Preview
MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC
1 Ronald W. Makarem, Esq. (SB# 180442)
Alexis C. Hames, Esq. (SB# 327922)
2 Britland T. Kenworthy, Esq. (SB# pending)
3 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
Los Angeles, California, 90025
4 Phone: (310) 312-0299; Fax: (310) 312-0296
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Tatiyana Davis, Angela Howard, Abigail Instroza, Sydney Kline, Natasha
6
Lee, Vanessa Reed, Maria Sauceda, and Katerina Simmons
7
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
11
12 TATIYANA DAVIS, an individual; ANGELA Case No.
HOWARD, an individual; ABIGAIL
13 INOSTROZA, an individual; SYNDEY KLINE, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
an individual; NATASHA LEE, an individual;
14 VANESSA REED, an individual; MARIA 1. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN
SAUCEDA, an individual; and KATERINA
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
15 SIMMONS, an individual, CIVIL CODE 51.9;
16 Plaintiffs,
2. SEXUAL BATTERY IN
17 vs. VIOLATON OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL CODE 1708.5;
18 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY COLLEGE, INC., a
3. SEXUAL ASSAULT;
19 California Corporation, TREVOR DOYLE, an
individual, ARTHUR MARTINEZ, an
4. NEGLIGENCE;
20 individual; and DOES 1-20,
21 Defendants. 5. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
22
6. NEGLIGENT HIRING,
23 SUPERVISION, AND RETENTION;
24 7. SEX DISCRIMINATION &
HARASSMENT IN EDUCATIONAL
25 INSTITUTION.
26
27 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Plaintiffs TATIYANA DAVIS, ANGELA HOWARD, ABIGAIL INSTROZA, SYDNEY
2 KLINE, NATASHA LEE, VANESSA REED, MARIA SAUCEDA, AND KATERINA
3 SIMMONS complain and allege as follows:
4 PARTIES
5 1. Plaintiff TATIYANA DAVIS is an individual with her principal place of residence
6 in the County of Riverside, California, and attended San Joaquin Valley College, Inc. (“SJVC”)
7 from October 2022 to January 2024.
8 2. Plaintiff ANGELA HOWARD is an individual with her principal place of
9 residence in the County of Wake County, North Carolina, and attended SJVC from July 2021 to
10 October 2022.
11 3. Plaintiff ABIGAIL INSTROZA is an individual with her principal place of
12 residence in the County of Riverside, California, and attended SJVC from October 2022 to
13 January 2024.
14 4. Plaintiff SYDNEY KLINE is an individual with her principal place of residence in
15 the County of Orange, California, and attended SJVC from July 2021 to October 2022.
16 5. Plaintiff NATASHA LEE is an individual with her principal place of residence in
17 the County of San Diego, California, and attended SJVC from October 2022 to January 2024.
18 6. Plaintiff VANESSA REED is an individual with her principal place of residence in
19 the County of Riverside, California, and attended SJVC from July 2021 to October 2022.
20 7. Plaintiff MARIA SAUCEDA is an individual with her principal place of residence
21 in the County of Riverside, California, and attended SJVC from July 2021 to October 2022.
22 8. Plaintiff KATERINA SIMMONS is an individual with her principal place of
23 residence in the County of San Diego, California, and attended SJVC from October 2022 to
24 January 2024.
25 9. Defendant SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY COLLEGE, INC., (“SJVC”) was and is a
26 California corporation doing business in Los Angeles County. At all times relevant herein,
27 Defendant SJVC operated its business in Los Angeles County. At all relevant times, Defendant
28
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 SJVC regularly employed five or more employees in the State of California and was covered
2 under applicable State and Federal sexual harassment laws.
3 10. Defendant TREVOR DOYLE (“Doyle”) is an individual who, at all times relevant
4 herein, was a professor at Defendant SJVC and/or DOES 1-20.
5 11. Defendant ARTHUR MARTINEZ (“Martinez”) is an individual who, at all times
6 relevant herein, was the program director at Defendant SJVC and/or DOES 1-20.
7 12. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as
8 DOES 1-20, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will
9 amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are
10 informed and believes and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named defendants is
11 responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged.
12 13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times relevant to
13 this Complaint, all Defendants, including fictitiously named Defendants, were the agents, servants,
14 alter egos, affiliates, employers, principals and/or employees of each other and engaged in the
15 conduct alleged herein within the course, scope and authority of their respective capacities.
16 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17 14. Venue is proper in this Judicial District because Defendant San Joaquin Valley
18 College, Inc. was and is a California corporation doing business in Los Angeles County,
19 California and Defendants’ obligations under applicable laws and regulations were breached
20 principally in Los Angeles County.
21 15. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over this matter because Defendants
22 are residents of California and/or conduct business in California. No federal question is at issue as
23 the claims arise solely from California law.
24 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
25 16. Plaintiffs Tatiyana Davis, Angela Howard, Abigail Instroza, Sydney Kline, Natasha
26 Lee, Vanessa Reed, Maria Sauceda, and Katerina Simmons attended the surgical technology
27 program at San Joaquin Valley College (“SJVC”). During their time at SJVC, each Plaintiff was
28
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 subjected to sexual harassment and unwanted touching by their professor, Trevor Doyle
2 (“Defendant Doyle”).
3 17. At the time SJVC hired Defendant Doyle, SJVC, and specifically, the Program
4 Director, Arthur Martinez (“Defendant Program Director Martinez”), was aware that Defendant
5 Doyle was unfit to perform the work for which he was hired, as he had previously been accused of
6 sexual harassment during his prior employment. Defendant Program Director Martinez proceeded
7 to hire Defendant Doyle as an SJVC professor, despite being aware of Defendant Doyle’s
8 unfitness.
9 18. Several Plaintiffs, including Sydney Kline, Angela Howard, Vanessa Reed, and
10 Maria Sauceda, were students in Defendant Doyle’s class that began in July 2021 (“Cohort 6”).
11 Nearly every day he was around Plaintiffs, Defendant Doyle made discriminatory and harassing
12 comments to them, including but not limited to:
13 a. Defendant Doyle giving one Plaintiff the nickname “hall pass”;
14 b. Defendant Doyle showing one Plaintiff a photo of a woman with large breasts
15 in a bikini and telling her that she was one of his previous students;
16 c. Defendant Doyle referring to female students as “bitches”;
17 d. Defendant Doyle discussing his sex life in front of Plaintiffs;
18 e. Defendant Doyle making comments such as “damn” as he stared at his female
19 students’ bodies while they walked by or were bent over;
20 f. Defendant Doyle asking several Plaintiffs to go to drinks with him multiple
21 times;
22 g. Defendant Doyle commenting on several Plaintiffs’ appearances and what they
23 were wearing;
24 h. Defendant Doyle stating that he wanted to celebrate his new job by getting a
25 hotel room for the several Plaintiffs in San Diego, going out for drinks, and
26 doing cocaine;
27 i. Defendant Doyle talking about the size of one Plaintiffs’ breasts and how he
28 would be “all over that” if she were not in a relationship;
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 j. Defendant Doyle pulling a Plaintiff aside and telling her he could not take his
2 eyes off her breasts bouncing in class;
3 19. In addition to this sampling of Defendant Doyle’s inappropriate comments to
4 Plaintiffs, Defendant Doyle also touched Plaintiffs without their consent. Examples include but are
5 not limited to:
6 a. Touching Plaintiffs’ hips under the guise of tying their lab gowns;
7 b. Blocking a narrow hallway so Plaintiffs’ bodies rubbed up against his when
8 they walked by;
9 c. Standing and/or sitting so close to Plaintiffs that his body touched theirs;
10 d. Rubbing up against Plaintiffs’ shoulders;
11 e. Putting his arm around Plaintiffs.
12 20. Plaintiffs from Cohort 6 endured this harassing conduct through March 4, 2022,
13 when the class ended.
14 21. Plaintiffs in Cohort 6 complained to SJVC about Defendant Doyle’s inappropriate
15 behavior, but nothing was done, and SJVC allowed Defendant Doyle to continue harassing
16 students and to retaliate against Plaintiffs in Cohort 6. Plaintiffs also complained about Defendant
17 Doyle’s inappropriate relationship with a student, Cassandra, and the favorable treatment she
18 received. Defendant Program Director Martinez specifically allowed Cohort 6’s complaints to go
19 unaddressed and brushed off complaints that were made to him.
