be free from such tortious and criminal behavior. Accordingly, Plaintiff secks
5
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2020-0010680Oo fo nN DR HH Ff WY NY
10
an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Child Sexual Battery against LTC Holeman)
17. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated
herein by reference.
18. | LTC Holeman abused his position of power and trust by sexually assaulting and
battering Plaintiff, a minor. LTC intended to cause offensive and/or harmful contact and Plaintiff
suffered sexually offensive contact. Because of Defendant’s position of authority, and Plaintiff's
status as a minor, Plaintiff was unable to, and did not, consent to the aforementioned acts as a
matter of law.
19. Asaresult of LTC 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. | LTC Holeman’s acts as described herein were willful, despicable, knowing, and
extreme, constituting malice and oppression, and were carried out with a conscious disregard of
Plaintiff's rights to be free from such tortious and criminal behavior. Accordingly, Plaintiff secks
an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence Per Se against MUSD and ROES 1-20)
21. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated
herein by reference.
22. _ At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants ROES 1-20 owed a duty to
Teport known or suspected instances of child sexual abuse ta law enforcement, The California
Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (““CANRA”) states, inter alia, that a mandated reporter
shall make a report to an agency specified in section 11165.9 whenever the mandated reporter in
6
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case No. STK-C V-UNP!-2020-001 0680-
Oo Oo NY BH nH &® WB NY
10
his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment has knowledge of
or observes a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the
victim of child abuse or neglect.
23. | ROES 1-20 were mandated reporters. ROES 1-20 violated CANRA by failing to
report suspected child abuse, namely, sexual abuse of a student by a teacher. Plaintiff was
harmed by ROES 1-20’s failure to report suspected child abuse, and ROES 1-20’s failure to
report the suspected sexual abuse was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm.
24. — A public entity is responsible for the harm caused by the wrongful conduct of its
agents or employees while acting within the scope of his or her employment or agency.
Defendant MUSD is vicariously liable for ROES 1-20 failure to report suspected child abuse
while acting within the scope of his or her employment.
25. As aresult of Defendants ROES 1-20’s wrongful 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.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision or Retention against MUSD and ROES 1-20)
26. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated
herein by reference.
27. A school district and its employees have a special relationship with the district’s
pupils, a relationship arising from the mandatory character of school attendance and the
comprehensive control over students exercised by school personnel. The duty of care owed by
school personnel includes the duty to use reasonable measures to protect students from
foreseeable injury at the hands of teachers acting negligently or intentionally. Responsibility for
the safety of public school students is not bome solely by instructional personnel. A school
7
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case No, STK-CV-UNPI-2020-0010680Co Oe DW DH FF WN
10
district has the responsibility of taking reasonable measures to guard pupils against harassment
and abuse from foreseeable sources, including any teachers it knows or have reason to know are
prone to such abuse. This includes an obligation to exercise reasonable care in the hiring,
training, supervision, and retention of school personnel.
28. | MUSD and/or Defendants ROES 1-10 breached their duty of cate by, inter alia,
hiring or proposing to hire LTC Holeman. LTC Holeman was unfit to supervise and teach
children. MUSD and/or Defendants ROES 1-10 knew or should have known that LTC Holeman
was unfit to supervise and teach minor children and that LTC’s Holeman’s unfitness created a
particular risk to the students at East Union High School, including Plaintiff. MUSD and/or
Defendant ROES 1-10’s negligence in hiring LTC Holeman was a substantial factor in causing
Plaintiff's harm.
29. | MUSD and/or Defendants ROES 1-10 breached their duty of care by, inter alia,
failing to provide sexual harassment prevention training, failing to provide mandated reporter
training, and/or failing to maintain policies and procedures to prevent Plaintiffs sexual abuse.
MUSD and/or Defendant ROES 1-10’s negligent training was a substantial factor in causing
Plaintiffs harm.
30. | MUSD and/or Defendants ROES 1-10 breached their duty of care by, inter alia,
failing to supervise LTC Holeman. Plaintiff is informed and believes that LTC Holeman had a
multi-year history of fostering and maintaining inappropriate relationships with female students.
