Motion for Writ in MARLENE GARCIA ET AL VS ROBERT J OWIECKI ET AL| Trellis.Law

On October 11, 2017 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Garcia Marlene, and Owiecki Robert J., Whittier City School District, for civil in the District Court of Los Angeles County.

Preview
in Forma Pauperis (CRC 3.50, et seq.) per
WAIVE:
‘Amount recoverable pursuant to GC-§88637
Plus a one time administrative
fee upon jud Lie
Teresa Li (Bar No. Paty popomes ‘a judgment creditor (GC 56103. 5, 68638) _
teresa@lawofficesoftéresali.com a
LAW OFFICES OF TERESA LI, PC rior Court of Californi
Su county of Las Anaeles
6701 Koll Center Parkway Suite 250
Pleasanton, California 94566
Telephone: 415.423.3377 OCT 11 2017
Facsimile 888.646.5493 SherriR. xecutive Officer/Clerk
By. Depuy
Attorneys for Plaintiffs fen
MARLENE GARCIA and J.J

FSC: 03/ 271 2019 TRIAL: 04 / 117 2019 ago. 10

8
13 219

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

QE10
11
pc679114
MARLENE GARCIA, and J.J., a minor, by Case No.
and through his guardian ad litem,
12 MARLENE GARCIA.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
13 Plaintiffs.
14 Vv.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
15 ROBERT J. OWIECKI, WHITTIER CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT, and DOES 1-20
16

17
Defendants
By Fax
18 Plaintiffs MARLENE GARCIA and J.J., a minor by and through his guardian ad litem
19 MARLENE GARCIA allege as follows:

20 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

21 1 The Plaintiffs reside in Whittier, CA 90606, in the County of Los Angeles within
22 the State of California. PlaintiffJ.J. was born on August 2, 2004

23 2 During all relevant time, the alleged injuries occurred in the County of Los
24 Angeles within the State of California

25 3 Defendant WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT is a public entity duly
26 incorporated and operating under California law.

27 4 Defendant ROBERT J. OWIECKI, aka Coach Bob is an Adapted Physical
28

or COMPLAINT
po
@ e
Education teacher at WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. All actions alleged herein by

OWIECKI were taken in the course and scope of his employment with WHITTIER CITY

SCHOOL DISTRICT.
5 Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities of those Defendants sued

herein as DOES 1-20, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names.

Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of said Defendants,

when the same have been ascertained, together with such other charging allegations as may be

appropriate.

6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that each Defendant
10 designated as a DOE is responsible, negligently or in some other actionable manner, for the
11 events and happenings hereafter referred to, anc caused injuries and damages proximately thereby
12 to plaintiffs, as hereinafter alleged, either through said defendants’ own negligent conduct, or
13 through the conduct of their agents, servants or employees, or in some other manner as yet
14 unknown.
7
15 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that at all times
16 mentioned herein, defendants and each of them, were the agents, servants, employees,

17 independent contractors and/or joint venturers of their co-defendants and were, as such, acting

18 within the scope, course and authority of said agency, employment, contract, and/or joint venture,

19 or acting in the concert, and that each and every defendant, as aforesaid, when acting as a
20 principal, was negligent in the selection, hiring, training, control, and supervision of each and
21 every other defendant as an agent, servant, employee, independent contractor and/or joint venture.
22 8 At some or all relevant herein, eazh Defendant was the agent of each other

23 defendant, each Defendant was acting within the court and scope of that agency, each Defendant
24 ratified the conduct of the other Defendants with actual and/or constructive knowledge of such
25 conduct, and each Defendant was subject to and under the supervision of the other defendant.
26 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
re 27 9 Plaintiffs have complied with the claim presentation requirements of the California
wer 28
he
os 22
bed
ee COMPLAINT
@ @
Government Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seg. WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL

DISTRICT denied Plaintiffs’ claim on April 19, 2017.

