Preview
1 | MARK D. PETERS #110981
| Peters & Peters
2 || 645 Fourth Street, Suite 213
| Santa Rosa, CA 95404
3 | (707) 545-9250
4 || Attorney for Defendants
SANTA ROSA CITY SCHOOLS, ANNA TRUNNELL, ADAM PAULS
5 |] and TYLER AHLBORN ON,
6|
71 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA |
8 COUNTY OF SONOMA
9|
10 | TRAVIS PIENTA, et al., No. 23CV00397 (Unlimited Civil)
11 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF MARK D. PETERS
| IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
12 v. COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
13 | SANTA ROSA CITY SCHOOLS, et ai,
DATE: April 24, 2024
14 | Defendants; TIME: 3:00 p.m.
15 | / CTRM: Eighteen
| Assigned to Hon. Christopher Honigsberg
16
; 71 SANTA ROSA CITY SCHOOLS,
18 | Cross-Complainant,
¥.
19 |
30 | JESUS PULIDO, et al.,
Cross-Defendants,
21 /
22 | I, Mark D. Peters, declare as follows:
23 | 1. Iam an attorney at law licensed to practice before all the Courts of the
24 | State of California and this honorable Court, and am attorney of record for Defendant and
25 || Cross-Complainant Santa Rosa City Schools and Defendants Anna Trunnell, Adam Paulson,
26 | and Tyler Ahlborn in the above-captioned matter.
27 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’
28 | Amended Complaint.
-]-
1| 3. On October 25, 2023, Plaintiffs served their Request for Production
of
2 || Documents with 64 separate categories of items to be produced. The
School District,
3 | pursuant to extensions granted by Plaintiffs’ counsel, served its Response
timely on
4 || December 19, 2023.
5} 4. Counsel for the Pientas and the School District were successful in
6 | petitioning the Juvenile Court for the release of the Reporters’ Transcripts of the Juvenile
7 | Court Trial of Daniel Pulido. In addition, Judge Gnoss ordered some of the
items of
8 || evidence introduced at the Trial to be produced by the Santa Rosa Police Department.
That
9 || production is scheduled to occur concurrently with the filing of this document.
|
10 5. Some of Plaintiffs’ requests involve records pertaining to their decedent.
11 || Ofcourse, Plaintiffs are entitled to receive these. But Plaintiffs’ Request for Product
ion was
12 || served prior to the School District filing its Cross-Complaint against Daniel Pulido,
his
13 | parents, and Juan Cruz and his mother Maria Cervantes. The School District withheld
14 | Plaintiffs’ decedent’s records from production because, if produced formally in respons
e to
15 | a discovery request from the Pientas, they would also have to be disclosed to the Cross-
16 || Defendants when they appeared in the matter. I discussed this with Mr. Henderson, noting
17 || that he could avoid the issue by making a private request for the records. Mr. Henderson did
18 || not respond.
19 | I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, that
20 || if called as a witness I could and would so competently testify, and that this Declaration was
21 | executed by me on April 11, 2024, at Santa Rosa, California.
2 | YOO
24 | MarkD
===S=. S=~=~
Peters=“—s~—S—s~S*~*S*S~S
Attorney for Defendants
25 |
26
27 |
28 |
2
EXHIBITA
_ 1 | MARTIN REILLEY (SBN 83697)
| KRANKEMANN LAW OFFICES P.C. ELECTRONICALLY FILED
2 | Attorneys At Law Superior Court of California
| 420 E Street, Suite 100 County of Sonoma
3 | Santa Rosa, California 95404 2/20/2024 1:27
| Telephone: (707) 524-2200 By: Janie Dorman, Deputy ClerPMk
4 Facsimile: (866) 858-0100
5} Attomey for Plaintiffs
| DANIEL JESUS PULIDO
6 | ALEJANDRA PULIDO-LUGO
7 : JESUS PULIDO
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
9| COUNTY OF SONOMA
10 |
¥ 11 | DANIEL JESUS PULIDO, a minor, byand
NM $8 | through his Guardian Ad Litem, Alejandra
| CASE NO.: 24C'V00520
(} &§ 12] Pulido-Lugo, ALEJANDRA :
fk #2 PULIDO-
| LUGO, individually, and JESUS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
E £¢ 13 || individually, PULIDO, DAMAGES
Oa |
> 5 ge 14 1, Negligence . ;