MUSD and/or Defendants ROES 1-10 allowed LTC Holeman to spend an inordinate amount of
time with the female students, unsupervised, both on and off campus. MUSD and/or Defendants
ROES 1-10’s failure to supervise LTC Holeman allowed him to “groom and condition” Plaintiff
for a sexual relationship, and engage in prolonged sexual abuse. MUSD and/or Defendant ROES
1-10’s negligent supervision was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm.
31. | MUSD and/or Defendants ROES 1-10 breached their duty of care by, inter alia,
retaining LTC Holeman, a sex offender. Plaintiff is informed and believes that LTC Holeman
had a history of fostering and maintaining inappropriate relationships with female students, and
8
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2020-0010680_
Cow en HN fk WH ND
10
that Plaintiff was not LTC Holeman’s only victim. MUSD and/or Defendants ROES 1-10’s
retention of LTC Holeman allowed him to “groom and condition” Plaintiff for a sexual
relationship and engage in prolonged sexual abuse. MUSD and/or Defendant ROES 1-10’s
negligent retention was 2 substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm.
32. MUSD is directly liable for the harm caused by its negligence, and vicariously
liable for the harm caused by the wrongful conduct of its agents or employees while acting within
the scope of his or her agency. As a result of MUSD and Defendants ROES 1-10’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.
33. Defendants ROES 1-10’s conduct as described above was despicable and
performed with a willful and knowing disregard for the rights of students, including Plaintiff.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount
according to proof.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(ntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against LTC Holeman)
34. — The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated
herein by reference.
35. | LTC Holeman engaged in the extreme and outrageous conduct herein as above
alleged with wanton and reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiff to suffer severe
emotional distress. LTC Holeman’s conduct included subjecting Plaintiff to repeated sexual
assaults and repeated sexualized conversations at school.
36. Asa proximate cause of LTC Holeman’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered severe
emotional distress, mental anguish, depression, anxiety, and humiliation. Plaintiff has sustained
and continue to sustain aggravated medical problems resulting from, among other things,
9
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,
Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2020-0010480Do 2 VY BH HW hh Ww NH
NY NY NHN NO NY DD Nw ee
SRRPERBSBPRBSBPaewWATEBEReTSY
28
depression, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue
to incur medical expenses for treatment, and for incidental medical expenses; and Plaintiff has
suffered and continue to suffer emotional pain and suffering. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to
damages according to proof.
37. LTC Holeman’s conduct as described above was willful, despicable, knowing,
and intentional, constituting malice and oppression. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an award of
punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Sexual Harassment as to all Defendants Pursuant to Title [X of the Education
Amendments of 1972 and 42 USC Sec. 1983)
38. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated
herein by reference.
39. Education Code section 220 states “[n]o 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.”
40. 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 school 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.
10
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2020-0010680Co om ND HAH fF WN
10
1681, et seq.) [...] the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Sees. 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.”
41. Title IX further states that "no person in the United States shall, on the basis of
sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Upon
information and belief, Defendant Manteca Unified School District received federal financial
assistance at all times relevant hereto. (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681, et seq.)
42, 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 and supervision of Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman, in his capacity and
position as a teacher, advisor and mentor and while acting specifically on behalf of Defendants.
43. 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.
44. 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.
lt
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case No. STK-CV-UNP1-2020-0010680oot DH BW DN
NY N NY NY NY N ND RD ee
on HM FF YW KY KH OD Oe HD DH fF WwW NY YS S&S
45. 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
employment.
46. Upon information and belief, Defendants ROES 1-20 were aware of Holeman’s
inappropriate relationships with female students, such as Plaintiff, both on and off campus, the
inappropriate touching of female by Holeman, and the inappropriate fraternizing with young teen
girls under his care — all of which was so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it
deprived many female students, including Plaintiff, with equal and nondiscriminatory access to
the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.
47. Defendants' conduct was a breach of their duties to Plaintiff, especially where they
knew or should have known that Lt. Col. Holeman was engaged in inappropriate relationships
with the female students under his charge, and constitutes deliberate indifference toward the
rights of Plaintiff under Title CX, the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC § 1983. Gebser v.
Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist. (1998) 524 U.S. 274. 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.
