Preview
Michael R. Hergenroether, #267163 E-FILED
1 || FOWLER |HELSEL |VOGT 12/1/2022 11:29 AM
1705 L Street Superior Court of California
2 || Fresno, California 93721 County of Fresno
Tel: (559) 283-8091 By: I. Herrera, Deputy
3 || Fax: (559) 283-8415
4
5 || Attorneys for Plaintiff, CHENECUA DIXON as guardian ad litem for S.D., a minor
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF FRESNO
10
22CECG03845
11 || CHENECUA DIXON as guardian ad litem Case No.
for S.D., a minor,
12
13 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
14 Vv. 1. Negligence
2. Negligent Supervision/Hiring/Training
15 || CENTRAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; | 3- Negligent Infliction of Emotional
16 || and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Distress
17 Defendants.
18
19
20 Plaintiff CHENECUA DIXON as guardian ad litem for S.D., a minor, alleges as follows:
2] THE PARTIES
22 1. Atall times relevant to this action, Plaintiff CHENECUA DIXON, as guardian ad item
23 || for S.D., a minor, isand was an individual residing in Fresno County, California and isthe mother
24 || of S.D., a minor. A petition appointing CHENECUA DIXON as guardian ad litem for S.D., was
25 || submitted concurrently with this complaint (hereinafter, minor $.D. will be referred to as the
26 || “Plaintiff”’).
27 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned
28 || herein, Defendant CENTRAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter “Defendant CUSD”),
-l-
Complaint forDamages
1 |{and DOES 1 through 50, its affiliates, subsidiaries, representatives, agents, alter egos,
2 || predecessors, successors, or assigns, is, and at all times herein mentioned was and is a
3 || governmental public agency in the County of Fresno, State of California.
4 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that at all times mentioned herein,
5 ||Defendant CUSD and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, acts and conduct
6 || hereinafter complained, occurred in the County of Fresno, State of California.
7 4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or associate, or
8 || otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore
9 || sues said defendants by such fictitious names and will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint
10 || when the true names and capacities have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and
11 || thereon alleges that each of the factiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for
12 ||theoccurrences herein alleged, and said defendants negligently acted or failed to act, which
13 || negligence proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries as alleged herein. Plaintiff is uncertain as to
14 || the manner or function of said defendants, and prays leave to amend this Complaint to insert
15 || therein the true names, capacities, functions, occupations, and businesses of said defendants when
16 || the same are ascertained. Plaintiff isfurther informed and believes and thereon alleges that each
17 || such designated defendant acted, and acts, as the authorized agent, representative, and associate
18 || of other defendants in doing the things alleged herein.
19 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned
20 ||herein, Rio Vista Middle School, located at 6240 W. Palo Alto Avenue, Fresno, California
21 || (hereinafter “RVMS”), is owned, operated and governed by Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50,
22 || and was operating with the consent, permission and knowledge of Defendant CUSD and DOES
23 || 1-50.
24 BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS
25 6. On February 25, 2022, at approximately 12:50 p.m., Plaintiff had just been dismissed
26 ||from class and was walking to get lunch, through the quad area, in full view of multiple
27
28
2-
Complaint forDamages
1 ||classrooms full of teachers and students. R.C.'! a student at RVMS, who had previously
2 || demonstrated aggressive behavior towards Plaintiff, including unsolicited threatening language,
3 || specifically including threats to physically assault Plaintiff, approached Plaintiff from behind and
4 || began assaulting her, striking her several times in the face and head, throwing Plaintiff to the
5 || ground and repeatedly punching, slapping and kicking her.
6 7. During this time, other students were walking directly behind R.C. with their phones
7 || out recording the assault. Several other students observed the assault, and proceeded to record the
8 || incident on their phones as well.
9 8. After more than 30 seconds had passed, R.C. discontinued the assault on Plaintiff and
10 || walked away. At no point during the assault was R.C. or Plaintiff approached by any employee,
11 || faculty, staff or security officer, to stop the assault or intervene in any way, despite there being
12 || multiple classrooms nearby full of students and teachers with open doors and windows facing the
13 || area where the assault occurred.
14 9. Shortly after the assault, staff approached Plaintiff and took her to the office.
15 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 had notice of the assault, notice that R.C. and other students
16 || made threats towards S.D., and had multiple opportunities intervene and/or stop the violence
17 || inflicted on Plaintiff and failed to take any action of her behalf.
18 10. Plaintiff complied with the Government Code by submitting a claim pursuant to
19 || California Government Code section 911.2, et seq. on April 27, 2022 to Defendant CUSD. On
20 || June 16, 2022, Defendant CUSD rejected Plaintiff's claim.
21 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
22 Negligence
23 (Against Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50)
24 11. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
25 || paragraphs 1 to 10 herein as though fully set forth.
26
27
28
1 Forpurposes ofconfidentiality,
R.C.isidentifiedthroughinitials
onlyin this
Complaint.
-3-
Complaint for Damages
] 12. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a student at RVMS, a school within Defendant
2 || CUSD.
3 13. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, owned, managed, controlled, maintained,
4 || operated, administered, and was otherwise responsible for RVMS and student safety. At RVMS,
5 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 provided educational, instructional, recreational, health and
6 || related services to Plaintiff and other children particularly undertaking to supervise and discipline
7 || students during class sessions.
8 14. Government Code section 815.2 provides that a public entity isliable for injury caused
9 || by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if
10 || the act or omission would apart from this section have given rise to a cause of action against the
11 ||employee. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, in the course of their employment, were negligent
12 || in their supervision of the students, classrooms, and overall learning environment of RVMS.
13 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, knew or had reason to know, that Plaintiff's safety was in
14 || jeopardy atthe time of the injury; namely, that R.C. had been harassing and making threatening
15 || statements to Plaintiff for several weeks prior to the assault.
16 15. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, and each of them, were the
17 || legal cause of damages to Plaintiff. The acts or omissions to act include the physical injuries,
18 || severe emotional distress, humiliation, mental anguish and embarrassment inflicted upon Plaintiff
19 || on or about February 25, 2022.
20 16. That as a direct and proximate result of the said negligence, acts and omissions of the
21 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered injuries, including
22 || physical injuries, severe emotional distress, humiliation, mental anguish and embarrassment.
23 17. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, and each of them, breached their duties to Plaintiff
24 || by failing to exercise ordinary care and due diligence. These negligent acts were a substantial
25 || factor in Plaintiff suffering physical injuries, severe emotional distress, humiliation, mental
26 || anguish and embarrassment.
27 18. Plaintiff further alleges that as a direct and proximate result of Defendant CUSD and
28 ||DOES 1 through 50’s negligence, Plaintiff has incurred special damages for past and future
-4.
Complaint forDamages
1 || medical and incidental expenses, and past and future general damages in sums according to proof
2 || at trial.