10. Plaintiff J.J. was born on August 2, 2004. Plaintiff MARLENE GARCIA is his

biological mother and has full custody of him. Plaintiff MARLENE GARCIA holds his

education rights.
ll. J.J. has been diagnosed with Down Syndrome and has been eligible for special

education at WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT since July 2007. J.J. has intellectual

disability that requires increased staff to student ratio with intensive and direct supervision and

instruction in the classroom and during specially planned participation in general education
10 classes, as well as an alternate curriculum not taught in the general education program.
ll 12. J.J. has significant speech delays and can barely speak.
12 13. Before Defendant OWIECKI became Plaintiff's J.J.’s adapted physical education
13 teacher, Plaintiff J.J. was succeeding in his physical education class in Wallen Andrews
14 Elementary School. Plaintiff J.J. was able to meet both of his gross motor skill goals there as
15 documented in his 2015 Individualized Education Program (“IEP”).
16 14. In December 2015, Plaintiff J.J. was transferred to Katherine Edwards Middle
17 School and Defendant OWIECKI became J.J.’s adapted physical education teacher. Since then,
18 Defendant OWIECKI has subjected J.J. to ongoing verbal, psychological, and physical abuse. He
19 often intentionally triggered J.J. in order to having him to act out.
20 15. Since Defendant OWIECKI’s presence, Plaintiff
J.J. had refused to eat much at

21 home and had been afraid of going to physical education class. The schoolteacher told Plaintiff
22 MARLENE GARCIA that Plaintiff
J.J. was refusing P.E.
23 16. As a result of Defendant OWIECKI’s abuse, Plaintiff J.J. could not meet either of

24 his gross motor skill goals for the 2015-2016 year, as documented in his 2016 IEP.
25 17. On December 8, 2016 around noon, Plaintiff J.J. refused to attend Defendant
26 OWIECKI’s physical education class. At the time, Mora Beatriz, an aide employed by Defendant
ee
oe
27 WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, was looking after J.J.. Defendant OWIECKI asked
re 28
re
oy 3
COMPLAINT
@ @
Beatriz to leave so that he could be alone with Plaintiff J.J. After Beatriz left, Defendant

OWIECKI started abusing J.J. In response, J.J. ran out the room and Defendant OWIECKI

chased after him. Defendant OWIECKI then started physically abusing J.J. in the hallway by

pushing J.J. to the ground, stepping on J.J.’s face, and repeatedly twisting his foot on J.J.’s eye

back and forth. J.J. screamed out for help.

18. Beatriz heard J.J.’s screaming and wanted to look to see what happened. But

Defendant OWIECKI stopped her and said: “I don’t want anyone over there. Stay here. [J.J.] is

having a tantrum.”

19. After Defendant OWIECKI left, Plaintiff J.J. continued to cry for another 30
10 minutes.
11 20. After the physical education class was over, Beatriz was able to send Plaintiff J.J.
12 to the school health office. On the way there, Plaintiff J.J. repeatedly said to Beatriz, “Coach Bob
13 kicked me out.”
14 21. None of the employees of Defendant WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
15 contacted the police or Plaintiff's J.J.’s mother MARLENE GARCIA about the abuse. None of
16 the employees of Defendant WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT sent Plaintiff J.J. to any
17 hospital or clinic or called ambulance. In fact, they tried to cover up the abuse by giving J.J. ice
18 pack for the next two hours without any medical attention, hoping that by the time J.J.’s mother
19 showed up, J.J. would look better for his mother.
20 22. When Plaintiff MARLENE GARCIA finally showed up at her normal time to pick
21 up her son from school, about two hours after the abuse, the Vice Principal tried to cover the

22 abuse by refusing to allow Plaintiff MARLENE GARCIA to see her son.
23 23. After repeatedly demanding to see her son, Plaintiff MARLENE GARCIA was
24 finally allowed to see J.J.. She saw her son’s right eye being purple and swollen with red blood
25 vessels broken around his right eye and cheek area.
26 24. Plaintiff MARLENE GARCIA asked why the police was not called, and the Vice
pew 27 Principal said: “We are trying to get to the bottom of it. We contacted the district.”
os
er 28
ter
4
Bee
eS COMPLAINT
ee
@ @
25. Plaintiff MARLENE GARCIA immediately called the police and ambulance.
b
26. There is a criminal child abuse case pending against Defendant OWIECKI for the

incident.