20 22. Plaintiffs in Cohort 6 complained to, amongst other SJVC employees, Professor
21 Alfonso Martin (“Professor Martin”). Professor Martin then relayed those complaints and his
22 concerns about Defendant Doyle to the Academic Dean, Rafael Oropeza (hereafter, “Academic
23 Dean Oropeza”). Academic Dean Oropeza told Professor Martin that he would speak to Defendant
24 Program Director Martinez about it. In response and in retaliation for reporting Defendant Doyle’s
25 harassing behavior towards students, Defendant Program Director Martinez gave Professor Martin
26 a write-up.
27 23. After Defendant Doyle learned that students reported his behavior, he retaliated
28 against them by giving Plaintiffs low and inaccurate grades. Defendant Doyle also ignored
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Plaintiffs in class and refused to assist them with the class material, telling them to figure it out or
2 look it up. Defendant Doyle rolled his eyes at several Plaintiffs when they raised their hands and
3 told them to “shut up” on various occasions. Plaintiffs endured this retaliation through March 4,
4 2022, when the class ended.
5 24. Defendants knowingly hired an unfit professor, Defendant Doyle, failed to train
6 Defendant Doyle and Defendant Program Director Martinez regarding sexual harassment protocol,
7 failed to investigate students’ claims of harassment, failed to investigate students’ claims of
8 favoritism and an inappropriate relationship between Defendant Doyle and a student, failed to
9 interview students who complained, failed to properly discipline and/or terminate Defendants
10 when made aware of claims of harassment, failed to monitor classroom conduct, retaliated against
11 a professor who reported Defendant Doyle’s conduct, and allowed harassment to fester from
12 Cohort to Cohort.
13 25. Tatiyana Davis, Abigail Inostroza, Natasha Lee, and Katerina Simmons, were
14 students in Defendant Doyle’s class that began in October 2022 (“Cohort 8”). These Plaintiffs
15 were subjected to the same routine harassment that the Plaintiffs in Cohort 6 endured, which SJVC
16 failed to prevent.
17 26. Defendant Doyle made discriminatory and harassing comments to the Plaintiffs
18 enrolled in Cohort 8, which included but were not limited to:
19 a. Defendant Doyle telling a Plaintiff that her “ass looks fat in that dress;”
20 b. When a Plaintiff was alone with Doyle, he told her he could give her private
21 tutoring, and winked at her;
22 c. Defendant Doyle calling a Plaintiff on the weekend and telling her how
23 much he missed her;
24 d. Defendant Doyle calling a Plaintiff on Valentine’s Day and telling her
25 Happy Valentine’s Day, calling her “beautiful,” and telling her he hoped her
26 boyfriend was treating her right or he might have to steal her from him;
27 e. Defendant Doyle asking a Plaintiff why she had to get engaged without
28 giving him a chance;
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 f. Defendant Doyle asking a Plaintiff why she was so sexy;
2 g. Defendant Doyle asking a Plaintiff intimate questions about her relationship
3 with her boyfriend;
4 h. Defendant Doyle asking a Plaintiff if she takes birth control;
5 i. Defendant Doyle telling a Plaintiff that her boyfriend needs to watch out or
6 he would steal her away;
7 j. Defendant Doyle saying things to the effect of, “Damn girl, why you gotta
8 tease me like that?” when a Plaintiff would bend down during class;
9 k. Defendant Doyle telling a Plaintiff that if things were different, he would
10 date her;
11 l. Defendant Doyle asking a Plaintiff to get drinks with him after class;
12 m. Defendant Doyle telling a Plaintiff something to the effect of, “Damn, you
13 look good in those scrubs today;”
14 n. Defendant Doyle telling a Plaintiff that he was distracted by her butt;
15 o. Defendant Doyle asking a Plaintiff to go out with him on a regular basis;
16 p. Defendant Doyle telling a Plaintiff that she looked gorgeous in person and
17 via text message;
18 q. Defendant Doyle telling a Plaintiff that he loves to watch her walk in front
19 of him because he loves watching her hips and ass;
20 r. Defendant Doyle commenting that he wanted to tie a Plaintiff up, while
21 tying her lab gown;
22 s. Defendant Doyle whispering to a Plaintiff about how she turns him on;
23 t. Defendant Doyle asking multiple Plaintiffs to spend New Year’s Eve with
24 him and offering to book a hotel for them;
25 u. Defendant Doyle telling a Plaintiff that he wanted to buy a house with her;
26 v. Defendant Doyle asking a Plaintiff to send him photos of herself;
27 w. Defendant Doyle asking a Plaintiff to meet him on the stairs where there are
28 no cameras so he could kiss her.
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 27. In addition to this sampling of Defendant Doyle’s inappropriate comments to
2 Plaintiffs, Defendant Doyle also touched Plaintiffs without their consent. Examples include but are
3 not limited to:
4 a. Touching Plaintiffs’ hips under the guise of tying their lab gowns;
5 b. Blocking a narrow hallway so Plaintiffs’ bodies rubbed up against his when
6 they walked by;
7 c. Hugging Plaintiffs and resting his hand on their butts;
8 d. Touching one Plaintiff’s breasts while pretending to reach across her for
9 supplies;
10 e. Grazing Plaintiffs’ butts as he walked by them in class;
11 f. Repeatedly poking one Plaintiff in the stomach;
12 g. Attempting to kiss one Plaintiff when she was alone in a classroom;
13 h. Kissing one Plaintiff in an elevator;
14 i. Kissing one Plaintiff while she was standing outside of her car; and
15 j. Rubbing one Plaintiff’s leg when demonstrating where the fibula is located.
16 28. Plaintiffs in Cohort 8 complained to SJVC about Defendant Doyle’s inappropriate
17 behavior. In response, SJVC allowed Defendant Doyle to continue harassing students and to
18 retaliate against Plaintiffs in Cohort 8. After Defendant Doyle learned that students reported his
19 behavior, he retaliated against them by giving Plaintiffs low and inaccurate grades.
20 29. Plaintiffs from Cohort 8 endured this harassing and retaliatory conduct until
21 Defendant Doyle resigned in mid-April 2023.
22 30. Upon information and belief, Defendant Doyle resigned voluntarily as he left SJVC
23 for another job in education.
24 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
25 Sexual Harassment [Cal. Civil Code § 51.9]
26 (By All Plaintiffs Against Defendant San Joaquin Valley College, Inc.; Defendant
27 Trevor Doyle; and DOES 1-20)
28
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 31. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein as if fully set forth all of the allegations
2 contained in this Complaint.
3 32. Defendant Doyle, as Plaintiffs’ professor, was in a professional relationship with
4 Plaintiffs.
5 33. During the professional relationship between Defendant Doyle and Plaintiffs, as
6 professor and student, Defendant Doyle engaged in pervasive sexual harassment by repeatedly
7 making sexual advances toward Plaintiffs. Defendant Doyle also engaged in verbal and physical
8 conduct of a sexual nature and a hostile nature based on gender.
9 34. Defendant Doyle’s sexually harassing conduct was unwelcome and pervasive or
10 severe.
11 35. Defendant SJVC is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee Defendant
12 Doyle.
13 36. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants, their
14 general, special, actual, and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, their necessary
15 medical and related expenses, lost earnings, as well as mental, emotional and physical pain and
16 suffering, in an amount presently unknown but exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limit of this
17 Court and as proven at the time of trial. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek an award of exemplary
18 damages and attorney fees incurred in this litigation pursuant to Civil Code section 52(b) and
19 punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3294.
20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
21 Sexual Battery
22 [Civ. Code § 1708.5]
23 (By Plaintiffs Davis, Inostroza, and Simmons, Against Defendant San Joaquin Valley
24 College, Inc.; Defendant Trevor Doyle; and DOES 1-20)
25 37. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein as if fully set forth all of the allegations
26 contained in this Complaint.
27 38. Defendant Doyle intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff
28 Davis’ buttocks, and sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff Davis resulted. One day during
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 class, as Defendant Doyle walked by Plaintiff Davis, he touched her back and slid his hand down
2 to her buttocks. On other occasions, Defendant Doyle offered to tie her lab gown and grazed her
3 butt while doing so. Defendant Doyle also repeatedly poked Plaintiff Davis in the stomach on
4 multiple occasions. Plaintiff Davis did not consent to the touching.