3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
4 Negligent Supervision
5 (Against Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50)
6 19. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
7 || paragraphs 1 to 18 herein as though fully set forth.
8 20. Plaintiff's claim for negligent supervision of students against Defendant CUSD and
9 || DOES 1-50 is based upon Government Code sections 815.2 and 815.6, California Constitution,
10 || Article 1 and the mandatory duties set forth in Education Code section 220, Education Code
11 || section 44807 and California Code of Regulations Title 5, sections 701 and 5530, which provide
12 || for the mandatory supervision of students at school and during school-sponsored activities.
13 21. Plaintiff's claim for vicarious liability against Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 is
14 || based on the negligence of Defendant CUSD’s employees under Government Code section 815.2,
15 || and specifically is based upon the negligent supervision of students by school staff.
16 22. Plaintiff's claim for negligent supervision against Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50
17 ||is
based on California Code of Regulations Title 5, section 5530, which provides that all
18 || certificated personnel shall exercise careful supervision of the moral conditions in their respective
19 || schools.
20 23. Plaintiff's claim for negligent supervision of students against Defendant CUSD and
21 || DOES 1-50 is based upon Government Code section 815.6, and the mandatory duties set forth in
22 || Education Code section 44087 and Code of Regulations Title 5, section 5530, which provide that
23 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 had a duty to supervise pupils at school and during school
24 || sponsored activities.
25 24. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 were responsible at all relevant times for the
26 || supervision of Plaintiff while she was at school during school hours. Public school authorities are
27 |\responsible for the safety of children during school hours and are “bound to exercise an amount
28 || of care for their safety during that period commensurate with the immaturity of their charges and
-5-
Complaint forDamages
1 || the importance of their trust.” Satariano v.Sleight (1942) 54 Cal.App.2d 278, 284. Further, it“is
2 || well settled that the amount of care due to minors increases with their immaturity and consequent
3 || heedlessness to danger.” /d at 283.
4 25. Pursuant to Government Code section 815.6, “[w]here a public entity is under a
5 || mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular
6 || kind of injury, the public entity is liable for any injury of that kind proximately caused by its
7 || failure to discharge the duty...” The mandatory duties pursuant to statute and regulations are to
8 || ensure that the special relationship between Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 and itsstudents is
9 || maintained and are designed to prevent the type of injury that occurred in this case, including
10 || harassment, abuse, torment, assault and battery of a student by other students.
11 26. At all relevant times mentioned herein California Code of Regulations Title 5, section
12 || 5530 was an enactment which created a mandatory duty upon Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50
13 || and its personnel to “exercise careful supervision” over the students at each school. Said statute
14 || was designed to protect Plaintiff from the type of harm alleged herein and Plaintiff was a member
15 || of the class that said statute was enacted to protect.
16 27. At all times mentioned herein, California Education Code sections 44807 and 44808
17 || provided that Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 had mandatory duties to supervise pupils on
18 || school property during school hours. Said statutes were designed to protect Plaintiff from the type
19 || of harm alleged herein and Plaintiff was a member of the class that said statues were enacted to
20 || protect.
21 28. At all times mentioned herein, California Education Code sections 44807, 44808 and
22 || California Code of Regulation Title 5, section 5530 were designed to protect against the risk of
23 ||theparticular kind of injury alleged herein, as required by Government Code section 815.6,
24 || including the foreseeable harassment, abuse, torment, assault and battery as alleged herein.
25 29. On or about February 25, 2022, Plaintiff was bullied, threatened, harassed, tormented,
26 || and physically assaulted at RVMS during regular school hours. During this time, she was bullied,
27 || threatened, harassed, tormented, and physically assaulted by R.C. and other students, DOES 51-
28 || 100, attending RVMS.
6-
Complaint forDamages
1 30. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 failed to supervise Plaintiff, R.C. and DOES 51-
2 || 100 while they were on school grounds within CUSD and during schoo! hours.
3 31. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 arise from the mandatory
4 ||andstatutory duties imposed on Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 in order to ensure that the
5 || special relationship created between students and Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 is upheld.
6 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50’s special relationship with students is based upon various
7 || principles, namely, its underlying role in educating children, the naivete of children and the
8 || compulsory nature of attending school.
9 32. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a minor student at RVMS. On or about February
10 || 25, 2022, Plaintiff was attending RVMS and was under the control and supervision of Defendant
11 {|CUSD and DOES 1-50. During this time, R.C., and DOES 51-100, fellow students at RVMS
12 || within CUSD, were also under the control and supervision of Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50.
13 || As such, Plaintiff's causes of action arise from Defendants’ utter failure to discharge mandatory
14 || duties in relation tothe supervision of Plaintiff, R.C., fellow students DOES 51-100, and itsfailure
15 || to discharge itsmandatory duties in relation to the hiring, supervision, training, and retention of
16 || employees charged with the supervision of students, including Plaintiff, R.C. and DOES 51-100.
17 || These duties arise from Education Code sections 44660, 44664, 44662, 44830, 44870 and 44932.
18 33. Given the mandatory duties imposed upon Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 and its
19 || employees and administrators, Plaintiff was to be supervised on school grounds at alltimes by
20 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50’s employees, teachers and administrators. Defendant CUSD
21 || and DOES 1-50, and itsemployees and administrators, were also required to supervise R.C. and
22 || DOES 51-100 while they were on school grounds. Due to Plaintiffs status as a minor, she was
23 || dependent on the supervision of Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50’s employees to provide the
24 || appropriate and mandatory level of supervision. As such, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 owed
25 || Plaintiff a higher duty of care to take all reasonable measures to carry out their mandatory and
26 || statutory duties to protect students, including Plaintiff, and prevent foreseeable harm. Based on
27 || Defendants’ failure to provide the requisite level of supervision, R.C. and DOES 51-100 were able
28
7-
Complaint forDamages
1 || to bully, threaten, harass, torment and physically assault Plaintiff while she was on school grounds
2 || during school hours.
3 34. At all relevant times, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 were directly responsible for
4 || the supervision, guidance and care of its minor student Plaintiff and the supervision of students
5 || R.C. and DOES 51-100.
6 35. On or about February 25, 2022, as Plaintiff was walking through the quad area to get
7 || lunch, in full view of multiple classrooms full of teachers and students, R.C. approached Plaintiff
8 || from behind and began assaulting her, striking her several times in the face and head, throwing
9 || Plaintiff to the ground where she was repeatedly punched, slapped and kicked. At the same time,
10 || other students video recorded the assault and dispersed itthroughout the school and to the public
11 || at large to further humiliate Plaintiff. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, knew the incident was
12 || video recorded by one of its students and was likely to be dispersed throughout the school and to
13 || the public. Nevertheless, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 failed to reasonably obtain the video
14 || and/or curtail or prevent the spreading of the video throughout the school and public. As a result,
15 || Plaintiff suffered physical injuries, severe emotional distress and humiliation.
