Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/15/2021 06:54 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by C. Cappadona,Deputy Clerk
1 BALABAN & SPIELBERGER, LLP
11999 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 345
2 Los Angeles, CA 90049
Tel: (424) 832-7677
3 Fax: (424) 832-7702
Daniel K. Balaban, State Bar No. 243652
4 Andrew J. Spielberger, State Bar No. 120231
Kahren Harutyunyan, State Bar No. 298449
5 Vanessa L. Loftus-Brewer, State Bar No. 265213
6 LAW OFFICES OF TERESA LI, PC
Teresa Li, State Bar No. 278779
7 Mailing Address:
548 Market St.
8
PMB 24496
9 San Francisco, California 94104-5401
10 Attorney for Plaintiffs,
MARLENE GARCIA and J.J.
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP
11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345
13 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
14 MARLENE GARCIA, and J.J., a minor, by Case No. BC679114
and through his guardian ad litem,
15 MARLENE GARCIA, [Hon. Olivia Rosales, Dept. C]
16 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S
17 v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
18 ROBERT J. OWIECKI, WHITTIER CITY ADJUDICATION
19 SCHOOL DISTRICT, and DOES 1-20, [Pltfs’ Resp to Def’s S.S.U.M.F and P.U.M.F.; Dec of
Vanessa L. Lotftus-Brewer; Dec of Diana Everstine M.A.
20 Defendants. and Ph.D.; Pltfs' Req for Judicial Notice; Compendium of
Evidence; Compendium of Non-CA Authorities; Notice of
21 Lodgment; Pltfs’ Evidentiary Objections; [Proposed]
Order Re Pltfs’ Evidentiary Objections.]
22
Date: September 30, 2021
23 Time: 1:30 p.m.
Dept.: C (Norwalk)
24
Reservation ID: 979232391762
25
26 Complaint Filed: 10/11/2017
Trial Date: 10/22/2021
27
28
1
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, TO DEFENDANT, AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS
2 OF RECORD HEREIN:
3 Plaintiffs MARLENE GARCIA and J.J. a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem
4 MARLENE GARCIA (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”), hereby submits the following
5 Opposition to Defendant ROBERT J. OWIECKI’s (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” or
6 "Moving Party" or “OWIECKI”) Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative Summary
7 Adjudication, (hereinafter “MSJ”) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. This
8 Opposition is based on the facts and arguments set forth in the attached Memorandum of Points and
9 Authorities, all evidence, declarations, oral argument and other related documents.
10 It is further based on all papers and pleadings on file in this action, Plaintiff’s Responses to
11 Defendant’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts, Plaintiffs’ Compendium of Evidence in
12 Support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence, the
BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP
11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345
13 Declarations of Dr. Diana Everstine and Vanessa L. Loftus-Brewer, Esq., the Request for Judicial
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
14 Notice, and Exhibits therein, and upon such further oral and documentary evidence as may be
15 provided at the time of the hearing of Defendant’s Motion.
16
17 DATED: September 15, 2021 BALABAN & SPIELBERGER, LLP
18
19
By:
20 Daniel K. Balaban
Andrew J. Spielberger
21 Kahren Harutyunyan
Vanessa L. Loftus-Brewer
22
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
23 MARLENE GARCIA and J.J.
24
25
26
27
28
2
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 9
3 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................. 11
4 III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD ........................................................................... 13
5 IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 14
6 A. Plaintiff JJ is Competent to Discuss the Abuse He Endured by Mr. Owiecki. ....... 14
7 B. Plaintiff JJ Was Subject to A Battery By His Adaptive PE Instructor Mr. Owiecki
(also known as “Coach Bob”) and Plaintiff is Able to Establish All Elements of the
8 Battery. .................................................................................................................... 16
9 1. Plaintiffs Did Not Consent to Mr. Owiecki’s Abusive Actions Towards JJ.