5 39. Defendant Doyle intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff
6 Inostroza’s buttocks and breasts, and sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff Inostroza resulted.
7 Defendant Doyle also caused an imminent fear of a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff
8 Inostroza’s buttocks. In one instance, Defendant Doyle hugged Inostroza and rested his hand on
9 her buttocks. He attempted to do so on another occasion but was unsuccessful. On another
10 occasion, Defendant Doyle pretended to reach across Plaintiff Inostroza to grab supplies, and in
11 doing so touched Inostroza’s breasts with his palm and forearm. On other occasions, Defendant
12 Doyle offered to tie her lab gown and grazed her butt while doing so. Plaintiff Inostroza did not
13 consent to the touching.
14 40. Defendant Doyle intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff
15 Simmons’ buttocks and mouth, and sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff Simmons resulted.
16 Defendant Doyle also caused an imminent fear of a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff
17 Simmons. Defendant Doyle kissed Plaintiff Simmons on at least two occasions, including in an
18 elevator and while Plaintiff Simmons was standing outside of her car. Defendant Doyle attempted
19 to kiss Plaintiff Simmons in another instance but was unsuccessful. Defendant Doyle grazed her
20 buttocks under the guise of tying her lab gown. Plaintiff Simmons did not consent to the touching.
21 41. Plaintiffs Davis, Inostroza, and Simmons experienced sexual battery until at least
22 April 2023, when Defendant Doyle resigned.
23 42. Defendant SJVC is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee Defendant
24 Doyle.
25 43. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants, their
26 general, special, actual, and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, their necessary
27 medical and related expenses, lost earnings, as well as mental, emotional and physical pain and
28 suffering, in an amount presently unknown but exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limit of this
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Court and as proven at the time of trial. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek an award of punitive damages
2 pursuant to Civil Code section 3294.
3 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
4 Sexual Assault
5 (By Plaintiffs Davis, Inostroza, and Simmons, Against Defendant San Joaquin Valley
6 College, Inc.; Defendant Trevor Doyle; and DOES 1-20)
7 44. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein as if fully set forth all of the allegations
8 contained in this Complaint.
9 45. Defendant Doyle intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff
10 Davis’ buttocks, and sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff Davis resulted. One day during
11 class, as Defendant Doyle walked by Plaintiff Davis, he touched her back and slid his hand down
12 to her buttocks. On other occasions, Defendant Doyle offered to tie her lab gown and grazed her
13 butt while doing so. Defendant Doyle also repeatedly poked Plaintiff Davis in the stomach on
14 multiple occasions. Plaintiff Davis did not consent to the touching.
15 46. Defendant Doyle intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff
16 Inostroza’s buttocks and breasts, and sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff Inostroza resulted.
17 Defendant Doyle also caused an imminent fear of a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff
18 Inostroza’s buttocks. In one instance, Defendant Doyle hugged Inostroza and rested his hand on
19 her buttocks. He attempted to do so on another occasion but was unsuccessful. On another
20 occasion, Defendant Doyle pretended to reach across Plaintiff Inostroza to grab supplies, and in
21 doing so touched Inostroza’s breasts with his palm and forearm. On other occasions, Defendant
22 Doyle offered to tie her lab gown and grazed her butt while doing so. Plaintiff Inostroza did not
23 consent to the touching.
24 47. Defendant Doyle intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff
25 Simmons’ buttocks and mouth, and sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff Simmons resulted.
26 Defendant Doyle also caused an imminent fear of a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff
27 Simmons. Defendant Doyle kissed Plaintiff Simmons on multiple occasions, including in an
28 elevator and while Plaintiff Simmons was standing outside of her car. Defendant Doyle attempted
10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 to kiss Plaintiff Simmons in another instance but was unsuccessful. On multiple occasions,
2 Defendant Doyle grazed her buttocks under the guise of tying her lab gown. Plaintiff Simmons did
3 not consent to the touching.
4 48. Plaintiffs Davis, Inostroza, and Simmons experienced sexual assault until at least
5 April 2023, when Defendant Doyle resigned.
6 49. Defendant SJVC is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee Defendant
7 Doyle.
8 50. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants, their
9 general, special, actual, and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, their necessary
10 medical and related expenses, lost earnings, as well as mental, emotional and physical pain and
11 suffering, in an amount presently unknown but exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limit of this
12 Court and as proven at the time of trial. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek an award of punitive damages
13 pursuant to Civil Code section 3294.
14 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 Negligence
16 (By All Plaintiffs Against Defendant San Joaquin Valley College, Inc.; Defendant Arthur
17 Martinez; and DOES 1-20)
18 51. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein the material
19 allegations set out above in the preceding paragraphs.
20 52. Defendants were negligent in that they had a legal duty to use due care, breached
21 that duty, and Defendants’ breach was the proximate cause of the resulting injury. Here,
22 Defendants’ conduct fell below the standard of care in that, among other things, Defendants
23 knowingly hired an unfit professor, Defendant Doyle, failed to train Defendant Doyle and
24 Defendant Program Director Martinez regarding sexual harassment protocol, failed to investigate
25 students’ claims of harassment, failed to investigate students’ claims of favoritism and an
26 inappropriate relationship between Defendant Doyle and a student, failed to interview students
27 who complained, failed to properly discipline and/or terminate Defendants when made aware of
28
11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 claims of harassment, failed to monitor the classroom, retaliated against a professor who reported
2 Defendant Doyle’s conduct, and allowed harassment to fester from Cohort to Cohort.
3 53. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants, their
4 general, special, punitive, actual, and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, their
5 necessary medical and related expenses, lost earnings, as well as mental, emotional and physical
6 pain and suffering, in an amount presently unknown but exceeding the minimum jurisdictional
7 limit of this Court and as proven at the time of trial.
8 54. In addition, and because the wrongful acts were carried out by Defendants’
9 employees and managing agents, and encouraged or assisted by Defendants, Defendants acted
10 with oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious intent, and exhibited a deliberate disregard for the rights
11 and safety of Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages, pursuant to
12 California Civil Code section 3294, so as to punish Defendants and deter them from similar
13 conduct in the future.
14 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
16 (By All Plaintiffs Against Defendant San Joaquin Valley College, Inc.; Defendant
17 Trevor Doyle; and DOES 1-20)
18 55. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein the material
19 allegations set out above in the preceding paragraphs.
20 56. Defendant Doyle’s repeated sexually harassing conduct towards Plaintiffs was
21 outrageous. Defendant Doyle intended to cause Plaintiffs emotional distress and/or acted with
22 reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiffs would suffer emotional distress, by sexually
23 harassing each of them in his capacity as their professor at SJVC.
24 57. As Plaintiffs’ professor, Defendant Doyle’s campaign of sexual harassment went
25 beyond mere indignities, annoyances, and petty oppressions but was instead so extreme and
26 outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency and was atrocious and utterly intolerable.
27 58. Defendant SJVC is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee Defendant
28 Doyle. Further, Defendant SJVC was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs’ complaints of sexual
12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 harassment; Defendants knowingly hired an unfit teacher, Defendant Doyle, disciplined a teacher
2 who brought Plaintiffs’ complaints to their attention, Professor Martin, ignored Plaintiff’s
3 complaints, and allowed Defendant Doyle to retaliate against Plaintiffs.
4 59. Defendant Doyle’s conduct caused Plaintiffs emotional distress of such severity
5 that no reasonable person in civilized society should be expected to endure it. Accordingly,
6 Plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
7 60. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants, their
8 general, special, punitive, actual, and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, their
9 necessary medical and related expenses, lost earnings, as well as mental, emotional and physical
10 pain and suffering, in an amount presently unknown but exceeding the minimum jurisdictional
11 limit of this Court and as proven at the time of trial.
12 61. In committing the acts described above, Defendants acted with oppressive,
13 fraudulent, or malicious intent, and exhibited a deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of
14 Plaintiffs. Defendants despicable conduct was the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’
15 injuries. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages, pursuant to California Civil Code
16 section 3294, so as to punish Defendants and deter Defendants and others from similar conduct in
17 the future.
18 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19 Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee
20 (By All Plaintiffs Against Defendant San Joaquin Valley College, Inc.; Defendant Arthur
21 Martinez; and DOES 1-20)
22 62. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein the
23 material allegations set out above in the preceding paragraphs.