16 36. Prior to February 25, 2022, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 were aware that
17 || students R.C. and DOES 51-100, at RVMS were bullying, threatening, harassing, tormenting and
18 || physically assaulting fellow students on school grounds.
19 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes and hereby alleges that R.C. and DOES 51-100 were
20 || students within CUSD with a history of misconduct, including but not limited to, physically
21 || harassing and assaulting other CUSD students and behaving in a violent manner. However,
22 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 failed to adequately supervise R.C. and DOES 51-100 and the
23 || other CUSD students, including Plaintiff. Due to Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50’s negligent
24 || failure to take any reasonable precautions to safeguard itsstudents, including Plaintiff, Plaintiff
25 || was subjected to bullying, threats, harassment, tormenting and physical assault by R.C. and DOES
26 |} 51-100, while Plaintiff-attended RVMS.
27 38. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 failed to discharge and breached each of their duties
28 ||/to
Plaintiff herein in that Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, knew that Plaintiff, R.C. and
-8-
Complaint forDamages
1|| Defendant DOES 51-100 were students who required supervision. Plaintiff was reliant upon
2 ||Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, to provide ongoing supervision at all times to prevent
3 || foreseeable harm. Nonetheless, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 failed to carefully supervise,
4 || monitor, and observe Plaintiff while she was on campus during school hours. Defendant CUSD
5 ||andDOES 1-50’s failure to provide the requisite level of supervision allowed R.C. and DOES
6 || 51-100 to harass, abuse, torment, assault and battery Plaintiff as alleged herein.
7 39. As a proximate, direct, and legal result of Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50’s failure
8 ||to
discharge mandatory duties, and comply with California law and other tortious conduct as
9 || alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer from physical injuries, severe emotional
10 |} distress, humiliation, mental anguish and embarrassment.
11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
12 Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Training and Retention
13 (Against Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50)
14 40. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
15 || paragraphs 1 to 39 herein as though fully set forth.
16 41. Plaintiff's claim for negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention against
17 || Defendant CUSD is based on Government Code section 815.6 and Education Code sections
18 || 44660, 44662, 44664, 44830, 44870 and 44932, which provide for certain qualifications for the
19 || hiring, supervising, evaluating and assessing teachers and for the dismissal of personnel for
20 || certain conduct.
21 42. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 were supervising
22 ||employees of Defendant CUSD and agents of Defendant CUSD.
23 43. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant CUSD employees, including but not limited
24 || to DOES 1-50 were incompetent and/or unfit to be employees of Defendant CUSD, including but
25 || not limited to their failure to provide adequate supervision to Plaintiff.
26 44: On or about February 25, 2022, Plaintiff was bullied, threatened, harassed, tormented,
27 || and physically assaulted at RVMS during regular school hours. During this time, she was bullied,
28
-9-
Complaint forDamages
- ] || threatened, harassed, tormented, and physically assaulted by R.C. and DOES 51-100, attending
2 ||RVMS.
3 45. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 arise from the mandatory
4 || and statutory duties imposed on Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 in order to ensure that the
5 || special relationship created between students and Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 is upheld.
6 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50’s special relationship with students is based upon various
7 }| principles, namely, its underlying role in educating children, the naivete of children and the
8 |} compulsory nature of attending school.
9 46. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a minor student at RVMS. On or about February
10 || 25, 2022, Plaintiff was attending RVMS and under the control and supervision of Defendant
11 |}CUSD and DOES 1-50. During this time, Plaintiff, R.C. and DOES 51-100, fellow students at
12 || RVMS within CUSD, were also under the control and supervision of Defendant CUSD and DOES
13 |} 1-50. As such, Plaintiff's causes of action arise from Defendants utter failure to discharge
14 || mandatory duties in relation to the supervision of Plaintiff, R.C. and DOES 51-100 and itsfailure
15 || to discharge itsmandatory duties in relation to the hiring, supervision, training, and retention of
16 ||} employees charged with the supervision of students, including Plaintiff, R-C, and DOES 51-100.
17 || These duties arise from Education Code sections 44660, 44664, 44662, 44830, 44870 and 44932.
18 47. Given the mandatory duties imposed upon Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 and its
19 ||employees and administrators, Plaintiff was to be supervised on school grounds at all times by
20 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50’s employees, teachers and administrators. Defendant CUSD
21 ||andDOES 1-50, and itsemployees and administrators, were also required to supervise R.C. and
22 || DOES 51-100 while they were on school grounds. Due to Plaintiffs status as a minor, she was
23 || dependent on the supervision of Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 employees to provide the
24 || appropriate and mandatory level of supervision. As such, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 owed
25 || Plaintiff a higher duty of care to take all reasonable measures to carry out their mandatory and
26: || statutory duties to protect students, including Plaintiff, and prevent foreseeable harm. Based on
27 || Defendants’ failure to provide the requisite level of supervision to Plaintiff, R.C. and DOES 51-
28
-10-
Complaint forDamages
1|| 100 were able to bully, threaten, harass, torment and physically assault Plaintiff while she was on
2 || school grounds during school hours.
3 48.R.C. and DOES 51-100’s misconduct includes; but is not limited to, bullying,
4 || threatening, harassing, tormenting and physically assaulting Plaintiff on school grounds. At all
5 ||relevant times, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 was directly responsible for the supervision, .
6 || guidance and care of itsminor student Plaintiff and the supervision of R.C. and DOES 51-100.
7 49. Plaintiff is informed and believes and hereby alleges that R.C. and DOES 51-100 were
8 || students within CUSD with a history of misconduct, including but not limited to, physically
9 || harassing and assaulting other CUSD students and behaving in a violent manner. However,
10 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 failed to adequately supervise R.C. and DOES 51-100 and the
11 || other CUSD students, including Plaintiff. Due to Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50’s negligent
12 || failure to take any reasonable precautions to safeguard its students, including Plaintiff, Plaintiff
13 || was subjected to bullying, threats, harassment, tormenting and physical assault by R.C. and DOES:
14 |} 51-100 while Plaintiff attended RVMS.
15 50. The subject incident occurred at RVMS, during school hours and while R.C. and
16 || DOES 51-100, Plaintiff and other students were under the direct supervision Defendant CUSD
17 ||andDOES 1-50.
18 51. On or about February 25, 2022, as Plaintiff was walking through the quad area to get
19 || lunch, in full view of multiple classrooms fullof teachers and students, R.C. approached Plaintiff
20 |} from behind and began assaulting her, striking her several times in the face and head, throwing
21 || Plaintiff to the ground where she was repeatedly punched, slapped and kicked. At the same time,
22 || student Defendant DOES 51-100 video recorded the assault and dispersed itthroughout the school
23 || and to the public at large to further humiliate Plaintiff. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, knew
24 || the incident was video recorded by one of itsstudents and was likely to be dispersed throughout
25 || the school and to the public. Nevertheless, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 failed to reasonably
26 || obtain the video and/or curtail or prevent the spreading of the video throughout the school and
27 || public. As a result, Plaintiff suffered physical injuries and severe emotional distress and
28 || humiliation.