48. As aresult 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.
49. 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
12
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
‘Case No, STK-CY-UNPI-2020-001 0680.oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to
punitive damages against Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman and ROES 1-20.
V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff 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, including 42
USC § 1988;
5. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
5. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
6. For such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: August 3, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW NEILSON AND
FULVIO F. CATINA
we als é S
Attomeys for Plaintiffs
13
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2020-0010680
Preview
FULVIO F. CAJINA, State Bar No. 289126 ANDREW NEILSON, State Bar No. 221694 Law Offices of Andrew Neilson & Fulvio F. Cajina 528 Grand Avenue Oakland, CA 94610 Tel.: (510) 543-1912 Fax: (510) 350-8598 Email: fulvio@cajinalaw.com aneilson@aneilsonlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff JANE DOE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN UNLIMITED JURISDICTION JANE DOE, an individual, Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2020-0010680 Plaintiff, SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR y DAMAGES KEVIN PATRICK HOLEMAN, an 1+ Child Sexual Abuse individual; MANTECA UNIFIED 2- Child Sexual Battery SCHOOL DISTRICT, a governmental 3- Negligence PerSe _. entity; and ROES 1-20, 4 Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision or Retention Defendants. 5- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 6- Sexual Harassment JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiff JANE DOE (“Plaintiff’) alleges and avers the following based upon personal knowledge as to facts known to her, and upon information and belief as to all other matters. FACTS 1. Plaintiff attended East Union High School from 2012 to 2016. She was a student in the school’s Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Program (“JROTC”). Kevin Patrick Holeman, a retired Lieutenant Colonel (“LTC”) with the United States Army, was her JROTC instructor. After months of grooming, LTC Holeman sexually assaulted Plaintiff. The scxual abuse and grooming began when Plaintiff was 15 years old. LTC Holeman was 51. 1 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ‘Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2020-0010630 FILE BY FAX- wo Orn HD nH FF WN 10 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes that LTC Holeman had a multi-year history of fostering and maintaining inappropriate relationships with female students — sexually harassing his female students. LTC Holeman would spend inordinate amounts of time with the female students, both on and off campus, and touch female students inappropriately. Plaintiff is informed and believes that teachers and school staff took notice of LTC Holeman’s actions, but said and did nothing. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that teachers and school staff were aware of rumors and murmurings that LTC Holeman had inappropriate relations with female students. 3. In or about October 2014, LTC Holeman began to “groom and condition” Plaintiff for a sexual relationship. With the pretext of needing to communicate with her about JROTC matters, LTC Holeman would ask Plaintiff to stay after school. LTC Holeman would share “personal matters” (such as complaints about his marriage) and discuss adult topics (such as sex) in order to bond with Plaintiff and establish trust. 4. In 2015, LTC Holeman’s conduct became more overt. For example, LTC Holeman would give Plaintiff rides to and from school, let her drive his car, and drive her around the town. LTC Holeman would take Plaintiff on “dates,” and touch and hug her, both on campus and in public. LTC Holeman’s relationship with Plaintiff became increasingly physical. LTC Holeman would kiss and fondle Plaintiff, give her extended hugs, and hold her hand. Prior to a school-sponsored JROTC event, LTC Holeman took Plaintiff to an isolated campground and convinced her to have sex. This was Plaintiff's first time having intercourse. 5. LTC Holeman’s sexual relationship with Plaintiff continued for months, and his interactions with her became increasing bold. In essence, LTC Holeman treated Plaintiff as his girlfriend. On information and belicf, ROES 1-20 witnessed LTC Holeman interacting inappropriately with JROTC students, especially Plaintiff, yet, while working in the course and scope of their employment as teachers, educators, and administrators, failed to report such actions as required by California Childe Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (the “CANRA”). 