2. Declaratory Relief Action and Injunctio .
“Bae
fisi | Plaintiffs, on
wie
Z DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
25 6 | VS.
$ <2 a SANTA ROSA CITY SCHOOLS, and DOES
ze 17 | 1-20, inclusive,
2 a4 18 | Defendant(s).
& we 19 Come now Plaintiffs DANIEL JESUS PULIDO
, a minor, by and through his parents and
20 | guardian ad litem, Alejandra Pulido-L
ugo, ALEJANDRA PULIDO-LUGO, individu
ally, and
2] JESUS PULIDO, individually, and allege
as follows:
22 | THE PARTIES :
23 1. Plaintiff DANIEL JESUS PULIDO is a minor
whose date of birth is October 28,
24 | 2007.
25 | 2. Plaintiff ALEJANDRA PULIDO-LUGO is the mother of DANIEL
JESUS
a 27) 3. Plaintiff JESUS PULIDO is the father of DANIEL
JESUS PULIDO,
28 4, Defendant SANTA ROSA CITY SCHOOLS (“S
RCS”) is a public entity that
-]-
| FE RRO
|
|
_ I | operates as a public school district located in the
City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California,
2 organized, existing, and operating under the laws of
the State of California. At all relevant times,
3 SRCS, its governing board, officers, and employees were
responsible for the administration,
4 operation, management, and control of numerous
schools throughout the City of Santa Rosa,
5 |) including Montgomery High School (“MHS”).
6 | 5.
The true names and capacities of DOES 1-20 inclusive
are unknown to Plaintiffs
7 : who therefore sue Defendants by such fictitious names.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, on
8 that basis, allege that Defendants and DOES 1-20, and
each of them, were and are responsible for
9 | the acts, omissions, and occurrences causing Plaintiffs’
damages as hereinafter alleged. When the
10 | true names and capacities of DOES 1-20 are ascertained,
Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint by
x il inserting the true names and capacities herein.
gi 35 12 , 6, Plaintiffs hereby allege that DOES 1-10 at all relevant times
were employees,
3 E $ 13 agents, or contractors of SRCS acting in the course and scope
of their employment, agency, or
-g 8 a 14 contract with SRCS at the time the events alleged herein
occurred.
<= : i = 15 7.
Plaintiffs hereby allege that DOES 11-20 at all relevant times
were other individuals |
g 2k 16 | or entities yet unknown that owed duties to Plaintiffs
and that the injuries alleged hereafter were
a ze 17 proximately caused by the breach of said duties by said Defendants.
|
SB 22 is : JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7 ve 19 | 8. This action involves a civil dispute, the amount in controversy
exceeds $25,000.00,
20 and the acts and occurrences giving rise to this lawsuit occurred
in Sonoma County, State of
21 California. Further, SRCS has its principal place of business
and is domiciled in the County of
22 | Sonoma, State of California.
23 | ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITE
24 | 9. Plaintiffs properly and timely presented a government tort claim
to SRCS pursuant
25 | to and in compliance with Government Code section
910, et seq. on July 31, 2023, which was
26 rejected by Redwood Empire Schools’ Insurance Group (“RESIG”)
on behalf of SRCS on August
~ 27 |) 23, 2023.
28 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
|
- i | 10. DANIEL JESUS PULIDO (“DANIEL”) was enrolled as a freshman
at MHS during
2 | the academic year 2022-2023 until March 1, 2023.