24 63. SJVC hired Defendant Doyle, who was unfit to perform the work for which he was
25 hired.
26 64. At the time SJVC hired Defendant Doyle, SJVC, and specifically, Defendant
27 Program Director Martinez, was aware that Defendant Doyle was unfit to perform the work for
28 which he was hired, as he had previously been accused of sexual harassment during his prior
13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 employment. Defendant Program Director Martinez proceeded to hire Defendant Doyle as an
2 SJVC professor, despite being aware of Defendant Doyle’s unfitness.
3 65. Plaintiffs in Cohort 6 complained to Defendant SJVC about Defendant Doyle’s
4 inappropriate behavior, but nothing was done, and SJVC allowed Defendant Doyle to continue
5 harassing students and to allow Defendant Doyle to retaliate against Plaintiffs in Cohort 6.
6 Defendant Program Director Martinez specifically allowed Cohort 6’s complaints to go
7 unaddressed and brushed off complaints that were made to him.
8 66. Plaintiffs in Cohort 6 complained to, amongst other SJVC employees, Professor
9 Martin. Professor Martin then relayed those complaints and his concerns about Doyle to Academic
10 Dean Oropeza. Academic Dean Oropeza told Professor Martin that he would speak to Defendant
11 Program Director Martinez about it. In response and in retaliation for reporting Defendant Doyle’s
12 harassing behavior towards students, Defendant Program Director Martinez gave Professor Martin
13 a write-up.
14 67. Plaintiffs in Cohort 8 were subjected to the same harassing conduct by Defendant
15 Doyle, due to SJVC’s failure to take appropriate remedial action in response to the complaints of
16 Plaintiffs in Cohort 6. Plaintiffs in Cohort 8 also complained to, amongst other SJVC employees,
17 Professor Martin, the Dean of Student Affairs, Tamara Moriarty, the Director of Institutional
18 Relations, Crystal VanderTuig, and the Campus President, Kevin Caldwell. After Plaintiffs in
19 Cohort 8 reported the harassment, Defendant Doyle retaliated against them by giving Plaintiffs
20 low and inaccurate grades.
21 68. Defendants were negligent in that they had a legal duty to use due care, breached
22 that duty, and Defendants’ breach was the proximate cause of the resulting injury. Here,
23 Defendants’ conduct fell below the standard of care in that, among other things, Defendants
24 knowingly hired an unfit professor, Defendant Doyle, failed to train Defendant Doyle and
25 Defendant Program Director Martinez regarding sexual harassment protocol, failed to investigate
26 students’ claims of harassment, failed to investigate students’ claims of favoritism and an
27 inappropriate relationship between Defendant Doyle and a student, failed to interview students
28 who complained, failed to properly discipline and/or terminate Defendants when made aware of
14
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 claims of harassment, failed to monitor the classroom, retaliated against a professor who reported
2 Defendant Doyle’s conduct, and allowed harassment to fester from Cohort to Cohort.
3 69. Defendant Doyle’s unfitness harmed Plaintiffs and among other things, SJVC’s
4 negligence in hiring, supervising, training, and/or retaining Defendant Doyle was a substantial
5 factor in causing Plaintiffs harm.
6 70. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants, their
7 general, special, punitive, actual, and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, their
8 necessary medical and related expenses, lost earnings, as well as mental, emotional and physical
9 pain and suffering, in an amount presently unknown but exceeding the minimum jurisdictional
10 limit of this Court and as proven at the time of trial.
11 71. In addition, and because the wrongful acts were carried out by Defendants’
12 employees and managing agents, and encouraged or assisted by Defendants, Defendants acted
13 with oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious intent, and exhibited a deliberate disregard for the rights
14 and safety of Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages, pursuant to
15 California Civil Code section 3294, so as to punish Defendants and deter them from similar
16 conduct in the future.
17 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 Discrimination & Harassment in Educational Institution
19 [Cal. Edu. Code § 220 et seq.]
20 (By All Plaintiffs Against Defendant San Joaquin Valley College, Inc.; and DOES 1-
21 20)
22 72. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein the material
23 allegations set out above in the preceding paragraphs.
24 73. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were students enrolled in Defendant SJVC’s
25 surgical technology program. At all relevant times, Defendant SJVC was an educational institution
26 that received or benefited from, state financial assistance, or enrolled pupils who received state
27 student financial aid.
28
15
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 74. California Education Code § 220 makes it unlawful for a person to be “subjected to
2 discrimination on the basis of . . . gender . . . in any program or activity conducted by an
3 educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance, or enrolls pupils
4 who receive state student financial aid.” Pursuant to §201, a school must take affirmative steps to
5 combat discrimination, namely sexism, and have a responsibility to provide equal protection.
6 Defendant SJVC failed to take the appropriate steps to remedy the situation, to stop and/or prevent
7 the harassment and retaliation, failed to discipline Defendant Doyle for his conduct, and/or
8 institute corrective measures to address the harassment and discrimination. Defendant SJVC
9 subjected Plaintiffs to severe or pervasive sexual harassment and quid pro quo sexual harassment.
10 75. Defendant SJVC had actual knowledge of that discrimination and harassment and
11 acted with deliberate indifference in the face of that knowledge. Defendant SJVC also permitted
12 Defendant Doyle to retaliate against Plaintiffs for reporting the harassment. Following Plaintiff’s
13 complaints, Defendant Doyle gave Plaintiffs low and inaccurate grades, ignored their questions
14 and/or requests for help in class, and told them to “shut up.”
15 76. Additionally, Defendant SJVC is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee
16 Defendant Doyle.
17 77. Pursuant to Education Code § 262.3, Plaintiffs are entitled to money damages in a
18 private enforcement action under § 220 by alleging that they suffered severe, pervasive conduct
19 that effectively deprived Plaintiffs of the right of equal access to educational benefits and
20 opportunities; SJVC had actual knowledge of the conduct; and SJVC responded with deliberate
21 indifference. See, e.g. Donovan v. Poway Unified School Dist., 167 Cal.App.4th 567, 603-09
22 (2008).
23 78. As a result of the sexual harassment and/or discrimination against Plaintiffs on the
24 basis of their gender, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil
25 Procedure § 1021.5.
26 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
27 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below:
28 1. ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
16
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 a. For general damages, according to proof;
2 b. For special damages, according to proof;
3 c. For compensatory and consequential damages, according to proof;
4 d. For punitive damages according to proof;
5 e. For reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this action;
6 f. For costs of suit incurred in this action; and
7 g. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
8 2. ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
9 a. For general damages, according to proof;
10 b. For special damages, according to proof;
11 c. For compensatory and consequential damages, according to proof;
12 d. For punitive damages according to proof;
13 e. For costs of suit incurred in this action; and
14 f. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
15 3. ON THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:
16 a. For general damages, according to proof;
17 b. For special damages, according to proof;
18 c. For compensatory and consequential damages, according to proof;
19 d. For punitive damages according to proof;
20 e. For costs of suit incurred in this action; and
21 f. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
22 4. ON THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
23 a. For general damages, according to proof;
24 b. For special damages, according to proof;
25 c. For compensatory and consequential damages, according to proof;
26 d. For punitive damages according to proof;
27 e. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
28 5. ON THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
17
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 a. For general damages, according to proof;
2 b. For special damages, according to proof;
3 c. For compensatory and consequential damages, according to proof;
4 d. For punitive damages according to proof;
5 e. For costs of suit incurred in this action; and
6 f. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
7 6. ON THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
8 a. For general damages, according to proof;
9 b. For special damages, according to proof;
10 c. For compensatory and consequential damages, according to proof;
11 d. For punitive damages according to proof;
12 e. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
13 7. ON THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
14 a. For general damages, according to proof;
15 b. For special damages, according to proof;
16 c. For compensatory and consequential damages, according to proof;
17 d. For reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this action;
18 e. For costs of suit incurred in this action; and
19 f. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
20
21 Dated: February 14, 2024 MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC
22
23 By: _______________________________
Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
24 Alexis C. Hames, Esq.
Britland T. Kenworthy, Esq.
25 Attorney for Plaintiffs
26
27
28
18
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
1
Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all causes of action.