6. Months and years after LTC Holeman began to interact inappropriately with 2 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2020-001 0680oe ND HH Ff WN RN NNN Ne Be Be Be ew ee ee RBNREEREBBEREBSEREAAEEERL GS Plaintiff and other female students at the school, in August 2015, someone finally reported that LTC Holeman was engaged in inappropriate relationships with his female students. The Manteca Police Department launched an investigation. Based on their findings, LTC Holeman was charged with three felony counts of having unlawful intercourse with a minor (statutory rape), sending lewd materials to a minor, and conlacting a minor with sexual intent. He pled guilty to one or more charges. TOLLING DUE TO DISABILITY 7. Plaintiff believes that all of her claims are timely pursuant Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1. The above notwithstanding, the wrongful acts of Defendant LTC Holeman placed Plaintiff under severe emotional duress in an attempt to prevent her from filing suit against him. Even after pleading guilty to scxual abuse charges in connection with Plaintiff, LTC Holeman continued to exert influence over Plaintiff via mutual acquaintances. Specifically, Defendant LTC Holeman continued to fratemnize with the young ‘female students at East Union High School, including Plaintiff's best friends, even after pleading guilty to sexual abuse charges. Through those contacts, which occurred into 2019, LTC Holeman would send greetings and messages to Plaintiff through her friends. Through those contacts, LTC Holeman was able to maintain influence and power over Plaintiff into 2019. Plaintiff, a teenager (a child still) and later a young woman during that period of time, felt uneasy about the continued contact and influence that LTC Holeman continued to have over her and her female friends. Plaintiff felt fear and confusion about speaking out against LTC Holeman’s continued contact (and ability to keep tabs on her), and about bringing an action against LTC Holeman, who would take Plaintiff's best friends on camping trips and excursions even after being found guilty of sexual abuse. LTC Holeman’s psychological influence, power and control over Plaintiff continued for years even after he stopped having physical contact with her. “It is well settled that where delay in commencing an action is induced by the conduct of the Defendant, he cannot avail himself of the defense of the statute [of limitations].” (Gaglione v. Coolidge (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 518, 527, 286 P.2d 568 (internal citations omitted); see also Rupley v. Huntsman (1958) 159 Cal.App.2d 3 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ‘Case No. STK~CV-UNPI-2020-0010680oO Oo ND MH ® WN 10 307, 313, 324 P.2d 19; Langdon v. Langdon (1941) 47 Cal.App.2d 28, 32, 117 P.2d 371; Industrial Indem. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1953) 115 Cal. App.2d 684, 689, 252 P.2d 649; Carruth v. Fritch (1950) 36 Cal.2d 426, 434, 224 P.2d 702.) Defendant’s conduct contributed to the Plaintiff's delay in filing suit, to the extent any such delay may exist. Bollinger v National Fire Ins. Co. (1944) 25 C2d 399, 411. PARTIES 8. Plaintiff JANE DOE is an individual residing in the State of California. She brings this lawsuit anonymously. [In 2014-2015, Plaintiff was a minor and a student at East Union High School. East Union High School is in the Manteca Unified School District. 9. 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 sexually abused and statutorily raped Plaintiff, his student. Defendant Holeman resides in the County of Sacramento. 10. Defendant Manteca Unified School District (“MUSD”) is a governmental agency, a school 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, MUSD employed defendants Kevin Patrick Holeman and ROES 1-20. 11. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names or identities of the fictitiously named ROE Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes that ROE Defendants, and cach 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 and within the course and scope of their duties, acted unlawfully and/or negligently, causing Plaintiff to suffer the injuries alleged herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Defendants ROES 1-10, and each of them, were responsible for overseeing, vetting, hiring, training, retaining and/or supervising Defendant LTC Holeman, and acted unlawfully and/or negligently, causing Plaintiffs to suffer the injuries alleged herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Defendants ROES 11-20, and each of them, acting in loco parentis had a duty toward Plaintiff to safeguard her from abuse from LTC 4 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case No. STK-~CV-UNP1-2020-0010680.o ON DH FF WN RNY NN NY De Be ee ee ee em RBRRERBESBRNBE EB UWUA BDBREEOKRES Holeman, and acted unlawfully and/or negligently, causing Plaintiffs to suffer the injuries alleged herein. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint once the true names or identities of the ROE Defendants are discovered. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. 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 San Joaquin County. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Child Sexual Abuse against LTC Holeman) 13. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 14. In 2014-2015, Plaintiff was LTC Holeman’s student and under his supervision, care and command in the JROTC program at East Union High School. LTC Holeman abused his position of power and trust by grooming and conditioning Plaintiff and engaging in sexual relations with Plaintiff when she was a minor. Because of Defendant’s position of authority, and Plaintiff's status as a minor, Plaintiff was unable to, and did not, consent to the aforementioncd acts as a matter of law. 15. Asaresult of LTC’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. 16. | LTC Holeman’s acts as described herein were willful, despicable, knowing, and extreme, constituting malice and oppression, and were carried out with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights to be free from such tortious and criminal behavior. Accordingly, Plaintiff secks 5 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2020-0010680Oo fo nN DR HH Ff WY NY 10 an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Child Sexual Battery against LTC Holeman) 17. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 18. | LTC Holeman abused his position of power and trust by sexually assaulting and battering Plaintiff, a minor. LTC intended to cause offensive and/or harmful contact and Plaintiff suffered sexually offensive contact. Because of Defendant’s position of authority, and Plaintiff's status as a minor, Plaintiff was unable to, and did not, consent to the aforementioned acts as a matter of law. 19. Asaresult of LTC 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. | LTC Holeman’s acts as described herein were willful, despicable, knowing, and extreme, constituting malice and oppression, and were carried out with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights to be free from such tortious and criminal behavior. Accordingly, Plaintiff secks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence Per Se against MUSD and ROES 1-20) 21. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 22. _ At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants ROES 1-20 owed a duty to Teport known or suspected instances of child sexual abuse ta law enforcement, The California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (““CANRA”) states, inter alia, that a mandated reporter shall make a report to an agency specified in section 11165.9 whenever the mandated reporter in 6 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case No. STK-C V-UNP!-2020-001 0680- Oo Oo NY BH nH &® WB NY 10 his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment has knowledge of or observes a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect. 23. | ROES 1-20 were mandated reporters. ROES 1-20 violated CANRA by failing to report suspected child abuse, namely, sexual abuse of a student by a teacher. Plaintiff was harmed by ROES 1-20’s failure to report suspected child abuse, and ROES 1-20’s failure to report the suspected sexual abuse was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. 24. — A public entity is responsible for the harm caused by the wrongful conduct of its agents or employees while acting within the scope of his or her employment or agency. Defendant MUSD is vicariously liable for ROES 1-20 failure to report suspected child abuse while acting within the scope of his or her employment. 25. As aresult of Defendants ROES 1-20’s wrongful 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. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision or Retention against MUSD and ROES 1-20) 26. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 27. A school district and its employees have a special relationship with the district’s pupils, a relationship arising from the mandatory character of school attendance and the comprehensive control over students exercised by school personnel. The duty of care owed by school personnel includes the duty to use reasonable measures to protect students from foreseeable injury at the hands of teachers acting negligently or intentionally. Responsibility for the safety of public school students is not bome solely by instructional personnel. A school 7 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case No, STK-CV-UNPI-2020-0010680Co Oe DW DH FF WN 10 district has the responsibility of taking reasonable measures to guard pupils against harassment and abuse from foreseeable sources, including any teachers it knows or have reason to know are prone to such abuse. This includes an obligation to exercise reasonable care in the hiring, training, supervision, and retention of school personnel. 28. | MUSD and/or Defendants ROES 1-10 breached their duty of cate by, inter alia, hiring or proposing to hire LTC Holeman. LTC Holeman was unfit to supervise and teach children. MUSD and/or Defendants ROES 1-10 knew or should have known that LTC Holeman was unfit to supervise and teach minor children and that LTC’s Holeman’s unfitness created a particular risk to the students at East Union High School, including Plaintiff. MUSD and/or Defendant ROES 1-10’s negligence in hiring LTC Holeman was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. 29. | MUSD and/or Defendants ROES 1-10 breached their duty of care by, inter alia, failing to provide sexual harassment prevention training, failing to provide mandated reporter training, and/or failing to maintain policies and procedures to prevent Plaintiffs sexual abuse. MUSD and/or Defendant ROES 1-10’s negligent training was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm. 30. | MUSD and/or Defendants ROES 1-10 breached their duty of care by, inter alia, failing to supervise LTC Holeman. Plaintiff is informed and believes that LTC Holeman had a multi-year history of fostering and maintaining inappropriate relationships with female students. MUSD and/or Defendants ROES 1-10 allowed LTC Holeman to spend an inordinate amount of time with the female students, unsupervised, both on and off campus. MUSD and/or Defendants ROES 1-10’s failure to supervise LTC Holeman allowed him to “groom and condition” Plaintiff for a sexual relationship, and engage in prolonged sexual abuse. MUSD and/or Defendant ROES 1-10’s negligent supervision was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. 