-l-
Complaint forDamages
1 52. Prior to February 25, 2022, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 were aware that
2 || students R.C. and DOES 51-100‘at RVMS were bullying, threatening, harassing, tormenting and
3 || physically assaulting fellow students on school grounds.
4 53. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 knew or should have known that Plaintiff was
5 || subject to foreseeable harm because of prior complaints, incidents and the common knowledge
6 || that unsupervised middle school students during break periods transitioning from one class to
7 || another poses a foreseeable risk of harm, including but not limited to, harassment, abuse, torment,
8 || assault and battery. Accordingly, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 knew or should have known
9 || that the assault, harassment and battery of Plaintiff was likely to occur absent reasonable and
10 || appropriate safeguards.
11 54. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all relevant times,
12 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 employees, including but not limited to teachers, principals,
13 || and other administrative and/or supervisory personnel at RVMS, owed the following mandatory
14 || and/or statutory duties of care to Plaintiff, a student receiving education services, as follows:
15 a. All CUSD employees had a duty arising from the special relationship entered into
16 between a school and itsstudents, to supervise students and take reasonable steps toprotect
17 students including, but not limited to, taking reasonable steps in hiring, screening,
18 selecting, retaining, and supervising teachers, and other personnel with supervisory
19 authority over students, and providing comprehensive education, training, and supervision
20 of management and/or supervisory personnel, in order to protect its students. The special
21 relationship described herein is established when an organization or entity endeavors to
22 provide educational, recreational, or other related services to a minor and/or because of
23 the compulsory nature of the public school system, as described in, for example, MW. v.
24 Panama Buena Vista Union School District (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 508, 518-520 and
25 Virginia G. v. ABC Unified School District (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1853.
26 b. All CUSD employees had a duty arising from the special relationship entered into
27 between a school and the parents of its students, pursuant to applicable law, including but
28 not limited to Phyllis P. v. Superior Court (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1193.
-12-
Complaint forDamages
1 c. All CUSD employees, including teachers, principals, coaches and other supervisory
2 and/or administrative employees, had a duty of care in supervising students like Plaintiff.
3 CUSD breached their duties to Plaintiff as alleged in the paragraphs above, all within the
4 course and scope of the employees’ duties within CUSD, and failed to follow or comply
5 with the standards of care set forth herein, in that they:
6 1. Failed to carefully screen all potential employees, including DOES 1-50 to
7 assure they could properly supervise students including but not limited to
8 Plaintiff, to prevent injury to students based upon the unique vulnerability of
9 students and Defendants knowledge thereof;
10 2. Failed to carefully screen allpotential employees, including DOES 1-50 to
11 assure they could properly supervise students, including but not limited to
12 R.C. and DOES 51-100, based upon their history of misconduct known to
13 Defendants;
14 3. Failed to provide proper training to all teachers, administrators and/or
15. supervisory personnel prior to placing Plaintiff, R.C. and DOES 51-100
16 under the direct supervision of said administrators, teachers and supervisory
17 personnel who had a duty to supervise Plaintiff at all times relevant,
18 including but not limited to, during school hours on school grounds;
19 4. Failed to adequately supervise teachers, administrators and/or supervisory
20 personnel, or provide adequate follow—up measures to ensure they were
21 appropriately supervising Plaintiff, R.C. and DOES 51-100 at all relevant
22 times including, but not limited to, during school hours on school grounds;
23 5. Failed to take reasonable, adequate and appropriate disciplinary actions
24 against R.C. and DOES 51-100 after reports of harassment, bullying and
25 threats of physical violence against Plaintiff and others;
26 6. Failed to take reasonable, adequate, and appropriate measures to ensure
27 that its teachers, administrators and/or supervisory personnel were fit to
28 supervise students like Plaintiff, R.C. and DOES 51-100, and other CUSD
-13-
Complaint forDamages
1 students, after CUSD officials and/or administrators knew that Plaintiff was
2 being bullied and harassed on campus by R.C. and DOES 51-100;
3 7. Failed to properly or sufficiently warn, train, or educate teachers and
4 students regarding the detection and reporting of harassment, bullying and
5 threats as well as other similar tortious and criminal conduct within the
6 school by other students, teachers and/or other supervisory adults;
7 8. Failed to notify, advise and inform R.C. and DOES .51-100’s parents
8 regarding their children’s harassing, bullying and threatening behavior
9 toward Plaintiff.
10 55. Said breaches were the actual, proximate, and legal cause of R.C. and DOES 51-100’s
11 || tortious actions and harmful misconduct, including, but not limited to, the harassment, abuse,
12 || torment, assault and battery against Plaintiff on campus and during regular school hours.
13 56. As a proximate, direct, and legal result of Defendants CUSD and DOES 1-50’s failure
14 || to discharge mandatory duties, and comply with California law, and other tortious conduct as
15 || alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer from physical injuries, severe emotional
16 || distress, humiliation, mental anguish and embarrassment.
17 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
19 (Against Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50)
20 57. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
21 || paragraphs 1 to 56 herein as though fully set forth.
22 58. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 were responsible at all relevant times for the
23 || supervision of Plaintiff while she was at school during school hours. Public school authorities are
24 || responsible for the safety of children during school hours and are “bound to exercise an amount
25 || of care for their safety during that period commensurate with the immaturity of their charges and
26 || the importance of their trust.” Satariano v.Sleight (1942) 54 Cal-App.2d 278, Further, it “is well
27 ||settledthat the amount of care due to minors increases with their immaturity and consequent
28 || heedlessness to danger.” /d. at283.
-14-
Complaint forDamages
1 59. Pursuant to Government Code section 815.6, "[w]here a public entity is under a
2 || mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular
3 || kind of injury, the public entity is liable for “any injury of that kind proximately caused by its
4 || failure to discharge the duty...”
5 60. The mandatory duties pursuant to statute and regulations are to ensure that the special
6 || relationship between Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 and itsstudents is maintained and are
7 || designed to prevent the type of injury that occurred in this case, including harassment, abuse,
8 || torment, assault and battery of student by another student.
9 61. At all relevant times mentioned herein California Code of Regulations Title 5, section
10 || 5530 was an enactment which created a mandatory duty upon Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50
11 || and itspersonnel to “exercise careful supervision” over the students at each school. Said statute
12 || was designed to protect Plaintiff from the type of harm alleged herein and Plaintiff was a member
13 || of the class that said statute was enacted to protect.