3 ll. Throughout DANIEL’s freshman year, students at MHS who
were either members
4 1 of Nortenos, a criminal gang, or Nortenos-associates/affiliates,
harassed, intimidated, threatened,
5 and beat DANIEL for his refusal to join them in gang-related activities
or to otherwise follow their
6 dictates regarding where he could eat, use the bathroom, congregate
or socialize with other
7 students.
8 | 12. These actions by such students occurred on the campus of MHS during
school hours
9 and were well-known to MHS administrators, faculty, and employees
of MHS. |
10 13, On February 7, 2023, DANIEL was attacked while he was in the hallway
of
¥ ik MHS. He suffered two black eyes and a fractured nose in this attack.
Ee 23 12 | 14. On February 8, 2023, someone painted DANIEL's name, as well as the names of
fe ig 13 other MHS students, on a wall and/or locker on the campus of MHS
followed by the letter “K”, a
Q 5 G 14 , well-known gang sign to designate that DANIEL and the other
named students were marked for
ig f= 15 | death
g : a 16 | 15. On February 24, 2023, DANIEL received text messages telling him that he would by
é i 17 “jumped” or “killed” when he returned to school and that he should
“watch his back.”
> a ~ 18 | 16. On February 28, 2023, DANIEL and his father meet with MHS principal,
Adam
5 vr 19 | Paulson, and told Mr. Paulson that DANIEL feared for his
life and did not feel safe returning to
20 MHS. Mr. Paulson assured DANIEL that he was safe and that ifhe ever felt
threatened all he
al needed to do was go into a school office or classroom where he would
be protected by MHS staff.
22 17. On February 28, 2023, DANIEL’s mother had discussions and
email correspondence
23 with MHS personnel regarding DANIEL’s safety. She received no meaningful
response or
24 suggested course of action to address her concerns. Mrs. Pulido-Lugo
told MHS personnel that
25 | DANIEL was fearful of being beaten or killed at school and that this accounted
for his recent
26 truancy. She asked if DANIEL could be enrolled in an Independent Study
Program and was told
~ 27 that this was not available, and that DANIEL would have to come
to school or face truancy charges.
28 18. On March 1, 2023, DANIEL was followed across campus on his way to Arts
class
po RE AMENDED COMBE AINE
:
|
sen, i : by a group of students known to MHS administrators, faculty,
and employees to have previously
2 assaulted and threatened DANIEL. While this pack was following
DANIEL, Mr. Paulson and
3 : MHS Vice-Principal Tyler Ahlborn drove past them in
a golf cart but did nothing to warn DANIEL
4 | or otherwise intervene to disarm this obvious, potentially
dangerous situation.
5 19. After DANIEL entered Arts class on March 1, 2023, two MHS
juniors who had
6 || previously assaulted DANIEL and who were not members of
the class entered the classroom and
7 attacked DANIEL while other members of the pack blocked the doorway
to prevent his escape; this
8 even though three teachers and/or teacher-assistants were present.
After DANIEL was hit in the
9 | face and head numerous times, DANIEL, fearing for his
life, used a knife to fend off his attackers
10 and in justifiable self-defense killed one of his attackers and injured
the other.
x li 20. DANIEL was charged with felony manslaughter and incarcerated in juvenile
FB 3 : 12 detention from March 1, 2023 to December 14, 2023,
fe 5 13 21. The juvenile court determined that DANIEL was not guilty of manslaughter
and that
g 5 i i4
he was justified in using the force he did to defend himself against
his attackers.