2
3
Dated: February 14, 2024 MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC
4
5 By: _______________________________
Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
6 Alexis C. Hames, Esq.
7 Britland T. Kenworthy, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Preview
MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC 1 Ronald W. Makarem, Esq. (SB# 180442) Alexis C. Hames, Esq. (SB# 327922) 2 Britland T. Kenworthy, Esq. (SB# pending) 3 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440 Los Angeles, California, 90025 4 Phone: (310) 312-0299; Fax: (310) 312-0296 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Tatiyana Davis, Angela Howard, Abigail Instroza, Sydney Kline, Natasha 6 Lee, Vanessa Reed, Maria Sauceda, and Katerina Simmons 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 11 12 TATIYANA DAVIS, an individual; ANGELA Case No. HOWARD, an individual; ABIGAIL 13 INOSTROZA, an individual; SYNDEY KLINE, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: an individual; NATASHA LEE, an individual; 14 VANESSA REED, an individual; MARIA 1. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN SAUCEDA, an individual; and KATERINA VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA 15 SIMMONS, an individual, CIVIL CODE 51.9; 16 Plaintiffs, 2. SEXUAL BATTERY IN 17 vs. VIOLATON OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 1708.5; 18 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY COLLEGE, INC., a 3. SEXUAL ASSAULT; 19 California Corporation, TREVOR DOYLE, an individual, ARTHUR MARTINEZ, an 4. NEGLIGENCE; 20 individual; and DOES 1-20, 21 Defendants. 5. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; 22 6. NEGLIGENT HIRING, 23 SUPERVISION, AND RETENTION; 24 7. SEX DISCRIMINATION & HARASSMENT IN EDUCATIONAL 25 INSTITUTION. 26 27 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Plaintiffs TATIYANA DAVIS, ANGELA HOWARD, ABIGAIL INSTROZA, SYDNEY 2 KLINE, NATASHA LEE, VANESSA REED, MARIA SAUCEDA, AND KATERINA 3 SIMMONS complain and allege as follows: 4 PARTIES 5 1. Plaintiff TATIYANA DAVIS is an individual with her principal place of residence 6 in the County of Riverside, California, and attended San Joaquin Valley College, Inc. (“SJVC”) 7 from October 2022 to January 2024. 8 2. Plaintiff ANGELA HOWARD is an individual with her principal place of 9 residence in the County of Wake County, North Carolina, and attended SJVC from July 2021 to 10 October 2022. 11 3. Plaintiff ABIGAIL INSTROZA is an individual with her principal place of 12 residence in the County of Riverside, California, and attended SJVC from October 2022 to 13 January 2024. 14 4. Plaintiff SYDNEY KLINE is an individual with her principal place of residence in 15 the County of Orange, California, and attended SJVC from July 2021 to October 2022. 16 5. Plaintiff NATASHA LEE is an individual with her principal place of residence in 17 the County of San Diego, California, and attended SJVC from October 2022 to January 2024. 18 6. Plaintiff VANESSA REED is an individual with her principal place of residence in 19 the County of Riverside, California, and attended SJVC from July 2021 to October 2022. 20 7. Plaintiff MARIA SAUCEDA is an individual with her principal place of residence 21 in the County of Riverside, California, and attended SJVC from July 2021 to October 2022. 22 8. Plaintiff KATERINA SIMMONS is an individual with her principal place of 23 residence in the County of San Diego, California, and attended SJVC from October 2022 to 24 January 2024. 25 9. Defendant SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY COLLEGE, INC., (“SJVC”) was and is a 26 California corporation doing business in Los Angeles County. At all times relevant herein, 27 Defendant SJVC operated its business in Los Angeles County. At all relevant times, Defendant 28 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 SJVC regularly employed five or more employees in the State of California and was covered 2 under applicable State and Federal sexual harassment laws. 3 10. Defendant TREVOR DOYLE (“Doyle”) is an individual who, at all times relevant 4 herein, was a professor at Defendant SJVC and/or DOES 1-20. 5 11. Defendant ARTHUR MARTINEZ (“Martinez”) is an individual who, at all times 6 relevant herein, was the program director at Defendant SJVC and/or DOES 1-20. 7 12. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as 8 DOES 1-20, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will 9 amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are 10 informed and believes and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named defendants is 11 responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged. 12 13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times relevant to 13 this Complaint, all Defendants, including fictitiously named Defendants, were the agents, servants, 14 alter egos, affiliates, employers, principals and/or employees of each other and engaged in the 15 conduct alleged herein within the course, scope and authority of their respective capacities. 16 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17 14. Venue is proper in this Judicial District because Defendant San Joaquin Valley 18 College, Inc. was and is a California corporation doing business in Los Angeles County, 19 California and Defendants’ obligations under applicable laws and regulations were breached 20 principally in Los Angeles County. 21 15. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over this matter because Defendants 22 are residents of California and/or conduct business in California. No federal question is at issue as 23 the claims arise solely from California law. 24 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 25 16. Plaintiffs Tatiyana Davis, Angela Howard, Abigail Instroza, Sydney Kline, Natasha 26 Lee, Vanessa Reed, Maria Sauceda, and Katerina Simmons attended the surgical technology 27 program at San Joaquin Valley College (“SJVC”). During their time at SJVC, each Plaintiff was 28 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 subjected to sexual harassment and unwanted touching by their professor, Trevor Doyle 2 (“Defendant Doyle”). 3 17. At the time SJVC hired Defendant Doyle, SJVC, and specifically, the Program 4 Director, Arthur Martinez (“Defendant Program Director Martinez”), was aware that Defendant 5 Doyle was unfit to perform the work for which he was hired, as he had previously been accused of 6 sexual harassment during his prior employment. Defendant Program Director Martinez proceeded 7 to hire Defendant Doyle as an SJVC professor, despite being aware of Defendant Doyle’s 8 unfitness. 9 18. Several Plaintiffs, including Sydney Kline, Angela Howard, Vanessa Reed, and 10 Maria Sauceda, were students in Defendant Doyle’s class that began in July 2021 (“Cohort 6”). 11 Nearly every day he was around Plaintiffs, Defendant Doyle made discriminatory and harassing 12 comments to them, including but not limited to: 13 a. Defendant Doyle giving one Plaintiff the nickname “hall pass”; 14 b. Defendant Doyle showing one Plaintiff a photo of a woman with large breasts 15 in a bikini and telling her that she was one of his previous students; 16 c. Defendant Doyle referring to female students as “bitches”; 17 d. Defendant Doyle discussing his sex life in front of Plaintiffs; 18 e. Defendant Doyle making comments such as “damn” as he stared at his female 19 students’ bodies while they walked by or were bent over; 20 f. Defendant Doyle asking several Plaintiffs to go to drinks with him multiple 21 times; 22 g. Defendant Doyle commenting on several Plaintiffs’ appearances and what they 23 were wearing; 24 h. Defendant Doyle stating that he wanted to celebrate his new job by getting a 25 hotel room for the several Plaintiffs in San Diego, going out for drinks, and 26 doing cocaine; 27 i. Defendant Doyle talking about the size of one Plaintiffs’ breasts and how he 28 would be “all over that” if she were not in a relationship; 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 j. Defendant Doyle pulling a Plaintiff aside and telling her he could not take his 2 eyes off her breasts bouncing in class; 3 19. In addition to this sampling of Defendant Doyle’s inappropriate comments to 4 Plaintiffs, Defendant Doyle also touched Plaintiffs without their consent. Examples include but are 5 not limited to: 6 a. Touching Plaintiffs’ hips under the guise of tying their lab gowns; 7 b. Blocking a narrow hallway so Plaintiffs’ bodies rubbed up against his when 8 they walked by; 9 c. Standing and/or sitting so close to Plaintiffs that his body touched theirs; 10 d. Rubbing up against Plaintiffs’ shoulders; 11 e. Putting his arm around Plaintiffs. 12 20. Plaintiffs from Cohort 6 endured this harassing conduct through March 4, 2022, 13 when the class ended. 14 21. Plaintiffs in Cohort 6 complained to SJVC about Defendant Doyle’s inappropriate 15 behavior, but nothing was done, and SJVC allowed Defendant Doyle to continue harassing 16 students and to retaliate against Plaintiffs in Cohort 6. Plaintiffs also complained about Defendant 17 Doyle’s inappropriate relationship with a student, Cassandra, and the favorable treatment she 18 received. Defendant Program Director Martinez specifically allowed Cohort 6’s complaints to go 19 unaddressed and brushed off complaints that were made to him. 20 22. Plaintiffs in Cohort 6 complained to, amongst other SJVC employees, Professor 21 Alfonso Martin (“Professor Martin”). Professor Martin then relayed those complaints and his 22 concerns about Defendant Doyle to the Academic Dean, Rafael Oropeza (hereafter, “Academic 23 Dean Oropeza”). Academic Dean Oropeza told Professor Martin that he would speak to Defendant 24 Program Director Martinez about it. In response and in retaliation for reporting Defendant Doyle’s 25 harassing behavior towards students, Defendant Program Director Martinez gave Professor Martin 26 a write-up. 27 23. After Defendant Doyle learned that students reported his behavior, he retaliated 28 against them by giving Plaintiffs low and inaccurate grades. Defendant Doyle also ignored 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Plaintiffs in class and refused to assist them with the class material, telling them to figure it out or 2 look it up. Defendant Doyle rolled his eyes at several Plaintiffs when they raised their hands and 3 told them to “shut up” on various occasions. Plaintiffs endured this retaliation through March 4, 4 2022, when the class ended. 