..................................................................................................................... 16
10
2. Plaintiffs Were Harmed as a Result of the Physical Abuse by Mr. Owiecki
11 Towards JJ. .................................................................................................. 17
12
BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP
3. Causation ..................................................................................................... 17
11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345
13
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
C. The Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by the PE Instructor Coach Bob. 18
14 D. Plaintiffs Are Able to Establish the Elements of Negligence Against PE Instructor
Coach Bob. .............................................................................................................. 19
15
E. Plaintiffs are Able to Show Coach Bob Acted with a Discriminatory Animus
16 Towards JJ. .............................................................................................................. 21
17 F. Mr. Owiecki May Not Circumvent Liability Pursuant to a Teacher’s Right to
Maintain Order. ....................................................................................................... 21
18
G. Mr. Owiecki May Not Circumvent Liability Pursuant to the Paul Coverdell Immunity
19 Act. .......................................................................................................................... 23
20 H. Mr. Owiecki May Not Circumvent Liability Pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.
................................................................................................................................. 24
21
J. Immunity Pursuant to Government Code section 820.2 Does Not Apply .............. 27
22
K. 9th and 10th Causes of Action and the Res Judicata Argument ............................... 28
23
L. The Eleventh Amendment Immunity Is Waived..................................................... 28
24
II. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 28
25
26
27
28
3
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
2
Cases
3
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
4
(2001) 25 Cal. 4th App. 826, 850 ............................................................................................ 25
5
Ashcraft v. King
6 (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 604 ..................................................................................................... 17
7 Austin B. v. Escondido Union School District
(2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 860 .......................................................................... 12, 22, 23, 24, 26
8
Barner v. Leeds
9
(2000) 24 Cal. 4th 676............................................................................................................. 28
10
Barouh v. Haberman
11 (1994) 26 Cal. App. 4th 40 ...................................................................................................... 17
12 C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High Sch. Dist.
BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP
11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345
(2012) 53 Cal. 4th 861................................................................................................. 12, 20, 21
13
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
C.B. v. Sonora Sch.
14 (2009) 691 F. Supp. 2d 1123 ....................................................................................... 24, 25, 27
15
Cameron v. Graig
16 (2013) 713 F. 3d 1012 ............................................................................................................. 27
17 Christensen v. Superior Court
(1991) 54 Cal. 3d 868 .............................................................................................................. 19
18
Clark v. Barnard,
19 108 U.S. 436 (1883) ................................................................................................................ 29
20 Constantinescu v. Conejo Valley Unified School Dist.
21 (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 1466 .................................................................................................. 20
22 Cornell v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco
(2017) 17 Cal. App. 5th 766 .................................................................................................... 27
23
Coyle v. Historic Mission Inn Corp.
24 (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 627 ...................................................................................................... 20
25 In Re Daniel Z
(1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1009 .............................................................................................. 11, 16
26
27 Davison v. Santa Barbara Unified School Dist.,
48 F.Supp.2d 1225 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ....................................................................................... 26
28
4
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Declouet v. Orelans Parish Sch. Bd.
715 So.2d 69 (La. Ct. App. 1998) ........................................................................................... 21
2
Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Assn., Inc.
3 (2017) 8 Cal. App. 5th 118 ...................................................................................................... 21
4
Emery v. Emery
5 (1955) 45 Cal. 2d 421 .............................................................................................................. 24
6 Fraizer v. Velkura
(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 942 ...................................................................................................... 14
7
Gant v. Los Angeles Cnty.
8 772 F. 3d 608 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................. 27
9 Gillett v. Gillett
10 (1959)168 Cal. App. 2d 102 .................................................................................................... 24
11 Goss v. Lopez
(1975) 419 US 565 .................................................................................................................. 23
12
BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP
11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345
Greider By and Through Greider v. Shawnee Mission Unified School District No.
13
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
(1989) 512, 710 F. Supp. 296 .................................................................................................. 21
14 Guidry on Behalf of Meche v. Rapides Parish School Board
15 (1990) 560 So. 2d 125 ............................................................................................................. 21
16 Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R.,
200 U.S. 273 (1906) ................................................................................................................ 29
17
Hill v. Blind Indus. & Servs. of Maryland
18 179 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................... 29
19 Hughes v. Pair
(2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035,1050-1051 ......................................................................................... 19
20
21 Isbister v. Boys Club of Santa Cruz, Inc.
(1985) 40 Cal.3d 72 ................................................................................................................. 26
22
In Re J.D.
23 (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 709 .................................................................................................. 23
24 JH v. Los Angeles Unified School District
(2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 123 .................................................................................................. 20
25
Johnson v. State of Cal.
26
(1968) 69 Cal. 2d 782 (1968) .................................................................................................. 28
27
K.T. v. Pittsburg Unified School District
28 (2016) 219 F. Supp. 3d 970 ............................................................................................... 26, 27
5
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Ladd v. County of San Mateo
(1996) 12 Cal.4th 913.............................................................................................................. 20
2
Lawrence v. La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club Inc.
3 (2014) 231 Cal. App. 4th 11 .............................................................................................. 18, 19
4
Leader v. State of California
5 (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1079 ............................................................................................. 10, 12
6 Lee v. City of Los Angeles
250 F. 3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 22
7
M.W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School Dist.
8 (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 508 .................................................................................................. 20
9 McCorkle v. City of Los Angeles
10 (1969) 70 Cal. 2d. 252 ............................................................................................................. 28
11 Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc.
(9th Cir. 2007) 481 F.3d 724 ................................................................................................... 26
12
BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP
11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345
New Jersey v. T.L.O.
13
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
(1985) 469 US 325 .................................................................................................................. 23
14 Nicole M. v. Martinez Unified School Dist.,
15 964 F.Supp. 1369 (N.D. Cal. 1997) ........................................................................................ 26
16 People v. Cooks
(1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 224 ............................................................................................... 10, 12
17
People v. Curtiss
18 (1931) 116 Cal. App. Supp. 771.............................................................................................. 24
19 People v. Giron-Chamul
(2016) 245 Cal. App. 4th 932 ............................................................................................ 11, 16
20
21 People v. Mansfield
(1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 82 ....................................................................................................... 18
22
People v. Sanchez
23 (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 14..................................................................................................... 11, 15, 16
24 People v. Stewart
(1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 88 ..................................................................................................... 24
25
Phyllis P. v. Superior Court
26
(1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1193 ................................................................................................... 20
27
Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. No. 40 Cty. of Yamhill,
28 130 F.3d 432 (9th Cir. 1997) ....................................................................................... 12, 25, 26
6
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Rains v. Superior Court
(1984) 150 Cal. App. 3d 933 ............................................................................................. 17, 18
2
In Re Randy G.
3 (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 556....................................................................................................... 12, 23
4
Reese v. City of Sacramento
5 (2018) 888 F. 3d 1030 ....................................................................................................... 22, 27
6 Reese v. Jefferson School Dist. No. 14J,
208 F. 3d. 736 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................. 22
7
Regents of Univ. of Cal. V. Sup. Ct.
8 (2018) 29 Cal. App. 5th 890 .................................................................................................... 28
9 Reid v. Google, Inc.
10 (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512.............................................................................................................. 15
11 Roseville Community Hospital v. State
(1977) 74 Cal. App. 3d 583 ..................................................................................................... 28
12
BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP
11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345
In re S.C.
13
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
(2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 396 ............................................................................................ 11, 15
14 S.V. v. Sup. Ct.
15 (2018) 28 Cal. App. 5th 671 .................................................................................................... 24
16 Sartor v. Superior Court
(1982) 136 Cal. App. 3d 322 ................................................................................................... 29
17
In Re Sean A
18 (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 182 .................................................................................................. 23
19 So v. Shin
(2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652 .............................................................................................. 17, 18
20
21 Spingola v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.
2000 WL 1780260 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2000) ....................................................................... 29
22
Thompson v. Sacramento City Unified School District
23 (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 1352 ................................................................................................ 19
24 Upton v. Clovis Municpal School District
(2006) 140 N.M. 205 ............................................................................................................... 21
25
Versa Technologies, Inc. v. Superior Court
26
(1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 237 ....................................................................................................... 14
27
Walsh v. Tehachapi Unified School Dist.,
28 827 F.Supp.2d 1107 (E.D. Cal. 2011) ..................................................................................... 26
7
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Wormuth v. Lammersville Union School Dist.
(2018) 305 F. Supp. 3d 1108 ................................................................................................... 25
2
Y.G. v. Riverside Unified School Dist.,
3 774 F.Supp.2d 1055 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ..................................................................................... 26
4
Zavala v. Arce
5 (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 915 ...................................................................................................... 14
6 Statutes
7 42 U.S.C 1983 ............................................................................................................................... 25
8 Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b) .................................................................................................................. 26
9 California Code of Civil Procedure § 437c ............................................................................... 2, 14
10 Civil Code § 52.1 .......................................................................................................................... 26
11
Civil Code § 1714 ......................................................................................................................... 21
12
BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP
11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345
Evid. Code § 500 ........................................................................................................................... 25
13
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
Evid. Code § 780 ........................................................................................................................... 12
14
Evid. Code §1224 .......................................................................................................................... 12
15
Evidence Code § 700, 701............................................................................................................. 11
16
Evidence Code § 701..................................................................................................................... 15
17
18 Evidence Code §1237.................................................................................................................... 16
19 Government Code § 820.2 ............................................................................................................ 28
20 Paul Coverdell Immunity Act § 15004 ......................................................................................... 24
21 Penal Code section 11165.7 subsection (1) and (42) .................................................................... 21
22 Other Authorities
23 CACI 202, 212, 219, 224 .............................................................................................................. 10
24 CACI 400 ...................................................................................................................................... 20
25
CACI 1300 .................................................................................................................................... 17
26
CACI 1600 .................................................................................................................................... 19
27
28
8
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Claiming, without citing any legal support, that “it is axiomatic that if any plaintiff cannot
testify, there can be no action” [Motion @ 17:3], this central theme of Defendant’s Motion is based
4
on the false premise that a Plaintiff can only prove his case through direct testimonial evidence from
5
the Plaintiff himself. Looking at Defendant’s Motion, there is a reason Defendant fails to cite any
6
support for this central position to Defendant’s Motion—because there is no such legal support. It
7 is Hornbook Law memorialized in the CACI Jury Instructions that evidence can be either direct
8 evidence or circumstantial evidence—that evidence can come from admissions from a defendant
9 made outside the courtroom—that evidence can come from an exhibit—that evidence can come
10 from someone’s opinion—and that testimony can come from a child. [CACI 202, 212, 219, 224]
In the instant matter, Plaintiff has evidence from all the above which raise triable issues of fact
11
which require the instant motion to be denied.
12
BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP
Specifically, Plaintiff has the following evidence which shows (directly or through
11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345
13 circumstantial evidence) that Defendant assaulted and battered Plaintiff on or about 12/8/16 thus
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/15/2021 06:54 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by C. Cappadona,Deputy Clerk 1 BALABAN & SPIELBERGER, LLP 11999 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 345 2 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Tel: (424) 832-7677 3 Fax: (424) 832-7702 Daniel K. Balaban, State Bar No. 243652 4 Andrew J. Spielberger, State Bar No. 120231 Kahren Harutyunyan, State Bar No. 298449 5 Vanessa L. Loftus-Brewer, State Bar No. 265213 6 LAW OFFICES OF TERESA LI, PC Teresa Li, State Bar No. 278779 7 Mailing Address: 548 Market St. 8 PMB 24496 9 San Francisco, California 94104-5401 10 Attorney for Plaintiffs, MARLENE GARCIA and J.J. 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP 11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345 13 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 14 MARLENE GARCIA, and J.J., a minor, by Case No. BC679114 and through his guardian ad litem, 15 MARLENE GARCIA, [Hon. Olivia Rosales, Dept. C] 16 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S 17 v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY 18 ROBERT J. OWIECKI, WHITTIER CITY ADJUDICATION 19 SCHOOL DISTRICT, and DOES 1-20, [Pltfs’ Resp to Def’s S.S.U.M.F and P.U.M.F.; Dec of Vanessa L. Lotftus-Brewer; Dec of Diana Everstine M.A. 20 Defendants. and Ph.D.; Pltfs' Req for Judicial Notice; Compendium of Evidence; Compendium of Non-CA Authorities; Notice of 21 Lodgment; Pltfs’ Evidentiary Objections; [Proposed] Order Re Pltfs’ Evidentiary Objections.] 22 Date: September 30, 2021 23 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: C (Norwalk) 24 Reservation ID: 979232391762 25 26 Complaint Filed: 10/11/2017 Trial Date: 10/22/2021 27 28 1 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, TO DEFENDANT, AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS 2 OF RECORD HEREIN: 3 Plaintiffs MARLENE GARCIA and J.J. a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem 4 MARLENE GARCIA (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”), hereby submits the following 5 Opposition to Defendant ROBERT J. OWIECKI’s (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” or 6 "Moving Party" or “OWIECKI”) Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative Summary 7 Adjudication, (hereinafter “MSJ”) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. This 8 Opposition is based on the facts and arguments set forth in the attached Memorandum of Points and 9 Authorities, all evidence, declarations, oral argument and other related documents. 10 It is further based on all papers and pleadings on file in this action, Plaintiff’s Responses to 11 Defendant’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts, Plaintiffs’ Compendium of Evidence in 12 Support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence, the BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP 11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345 13 Declarations of Dr. Diana Everstine and Vanessa L. Loftus-Brewer, Esq., the Request for Judicial LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 14 Notice, and Exhibits therein, and upon such further oral and documentary evidence as may be 15 provided at the time of the hearing of Defendant’s Motion. 16 17 DATED: September 15, 2021 BALABAN & SPIELBERGER, LLP 18 19 By: 20 Daniel K. Balaban Andrew J. Spielberger 21 Kahren Harutyunyan Vanessa L. Loftus-Brewer 22 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 23 MARLENE GARCIA and J.J. 24 25 26 27 28 2 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 9 3 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................. 11 4 III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD ........................................................................... 13 5 IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 14 6 A. Plaintiff JJ is Competent to Discuss the Abuse He Endured by Mr. Owiecki. ....... 14 7 B. Plaintiff JJ Was Subject to A Battery By His Adaptive PE Instructor Mr. Owiecki (also known as “Coach Bob”) and Plaintiff is Able to Establish All Elements of the 8 Battery. .................................................................................................................... 16 9 1. Plaintiffs Did Not Consent to Mr. Owiecki’s Abusive Actions Towards JJ. ..................................................................................................................... 16 10 2. Plaintiffs Were Harmed as a Result of the Physical Abuse by Mr. Owiecki 11 Towards JJ. .................................................................................................. 17 12 BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP 3. Causation ..................................................................................................... 17 11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345 13 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 C. The Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by the PE Instructor Coach Bob. 18 14 D. Plaintiffs Are Able to Establish the Elements of Negligence Against PE Instructor Coach Bob. .............................................................................................................. 19 15 E. Plaintiffs are Able to Show Coach Bob Acted with a Discriminatory Animus 16 Towards JJ. .............................................................................................................. 21 17 F. Mr. Owiecki May Not Circumvent Liability Pursuant to a Teacher’s Right to Maintain Order. ....................................................................................................... 21 18 G. Mr. Owiecki May Not Circumvent Liability Pursuant to the Paul Coverdell Immunity 19 Act. .......................................................................................................................... 23 20 H. Mr. Owiecki May Not Circumvent Liability Pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. ................................................................................................................................. 24 21 J. Immunity Pursuant to Government Code section 820.2 Does Not Apply .............. 27 22 K. 9th and 10th Causes of Action and the Res Judicata Argument ............................... 28 23 L. The Eleventh Amendment Immunity Is Waived..................................................... 28 24 II. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 28 25 26 27 28 3 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) 2 Cases 3 Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 4 (2001) 25 Cal. 4th App. 826, 850 ............................................................................................ 25 5 Ashcraft v. King 6 (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 604 ..................................................................................................... 17 7 Austin B. v. Escondido Union School District (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 860 .......................................................................... 12, 22, 23, 24, 26 8 Barner v. Leeds 9 (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 676............................................................................................................. 28 10 Barouh v. Haberman 11 (1994) 26 Cal. App. 4th 40 ...................................................................................................... 17 12 C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High Sch. Dist. BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP 11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345 (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 861................................................................................................. 12, 20, 21 13 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 C.B. v. Sonora Sch. 14 (2009) 691 F. Supp. 2d 1123 ....................................................................................... 24, 25, 27 15 Cameron v. Graig 16 (2013) 713 F. 3d 1012 ............................................................................................................. 27 17 Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 868 .............................................................................................................. 19 18 Clark v. Barnard, 19 108 U.S. 436 (1883) ................................................................................................................ 29 20 Constantinescu v. Conejo Valley Unified School Dist. 21 (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 1466 .................................................................................................. 20 22 Cornell v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco (2017) 17 Cal. App. 5th 766 .................................................................................................... 27 23 Coyle v. Historic Mission Inn Corp. 24 (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 627 ...................................................................................................... 20 25 In Re Daniel Z (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1009 .............................................................................................. 11, 16 26 27 Davison v. Santa Barbara Unified School Dist., 48 F.Supp.2d 1225 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ....................................................................................... 26 28 4 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 Declouet v. Orelans Parish Sch. Bd. 715 So.2d 69 (La. Ct. App. 1998) ........................................................................................... 21 2 Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Assn., Inc. 3 (2017) 8 Cal. App. 5th 118 ...................................................................................................... 21 4 Emery v. Emery 5 (1955) 45 Cal. 2d 421 .............................................................................................................. 24 6 Fraizer v. Velkura (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 942 ...................................................................................................... 14 7 Gant v. Los Angeles Cnty. 8 772 F. 3d 608 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................. 27 9 Gillett v. Gillett 10 (1959)168 Cal. App. 2d 102 .................................................................................................... 24 11 Goss v. Lopez (1975) 419 US 565 .................................................................................................................. 23 12 BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP 11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345 Greider By and Through Greider v. Shawnee Mission Unified School District No. 13 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 (1989) 512, 710 F. Supp. 296 .................................................................................................. 21 14 Guidry on Behalf of Meche v. Rapides Parish School Board 15 (1990) 560 So. 2d 125 ............................................................................................................. 21 16 Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 200 U.S. 273 (1906) ................................................................................................................ 29 17 Hill v. Blind Indus. & Servs. of Maryland 18 179 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................... 29 19 Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035,1050-1051 ......................................................................................... 19 20 21 Isbister v. Boys Club of Santa Cruz, Inc. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 72 ................................................................................................................. 26 22 In Re J.D. 23 (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 709 .................................................................................................. 23 24 JH v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 123 .................................................................................................. 20 25 Johnson v. State of Cal. 26 (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 782 (1968) .................................................................................................. 28 27 K.T. v. Pittsburg Unified School District 28 (2016) 219 F. Supp. 3d 970 ............................................................................................... 26, 27 5 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913.............................................................................................................. 20 2 Lawrence v. La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club Inc. 3 (2014) 231 Cal. App. 4th 11 .............................................................................................. 18, 19 4 Leader v. State of California 5 (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1079 ............................................................................................. 10, 12 6 Lee v. City of Los Angeles 250 F. 3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 22 7 M.W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School Dist. 8 (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 508 .................................................................................................. 20 9 McCorkle v. City of Los Angeles 10 (1969) 70 Cal. 2d. 252 ............................................................................................................. 28 11 Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc. (9th Cir. 2007) 481 F.3d 724 ................................................................................................... 26 12 BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP 11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345 New Jersey v. T.L.O. 13 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 (1985) 469 US 325 .................................................................................................................. 23 14 Nicole M. v. Martinez Unified School Dist., 15 964 F.Supp. 1369 (N.D. Cal. 1997) ........................................................................................ 26 16 People v. Cooks (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 224 ............................................................................................... 10, 12 17 People v. Curtiss 18 (1931) 116 Cal. App. Supp. 771.............................................................................................. 24 19 People v. Giron-Chamul (2016) 245 Cal. App. 4th 932 ............................................................................................ 11, 16 20 21 People v. Mansfield (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 82 ....................................................................................................... 18 22 People v. Sanchez 23 (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 14..................................................................................................... 11, 15, 16 24 People v. Stewart (1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 88 ..................................................................................................... 24 25 Phyllis P. v. Superior Court 26 (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1193 ................................................................................................... 20 27 Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. No. 40 Cty. of Yamhill, 28 130 F.3d 432 (9th Cir. 1997) ....................................................................................... 12, 25, 26 6 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 Rains v. Superior Court (1984) 150 Cal. App. 3d 933 ............................................................................................. 17, 18 2 In Re Randy G. 3 (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 556....................................................................................................... 12, 23 4 Reese v. City of Sacramento 5 (2018) 888 F. 3d 1030 ....................................................................................................... 22, 27 6 Reese v. Jefferson School Dist. No. 14J, 208 F. 3d. 736 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................. 22 7 Regents of Univ. of Cal. V. Sup. Ct. 8 (2018) 29 Cal. App. 5th 890 .................................................................................................... 28 9 Reid v. Google, Inc. 10 (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512.............................................................................................................. 15 11 Roseville Community Hospital v. State (1977) 74 Cal. App. 3d 583 ..................................................................................................... 28 12 BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP 11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345 In re S.C. 13 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 396 ............................................................................................ 11, 15 14 S.V. v. Sup. Ct. 15 (2018) 28 Cal. App. 5th 671 .................................................................................................... 24 16 Sartor v. Superior Court (1982) 136 Cal. App. 3d 322 ................................................................................................... 29 17 In Re Sean A 18 (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 182 .................................................................................................. 23 19 So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652 .............................................................................................. 17, 18 20 21 Spingola v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. 2000 WL 1780260 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2000) ....................................................................... 29 22 Thompson v. Sacramento City Unified School District 23 (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 1352 ................................................................................................ 19 24 Upton v. Clovis Municpal School District (2006) 140 N.M. 205 ............................................................................................................... 21 25 Versa Technologies, Inc. v. Superior Court 26 (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 237 ....................................................................................................... 14 27 Walsh v. Tehachapi Unified School Dist., 28 827 F.Supp.2d 1107 (E.D. Cal. 2011) ..................................................................................... 26 7 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 Wormuth v. Lammersville Union School Dist. (2018) 305 F. Supp. 3d 1108 ................................................................................................... 25 2 Y.G. v. Riverside Unified School Dist., 3 774 F.Supp.2d 1055 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ..................................................................................... 26 4 Zavala v. Arce 5 (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 915 ...................................................................................................... 14 6 Statutes 7 42 U.S.C 1983 ............................................................................................................................... 25 8 Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b) .................................................................................................................. 26 9 California Code of Civil Procedure § 437c ............................................................................... 2, 14 10 Civil Code § 52.1 .......................................................................................................................... 26 11 Civil Code § 1714 ......................................................................................................................... 21 12 BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP 11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345 Evid. Code § 500 ........................................................................................................................... 25 13 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 Evid. Code § 780 ........................................................................................................................... 12 14 Evid. Code §1224 .......................................................................................................................... 12 15 Evidence Code § 700, 701............................................................................................................. 11 16 Evidence Code § 701..................................................................................................................... 15 17 18 Evidence Code §1237.................................................................................................................... 16 19 Government Code § 820.2 ............................................................................................................ 28 20 Paul Coverdell Immunity Act § 15004 ......................................................................................... 24 21 Penal Code section 11165.7 subsection (1) and (42) .................................................................... 21 22 Other Authorities 23 CACI 202, 212, 219, 224 .............................................................................................................. 10 24 CACI 400 ...................................................................................................................................... 20 25 CACI 1300 .................................................................................................................................... 17 26 CACI 1600 .................................................................................................................................... 19 27 28 8 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT J. OWIECKI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 Claiming, without citing any legal support, that “it is axiomatic that if any plaintiff cannot testify, there can be no action” [Motion @ 17:3], this central theme of Defendant’s Motion is based 4 on the false premise that a Plaintiff can only prove his case through direct testimonial evidence from 5 the Plaintiff himself. Looking at Defendant’s Motion, there is a reason Defendant fails to cite any 6 support for this central position to Defendant’s Motion—because there is no such legal support. It 7 is Hornbook Law memorialized in the CACI Jury Instructions that evidence can be either direct 8 evidence or circumstantial evidence—that evidence can come from admissions from a defendant 9 made outside the courtroom—that evidence can come from an exhibit—that evidence can come 10 from someone’s opinion—and that testimony can come from a child. [CACI 202, 212, 219, 224] In the instant matter, Plaintiff has evidence from all the above which raise triable issues of fact 11 which require the instant motion to be denied. 12 BALABAN & SPIELBERGER LLP Specifically, Plaintiff has the following evidence which shows (directly or through 11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD., STE. 345 13 circumstantial evidence) that Defendant assaulted and battered Plaintiff on or about 12/8/16 thus LOS ANGELES, CA 90049