3 e 5 = 15 | 22. Defendant engaged in such acts and omissions as to cause and allow
the MHS
g E B 16 | campus to become unsafe for its students. These acts
and omissions include, but are not limited to:
ye 17 ° Failing to properly and effectively supervise students on campus and
during school
Z ni Z 18 hours;
g F 19 ® Removing the Santa Rosa Police Department student resource officer
from campus, |
20 | and failing to plan and/or implement an adequate substitute resource for
the students
21 and faculty;
22 ® Allowing a culture of violence to grow and become acceptable on campus
and
23 during school hours, in which students were allowed to settle
differences through
24 physical violence;
25 | : ® Failing to take effective action to address students who engage in repeated
violent
26 altercations with other students, including, but not limited to, reassignment,
: 27 Segregation, supervision, education, counseling, intervention, and expulsion;
28 8 Failing to properly retain, train, supervise, and implement effective and appropriate
ee
|
ons I staffing to prevent and respond to student violence
on campus and during school |
zZ hours;
3 | ® Allowing students to engage in increasing and frequent
violent altercations with each |
4 other on campus and during school hours;
5 e Failing to affect appropriate discipline, including
the suspension, transfer, or
6 | expulsion of dangerous and disruptive students, in
accordance with Education Code
7 section 48900;
8 ® Failure to hold pupils to a strict account for their
conduct in violation of Education
9 | Code section 44807;
10 | ® Failure to have a safe environment supportive of learni
ng in violation of Education
g 1 | Code section 51101(a)(7);
= Be 12 ® Failure to develop, adopt, and implement a policy that
outlines the manner in which
3 ag 13 parents, school staff, and pupils share in the responsibili
ty for continuing the
g 5 gi 14 | physical and emotional well-being of students at MHS
in violation of Education
i : Es 18 Code section 51101(b);
g E : 16 ® Failure to immediately report to law enforcement the homic
idal threat to DANIEL
a 17 and other MHS students in violation of Education Code
sections 49390 and 49393.
a 3 18 | 23. Such actions and inactions caused, allowed, and foster
ed a violent atmosphere on the
ve 19 campus of MHS. Students were frequently targeted by viole
nce to their property and persons. The
20 culture of the school became one in which students expec
ted and were allowed to settle
al disagreements with violence, and those students who
failed to respond to provocations against them
22 became targets for further violence.
23 24.
Videos posted by students on social media show that this
activity was widespread
24 | amongst the student body and took place all over
the campus during school hours. Social media
25 | postings for MHS contain at least 47 videos of fights on
campus posted by students in the
26 2022/2023 school year. There is minimal indication of schoo
l staff being present to monitor,
~ 27 prevent, or intercede in these altercations, despite the prese
nce at times of large numbers of students
28 | spectating.
fo oR A MENTED COMBE RR
. i , 25.MHS’s student body contains elements of multiple feuding gang affiliations.
This
2 | mix has led to past acts of violence, including fights and at least one
prior stabbing incident in 2018
3 wherein two girls were arrested during a football game with one of the
girls sustaining serious
4 | injuries.
5 26.
MHS crime statistics, documented by calls to 911 and Santa Rosa Police
Department
6 i dispatch, include 664 law enforcement responses to the campus betwee
n 1/1/18 and 5/24/23,
7 including 47 reports of disturbances, 26 reports of battery, 14 reports of theft,
9 reports of fights, 8
g reports of weapons on school grounds, 5 reports of threats of death or
great bodily harm, 4 reports
9 of child molestation, and 2 reports of rape.
10 27. Despite this history of violence and the clear need to engage in proactive
2 Il interventions to quell violence and provide students with a safe environment on campus
, Defendant
: 5 12 chose to limit resources available to protect students, including the removal of the
Santa Rosa
ES 5 g 13 Police Department Resource Officer assigned to MHS. Further, they failed to properly retain,
train,
g 5 i 14
equip, and supervise staff to deal with these issues. The result was an unsafe school enviro
nment
wel ® 5 a 15 | that left students vulnerable to violence and without adequate resources to
address that violence.