5 24. Defendants knowingly hired an unfit professor, Defendant Doyle, failed to train 6 Defendant Doyle and Defendant Program Director Martinez regarding sexual harassment protocol, 7 failed to investigate students’ claims of harassment, failed to investigate students’ claims of 8 favoritism and an inappropriate relationship between Defendant Doyle and a student, failed to 9 interview students who complained, failed to properly discipline and/or terminate Defendants 10 when made aware of claims of harassment, failed to monitor classroom conduct, retaliated against 11 a professor who reported Defendant Doyle’s conduct, and allowed harassment to fester from 12 Cohort to Cohort. 13 25. Tatiyana Davis, Abigail Inostroza, Natasha Lee, and Katerina Simmons, were 14 students in Defendant Doyle’s class that began in October 2022 (“Cohort 8”). These Plaintiffs 15 were subjected to the same routine harassment that the Plaintiffs in Cohort 6 endured, which SJVC 16 failed to prevent. 17 26. Defendant Doyle made discriminatory and harassing comments to the Plaintiffs 18 enrolled in Cohort 8, which included but were not limited to: 19 a. Defendant Doyle telling a Plaintiff that her “ass looks fat in that dress;” 20 b. When a Plaintiff was alone with Doyle, he told her he could give her private 21 tutoring, and winked at her; 22 c. Defendant Doyle calling a Plaintiff on the weekend and telling her how 23 much he missed her; 24 d. Defendant Doyle calling a Plaintiff on Valentine’s Day and telling her 25 Happy Valentine’s Day, calling her “beautiful,” and telling her he hoped her 26 boyfriend was treating her right or he might have to steal her from him; 27 e. Defendant Doyle asking a Plaintiff why she had to get engaged without 28 giving him a chance; 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 f. Defendant Doyle asking a Plaintiff why she was so sexy; 2 g. Defendant Doyle asking a Plaintiff intimate questions about her relationship 3 with her boyfriend; 4 h. Defendant Doyle asking a Plaintiff if she takes birth control; 5 i. Defendant Doyle telling a Plaintiff that her boyfriend needs to watch out or 6 he would steal her away; 7 j. Defendant Doyle saying things to the effect of, “Damn girl, why you gotta 8 tease me like that?” when a Plaintiff would bend down during class; 9 k. Defendant Doyle telling a Plaintiff that if things were different, he would 10 date her; 11 l. Defendant Doyle asking a Plaintiff to get drinks with him after class; 12 m. Defendant Doyle telling a Plaintiff something to the effect of, “Damn, you 13 look good in those scrubs today;” 14 n. Defendant Doyle telling a Plaintiff that he was distracted by her butt; 15 o. Defendant Doyle asking a Plaintiff to go out with him on a regular basis; 16 p. Defendant Doyle telling a Plaintiff that she looked gorgeous in person and 17 via text message; 18 q. Defendant Doyle telling a Plaintiff that he loves to watch her walk in front 19 of him because he loves watching her hips and ass; 20 r. Defendant Doyle commenting that he wanted to tie a Plaintiff up, while 21 tying her lab gown; 22 s. Defendant Doyle whispering to a Plaintiff about how she turns him on; 23 t. Defendant Doyle asking multiple Plaintiffs to spend New Year’s Eve with 24 him and offering to book a hotel for them; 25 u. Defendant Doyle telling a Plaintiff that he wanted to buy a house with her; 26 v. Defendant Doyle asking a Plaintiff to send him photos of herself; 27 w. Defendant Doyle asking a Plaintiff to meet him on the stairs where there are 28 no cameras so he could kiss her. 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 27. In addition to this sampling of Defendant Doyle’s inappropriate comments to 2 Plaintiffs, Defendant Doyle also touched Plaintiffs without their consent. Examples include but are 3 not limited to: 4 a. Touching Plaintiffs’ hips under the guise of tying their lab gowns; 5 b. Blocking a narrow hallway so Plaintiffs’ bodies rubbed up against his when 6 they walked by; 7 c. Hugging Plaintiffs and resting his hand on their butts; 8 d. Touching one Plaintiff’s breasts while pretending to reach across her for 9 supplies; 10 e. Grazing Plaintiffs’ butts as he walked by them in class; 11 f. Repeatedly poking one Plaintiff in the stomach; 12 g. Attempting to kiss one Plaintiff when she was alone in a classroom; 13 h. Kissing one Plaintiff in an elevator; 14 i. Kissing one Plaintiff while she was standing outside of her car; and 15 j. Rubbing one Plaintiff’s leg when demonstrating where the fibula is located. 16 28. Plaintiffs in Cohort 8 complained to SJVC about Defendant Doyle’s inappropriate 17 behavior. In response, SJVC allowed Defendant Doyle to continue harassing students and to 18 retaliate against Plaintiffs in Cohort 8. After Defendant Doyle learned that students reported his 19 behavior, he retaliated against them by giving Plaintiffs low and inaccurate grades. 20 29. Plaintiffs from Cohort 8 endured this harassing and retaliatory conduct until 21 Defendant Doyle resigned in mid-April 2023. 22 30. Upon information and belief, Defendant Doyle resigned voluntarily as he left SJVC 23 for another job in education. 24 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 25 Sexual Harassment [Cal. Civil Code § 51.9] 26 (By All Plaintiffs Against Defendant San Joaquin Valley College, Inc.; Defendant 27 Trevor Doyle; and DOES 1-20) 28 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 31. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein as if fully set forth all of the allegations 2 contained in this Complaint. 3 32. Defendant Doyle, as Plaintiffs’ professor, was in a professional relationship with 4 Plaintiffs. 5 33. During the professional relationship between Defendant Doyle and Plaintiffs, as 6 professor and student, Defendant Doyle engaged in pervasive sexual harassment by repeatedly 7 making sexual advances toward Plaintiffs. Defendant Doyle also engaged in verbal and physical 8 conduct of a sexual nature and a hostile nature based on gender. 9 34. Defendant Doyle’s sexually harassing conduct was unwelcome and pervasive or 10 severe. 11 35. Defendant SJVC is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee Defendant 12 Doyle. 13 36. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants, their 14 general, special, actual, and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, their necessary 15 medical and related expenses, lost earnings, as well as mental, emotional and physical pain and 16 suffering, in an amount presently unknown but exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limit of this 17 Court and as proven at the time of trial. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek an award of exemplary 18 damages and attorney fees incurred in this litigation pursuant to Civil Code section 52(b) and 19 punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3294. 20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 21 Sexual Battery 22 [Civ. Code § 1708.5] 23 (By Plaintiffs Davis, Inostroza, and Simmons, Against Defendant San Joaquin Valley 24 College, Inc.; Defendant Trevor Doyle; and DOES 1-20) 25 37. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein as if fully set forth all of the allegations 26 contained in this Complaint. 27 38. Defendant Doyle intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff 28 Davis’ buttocks, and sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff Davis resulted. One day during 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 class, as Defendant Doyle walked by Plaintiff Davis, he touched her back and slid his hand down 2 to her buttocks. On other occasions, Defendant Doyle offered to tie her lab gown and grazed her 3 butt while doing so. Defendant Doyle also repeatedly poked Plaintiff Davis in the stomach on 4 multiple occasions. Plaintiff Davis did not consent to the touching. 5 39. Defendant Doyle intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff 6 Inostroza’s buttocks and breasts, and sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff Inostroza resulted. 7 Defendant Doyle also caused an imminent fear of a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff 8 Inostroza’s buttocks. In one instance, Defendant Doyle hugged Inostroza and rested his hand on 9 her buttocks. He attempted to do so on another occasion but was unsuccessful. On another 10 occasion, Defendant Doyle pretended to reach across Plaintiff Inostroza to grab supplies, and in 11 doing so touched Inostroza’s breasts with his palm and forearm. On other occasions, Defendant 12 Doyle offered to tie her lab gown and grazed her butt while doing so. Plaintiff Inostroza did not 13 consent to the touching. 14 40. Defendant Doyle intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff 15 Simmons’ buttocks and mouth, and sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff Simmons resulted. 16 Defendant Doyle also caused an imminent fear of a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff 17 Simmons. Defendant Doyle kissed Plaintiff Simmons on at least two occasions, including in an 18 elevator and while Plaintiff Simmons was standing outside of her car. Defendant Doyle attempted 19 to kiss Plaintiff Simmons in another instance but was unsuccessful. Defendant Doyle grazed her 20 buttocks under the guise of tying her lab gown. Plaintiff Simmons did not consent to the touching. 21 41. Plaintiffs Davis, Inostroza, and Simmons experienced sexual battery until at least 22 April 2023, when Defendant Doyle resigned. 