14 62. At all times mentioned h
Preview
Michael R. Hergenroether, #267163 E-FILED 1 || FOWLER |HELSEL |VOGT 12/1/2022 11:29 AM 1705 L Street Superior Court of California 2 || Fresno, California 93721 County of Fresno Tel: (559) 283-8091 By: I. Herrera, Deputy 3 || Fax: (559) 283-8415 4 5 || Attorneys for Plaintiff, CHENECUA DIXON as guardian ad litem for S.D., a minor 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF FRESNO 10 22CECG03845 11 || CHENECUA DIXON as guardian ad litem Case No. for S.D., a minor, 12 13 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 14 Vv. 1. Negligence 2. Negligent Supervision/Hiring/Training 15 || CENTRAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; | 3- Negligent Infliction of Emotional 16 || and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Distress 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiff CHENECUA DIXON as guardian ad litem for S.D., a minor, alleges as follows: 2] THE PARTIES 22 1. Atall times relevant to this action, Plaintiff CHENECUA DIXON, as guardian ad item 23 || for S.D., a minor, isand was an individual residing in Fresno County, California and isthe mother 24 || of S.D., a minor. A petition appointing CHENECUA DIXON as guardian ad litem for S.D., was 25 || submitted concurrently with this complaint (hereinafter, minor $.D. will be referred to as the 26 || “Plaintiff”’). 27 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned 28 || herein, Defendant CENTRAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter “Defendant CUSD”), -l- Complaint forDamages 1 |{and DOES 1 through 50, its affiliates, subsidiaries, representatives, agents, alter egos, 2 || predecessors, successors, or assigns, is, and at all times herein mentioned was and is a 3 || governmental public agency in the County of Fresno, State of California. 4 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that at all times mentioned herein, 5 ||Defendant CUSD and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, acts and conduct 6 || hereinafter complained, occurred in the County of Fresno, State of California. 7 4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or associate, or 8 || otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore 9 || sues said defendants by such fictitious names and will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint 10 || when the true names and capacities have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and 11 || thereon alleges that each of the factiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for 12 ||theoccurrences herein alleged, and said defendants negligently acted or failed to act, which 13 || negligence proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries as alleged herein. Plaintiff is uncertain as to 14 || the manner or function of said defendants, and prays leave to amend this Complaint to insert 15 || therein the true names, capacities, functions, occupations, and businesses of said defendants when 16 || the same are ascertained. Plaintiff isfurther informed and believes and thereon alleges that each 17 || such designated defendant acted, and acts, as the authorized agent, representative, and associate 18 || of other defendants in doing the things alleged herein. 19 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned 20 ||herein, Rio Vista Middle School, located at 6240 W. Palo Alto Avenue, Fresno, California 21 || (hereinafter “RVMS”), is owned, operated and governed by Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, 22 || and was operating with the consent, permission and knowledge of Defendant CUSD and DOES 23 || 1-50. 24 BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS 25 6. On February 25, 2022, at approximately 12:50 p.m., Plaintiff had just been dismissed 26 ||from class and was walking to get lunch, through the quad area, in full view of multiple 27 28 2- Complaint forDamages 1 ||classrooms full of teachers and students. R.C.'! a student at RVMS, who had previously 2 || demonstrated aggressive behavior towards Plaintiff, including unsolicited threatening language, 3 || specifically including threats to physically assault Plaintiff, approached Plaintiff from behind and 4 || began assaulting her, striking her several times in the face and head, throwing Plaintiff to the 5 || ground and repeatedly punching, slapping and kicking her. 6 7. During this time, other students were walking directly behind R.C. with their phones 7 || out recording the assault. Several other students observed the assault, and proceeded to record the 8 || incident on their phones as well. 9 8. After more than 30 seconds had passed, R.C. discontinued the assault on Plaintiff and 10 || walked away. At no point during the assault was R.C. or Plaintiff approached by any employee, 11 || faculty, staff or security officer, to stop the assault or intervene in any way, despite there being 12 || multiple classrooms nearby full of students and teachers with open doors and windows facing the 13 || area where the assault occurred. 14 9. Shortly after the assault, staff approached Plaintiff and took her to the office. 15 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 had notice of the assault, notice that R.C. and other students 16 || made threats towards S.D., and had multiple opportunities intervene and/or stop the violence 17 || inflicted on Plaintiff and failed to take any action of her behalf. 18 10. Plaintiff complied with the Government Code by submitting a claim pursuant to 19 || California Government Code section 911.2, et seq. on April 27, 2022 to Defendant CUSD. On 20 || June 16, 2022, Defendant CUSD rejected Plaintiff's claim. 21 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 22 Negligence 23 (Against Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50) 24 11. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 25 || paragraphs 1 to 10 herein as though fully set forth. 26 27 28 1 Forpurposes ofconfidentiality, R.C.isidentifiedthroughinitials onlyin this Complaint. -3- Complaint for Damages ] 12. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a student at RVMS, a school within Defendant 2 || CUSD. 3 13. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, owned, managed, controlled, maintained, 4 || operated, administered, and was otherwise responsible for RVMS and student safety. At RVMS, 5 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 provided educational, instructional, recreational, health and 6 || related services to Plaintiff and other children particularly undertaking to supervise and discipline 7 || students during class sessions. 8 14. Government Code section 815.2 provides that a public entity isliable for injury caused 9 || by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if 10 || the act or omission would apart from this section have given rise to a cause of action against the 11 ||employee. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, in the course of their employment, were negligent 12 || in their supervision of the students, classrooms, and overall learning environment of RVMS. 13 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, knew or had reason to know, that Plaintiff's safety was in 14 || jeopardy atthe time of the injury; namely, that R.C. had been harassing and making threatening 15 || statements to Plaintiff for several weeks prior to the assault. 16 15. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, and each of them, were the 17 || legal cause of damages to Plaintiff. The acts or omissions to act include the physical injuries, 18 || severe emotional distress, humiliation, mental anguish and embarrassment inflicted upon Plaintiff 19 || on or about February 25, 2022. 20 16. That as a direct and proximate result of the said negligence, acts and omissions of the 21 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered injuries, including 22 || physical injuries, severe emotional distress, humiliation, mental anguish and embarrassment. 23 17. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, and each of them, breached their duties to Plaintiff 24 || by failing to exercise ordinary care and due diligence. These negligent acts were a substantial 25 || factor in Plaintiff suffering physical injuries, severe emotional distress, humiliation, mental 26 || anguish and embarrassment. 27 18. Plaintiff further alleges that as a direct and proximate result of Defendant CUSD and 28 ||DOES 1 through 50’s negligence, Plaintiff has incurred special damages for past and future -4. Complaint forDamages 1 || medical and incidental expenses, and past and future general damages in sums according to proof 2 || at trial. 