g E a5 16 28. Teachers, students, and parents have emphatically voiced their concern
that MHS
a re 17 | does not provide adequate supervision or resources to their students. Libby
Dalton, a parent of a
a a 18 | MHS student, has stated: “There’s a lot of fights at Montgomery. They just
have that culture there
: ve 19 that they fight. The kids fight there. They pick on each other and they try and stand up for
20 themselves and then they all end up suspended.” (San Diego Tribune, 3/2/23). Teache
rs have also
21 spoken up: “Teachers are not trained in this and should not be expected to break up fights, to
have
22 to chase gang members from other schools off our campus before they jump somebody. Staff
have
23 been assaulted and we need to protect them, as well. The saying ‘Throwing the baby out with
the
24 bathwater,” sums it all up on what the school board has done with canceling the SRO progra
m.”
25 (Press Democrat, 3/7/23). A MHS student identified as Olive Blane stated: “I just turned 15 years
26 | old, and I fear for my life every single day.” (Press Democrat, 3/7/23). Another teacher stated:
~ 27 “Teachers have been complaining for many months about an escalation of violence on campus. And
28 what happened there (at MHS) could just as easily happen at any school in this district, Santa Rosa,
_ 1 [Maria] Carillo, Piner, Elsie [Allen]. Little to no consequences are handed down when earlier
2 indications of violence happen.” (Press Democrat, 3/2/23).
3 | 29. Defendant were aware of this violence occurring on the campus of MHS. Defendants
4 failed and refused to take reasonable, appropriate, and effective action to protect students from
5 | foreseeable harm at the hands of other students.
| FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
i Negligence
7 (By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
8 | 30. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 above as though set
9} forth in full herein,
10 31. Atal times throughout the 2022-2023 academic year, Defendants, and each of them,
¥ ll had legal duties to the students of MHS and their parents, including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs |
th Fe 12 herein,
Fe i ; 13 32. California law has long imposed on school authorities a duty to "supervise at all
© 5 Fr 14 times the conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations
p] é ie 15 necessary to their protection." (Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 741, 747.)
Z E : & 16 | A special relationship is formed between a school district and its students, resulting in the
- 17 imposition of an affirmative duty on the school district to take all reasonable steps to protect its
i i 18 students. (Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School Dist. (1986)186 Cal.App-3d 707, 714-715.)
e 19 Either a total lack of supervision (Forgnone v. Salvador Union Elementary School Dist. (1940) 41
20 : Cal.App.2d 423) or ineffective supervision (Buzzard v. East Lake School Dist. (1939) 34
21 Cal.App.2d 316) may constitute a lack of ordinary care on the part of those responsible for student
22 supervision. (Dailey, supra, 2 Cal.3d at 747). Under section 815.2, subdivision (a) of the
23 Government Code, a school district is vicariously liable for injuries proximately caused by such
24 negligence. (Id.}
25 33. The mere fact that some third party is the immediate actor in causing the injury (here
26 DANIEL’s attackers) does not of itself absolve a school district from liability if it was negligent in
27 failing to provide adequate supervision. (Hoyem v Manhattan Beach City School Dist. (1978) 22
28 Cal.3d 508, 521). Willful misconduct by the injured student or another student does not relieve the
|
a 1 school district of liability since the duty to supervise is necessary in part because of
the tendency of
2 students to engage in aggressive and impulsive behavior which exposes them and their
peers to the
3 | risk of serious physical harm. (Dailey, supra, 2 Cal,3d at 748),
4] 34, Further, California law creates specific duties, the breach of which is negligence per
5 | se, including:
6 | ® California Constitution ArtI §§ 26 and 28, Right to Safe Schools (all students and
7 | staff of public primary, elementary, junior high, and senior high schools have the
8 | inalienable right to attend campuses that are safe, secure, and peaceful. All school
9 districts must comply with Cal. Const. Art. I, § 28(c), and are prohibited from taking
10 official actions that violate or contravene its provisions).
x li | ® Pursuant to Cal. Ed. Code§ 48200 (compulsory education) and§ 44807, "[e]very
FA : : 12 teacher in the public schools shall hold pupils to a strict account for their conduct on
3 : g 13 the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or during recess."
g & i 14 ® Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 5, §5551 (the principal is
3 : is 15 : responsible for the supervision and administration of his school) (McGrath v.
g E =e 16 | Burkhard (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 367, 372) ['[T]he principal has the necessary
a8 7 | power which is inherent in his office to properly administer and supervise his
u ay 18 | school"].