23 42. Defendant SJVC is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee Defendant 24 Doyle. 25 43. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants, their 26 general, special, actual, and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, their necessary 27 medical and related expenses, lost earnings, as well as mental, emotional and physical pain and 28 suffering, in an amount presently unknown but exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limit of this 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Court and as proven at the time of trial. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek an award of punitive damages 2 pursuant to Civil Code section 3294. 3 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 4 Sexual Assault 5 (By Plaintiffs Davis, Inostroza, and Simmons, Against Defendant San Joaquin Valley 6 College, Inc.; Defendant Trevor Doyle; and DOES 1-20) 7 44. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein as if fully set forth all of the allegations 8 contained in this Complaint. 9 45. Defendant Doyle intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff 10 Davis’ buttocks, and sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff Davis resulted. One day during 11 class, as Defendant Doyle walked by Plaintiff Davis, he touched her back and slid his hand down 12 to her buttocks. On other occasions, Defendant Doyle offered to tie her lab gown and grazed her 13 butt while doing so. Defendant Doyle also repeatedly poked Plaintiff Davis in the stomach on 14 multiple occasions. Plaintiff Davis did not consent to the touching. 15 46. Defendant Doyle intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff 16 Inostroza’s buttocks and breasts, and sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff Inostroza resulted. 17 Defendant Doyle also caused an imminent fear of a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff 18 Inostroza’s buttocks. In one instance, Defendant Doyle hugged Inostroza and rested his hand on 19 her buttocks. He attempted to do so on another occasion but was unsuccessful. On another 20 occasion, Defendant Doyle pretended to reach across Plaintiff Inostroza to grab supplies, and in 21 doing so touched Inostroza’s breasts with his palm and forearm. On other occasions, Defendant 22 Doyle offered to tie her lab gown and grazed her butt while doing so. Plaintiff Inostroza did not 23 consent to the touching. 24 47. Defendant Doyle intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff 25 Simmons’ buttocks and mouth, and sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff Simmons resulted. 26 Defendant Doyle also caused an imminent fear of a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff 27 Simmons. Defendant Doyle kissed Plaintiff Simmons on multiple occasions, including in an 28 elevator and while Plaintiff Simmons was standing outside of her car. Defendant Doyle attempted 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 to kiss Plaintiff Simmons in another instance but was unsuccessful. On multiple occasions, 2 Defendant Doyle grazed her buttocks under the guise of tying her lab gown. Plaintiff Simmons did 3 not consent to the touching. 4 48. Plaintiffs Davis, Inostroza, and Simmons experienced sexual assault until at least 5 April 2023, when Defendant Doyle resigned. 6 49. Defendant SJVC is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee Defendant 7 Doyle. 8 50. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants, their 9 general, special, actual, and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, their necessary 10 medical and related expenses, lost earnings, as well as mental, emotional and physical pain and 11 suffering, in an amount presently unknown but exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limit of this 12 Court and as proven at the time of trial. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek an award of punitive damages 13 pursuant to Civil Code section 3294. 14 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 Negligence 16 (By All Plaintiffs Against Defendant San Joaquin Valley College, Inc.; Defendant Arthur 17 Martinez; and DOES 1-20) 18 51. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein the material 19 allegations set out above in the preceding paragraphs. 20 52. Defendants were negligent in that they had a legal duty to use due care, breached 21 that duty, and Defendants’ breach was the proximate cause of the resulting injury. Here, 22 Defendants’ conduct fell below the standard of care in that, among other things, Defendants 23 knowingly hired an unfit professor, Defendant Doyle, failed to train Defendant Doyle and 24 Defendant Program Director Martinez regarding sexual harassment protocol, failed to investigate 25 students’ claims of harassment, failed to investigate students’ claims of favoritism and an 26 inappropriate relationship between Defendant Doyle and a student, failed to interview students 27 who complained, failed to properly discipline and/or terminate Defendants when made aware of 28 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 claims of harassment, failed to monitor the classroom, retaliated against a professor who reported 2 Defendant Doyle’s conduct, and allowed harassment to fester from Cohort to Cohort. 3 53. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants, their 4 general, special, punitive, actual, and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, their 5 necessary medical and related expenses, lost earnings, as well as mental, emotional and physical 6 pain and suffering, in an amount presently unknown but exceeding the minimum jurisdictional 7 limit of this Court and as proven at the time of trial. 8 54. In addition, and because the wrongful acts were carried out by Defendants’ 9 employees and managing agents, and encouraged or assisted by Defendants, Defendants acted 10 with oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious intent, and exhibited a deliberate disregard for the rights 11 and safety of Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages, pursuant to 12 California Civil Code section 3294, so as to punish Defendants and deter them from similar 13 conduct in the future. 14 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 16 (By All Plaintiffs Against Defendant San Joaquin Valley College, Inc.; Defendant 17 Trevor Doyle; and DOES 1-20) 18 55. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein the material 19 allegations set out above in the preceding paragraphs. 20 56. Defendant Doyle’s repeated sexually harassing conduct towards Plaintiffs was 21 outrageous. Defendant Doyle intended to cause Plaintiffs emotional distress and/or acted with 22 reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiffs would suffer emotional distress, by sexually 23 harassing each of them in his capacity as their professor at SJVC. 24 57. As Plaintiffs’ professor, Defendant Doyle’s campaign of sexual harassment went 25 beyond mere indignities, annoyances, and petty oppressions but was instead so extreme and 26 outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency and was atrocious and utterly intolerable. 27 58. Defendant SJVC is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee Defendant 28 Doyle. Further, Defendant SJVC was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs’ complaints of sexual 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 harassment; Defendants knowingly hired an unfit teacher, Defendant Doyle, disciplined a teacher 2 who brought Plaintiffs’ complaints to their attention, Professor Martin, ignored Plaintiff’s 3 complaints, and allowed Defendant Doyle to retaliate against Plaintiffs. 4 59. Defendant Doyle’s conduct caused Plaintiffs emotional distress of such severity 5 that no reasonable person in civilized society should be expected to endure it. Accordingly, 6 Plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 7 60. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants, their 8 general, special, punitive, actual, and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, their 9 necessary medical and related expenses, lost earnings, as well as mental, emotional and physical 10 pain and suffering, in an amount presently unknown but exceeding the minimum jurisdictional 11 limit of this Court and as proven at the time of trial. 12 61. In committing the acts described above, Defendants acted with oppressive, 13 fraudulent, or malicious intent, and exhibited a deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of 14 Plaintiffs. Defendants despicable conduct was the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ 15 injuries. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages, pursuant to California Civil Code 16 section 3294, so as to punish Defendants and deter Defendants and others from similar conduct in 17 the future. 18 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 19 Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee 20 (By All Plaintiffs Against Defendant San Joaquin Valley College, Inc.; Defendant Arthur 21 Martinez; and DOES 1-20) 22 62. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein the 23 material allegations set out above in the preceding paragraphs. 24 63. SJVC hired Defendant Doyle, who was unfit to perform the work for which he was 25 hired. 26 64. At the time SJVC hired Defendant Doyle, SJVC, and specifically, Defendant 27 Program Director Martinez, was aware that Defendant Doyle was unfit to perform the work for 28 which he was hired, as he had previously been accused of sexual harassment during his prior 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 employment. Defendant Program Director Martinez proceeded to hire Defendant Doyle as an 2 SJVC professor, despite being aware of Defendant Doyle’s unfitness. 