3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 4 Negligent Supervision 5 (Against Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50) 6 19. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 7 || paragraphs 1 to 18 herein as though fully set forth. 8 20. Plaintiff's claim for negligent supervision of students against Defendant CUSD and 9 || DOES 1-50 is based upon Government Code sections 815.2 and 815.6, California Constitution, 10 || Article 1 and the mandatory duties set forth in Education Code section 220, Education Code 11 || section 44807 and California Code of Regulations Title 5, sections 701 and 5530, which provide 12 || for the mandatory supervision of students at school and during school-sponsored activities. 13 21. Plaintiff's claim for vicarious liability against Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 is 14 || based on the negligence of Defendant CUSD’s employees under Government Code section 815.2, 15 || and specifically is based upon the negligent supervision of students by school staff. 16 22. Plaintiff's claim for negligent supervision against Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 17 ||is based on California Code of Regulations Title 5, section 5530, which provides that all 18 || certificated personnel shall exercise careful supervision of the moral conditions in their respective 19 || schools. 20 23. Plaintiff's claim for negligent supervision of students against Defendant CUSD and 21 || DOES 1-50 is based upon Government Code section 815.6, and the mandatory duties set forth in 22 || Education Code section 44087 and Code of Regulations Title 5, section 5530, which provide that 23 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 had a duty to supervise pupils at school and during school 24 || sponsored activities. 25 24. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 were responsible at all relevant times for the 26 || supervision of Plaintiff while she was at school during school hours. Public school authorities are 27 |\responsible for the safety of children during school hours and are “bound to exercise an amount 28 || of care for their safety during that period commensurate with the immaturity of their charges and -5- Complaint forDamages 1 || the importance of their trust.” Satariano v.Sleight (1942) 54 Cal.App.2d 278, 284. Further, it“is 2 || well settled that the amount of care due to minors increases with their immaturity and consequent 3 || heedlessness to danger.” /d at 283. 4 25. Pursuant to Government Code section 815.6, “[w]here a public entity is under a 5 || mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular 6 || kind of injury, the public entity is liable for any injury of that kind proximately caused by its 7 || failure to discharge the duty...” The mandatory duties pursuant to statute and regulations are to 8 || ensure that the special relationship between Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 and itsstudents is 9 || maintained and are designed to prevent the type of injury that occurred in this case, including 10 || harassment, abuse, torment, assault and battery of a student by other students. 11 26. At all relevant times mentioned herein California Code of Regulations Title 5, section 12 || 5530 was an enactment which created a mandatory duty upon Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 13 || and its personnel to “exercise careful supervision” over the students at each school. Said statute 14 || was designed to protect Plaintiff from the type of harm alleged herein and Plaintiff was a member 15 || of the class that said statute was enacted to protect. 16 27. At all times mentioned herein, California Education Code sections 44807 and 44808 17 || provided that Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 had mandatory duties to supervise pupils on 18 || school property during school hours. Said statutes were designed to protect Plaintiff from the type 19 || of harm alleged herein and Plaintiff was a member of the class that said statues were enacted to 20 || protect. 21 28. At all times mentioned herein, California Education Code sections 44807, 44808 and 22 || California Code of Regulation Title 5, section 5530 were designed to protect against the risk of 23 ||theparticular kind of injury alleged herein, as required by Government Code section 815.6, 24 || including the foreseeable harassment, abuse, torment, assault and battery as alleged herein. 25 29. On or about February 25, 2022, Plaintiff was bullied, threatened, harassed, tormented, 26 || and physically assaulted at RVMS during regular school hours. During this time, she was bullied, 27 || threatened, harassed, tormented, and physically assaulted by R.C. and other students, DOES 51- 28 || 100, attending RVMS. 6- Complaint forDamages 1 30. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 failed to supervise Plaintiff, R.C. and DOES 51- 2 || 100 while they were on school grounds within CUSD and during schoo! hours. 3 31. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 arise from the mandatory 4 ||andstatutory duties imposed on Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 in order to ensure that the 5 || special relationship created between students and Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 is upheld. 6 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50’s special relationship with students is based upon various 7 || principles, namely, its underlying role in educating children, the naivete of children and the 8 || compulsory nature of attending school. 9 32. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a minor student at RVMS. On or about February 10 || 25, 2022, Plaintiff was attending RVMS and was under the control and supervision of Defendant 11 {|CUSD and DOES 1-50. During this time, R.C., and DOES 51-100, fellow students at RVMS 12 || within CUSD, were also under the control and supervision of Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50. 13 || As such, Plaintiff's causes of action arise from Defendants’ utter failure to discharge mandatory 14 || duties in relation tothe supervision of Plaintiff, R.C., fellow students DOES 51-100, and itsfailure 15 || to discharge itsmandatory duties in relation to the hiring, supervision, training, and retention of 16 || employees charged with the supervision of students, including Plaintiff, R.C. and DOES 51-100. 17 || These duties arise from Education Code sections 44660, 44664, 44662, 44830, 44870 and 44932. 18 33. Given the mandatory duties imposed upon Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 and its 19 || employees and administrators, Plaintiff was to be supervised on school grounds at alltimes by 20 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50’s employees, teachers and administrators. Defendant CUSD 21 || and DOES 1-50, and itsemployees and administrators, were also required to supervise R.C. and 22 || DOES 51-100 while they were on school grounds. Due to Plaintiffs status as a minor, she was 23 || dependent on the supervision of Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50’s employees to provide the 24 || appropriate and mandatory level of supervision. As such, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 owed 25 || Plaintiff a higher duty of care to take all reasonable measures to carry out their mandatory and 26 || statutory duties to protect students, including Plaintiff, and prevent foreseeable harm. Based on 27 || Defendants’ failure to provide the requisite level of supervision, R.C. and DOES 51-100 were able 28 7- Complaint forDamages 1 || to bully, threaten, harass, torment and physically assault Plaintiff while she was on school grounds 2 || during school hours. 3 34. At all relevant times, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 were directly responsible for 4 || the supervision, guidance and care of its minor student Plaintiff and the supervision of students 5 || R.C. and DOES 51-100. 6 35. On or about February 25, 2022, as Plaintiff was walking through the quad area to get 7 || lunch, in full view of multiple classrooms full of teachers and students, R.C. approached Plaintiff 8 || from behind and began assaulting her, striking her several times in the face and head, throwing 9 || Plaintiff to the ground where she was repeatedly punched, slapped and kicked. At the same time, 10 || other students video recorded the assault and dispersed itthroughout the school and to the public 11 || at large to further humiliate Plaintiff. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, knew the incident was 12 || video recorded by one of its students and was likely to be dispersed throughout the school and to 13 || the public. Nevertheless, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 failed to reasonably obtain the video 14 || and/or curtail or prevent the spreading of the video throughout the school and public. As a result, 15 || Plaintiff suffered physical injuries, severe emotional distress and humiliation. 16 36. Prior to February 25, 2022, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 were aware that 17 || students R.C. and DOES 51-100, at RVMS were bullying, threatening, harassing, tormenting and 18 || physically assaulting fellow students on school grounds. 19 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes and hereby alleges that R.C. and DOES 51-100 were 20 || students within CUSD with a history of misconduct, including but not limited to, physically 21 || harassing and assaulting other CUSD students and behaving in a violent manner. However, 22 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 failed to adequately supervise R.C. and DOES 51-100 and the 23 || other CUSD students, including Plaintiff. Due to Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50’s negligent 24 || failure to take any reasonable precautions to safeguard itsstudents, including Plaintiff, Plaintiff 25 || was subjected to bullying, threats, harassment, tormenting and physical assault by R.C. and DOES 26 |} 51-100, while Plaintiff-attended RVMS. 27 38. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 failed to discharge and breached each of their duties 28 ||/to Plaintiff herein in that Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, knew that Plaintiff, R.C. and -8- Complaint forDamages 1|| Defendant DOES 51-100 were students who required supervision. Plaintiff was reliant upon 2 ||Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, to provide ongoing supervision at all times to prevent 3 || foreseeable harm. Nonetheless, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 failed to carefully supervise, 4 || monitor, and observe Plaintiff while she was on campus during school hours. Defendant CUSD 5 ||andDOES 1-50’s failure to provide the requisite level of supervision allowed R.C. and DOES 6 || 51-100 to harass, abuse, torment, assault and battery Plaintiff as alleged herein. 7 39. As a proximate, direct, and legal result of Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50’s failure 8 ||to discharge mandatory duties, and comply with California law and other tortious conduct as 9 || alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer from physical injuries, severe emotional 10 |} distress, humiliation, mental anguish and embarrassment. 11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 12 Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Training and Retention 13 (Against Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50) 14 40. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 15 || paragraphs 1 to 39 herein as though fully set forth. 16 41. Plaintiff's claim for negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention against 17 || Defendant CUSD is based on Government Code section 815.6 and Education Code sections 18 || 44660, 44662, 44664, 44830, 44870 and 44932, which provide for certain qualifications for the 19 || hiring, supervising, evaluating and assessing teachers and for the dismissal of personnel for 20 || certain conduct. 21 42. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 were supervising 22 ||employees of Defendant CUSD and agents of Defendant CUSD. 23 43. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant CUSD employees, including but not limited 24 || to DOES 1-50 were incompetent and/or unfit to be employees of Defendant CUSD, including but 25 || not limited to their failure to provide adequate supervision to Plaintiff. 26 44: On or about February 25, 2022, Plaintiff was bullied, threatened, harassed, tormented, 27 || and physically assaulted at RVMS during regular school hours. During this time, she was bullied, 28 -9- Complaint forDamages - ] || threatened, harassed, tormented, and physically assaulted by R.C. and DOES 51-100, attending 2 ||RVMS. 3 45. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 arise from the mandatory 4 || and statutory duties imposed on Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 in order to ensure that the 5 || special relationship created between students and Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 is upheld. 6 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50’s special relationship with students is based upon various 7 }| principles, namely, its underlying role in educating children, the naivete of children and the 8 |} compulsory nature of attending school. 9 46. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a minor student at RVMS. On or about February 10 || 25, 2022, Plaintiff was attending RVMS and under the control and supervision of Defendant 11 |}CUSD and DOES 1-50. During this time, Plaintiff, R.C. and DOES 51-100, fellow students at 12 || RVMS within CUSD, were also under the control and supervision of Defendant CUSD and DOES 13 |} 1-50. As such, Plaintiff's causes of action arise from Defendants utter failure to discharge 14 || mandatory duties in relation to the supervision of Plaintiff, R.C. and DOES 51-100 and itsfailure 15 || to discharge itsmandatory duties in relation to the hiring, supervision, training, and retention of 16 ||} employees charged with the supervision of students, including Plaintiff, R-C, and DOES 51-100. 17 || These duties arise from Education Code sections 44660, 44664, 44662, 44830, 44870 and 44932. 18 47. Given the mandatory duties imposed upon Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 and its 19 ||employees and administrators, Plaintiff was to be supervised on school grounds at all times by 20 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50’s employees, teachers and administrators. Defendant CUSD 21 ||andDOES 1-50, and itsemployees and administrators, were also required to supervise R.C. and 22 || DOES 51-100 while they were on school grounds. Due to Plaintiffs status as a minor, she was 23 || dependent on the supervision of Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 employees to provide the 24 || appropriate and mandatory level of supervision. As such, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 owed 25 || Plaintiff a higher duty of care to take all reasonable measures to carry out their mandatory and 26: || statutory duties to protect students, including Plaintiff, and prevent foreseeable harm. Based on 27 || Defendants’ failure to provide the requisite level of supervision to Plaintiff, R.C. and DOES 51- 28 -10- Complaint forDamages 1|| 100 were able to bully, threaten, harass, torment and physically assault Plaintiff while she was on 2 || school grounds during school hours. 3 48.R.C. and DOES 51-100’s misconduct includes; but is not limited to, bullying, 4 || threatening, harassing, tormenting and physically assaulting Plaintiff on school grounds. At all 5 ||relevant times, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 was directly responsible for the supervision, . 6 || guidance and care of itsminor student Plaintiff and the supervision of R.C. and DOES 51-100. 7 49. Plaintiff is informed and believes and hereby alleges that R.C. and DOES 51-100 were 8 || students within CUSD with a history of misconduct, including but not limited to, physically 9 || harassing and assaulting other CUSD students and behaving in a violent manner. However, 10 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 failed to adequately supervise R.C. and DOES 51-100 and the 11 || other CUSD students, including Plaintiff. Due to Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50’s negligent 12 || failure to take any reasonable precautions to safeguard its students, including Plaintiff, Plaintiff 13 || was subjected to bullying, threats, harassment, tormenting and physical assault by R.C. and DOES: 14 |} 51-100 while Plaintiff attended RVMS. 15 50. The subject incident occurred at RVMS, during school hours and while R.C. and 16 || DOES 51-100, Plaintiff and other students were under the direct supervision Defendant CUSD 17 ||andDOES 1-50. 18 51. On or about February 25, 2022, as Plaintiff was walking through the quad area to get 19 || lunch, in full view of multiple classrooms fullof teachers and students, R.C. approached Plaintiff 20 |} from behind and began assaulting her, striking her several times in the face and head, throwing 21 || Plaintiff to the ground where she was repeatedly punched, slapped and kicked. At the same time, 22 || student Defendant DOES 51-100 video recorded the assault and dispersed itthroughout the school 23 || and to the public at large to further humiliate Plaintiff. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50, knew 24 || the incident was video recorded by one of itsstudents and was likely to be dispersed throughout 25 || the school and to the public. Nevertheless, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 failed to reasonably 26 || obtain the video and/or curtail or prevent the spreading of the video throughout the school and 27 || public. As a result, Plaintiff suffered physical injuries and severe emotional distress and 28 || humiliation. -l- Complaint forDamages 1 52. Prior to February 25, 2022, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 were aware that 2 || students R.C. and DOES 51-100‘at RVMS were bullying, threatening, harassing, tormenting and 3 || physically assaulting fellow students on school grounds. 4 53. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 knew or should have known that Plaintiff was 5 || subject to foreseeable harm because of prior complaints, incidents and the common knowledge 6 || that unsupervised middle school students during break periods transitioning from one class to 7 || another poses a foreseeable risk of harm, including but not limited to, harassment, abuse, torment, 8 || assault and battery. Accordingly, Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 knew or should have known 9 || that the assault, harassment and battery of Plaintiff was likely to occur absent reasonable and 10 || appropriate safeguards. 11 54. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all relevant times, 12 || Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 employees, including but not limited to teachers, principals, 13 || and other administrative and/or supervisory personnel at RVMS, owed the following mandatory 14 || and/or statutory duties of care to Plaintiff, a student receiving education services, as follows: 15 a. All CUSD employees had a duty arising from the special relationship entered into 16 between a school and itsstudents, to supervise students and take reasonable steps toprotect 17 students including, but not limited to, taking reasonable steps in hiring, screening, 18 selecting, retaining, and supervising teachers, and other personnel with supervisory 19 authority over students, and providing comprehensive education, training, and supervision 20 of management and/or supervisory personnel, in order to protect its students. The special 21 relationship described herein is established when an organization or entity endeavors to 22 provide educational, recreational, or other related services to a minor and/or because of 23 the compulsory nature of the public school system, as described in, for example, MW. v. 24 Panama Buena Vista Union School District (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 508, 518-520 and 25 Virginia G. v. ABC Unified School District (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1853. 26 b. All CUSD employees had a duty arising from the special relationship entered into 27 between a school and the parents of its students, pursuant to applicable law, including but 28 not limited to Phyllis P. v. Superior Court (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1193. -12- Complaint forDamages 1 c. All CUSD employees, including teachers, principals, coaches and other supervisory 2 and/or administrative employees, had a duty of care in supervising students like Plaintiff. 3 CUSD breached their duties to Plaintiff as alleged in the paragraphs above, all within the 4 course and scope of the employees’ duties within CUSD, and failed to follow or comply 5 with the standards of care set forth herein, in that they: 6 1. Failed to carefully screen all potential employees, including DOES 1-50 to 7 assure they could properly supervise students including but not limited to 8 Plaintiff, to prevent injury to students based upon the unique vulnerability of 9 students and Defendants knowledge thereof; 10 2. Failed to carefully screen allpotential employees, including DOES 1-50 to 11 assure they could properly supervise students, including but not limited to 12 R.C. and DOES 51-100, based upon their history of misconduct known to 13 Defendants; 14 3. Failed to provide proper training to all teachers, administrators and/or 15. supervisory personnel prior to placing Plaintiff, R.C. and DOES 51-100 16 under the direct supervision of said administrators, teachers and supervisory 17 personnel who had a duty to supervise Plaintiff at all times relevant, 18 including but not limited to, during school hours on school grounds; 19 4. Failed to adequately supervise teachers, administrators and/or supervisory 20 personnel, or provide adequate follow—up measures to ensure they were 21 appropriately supervising Plaintiff, R.C. and DOES 51-100 at all relevant 22 times including, but not limited to, during school hours on school grounds; 23 5. Failed to take reasonable, adequate and appropriate disciplinary actions 24 against R.C. and DOES 51-100 after reports of harassment, bullying and 25 threats of physical violence against Plaintiff and others; 26 6. Failed to take reasonable, adequate, and appropriate measures to ensure 27 that its teachers, administrators and/or supervisory personnel were fit to 28 supervise students like Plaintiff, R.C. and DOES 51-100, and other CUSD -13- Complaint forDamages 1 students, after CUSD officials and/or administrators knew that Plaintiff was 2 being bullied and harassed on campus by R.C. and DOES 51-100; 3 7. Failed to properly or sufficiently warn, train, or educate teachers and 4 students regarding the detection and reporting of harassment, bullying and 5 threats as well as other similar tortious and criminal conduct within the 6 school by other students, teachers and/or other supervisory adults; 7 8. Failed to notify, advise and inform R.C. and DOES .51-100’s parents 8 regarding their children’s harassing, bullying and threatening behavior 9 toward Plaintiff. 10 55. Said breaches were the actual, proximate, and legal cause of R.C. and DOES 51-100’s 11 || tortious actions and harmful misconduct, including, but not limited to, the harassment, abuse, 12 || torment, assault and battery against Plaintiff on campus and during regular school hours. 13 56. As a proximate, direct, and legal result of Defendants CUSD and DOES 1-50’s failure 14 || to discharge mandatory duties, and comply with California law, and other tortious conduct as 15 || alleged herein, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer from physical injuries, severe emotional 16 || distress, humiliation, mental anguish and embarrassment. 17 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 19 (Against Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50) 20 57. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 21 || paragraphs 1 to 56 herein as though fully set forth. 22 58. Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 were responsible at all relevant times for the 23 || supervision of Plaintiff while she was at school during school hours. Public school authorities are 24 || responsible for the safety of children during school hours and are “bound to exercise an amount 25 || of care for their safety during that period commensurate with the immaturity of their charges and 26 || the importance of their trust.” Satariano v.Sleight (1942) 54 Cal-App.2d 278, Further, it “is well 27 ||settledthat the amount of care due to minors increases with their immaturity and consequent 28 || heedlessness to danger.” /d. at283. -14- Complaint forDamages 1 59. Pursuant to Government Code section 815.6, "[w]here a public entity is under a 2 || mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular 3 || kind of injury, the public entity is liable for “any injury of that kind proximately caused by its 4 || failure to discharge the duty...” 5 60. The mandatory duties pursuant to statute and regulations are to ensure that the special 6 || relationship between Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 and itsstudents is maintained and are 7 || designed to prevent the type of injury that occurred in this case, including harassment, abuse, 8 || torment, assault and battery of student by another student. 9 61. At all relevant times mentioned herein California Code of Regulations Title 5, section 10 || 5530 was an enactment which created a mandatory duty upon Defendant CUSD and DOES 1-50 11 || and itspersonnel to “exercise careful supervision” over the students at each school. Said statute 12 || was designed to protect Plaintiff from the type of harm alleged herein and Plaintiff was a member 13 || of the class that said statute was enacted to protect. 14 62. At all times mentioned h