31. | MUSD and/or Defendants ROES 1-10 breached their duty of care by, inter alia, retaining LTC Holeman, a sex offender. Plaintiff is informed and believes that LTC Holeman had a history of fostering and maintaining inappropriate relationships with female students, and 8 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2020-0010680_ Cow en HN fk WH ND 10 that Plaintiff was not LTC Holeman’s only victim. MUSD and/or Defendants ROES 1-10’s retention of LTC Holeman allowed him to “groom and condition” Plaintiff for a sexual relationship and engage in prolonged sexual abuse. MUSD and/or Defendant ROES 1-10’s negligent retention was 2 substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm. 32. MUSD is directly liable for the harm caused by its negligence, and vicariously liable for the harm caused by the wrongful conduct of its agents or employees while acting within the scope of his or her agency. As a result of MUSD and Defendants ROES 1-10’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. 33. Defendants ROES 1-10’s conduct as described above was despicable and performed with a willful and knowing disregard for the rights of students, including Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (ntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against LTC Holeman) 34. — The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 35. | LTC Holeman engaged in the extreme and outrageous conduct herein as above alleged with wanton and reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. LTC Holeman’s conduct included subjecting Plaintiff to repeated sexual assaults and repeated sexualized conversations at school. 36. Asa proximate cause of LTC Holeman’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, mental anguish, depression, anxiety, and humiliation. Plaintiff has sustained and continue to sustain aggravated medical problems resulting from, among other things, 9 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2020-0010480Do 2 VY BH HW hh Ww NH NY NY NHN NO NY DD Nw ee SRRPERBSBPRBSBPaewWATEBEReTSY 28 depression, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses for treatment, and for incidental medical expenses; and Plaintiff has suffered and continue to suffer emotional pain and suffering. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to damages according to proof. 37. LTC Holeman’s conduct as described above was willful, despicable, knowing, and intentional, constituting malice and oppression. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Sexual Harassment as to all Defendants Pursuant to Title [X of the Education Amendments of 1972 and 42 USC Sec. 1983) 38. The allegations set forth in preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 39. Education Code section 220 states “[n]o 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.” 40. 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 school 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. 10 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2020-0010680Co om ND HAH fF WN 10 1681, et seq.) [...] the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Sees. 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.” 41. Title IX further states that "no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Upon information and belief, Defendant Manteca Unified School District received federal financial assistance at all times relevant hereto. (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681, et seq.) 42, 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 and supervision of Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman, in his capacity and position as a teacher, advisor and mentor and while acting specifically on behalf of Defendants. 43. 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. 44. 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. lt SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case No. STK-CV-UNP1-2020-0010680oot DH BW DN NY N NY NY NY N ND RD ee on HM FF YW KY KH OD Oe HD DH fF WwW NY YS S&S 45. 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 employment. 46. Upon information and belief, Defendants ROES 1-20 were aware of Holeman’s inappropriate relationships with female students, such as Plaintiff, both on and off campus, the inappropriate touching of female by Holeman, and the inappropriate fraternizing with young teen girls under his care — all of which was so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it deprived many female students, including Plaintiff, with equal and nondiscriminatory access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school. 47. Defendants' conduct was a breach of their duties to Plaintiff, especially where they knew or should have known that Lt. Col. Holeman was engaged in inappropriate relationships with the female students under his charge, and constitutes deliberate indifference toward the rights of Plaintiff under Title CX, the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC § 1983. Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist. (1998) 524 U.S. 274. 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. 48. As aresult 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. 49. 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 12 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ‘Case No, STK-CY-UNPI-2020-001 0680.oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against Defendant Lt. Col. Holeman and ROES 1-20. V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiff 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, including 42 USC § 1988; 5. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest; 5. For costs of suit incurred herein; and 6. For such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: August 3, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW NEILSON AND FULVIO F. CATINA we als é S Attomeys for Plaintiffs 13 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2020-0010680