27. In addition to physically, verbally, and emotionally abusing J.J., J.J. was denied

free appropriate public education (“FAPE”).

28. On information and belief, employees of Defendant WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL

DISTRICT observed or had knowledge that students of OWIECKI were subject to an unhealthy

educational environment, which included verbal, psychological, and physical abuse.

29. On information and belief, employees of WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
10 had knowledge of information giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that OWIECKI had
11 committed acts of abuse or neglect as defined by Penal Code §11165.3 against students in his
12 class. Each of these employees were mandated reporters as defined by Penal Code § 11165.7 but
13 did not report the abuse or neglect to an agency defined in Penal Code § 11165.9.
14 30. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL
15 DISTRICT’s training of its employees was woefully inadequate. The aides were unaware that
16 they were mandated reporters under state law. Internal reporting was also discouraged.
17 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
18 VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
19 (J.J. Against Defendant OWIECK])

20 31. Plaintiffs refer to paragraph 1-30 above and incorporate them into this cause of
21 action as though fully set forth herein.
22 32. Defendant OWIECKI violated Plaintiff J.J.’s rights under the Fourth Amendment
23 and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by actions, including but not limited
24 to utilizing unjustified and unreasonable force against him, including but not limited to, acting
25 with deliberate indifference to the risk of harm to Plaintiff from Defendant OWIECKI.
26 33, As a proximate result of the violation alleged hereinabove, Plaintiffs have suffered
27 damages as heretofore alleged.
be 28
ew
me 5
oe COMPLAINT
fer
@
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT

(J.J. Against WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT)

34. Plaintiffs refer to paragraph 1-33 above and incorporate them into this cause of

action as though fully set forth herein.

35. Effective since July 2007, Plaintiff J.J. was entitled to the protective of the “Public

Services” provision of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Title II, Subpart A

prohibits discrimination by any “public entity,” including any state or local government, as

defined by 42 U.S.C. § 12131, Section 201 of the ADA.
10 36. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12132, Section 202 of Title II, no qualified individual with
11 a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the
12 benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination
13 by any such entity. Plaintiff J.J. was at all times relevant herein a qualified individual with a
14 disability as therein defined.

15 37. WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT has failed in its responsibilities under
16 Title II to provide its services, programs, and activities in a full and equal manner to disabled
17 persons as described hereinabove, including failing to ensure that educational services are
18 provided on an equal basis to children with disabilities and free of hostility toward their disability.
19 38. WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT has further failed in its responsibilities
20 under Title II to provide its services, programs and activities in a full and equal manner to
21 disabled persons as described hereinabove by subjecting Plaintiff J.J. to a hostile education
22 environment.
23 39. WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT’s employees were deliberately indifferent
24 to the abuse committed by Defendant OWIECKI. The deliberate indifference by the employees
25 gives rise to respondeat superior liability of WHITTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
26 40. As a result of WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT’s failure to comply with its
wes 27
ae duty under Title II, Plaintiff J.J. has suffered damages including special and general damages
te
pene 28
ew
6
ge COMPLAINT
per
Hy
according to proof.