3 65. Plaintiffs in Cohort 6 complained to Defendant SJVC about Defendant Doyle’s 4 inappropriate behavior, but nothing was done, and SJVC allowed Defendant Doyle to continue 5 harassing students and to allow Defendant Doyle to retaliate against Plaintiffs in Cohort 6. 6 Defendant Program Director Martinez specifically allowed Cohort 6’s complaints to go 7 unaddressed and brushed off complaints that were made to him. 8 66. Plaintiffs in Cohort 6 complained to, amongst other SJVC employees, Professor 9 Martin. Professor Martin then relayed those complaints and his concerns about Doyle to Academic 10 Dean Oropeza. Academic Dean Oropeza told Professor Martin that he would speak to Defendant 11 Program Director Martinez about it. In response and in retaliation for reporting Defendant Doyle’s 12 harassing behavior towards students, Defendant Program Director Martinez gave Professor Martin 13 a write-up. 14 67. Plaintiffs in Cohort 8 were subjected to the same harassing conduct by Defendant 15 Doyle, due to SJVC’s failure to take appropriate remedial action in response to the complaints of 16 Plaintiffs in Cohort 6. Plaintiffs in Cohort 8 also complained to, amongst other SJVC employees, 17 Professor Martin, the Dean of Student Affairs, Tamara Moriarty, the Director of Institutional 18 Relations, Crystal VanderTuig, and the Campus President, Kevin Caldwell. After Plaintiffs in 19 Cohort 8 reported the harassment, Defendant Doyle retaliated against them by giving Plaintiffs 20 low and inaccurate grades. 21 68. Defendants were negligent in that they had a legal duty to use due care, breached 22 that duty, and Defendants’ breach was the proximate cause of the resulting injury. Here, 23 Defendants’ conduct fell below the standard of care in that, among other things, Defendants 24 knowingly hired an unfit professor, Defendant Doyle, failed to train Defendant Doyle and 25 Defendant Program Director Martinez regarding sexual harassment protocol, failed to investigate 26 students’ claims of harassment, failed to investigate students’ claims of favoritism and an 27 inappropriate relationship between Defendant Doyle and a student, failed to interview students 28 who complained, failed to properly discipline and/or terminate Defendants when made aware of 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 claims of harassment, failed to monitor the classroom, retaliated against a professor who reported 2 Defendant Doyle’s conduct, and allowed harassment to fester from Cohort to Cohort. 3 69. Defendant Doyle’s unfitness harmed Plaintiffs and among other things, SJVC’s 4 negligence in hiring, supervising, training, and/or retaining Defendant Doyle was a substantial 5 factor in causing Plaintiffs harm. 6 70. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants, their 7 general, special, punitive, actual, and compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, their 8 necessary medical and related expenses, lost earnings, as well as mental, emotional and physical 9 pain and suffering, in an amount presently unknown but exceeding the minimum jurisdictional 10 limit of this Court and as proven at the time of trial. 11 71. In addition, and because the wrongful acts were carried out by Defendants’ 12 employees and managing agents, and encouraged or assisted by Defendants, Defendants acted 13 with oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious intent, and exhibited a deliberate disregard for the rights 14 and safety of Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages, pursuant to 15 California Civil Code section 3294, so as to punish Defendants and deter them from similar 16 conduct in the future. 17 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 Discrimination & Harassment in Educational Institution 19 [Cal. Edu. Code § 220 et seq.] 20 (By All Plaintiffs Against Defendant San Joaquin Valley College, Inc.; and DOES 1- 21 20) 22 72. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein the material 23 allegations set out above in the preceding paragraphs. 24 73. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were students enrolled in Defendant SJVC’s 25 surgical technology program. At all relevant times, Defendant SJVC was an educational institution 26 that received or benefited from, state financial assistance, or enrolled pupils who received state 27 student financial aid. 28 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 74. California Education Code § 220 makes it unlawful for a person to be “subjected to 2 discrimination on the basis of . . . gender . . . in any program or activity conducted by an 3 educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance, or enrolls pupils 4 who receive state student financial aid.” Pursuant to §201, a school must take affirmative steps to 5 combat discrimination, namely sexism, and have a responsibility to provide equal protection. 6 Defendant SJVC failed to take the appropriate steps to remedy the situation, to stop and/or prevent 7 the harassment and retaliation, failed to discipline Defendant Doyle for his conduct, and/or 8 institute corrective measures to address the harassment and discrimination. Defendant SJVC 9 subjected Plaintiffs to severe or pervasive sexual harassment and quid pro quo sexual harassment. 10 75. Defendant SJVC had actual knowledge of that discrimination and harassment and 11 acted with deliberate indifference in the face of that knowledge. Defendant SJVC also permitted 12 Defendant Doyle to retaliate against Plaintiffs for reporting the harassment. Following Plaintiff’s 13 complaints, Defendant Doyle gave Plaintiffs low and inaccurate grades, ignored their questions 14 and/or requests for help in class, and told them to “shut up.” 15 76. Additionally, Defendant SJVC is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee 16 Defendant Doyle. 17 77. Pursuant to Education Code § 262.3, Plaintiffs are entitled to money damages in a 18 private enforcement action under § 220 by alleging that they suffered severe, pervasive conduct 19 that effectively deprived Plaintiffs of the right of equal access to educational benefits and 20 opportunities; SJVC had actual knowledge of the conduct; and SJVC responded with deliberate 21 indifference. See, e.g. Donovan v. Poway Unified School Dist., 167 Cal.App.4th 567, 603-09 22 (2008). 23 78. As a result of the sexual harassment and/or discrimination against Plaintiffs on the 24 basis of their gender, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil 25 Procedure § 1021.5. 26 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 27 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below: 28 1. ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: 16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 a. For general damages, according to proof; 2 b. For special damages, according to proof; 3 c. For compensatory and consequential damages, according to proof; 4 d. For punitive damages according to proof; 5 e. For reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this action; 6 f. For costs of suit incurred in this action; and 7 g. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just. 8 2. ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: 9 a. For general damages, according to proof; 10 b. For special damages, according to proof; 11 c. For compensatory and consequential damages, according to proof; 12 d. For punitive damages according to proof; 13 e. For costs of suit incurred in this action; and 14 f. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just. 15 3. ON THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: 16 a. For general damages, according to proof; 17 b. For special damages, according to proof; 18 c. For compensatory and consequential damages, according to proof; 19 d. For punitive damages according to proof; 20 e. For costs of suit incurred in this action; and 21 f. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just. 22 4. ON THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 23 a. For general damages, according to proof; 24 b. For special damages, according to proof; 25 c. For compensatory and consequential damages, according to proof; 26 d. For punitive damages according to proof; 27 e. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just. 28 5. ON THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 17 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 a. For general damages, according to proof; 2 b. For special damages, according to proof; 3 c. For compensatory and consequential damages, according to proof; 4 d. For punitive damages according to proof; 5 e. For costs of suit incurred in this action; and 6 f. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. 7 6. ON THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 8 a. For general damages, according to proof; 9 b. For special damages, according to proof; 10 c. For compensatory and consequential damages, according to proof; 11 d. For punitive damages according to proof; 12 e. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just. 13 7. ON THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 14 a. For general damages, according to proof; 15 b. For special damages, according to proof; 16 c. For compensatory and consequential damages, according to proof; 17 d. For reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this action; 18 e. For costs of suit incurred in this action; and 19 f. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just. 20 21 Dated: February 14, 2024 MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC 22 23 By: _______________________________ Ronald W. Makarem, Esq. 24 Alexis C. Hames, Esq. Britland T. Kenworthy, Esq. 25 Attorney for Plaintiffs 26 27 28 18 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 1 Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all causes of action. 2 3 Dated: February 14, 2024 MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC 4 5 By: _______________________________ Ronald W. Makarem, Esq. 6 Alexis C. Hames, Esq. 7 Britland T. Kenworthy, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES