Preview
1 MORGAN A. STEWART (State Bar No. 209852)
mstewart@manlystewart.com
2 SAUL E. WOLF (State Bar No. 244833)
swolf@manlystewart.com
3 CRISTINA J. NOLAN (State Bar No. 318495)
cnolan@manlystewart.com
4 MANLY STEWART FINALDI
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
5 Irvine, California 92612
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
6 Facsimile: (949) 252-9991
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jane BWN Doe
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, HAYWARD HALL OF JUSTICE
10
11 JANE BWN DOE, an individual, Case No. 22CV006012
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 Plaintiff, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO:
JUDGE JULIA SPAIN
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
13 v. DEPARTMENT 520
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612
14 DOE 1, a California local public entity; DOE DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J.
2, an individual; and DOES 3 to 100, NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
15 inclusive, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
DESIGNATE PRESENT CASE AND
16 Defendant. RELATED CASES AS “COMPLEX”
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES
17 OF COURT, RULE 3.400 et seq.
18 [Filed Concurrently with the Motion to
Designate Complex and [Proposed] Order]
19
Date: February 17, 2023
20 Time: 2:00 p.m.
Dept.: 520
21 Reservation No.: A-06012-003
22
Action Filed: June 15, 2021
23 Trial Date: May 5, 2023
24
DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN
25
I, CRISTINA J. NOLAN, hereby declare as follows:
26
1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law before all the Courts of the
27
State of California.
28
1
DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO DESIGNATE PRESENT CASE AND RELATED CASES AS “COMPLEX” PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.400 et seq.
1 2. I am an attorney with the law firm of MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI, attorneys
2 of record for 2 Plaintiffs in the following matters:
3 i. JANE BHJ DOE v. DOE 11, et al., Case No. 21CV001771 (filed November
4 4, 2021);
5 ii. JANE BWN DOE v. DOE 1, et al., Case No. 22CV006012 (filed January
6 25, 2022).
7 3. I am also aware of the following additional case filed by the law firm of WINER,
8 BURRITT, & SCOTT, LLP, representing a total of 8 Plaintiffs:
9 i. Rachel Phillips, et al. v. DOE 12, et al., Case No. RG21104054 (filed June
10 15, 2021) ("Rachel Phillips matter").
11 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Jane BWN
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 Doe's operative complaint.
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
13 5. I have reviewed the file in this matter and I am aware of the facts and procedural
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612
14 history of this case.
15 6. In each of the collective cases where appearances have been made, the following
16 represent the number of Defense law firms involved:
17 ii. Defendant DOE 1 is represented by one firm: SPINELLI DONALD NOTT;
18 iii. Defendant DOE 2 is represented by BLEDSOE, DIESTEL, TREPPA &
19 CRANE LLP
20 7. The following procedural history has taken place amongst the three related actions:
21 i. RACHEL PHILLIPS CASE:
22 a. DOE 1 filed a Demurrer to the Complaint and Motion to Strike.
23 b. On or about April 28, 2022, DOE 1 removed the case to Federal
24 Court. On or about May 23, 2022, Plaintiff Rachel Phillip filed a
25
1
26 The Jane BHJ Doe matter names both Doe 1 and Doe 2 by their true name. However, given the instant matter must name the
defendants as "does" at this time, Plaintiff shall utilize the pseudonym of Defendants Doe 1 and Doe 2.
27
2
The Rachel Phillips matter names both Doe 1 and Doe 2 by their true name. However, given the instant matter must name the
28 defendants as "does" at this time, Plaintiff shall utilize the pseudonym of Defendants Doe 1 and Doe 2.
2
DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO DESIGNATE PRESENT CASE AND RELATED CASES AS “COMPLEX” PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.400 et seq.
1 Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint to add
2 seven additional plaintiffs. On or about August 5, 2022, the District
3 Court granted Plaintiff Rachel Phillip’s Motion and remanded the
4 case back to this Court.
5 ii. JANE BHJ DOE CASE:
6 a. DOE 1 filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike, which was heard on
7 June 29, 2022. No amended complaint was filed by Plaintiff Jane
8 BHJ Doe. DOE 1 answered in or around September 1, 2022. DOE 2
9 answered on February 7, 2022.
10 iii. JANE BWN DOE CASE:
11 a. Defendant DOE 1 filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike, which
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 were heard on or around June 17, 2022. Subsequently, Plaintiff Jane
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
13 BWN Doe filed a First Amended Complaint on July 1, 2022. DOE
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612
14 1 answered in or around July 25, 2022. DOE 2 answered in or
15 around August 5, 2022.
16 8. In addition to the foregoing pleading challenges, there have been discovery and
17 other relevant motions, including but not limited to:
18 i. Plaintiff Jane BHJ Doe's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request
19 for Production of Documents, Set One;
20 ii. Plaintiff Jane BHJ Doe's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special
21 Interrogatories, Set One;
22 iii. Plaintiff Rachel Phillips filed her Motion to Compel Further Responses and
23 Documents;
24 9. As shown above, there have been multiple discovery disputes and motions in the
25 Jane BHJ Doe matter, still at issue in these matters:
26 i. On January 21, 2022, Plaintiff Jane BHJ Doe served her first set of Special
27 Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, to
28 Defendant DOE 1. A true and correct copy of the Special Interrogatories,
3
DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO DESIGNATE PRESENT CASE AND RELATED CASES AS “COMPLEX” PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.400 et seq.
1 Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, are attached
2 hereto as Exhibit B and C, respectively.
3 ii. On March 28, 2022, Plaintiff Jane BHJ Doe received Defendant DOE 1’s
4 responses to these Special Interrogatories, Set One. A true and correct copy
5 of these responses is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
6 iii. DOE 1 refused to supplement its responses following multiple attempts to
7 meet and confer by Jane BHJ Doe.
8 iv. The parties held an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) on June 8,
9 2022. At the IDC, the following topics were discussed: (1) whether Plaintiff
10 was entitled to information and documentation pertaining to DOE 2 during
11 his entire employment with DOE 1; (2) whether Plaintiff was entitled to
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 information and documentation pertaining to other claims of misconduct
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
13 within DOE 1; (3) privacy issues concerning DOE 2’s personnel file; and
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612
14 (4) Plaintiff’s request for yearbooks. During the IDC, the Court
15 acknowledged there was relevancy to Plaintiff obtaining information and
16 documentation pertaining to DOE 2 during his entire employment within
17 DOE 1, as that is pattern and practice discovery. Regarding the request for
18 information and documentation pertaining to other claims, the Court
19 believed depending on the phrasing, the request(s) may be too overbroad
20 and should be narrowed. As to DOE 2’s personnel file, the Court found a
21 reasonable solution would be for all parties to agree to a stipulated
22 protective order. The Court offered the parties to the opportunity to draft a
23 stipulation and order reflecting the conversation and agreements made at the
24 IDC, to which both parties agreed. Subsequently, DOE 1’s counsel reneged
25 on the agreement, forcing Plaintiff Jane BHJ Doe to file a Motion to
26 Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set
27 One, and a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories,
28 Set One.
4
DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO DESIGNATE PRESENT CASE AND RELATED CASES AS “COMPLEX” PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.400 et seq.
1 v. On October 13, 2022, the Court ordered the parties to further meet and
2 confer with a court reporter present, which was completed on October 27,
3 2022 and November 3, 2022.
4 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Rachel Phillips matter has also had
5 several discovery disputes with DOE 1.
6 11. At this juncture, Plaintiffs have identified several victims, witnesses, percipients
7 and those with knowledge that are material to the ongoing litigation process:
8 i. 10 Plaintiffs testimony (in each of the 3 cases): Plaintiffs JANE BHJ DOE,
9 JANE BWN DOE, RACHEL PHILLIPS, JANE AB DOE, JANE TB DOE,
10 JANE SF DOE, ESTHER HEALEY, JANE MK DOE, JANE LR DOE, and
11 JANE DY DOE.
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 ii. Currently known DOE 1 employees and administrative personnel, with
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
13 Anticipated Percipient Testimony (in each of the 3 cases): Amy Frey, Matt
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612
14 Huxley, Felicia Phillips, Toni Coleman, Kristin Glenchur, Principal Slemp,
15 Ashley Milton, Brent Stephens, Delia Ruiz, Evelyn Tamondong-Bradley,
16 Sam Pasarow, Erin Schweng, Stephen Jimenez-Robb, Mary Keating,
17 Samantha Tobias-Espinosa, Rhonda Cervantes, Brenda Bertram, Ms.
18 Delaney, Ms. Katz, Mr. Lee, Angela Coppola, Kingman Lim, Justin
19 Carraway. It is expected through further discovery that there will be many
20 more percipient witnesses discovered and testimony will be required.
21 iii. Plaintiff expects there will be numerous former students with anticipated
22 percipient testimony. Currently unknown as to the exact number of
23 expected testimony.
24 iv. 20 Individual Anticipated Expert Testimony (in each of the 3 cases): An
25 estimated 5-10 experts to be engaged by the collective Plaintiffs; estimated
26 5-10 experts to be engaged by Defendants.
27 12. Plaintiff's matter is related to two other matters that have been consolidated:
28 Plaintiff Jane BHJ Doe matter and Rachel Phillips matter, against Defendants DOE
5
DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO DESIGNATE PRESENT CASE AND RELATED CASES AS “COMPLEX” PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.400 et seq.
1 1 and DOE 2. In or around September 2022, DOE 1 filed a Motion to Consolidate
2 and Coordinate Actions for the Limited Purpose of Discovery and Pretrial Case
3 Management Only, requesting consolidation of the three aforementioned cases.
4 Subsequently, on October 6, 2022, the Court, on its own motion, consolidated only
5 Phillips v. DOE 1and Jane BHJ Doe v. Berkeley Unified School District, and
6 vacated DOE 1’s pending motion as moot. A true and correct copy of the Court's
7 Order is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
8 13. Assuming that all of the cases are not reasonably consolidated as complex, the
9 identified witnesses may have to testify more than once, in each of the cases.
10 14. In light of the contentious discovery disputes, it is in parties' best interest to be
11 reassigned to the complex department for increased judicial supervision and
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 adherence to procedure.
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612
14 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was signed on January 9, 2023 in Irvine,
15 California.
16
17 ___________________________________
Cristina J. Nolan
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO DESIGNATE PRESENT CASE AND RELATED CASES AS “COMPLEX” PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.400 et seq.
EXHIBIT "A"
1 MORGAN A. STEWART (State Bar No. 209852)
mstewart@manlystewart.com
2 SAUL E. WOLF (State Bar No. 244833)
swolf@manlystewart.com
3 CRISTINA J. NOLAN (State Bar No. 318495)
cnolan@manlystewart.com
4 MANLY STEWART FINALDI
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
5 Irvine, California 92612
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
6 Facsimile: (949) 252-9991
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
10
11 JANE BWN DOE, an individual; Case No.: 22CV006012
12 Plaintiff, Assigned for All Purposes to:
Judge: Hon. Julia Spain
13 v.
Dept.: 520
14 DOE 1, a California local public entity; DOE
2, an individual; and DOES 3 to 100, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
Electronically Received 07/01/2022 02:07 PM
15 inclusive. DAMAGES FOR:
16 Defendants. 1. NEGLIGENCE;
2. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION;
17
3. NEGLIGENT HIRING/RETENTION;
18 4. ASSAULT
5. SEXUAL BATTERY (C.C. § 1708.5);
19 6. GENDER VIOLENCE (C.C. § 52.4)
20 [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]
21 [Filed pursuant to AB 218[C.C.P. §340.1]]
22
23
COMES NOW, Plaintiff JANE BWN DOE, an individual who for her First Amended
24
Complaint, complains and alleges as follows:
25
INTRODUCTION
26
1. The instant action involves the sexual predation of former DOE 1 employee and teacher,
27
DOE 2 (“DOE 2”).
28
2. DOE 2 is alleged to have abused several minors during his time as a teacher, coach, and
1
_______________________________________________________________________________
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 employee of institutions, including DOE 1.
2 3. Upon learning of sexual misconduct directed towards minor students, DOE 1 failed to
3 comply with their legal and statutory duties to report DOE 2.
4 4. DOE 1 employee and Administrators, chose to move DOE 2 within the school district
5 upon an investigation and report of sexual misconduct, effectively “passing the trash” within the
6 District, in a concerted effort to hide DOE 2’s sexual abusive crimes against minors.
7 5. DOE 1’s negligent and intentional acts were a primary cause of the sexual abuse of the
8 minor Plaintiff herein.
9 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE PARTIES
10 6. Plaintiff JANE BWN DOE, an individual (hereinafter “JANE BWN DOE” and/or
11 “Plaintiff”) is a resident of the County of Contra Costa, State of California and was a resident of
12 the County of Alameda at the time of the abuse alleged herein. The name used by JANE BWN
13 DOE in this Complaint is not the actual name of JANE BWN DOE, but is a fictitious name
14 utilized to protect the privacy of JANE BWN DOE, a victim of childhood sexual harassment,
15 molestation and abuse. Plaintiff JANE BWN DOE is a female, born December, 1981, and was a
16 minor during the time of the sexual misconduct alleged herein. Beginning in approximately 1997
17 and continuing thereafter, Plaintiff was sexually harassed, assaulted and abused by Berkeley High
18 School teacher, DOE 2, former employee and agent of Defendant DOE 1 (“DOE 1”) and Berkeley
19 High School.
20 7. The Plaintiff’s claims all arise out of sexual abuse and sexual assault claims that occurred
21 during the time periods of approximately 1997-1998. In 2019, the California State legislature
22 enacted Assembly Bill No. 281, which was signed by the Governor on October 13, 2019. This
23 law, as enacted, went into effect on January 1, 2020. Among other things, this law amended
24 statutory code sections Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1; Code of Civil Procedure section
25 1002 and Government Code section 905.
26 8. The amendments, among other things, extended the statute of limitations for childhood
27 sexual assault, inclusive of claims against persons or entities who owed duties of care to Plaintiff,
28 premised upon wrongful or negligent acts by those persons or entities.
2
_______________________________________________________________________________
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 9. As amended, Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1(q), further provides: Notwithstanding
2 any other provision of law, any claim for damages described in paragraphs (1) through (3),
3 inclusive, of subdivision (a) that has not been litigated to finality and that would otherwise be
4 barred as of January 1, 2020, because the applicable statute of limitations, claim presentation
5 deadline, or any other time limit had expired, is revived, and these claims may be commenced
6 within three years of January 1, 2020. A plaintiff shall have the later of the three-year time period
7 under this subdivision or the time period under subdivision (a) as amended by the act that added
8 this subdivision.
9 10. As amended, Government Code section 905(m), exempts out any requirement that a
10 Plaintiff asserting a claim for the recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual
11 assault make a government tort claim prior to filing litiga
Preview
1 MORGAN A. STEWART (State Bar No. 209852) mstewart@manlystewart.com 2 SAUL E. WOLF (State Bar No. 244833) swolf@manlystewart.com 3 CRISTINA J. NOLAN (State Bar No. 318495) cnolan@manlystewart.com 4 MANLY STEWART FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 5 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252-9990 6 Facsimile: (949) 252-9991 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jane BWN Doe 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, HAYWARD HALL OF JUSTICE 10 11 JANE BWN DOE, an individual, Case No. 22CV006012 MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 Plaintiff, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO: JUDGE JULIA SPAIN 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 v. DEPARTMENT 520 Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 DOE 1, a California local public entity; DOE DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J. 2, an individual; and DOES 3 to 100, NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S 15 inclusive, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DESIGNATE PRESENT CASE AND 16 Defendant. RELATED CASES AS “COMPLEX” PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES 17 OF COURT, RULE 3.400 et seq. 18 [Filed Concurrently with the Motion to Designate Complex and [Proposed] Order] 19 Date: February 17, 2023 20 Time: 2:00 p.m. Dept.: 520 21 Reservation No.: A-06012-003 22 Action Filed: June 15, 2021 23 Trial Date: May 5, 2023 24 DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN 25 I, CRISTINA J. NOLAN, hereby declare as follows: 26 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law before all the Courts of the 27 State of California. 28 1 DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DESIGNATE PRESENT CASE AND RELATED CASES AS “COMPLEX” PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.400 et seq. 1 2. I am an attorney with the law firm of MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI, attorneys 2 of record for 2 Plaintiffs in the following matters: 3 i. JANE BHJ DOE v. DOE 11, et al., Case No. 21CV001771 (filed November 4 4, 2021); 5 ii. JANE BWN DOE v. DOE 1, et al., Case No. 22CV006012 (filed January 6 25, 2022). 7 3. I am also aware of the following additional case filed by the law firm of WINER, 8 BURRITT, & SCOTT, LLP, representing a total of 8 Plaintiffs: 9 i. Rachel Phillips, et al. v. DOE 12, et al., Case No. RG21104054 (filed June 10 15, 2021) ("Rachel Phillips matter"). 11 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Jane BWN MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 Doe's operative complaint. 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 5. I have reviewed the file in this matter and I am aware of the facts and procedural Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 history of this case. 15 6. In each of the collective cases where appearances have been made, the following 16 represent the number of Defense law firms involved: 17 ii. Defendant DOE 1 is represented by one firm: SPINELLI DONALD NOTT; 18 iii. Defendant DOE 2 is represented by BLEDSOE, DIESTEL, TREPPA & 19 CRANE LLP 20 7. The following procedural history has taken place amongst the three related actions: 21 i. RACHEL PHILLIPS CASE: 22 a. DOE 1 filed a Demurrer to the Complaint and Motion to Strike. 23 b. On or about April 28, 2022, DOE 1 removed the case to Federal 24 Court. On or about May 23, 2022, Plaintiff Rachel Phillip filed a 25 1 26 The Jane BHJ Doe matter names both Doe 1 and Doe 2 by their true name. However, given the instant matter must name the defendants as "does" at this time, Plaintiff shall utilize the pseudonym of Defendants Doe 1 and Doe 2. 27 2 The Rachel Phillips matter names both Doe 1 and Doe 2 by their true name. However, given the instant matter must name the 28 defendants as "does" at this time, Plaintiff shall utilize the pseudonym of Defendants Doe 1 and Doe 2. 2 DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DESIGNATE PRESENT CASE AND RELATED CASES AS “COMPLEX” PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.400 et seq. 1 Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint to add 2 seven additional plaintiffs. On or about August 5, 2022, the District 3 Court granted Plaintiff Rachel Phillip’s Motion and remanded the 4 case back to this Court. 5 ii. JANE BHJ DOE CASE: 6 a. DOE 1 filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike, which was heard on 7 June 29, 2022. No amended complaint was filed by Plaintiff Jane 8 BHJ Doe. DOE 1 answered in or around September 1, 2022. DOE 2 9 answered on February 7, 2022. 10 iii. JANE BWN DOE CASE: 11 a. Defendant DOE 1 filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike, which MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 were heard on or around June 17, 2022. Subsequently, Plaintiff Jane 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 BWN Doe filed a First Amended Complaint on July 1, 2022. DOE Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 1 answered in or around July 25, 2022. DOE 2 answered in or 15 around August 5, 2022. 16 8. In addition to the foregoing pleading challenges, there have been discovery and 17 other relevant motions, including but not limited to: 18 i. Plaintiff Jane BHJ Doe's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request 19 for Production of Documents, Set One; 20 ii. Plaintiff Jane BHJ Doe's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special 21 Interrogatories, Set One; 22 iii. Plaintiff Rachel Phillips filed her Motion to Compel Further Responses and 23 Documents; 24 9. As shown above, there have been multiple discovery disputes and motions in the 25 Jane BHJ Doe matter, still at issue in these matters: 26 i. On January 21, 2022, Plaintiff Jane BHJ Doe served her first set of Special 27 Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, to 28 Defendant DOE 1. A true and correct copy of the Special Interrogatories, 3 DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DESIGNATE PRESENT CASE AND RELATED CASES AS “COMPLEX” PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.400 et seq. 1 Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, are attached 2 hereto as Exhibit B and C, respectively. 3 ii. On March 28, 2022, Plaintiff Jane BHJ Doe received Defendant DOE 1’s 4 responses to these Special Interrogatories, Set One. A true and correct copy 5 of these responses is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 6 iii. DOE 1 refused to supplement its responses following multiple attempts to 7 meet and confer by Jane BHJ Doe. 8 iv. The parties held an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) on June 8, 9 2022. At the IDC, the following topics were discussed: (1) whether Plaintiff 10 was entitled to information and documentation pertaining to DOE 2 during 11 his entire employment with DOE 1; (2) whether Plaintiff was entitled to MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 information and documentation pertaining to other claims of misconduct 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 within DOE 1; (3) privacy issues concerning DOE 2’s personnel file; and Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 (4) Plaintiff’s request for yearbooks. During the IDC, the Court 15 acknowledged there was relevancy to Plaintiff obtaining information and 16 documentation pertaining to DOE 2 during his entire employment within 17 DOE 1, as that is pattern and practice discovery. Regarding the request for 18 information and documentation pertaining to other claims, the Court 19 believed depending on the phrasing, the request(s) may be too overbroad 20 and should be narrowed. As to DOE 2’s personnel file, the Court found a 21 reasonable solution would be for all parties to agree to a stipulated 22 protective order. The Court offered the parties to the opportunity to draft a 23 stipulation and order reflecting the conversation and agreements made at the 24 IDC, to which both parties agreed. Subsequently, DOE 1’s counsel reneged 25 on the agreement, forcing Plaintiff Jane BHJ Doe to file a Motion to 26 Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set 27 One, and a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, 28 Set One. 4 DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DESIGNATE PRESENT CASE AND RELATED CASES AS “COMPLEX” PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.400 et seq. 1 v. On October 13, 2022, the Court ordered the parties to further meet and 2 confer with a court reporter present, which was completed on October 27, 3 2022 and November 3, 2022. 4 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Rachel Phillips matter has also had 5 several discovery disputes with DOE 1. 6 11. At this juncture, Plaintiffs have identified several victims, witnesses, percipients 7 and those with knowledge that are material to the ongoing litigation process: 8 i. 10 Plaintiffs testimony (in each of the 3 cases): Plaintiffs JANE BHJ DOE, 9 JANE BWN DOE, RACHEL PHILLIPS, JANE AB DOE, JANE TB DOE, 10 JANE SF DOE, ESTHER HEALEY, JANE MK DOE, JANE LR DOE, and 11 JANE DY DOE. MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 ii. Currently known DOE 1 employees and administrative personnel, with 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 Anticipated Percipient Testimony (in each of the 3 cases): Amy Frey, Matt Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 Huxley, Felicia Phillips, Toni Coleman, Kristin Glenchur, Principal Slemp, 15 Ashley Milton, Brent Stephens, Delia Ruiz, Evelyn Tamondong-Bradley, 16 Sam Pasarow, Erin Schweng, Stephen Jimenez-Robb, Mary Keating, 17 Samantha Tobias-Espinosa, Rhonda Cervantes, Brenda Bertram, Ms. 18 Delaney, Ms. Katz, Mr. Lee, Angela Coppola, Kingman Lim, Justin 19 Carraway. It is expected through further discovery that there will be many 20 more percipient witnesses discovered and testimony will be required. 21 iii. Plaintiff expects there will be numerous former students with anticipated 22 percipient testimony. Currently unknown as to the exact number of 23 expected testimony. 24 iv. 20 Individual Anticipated Expert Testimony (in each of the 3 cases): An 25 estimated 5-10 experts to be engaged by the collective Plaintiffs; estimated 26 5-10 experts to be engaged by Defendants. 27 12. Plaintiff's matter is related to two other matters that have been consolidated: 28 Plaintiff Jane BHJ Doe matter and Rachel Phillips matter, against Defendants DOE 5 DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DESIGNATE PRESENT CASE AND RELATED CASES AS “COMPLEX” PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.400 et seq. 1 1 and DOE 2. In or around September 2022, DOE 1 filed a Motion to Consolidate 2 and Coordinate Actions for the Limited Purpose of Discovery and Pretrial Case 3 Management Only, requesting consolidation of the three aforementioned cases. 4 Subsequently, on October 6, 2022, the Court, on its own motion, consolidated only 5 Phillips v. DOE 1and Jane BHJ Doe v. Berkeley Unified School District, and 6 vacated DOE 1’s pending motion as moot. A true and correct copy of the Court's 7 Order is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 8 13. Assuming that all of the cases are not reasonably consolidated as complex, the 9 identified witnesses may have to testify more than once, in each of the cases. 10 14. In light of the contentious discovery disputes, it is in parties' best interest to be 11 reassigned to the complex department for increased judicial supervision and MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 adherence to procedure. 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was signed on January 9, 2023 in Irvine, 15 California. 16 17 ___________________________________ Cristina J. Nolan 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DESIGNATE PRESENT CASE AND RELATED CASES AS “COMPLEX” PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.400 et seq. EXHIBIT "A" 1 MORGAN A. STEWART (State Bar No. 209852) mstewart@manlystewart.com 2 SAUL E. WOLF (State Bar No. 244833) swolf@manlystewart.com 3 CRISTINA J. NOLAN (State Bar No. 318495) cnolan@manlystewart.com 4 MANLY STEWART FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 5 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252-9990 6 Facsimile: (949) 252-9991 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10 11 JANE BWN DOE, an individual; Case No.: 22CV006012 12 Plaintiff, Assigned for All Purposes to: Judge: Hon. Julia Spain 13 v. Dept.: 520 14 DOE 1, a California local public entity; DOE 2, an individual; and DOES 3 to 100, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR Electronically Received 07/01/2022 02:07 PM 15 inclusive. DAMAGES FOR: 16 Defendants. 1. NEGLIGENCE; 2. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION; 17 3. NEGLIGENT HIRING/RETENTION; 18 4. ASSAULT 5. SEXUAL BATTERY (C.C. § 1708.5); 19 6. GENDER VIOLENCE (C.C. § 52.4) 20 [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL] 21 [Filed pursuant to AB 218[C.C.P. §340.1]] 22 23 COMES NOW, Plaintiff JANE BWN DOE, an individual who for her First Amended 24 Complaint, complains and alleges as follows: 25 INTRODUCTION 26 1. The instant action involves the sexual predation of former DOE 1 employee and teacher, 27 DOE 2 (“DOE 2”). 28 2. DOE 2 is alleged to have abused several minors during his time as a teacher, coach, and 1 _______________________________________________________________________________ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 employee of institutions, including DOE 1. 2 3. Upon learning of sexual misconduct directed towards minor students, DOE 1 failed to 3 comply with their legal and statutory duties to report DOE 2. 4 4. DOE 1 employee and Administrators, chose to move DOE 2 within the school district 5 upon an investigation and report of sexual misconduct, effectively “passing the trash” within the 6 District, in a concerted effort to hide DOE 2’s sexual abusive crimes against minors. 7 5. DOE 1’s negligent and intentional acts were a primary cause of the sexual abuse of the 8 minor Plaintiff herein. 9 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE PARTIES 10 6. Plaintiff JANE BWN DOE, an individual (hereinafter “JANE BWN DOE” and/or 11 “Plaintiff”) is a resident of the County of Contra Costa, State of California and was a resident of 12 the County of Alameda at the time of the abuse alleged herein. The name used by JANE BWN 13 DOE in this Complaint is not the actual name of JANE BWN DOE, but is a fictitious name 14 utilized to protect the privacy of JANE BWN DOE, a victim of childhood sexual harassment, 15 molestation and abuse. Plaintiff JANE BWN DOE is a female, born December, 1981, and was a 16 minor during the time of the sexual misconduct alleged herein. Beginning in approximately 1997 17 and continuing thereafter, Plaintiff was sexually harassed, assaulted and abused by Berkeley High 18 School teacher, DOE 2, former employee and agent of Defendant DOE 1 (“DOE 1”) and Berkeley 19 High School. 20 7. The Plaintiff’s claims all arise out of sexual abuse and sexual assault claims that occurred 21 during the time periods of approximately 1997-1998. In 2019, the California State legislature 22 enacted Assembly Bill No. 281, which was signed by the Governor on October 13, 2019. This 23 law, as enacted, went into effect on January 1, 2020. Among other things, this law amended 24 statutory code sections Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1; Code of Civil Procedure section 25 1002 and Government Code section 905. 26 8. The amendments, among other things, extended the statute of limitations for childhood 27 sexual assault, inclusive of claims against persons or entities who owed duties of care to Plaintiff, 28 premised upon wrongful or negligent acts by those persons or entities. 2 _______________________________________________________________________________ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 9. As amended, Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1(q), further provides: Notwithstanding 2 any other provision of law, any claim for damages described in paragraphs (1) through (3), 3 inclusive, of subdivision (a) that has not been litigated to finality and that would otherwise be 4 barred as of January 1, 2020, because the applicable statute of limitations, claim presentation 5 deadline, or any other time limit had expired, is revived, and these claims may be commenced 6 within three years of January 1, 2020. A plaintiff shall have the later of the three-year time period 7 under this subdivision or the time period under subdivision (a) as amended by the act that added 8 this subdivision. 9 10. As amended, Government Code section 905(m), exempts out any requirement that a 10 Plaintiff asserting a claim for the recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual 11 assault make a government tort claim prior to filing litiga