41. A violation of the ADA is, by statutory definition, a violation of both the Unruh

Civil Rights Act (“Unruh”) and the California Disabled Persons Act (“DPA”). Cal. Civ. Code §§
51(f), 54.1(d).
42. Plaintiff is not required to prove that the discrimination was intentional when

seeking damages for ADA violations under the Unruh Act.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF § 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973

(Plaintiff
J.J. Against WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT)
10 43. Plaintiffs refer to paragraph 1-42 above-and incorporate them into this cause of
ll action as though fully set forth herein.
12 44. Plaintiff J.J. is informed and believes and thereon alleges that WHITTIER CITY
13 SCHOOL DISTRICT is and has been at all relevant times the recipient of federal financial
14 assistance, and that part of that financial assistance has been used to fund the operations,
15 construction and/or maintenance of the specific public facilities described herein and the activities
16 that take place therein.
17 45. By their actions or inactions in denying equal access to educational services and by
18 subjecting Plaintiff J.J. to a hostile educational environment, Defendant has violated Plaintiff's
19 rights under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the regulations
20 promulgated thereunder.
21 46. The U.S. Department of Education's § 504 regulations require recipients of federal
22 funds to “provide a free appropriate public education to each qualified handicapped person,” and
23 define “appropriate education” “regular or special education and related aids and services
24 that . . . are designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped persons as adequately
25 as the needs of nonhandicapped persons are met.” 34 C.F.R. § 104.33 (a)(b)
26 47. Section 504 allows students who are denied meaningful access to state educational
few 27
eh
benefits to seek “the full panoply of remedies, including equitable relief and [compensatory]
few 28
per
7

pe COMPLAINT
@ @
damages.” MarkH. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922, 938 (9th Cir. 2008). A school district that fails to

provide meaningful access to public education to disabled students is thereby liable in damages.

Mark H. v. Hamamoto, 620 F.3d 1090, 1097 (9th Cir. 2010)

48. Plaintiff J.J. was denied meaningful access to a public education as compared to

nondisabled persons. The denial of meaningful access occurred as the result of several factors.

Defendants failed to implement J.J.’s IEPs as designed, failed to implement reasonable

accommodations for his disabilities by failing to provide instruction designed to meet his
4
individualized educational needs necessary to overcome his disabilities, and failed to provide

instruction consistent with the district curriculum provided to nondisabled students. OWIECKI,
10 WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and its administrators were deliberately indifferent to
ll this discrimination and failure to accommodate, thereby violating DOE's regulations and denying
12 FAPE to J.J.
13 49. As a result of WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT’s failure to comply with its
14 duty under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the regulations
1S promulgated thereunder, Plaintiff J.J. has suffered damages including special and general
16 damages according to proof.
17 50. WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT is vicariously liable for the actions or
18 inactions of its employees who were deliberately indifferent to the abuse committed by

19 OWIECKI. They had actual knowledge of the hostile conditions in the classtoom, knew that

20 OWIECKI was likely to continue abusing J.J. and other disabled children, but failed to act upon it.
21 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1
23 (Plaintiff J.J. Against OWIECKI and WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT)

24 Sl. Plaintiffs refer to paragraph 1-50 above and incorporate them into this cause of
25 action as though fully set forth herein.
26 52. The actions of Defendant OWIECKI, as alleged herein, constituted interference
be 27 with Plaintiff's rights under the Constitution and laws of the state of California by threats,
oS
ee 28
he
8
ee COMPLAINT
pe
Hs
@ @
intimidation, and/or coercion in violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1. Defendant OWIECKI abused

the minor Plaintiff physically, verbally, and emotionally. J.J. stopped trusting his parent who

brought him into the abusive environment, which interfered with the child-parent relationship

between the parent Plaintiffs and minor Plaintiff.

53. J.J. lived in constant fear of OWIECKI because he threatened and physically

abused him.

54, WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT is vicariously liable for the acts of

OWIECKI committed during the course and scope of his employment.

55. Asa proximate result of Defendant OWIECKI’s violation of § 52.1, minor
10 Plaintiff has suffered damages as alleged heretofore.
11 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12 BATTERY
13 (Plaintiff
J.J. Against OWIECKI)
14 56. Plaintiffs refer to paragraph 1-55 above and incorporate them into this cause of

15 action as though fully set forth herein.

16 57. The use of force, as alleged herein, by Defendant OWIECKI against Plaintiff J.J.
17 constituted a battery.
18 58. Asa proximate result of Defendant OWIECKI’s illegal battery, the minor Plaintiff
19 suffered damages as alleged heretofore.
20 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
21 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
22 (All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
23 59. Plaintiffs refer to paragraph 1-58 above and incorporate them into this cause of
24 action as though fully set forth herein.
25 60. The actions of Defendants as alleged herein were outrageous, malicious, and
26 intended to and did inflict emotional distress and humiliation upon Plaintiffs.
ee 27 61. WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT’s employees had a duty to inform the

fer 28
ew
g
bes
oF
re COMPLAINT
wy
parents after learning about the abuse and it was foreseeable that withholding the information

from the parents would cause more emotional distress than informing them in the first place.

62. Defendants’ conduct was intentional and outrageous in that after learning about the

abuse, Defendants tried to cover up the abuse. WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT is

vicariously liable for the acts of its employees under Cal. Gov. Code § 815.2.

63. As a proximate result of Defendants’ intentional acts, Plaintiffs have incurred

damages as alleged heretofore.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE
10 (All Plaintiffs vs. All Defendants)
ll 64. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege by reference all the foregoing paragraphs, as if
12 they were fully set forth herein.
13 65. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to exercise reasonable care in their interactions
14 with them. These Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in their actions as alleged herein.
15 66. As a proximate result of Defendants’ negligent acts, Plaintiffs have incurred
16 damages as alleged heretofore.
17 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION
19 (All Plaintiffs vs. All Defendants)
20 67. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege by reference all the foregoing paragraphs, as if
21 they were fully set forth herein.
22 68. Defendants owe students under their supervision a protective duty of ordinary care |
23 for breach of which WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT is vicariously liable.
24 69. Supervisory employees, to the extent their duties include overseeing the
25 educational environment and the performance of teachers and counselors, owe a duty of care to

26 take reasonable measures to guard students against harassment and abuse from foreseeable
re 27
se sources, including any teachers or counselors they know or have reason to know are prone to such
her 28
her
Bed 10
er COMPLAINT
@
abuse.

70. As a proximate result of Defendants’ negligent supervision of Defendant

OWIECKI, Plaintiffs have incurred damages as alleged heretofore.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(VIOLATION OF MANDATORY DUTY)

(Plaintiff J.J. v. All Defendants)

71. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege by reference all the foregoing paragraphs, as if

they were fully set forth herein.

72. Teachers, instructional aides, classified personnel and administrative officers of
10 the WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT are mandatory reporters as defined by Penal Code §
il 11165.7. As such, they were under a mandatory duty to report to an agency specified in § 11165.9
12 whenever, in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment, has
13 knowledge of or observes a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has
14 been the victim of child abuse or neglect. Penal Code § 11166. A mandatory reporter is required
15 to report suspected child abuse immediately or as soon as practicably possible by telephone and
16 the mandated reporter shall prepare and send, fax, or electronically transmit a written follow-up
17 report thereof within 36 hours. Jbid.
18 73. Teachers, instructional aides, classified personnel and/or administrative officers of
19 WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT were aware that children in OWJECKI’s class were
20 victims of abuse as defined by Penal Code §§ 11165.3 and 11165.4. However, none of these
21 mandatory reporters employed by the school or WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
22 complied with their duty to report the abuse to an agency specified in Penal Code § 11165.9.
23 74. Obviously, the mandatory reporter statutes impose a mandatory duty to report
24 suspected or actual child abuse. Furthermore, the statutes were enacted to protect minors from
25 abuse such as the one suffered by the minor Plaintiff in this case, and the breach in complying
26 with the mandatory duty to report caused the minor Plaintiff's injuries.
er 27 75. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have incurred damages as
fer 28
fev
11
re COMPLAINT
@
alleged heretofore.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, CIVIL CODE SECTION 51, ET

SEQ.;
(All Plaintiffs vs. All Defendants)

76. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege by reference all the foregoing paragraphs, as if

they were fully set forth herein.

77. The Unruh Civil Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq., provides that all persons are

entitled to full and equal services in all business establishments no matter what their, inter alia,

10 disability, and that no business establishment shall discriminate against persons based on

ll disability.

12 78. Civil Code § 52(a) state that whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any

13 discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51 .. . is liable for each and every offense.

14 79. J.J., based on his disabilities, was deprived of advantages, privileges and services

15 of his school. WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and its staff were aware of this

16 discrimination, which was intentional. OWJECKI exhibited disdain and contempt toward his

17 special needs students, especially J.J., and his actions were motivated by his hatred.

18 80. The abuse by OWIECKI caused minor Plaintiff severe psychological and physical

19 trauma.

20 81. Parent Plaintiff have also suffered severe psychological distress because she could

21 not protect her child from the abuse, or provide support, treatment and counseling at a time that it

22 was needed the most.

23 82. WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and their officials and employees were

24 aware of the abuse perpetrated by OWIECKI and did nothing to prevent it, which constitutes

25 willful and affirmative misconduct.

26 83. AS a proximate result of Defendants’ negligent supervision of Defendant

er 27 OWIECKI, Plaintiffs have incurred damages as alleged heretofore.
her 28 84. A violation of the ADA is, by statutory definition, a violation of both the Unruh
er
12
COMPLAINT
rev
Se
@
Civil Rights Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f).

85. Plaintiffs are not required to prove that the discrimination was intentional when

seeking damages for ADA violations under the Unruh Act.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF EDUCATION CODE § 220

(J.J. vs. WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT)
86. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege by reference all the foregoing paragraphs, as if

they were fully set forth herein.

87. Section 220 of the Education Code provides: “[n]o person shall be subjected to

10 discrimination on the basis of disability....in any program or activity conducted by an educational

ll institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive

12 state student financial aid.”

13 88. A plaintiff may maintain an action for monetary damages against a county office

14 of education when the plaintiff alleges that he suffered severe, pervasive conduct that effectively

15 deprived the plaintiff of the right of equal access to educational benefits and opportunities; the

16 county office had actual knowledge of the conduct; and it responded with deliberate indifference.

17 89. OWIECKI subjected Plaintiff J.J. to severe and pervasive verbal and physical

18 abuse.

19 90. OWIECKI’s conduct denied Plaintiff J.J. of the right to equal access to the

20 educational benefits and opportunities (minor Plaintiff regressed developmentally while in

21 OWIECKI’s classroom, and started exhibiting uncharacteristic problem behaviors).

22 91. WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT thought its employees had knowledge of

23 OWIECKI’s abuse of special education students. WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT was

24 deliberately indifferent to the abuse when they took no action to prevent the abuse.

25 PRAYER

26 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, each of them, as follows:

27 1 For general and noneconomic damages according to proof;

me 28 2 For special and economic damages according to proof;
ey
13
COMPLAINT
RY
mH
@ @
For costs of suit;

For attorneys’ fees as allowed by law;

Punitive damages against Defendant OWIECKI

Pre-judgment interest; and

For such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: October 10, 2017 LAW OFFICES OF TERESA LI, PC

TerdsaLi
CXC
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MARLENE GARCIA and J.J.
11

16
17

26
21

wx 27
Gr
rv 28
14

ee COMPLAINT
7
we .
CM-010
L_ATORNEY PF CRED NO" OFRYFIQHNEY Nome, Slate Bor number, and adress): FOR COURT USE ONLY
LAW OFFICES OF TERESA LI, PC
6701 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 250
Pleasanton, California 94566 Suj rior Court of California
‘TELEPHONE NO: 415.423.3377 888.046.5493 ounty of Las Anaeles
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintitts MARLENE GARCA and JJ.
JSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIL COUNTY, LOS ANGELES OCT 11 amt
‘STREET ADDRESS: . 1 North Hill Street
Sherri R. ive Officer/Clerk
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY ANO ZIP CODE: Los Angeles, CA YUUL2Z Deputy
_ Stanley Mosk Courthouse iden
BRANCH NAME:
CASE NAME:
Marlene Garcia and J.J. vs. Robert J. Owiecki, et al.
CASE NUMBER:
mc679114
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation
Unlimited [5 Limitea
(Amount (Amount O Counter (2) soinder
demanded lemanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant
JUDGE:
exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) opr:
items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).
1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation
Cj Auto (22) Breach of contractwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
Uninsured motorist (46) CJ
Rule 3.740 collections (09) O
Antitrus/Trade regulation (03)
Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/Property
Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort
CJ Other collections (09)
CJ Insurance coverage (18)
Construction defect (10)
Mass tort (40)
O
Asbestos (04) CI Other contract (37) Securities litigation (28)
Product liability (24) Real Property Environmental/T oxic tort (30)
Medical malpractice (45) Eminent domain/inverse Insurance coverage claims arising from the
Other PPDIWD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case
Non-Pl/PD/WD (Other) Tort CI Wrongful eviction (33) types (41)
Business tor¥unfair business practice (07) Co Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment
Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer Enforcement of judgment (20)
Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Misceilaneous Civil Complaint
Fraud (16) Residential (32) RICO (27)
Intellectual property (19) Drugs (38) Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition
Other non-PI/PD/WD tort (35) Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21)
Employment Petition re: arbitration award (11)
[J other petition (not specified above) (43)
Wrongful termination (36) (1 writ of mandate (02)
Other employment (15) C1 other judicial review (39)
This case L_Jis is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
a. CO Large number of separately represented parties d. oO Large number of witnesses
b. OO Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Oo Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
c. Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. CC Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. monetary b. nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief punitive
4. Number of causes of action (specify): Eleven (11)
5. This case is is not acclass action suit.
6. if there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may vse form CM-015.)
Date: October 10, 2017
Teresa Li, Esq.
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) I TORE OF PART) ATTORN! FOR PARTY)
NOTICE
« Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except smal (ctaimeZases or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result
4ii sanctions.
° ‘Pile this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.
¢,Jfthis case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
yother parties to the action or proceeding.
. (Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. .
rage 1 of 2
Forrrddopted for Mandatory Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal, Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740;
‘Judicial Council of California Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, sid. 3.10
(CM010 (Rev. July 1, 2007}, www courtinfo.ca.gov
@ @
"

CM-010
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET
To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must
complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile
Statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check
one box for the case type that best describes the case. !f the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1,
check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action.
To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover
sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party,
its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court.
To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money
owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in
which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort
damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of
attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general
time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections
case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740.
To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the
case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by
completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the
complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the
plaintiff's designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that
the case is complex.
CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal.
‘Auto (22)-Personal Injury/Property Breach of Contrac

Case Info

Judge

Jon R. Takasugi Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 11, 2017

Case Filing Date

October 11, 2017

County

Parties

BALABAN DANIEL Attorney For Plaintiff
BAUERMEISTER LINDA Attorneys for Defendants
BAUERMEISTER LINDA S. Attorneys for Defendants
DANFORTH SCOTT DALE Attorneys for Defendants
GARCIA MARLENE Plaintiff
KOSTRENICH ROBERT STEPHEN Attorneys for Defendants
LI TERESA Attorneys for Plaintiffs
OWIECKI ROBERT J. Defendant
WADLINGTON MARLON CRAIG Attorneys for Defendants
WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Defendant
Omar Subat Attorneys for Defendants
Andrew Spielberger Attorney
Kahren Harutyunyan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Vanessa Loftus-Brewer Attorneys for Plaintiffs
David Ribeiro Attorney
Xiong Zhou Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: MARLENE GARCIA ET AL VS ROBERT J OWIECKI ET AL

Preview

Case Info

Parties