5 “49 ° Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 5, § 5552, "[w]here playground
20 | supervision is not otherwise provided, the principal of each school shall provide for
21 the supervision by certified employees of the conduct and safety ... of the pupils of
22 the school who are on the grounds during recess and other intermissions and before
23 and after school.”
24 e The purpose of the foregoing laws is to regulate students’ conduct "so as to prevent
25 | disorderly and dangerous practices which are likely to result in physical injury to
26 immature scholars." (MW. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School Dist. (2003) 110
7” 27 Cal App.4th 508, 517-518 review denied (Oct. 01, 2003).
28 a "Such regulation is necessary precisely because of the commonly known tendency of
RSP AMENDED COMPLAINT
|
1 | students to engage in aggressive and impulsive behavior
which exposes them and
2 their peers to the risk of serious physical harm." (Dailey
v. Los Angeles Unified Sch.
3 | Dist, supra, 2 Cal.3d at 748.)
4 * Government Code § 11344 requires the Office of Administrative
Law to provide for
3 | the official compilation, printing, and publication of state regulations
in the
6 California Code of Regulations. The courts "shall take judicial
notice of the contents
7 of each regulation as compiled by the office.'(Govt. Code
§11344.6.) Hence, these
8 || regulations have the power of law.
g | 35. Further, these individuals and entities owed a legal duty to
provide reasonable
10 training, supervision, management, and retention of employees
charged with the supervision of
xg 1] students. (C.W. v, William S. Hart Union High School District,
(2012) 53 Cal.4th 861.)
= 3 : 12 36. Defendants, and each of them, breached these legal duties
to Plaintiffs, and each of
Fe i g 13 them, as alleged herein.
° 5 if 14 37. Asa legal and proximate cause of Defendants’ breaches, DANIEL was repeatedly
pd g : = 15 | assaulted, harassed, intimidated, and put in fear
of his life on numerous occasions throughout the
g a 16 2022-2023 academic years while he was a student at MHS.
ge 17 38. Asa further legal and proximate cause of Defendants’ breaches,
on March 1, 2023,
rs 2 18 DANIEL was forced to take the life of a fellow student in justifiable
defense of himself against a
: ve 19 violent attack. As a result, DANIEL was charged with a felony
and imprisoned for 289 days.
20 39. Asa direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, and breaches
of Defendants,
Zi DANIEL has suffered loss of freedom, severe emotional distress,
anxiety, fear, sleeplessness, guilt,
22 depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, physical pain and suffering,
loss of reputation, public
23 humiliation, loss of education, and loss of future earnings/earning
capacity.
24 | 40. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts, omissions, and
breaches of Defendants,
25 ALEJANDRA PULIDO-LUGO and JESUS PULIDO have suffered severe
emotional! distress, fear,
26 | anxiety, sleeplessness, loss of reputation, public humiliation, out-of-pocket
expenses incurred for
~ 27 the legal defense and psychological care of DANIEL, as well as
Preview
1 | MARK D. PETERS #110981 | Peters & Peters 2 || 645 Fourth Street, Suite 213 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 3 | (707) 545-9250 4 || Attorney for Defendants SANTA ROSA CITY SCHOOLS, ANNA TRUNNELL, ADAM PAULS 5 |] and TYLER AHLBORN ON, 6| 71 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA | 8 COUNTY OF SONOMA 9| 10 | TRAVIS PIENTA, et al., No. 23CV00397 (Unlimited Civil) 11 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF MARK D. PETERS | IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO 12 v. COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 13 | SANTA ROSA CITY SCHOOLS, et ai, DATE: April 24, 2024 14 | Defendants; TIME: 3:00 p.m. 15 | / CTRM: Eighteen | Assigned to Hon. Christopher Honigsberg 16 ; 71 SANTA ROSA CITY SCHOOLS, 18 | Cross-Complainant, ¥. 19 | 30 | JESUS PULIDO, et al., Cross-Defendants, 21 / 22 | I, Mark D. Peters, declare as follows: 23 | 1. Iam an attorney at law licensed to practice before all the Courts of the 24 | State of California and this honorable Court, and am attorney of record for Defendant and 25 || Cross-Complainant Santa Rosa City Schools and Defendants Anna Trunnell, Adam Paulson, 26 | and Tyler Ahlborn in the above-captioned matter. 27 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ 28 | Amended Complaint. -]- 1| 3. On October 25, 2023, Plaintiffs served their Request for Production of 2 || Documents with 64 separate categories of items to be produced. The School District, 3 | pursuant to extensions granted by Plaintiffs’ counsel, served its Response timely on 4 || December 19, 2023. 5} 4. Counsel for the Pientas and the School District were successful in 6 | petitioning the Juvenile Court for the release of the Reporters’ Transcripts of the Juvenile 7 | Court Trial of Daniel Pulido. In addition, Judge Gnoss ordered some of the items of 8 || evidence introduced at the Trial to be produced by the Santa Rosa Police Department. That 9 || production is scheduled to occur concurrently with the filing of this document. | 10 5. Some of Plaintiffs’ requests involve records pertaining to their decedent. 11 || Ofcourse, Plaintiffs are entitled to receive these. But Plaintiffs’ Request for Product ion was 12 || served prior to the School District filing its Cross-Complaint against Daniel Pulido, his 13 | parents, and Juan Cruz and his mother Maria Cervantes. The School District withheld 14 | Plaintiffs’ decedent’s records from production because, if produced formally in respons e to 15 | a discovery request from the Pientas, they would also have to be disclosed to the Cross- 16 || Defendants when they appeared in the matter. I discussed this with Mr. Henderson, noting 17 || that he could avoid the issue by making a private request for the records. Mr. Henderson did 18 || not respond. 19 | I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, that 20 || if called as a witness I could and would so competently testify, and that this Declaration was 21 | executed by me on April 11, 2024, at Santa Rosa, California. 2 | YOO 24 | MarkD ===S=. S=~=~ Peters=“—s~—S—s~S*~*S*S~S Attorney for Defendants 25 | 26 27 | 28 | 2 EXHIBITA _ 1 | MARTIN REILLEY (SBN 83697) | KRANKEMANN LAW OFFICES P.C. ELECTRONICALLY FILED 2 | Attorneys At Law Superior Court of California | 420 E Street, Suite 100 County of Sonoma 3 | Santa Rosa, California 95404 2/20/2024 1:27 | Telephone: (707) 524-2200 By: Janie Dorman, Deputy ClerPMk 4 Facsimile: (866) 858-0100 5} Attomey for Plaintiffs | DANIEL JESUS PULIDO 6 | ALEJANDRA PULIDO-LUGO 7 : JESUS PULIDO 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9| COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 | ¥ 11 | DANIEL JESUS PULIDO, a minor, byand NM $8 | through his Guardian Ad Litem, Alejandra | CASE NO.: 24C'V00520 (} &§ 12] Pulido-Lugo, ALEJANDRA : fk #2 PULIDO- | LUGO, individually, and JESUS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR E £¢ 13 || individually, PULIDO, DAMAGES Oa | > 5 ge 14 1, Negligence . ; 2. Declaratory Relief Action and Injunctio . “Bae fisi | Plaintiffs, on wie Z DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 25 6 | VS. $ <2 a SANTA ROSA CITY SCHOOLS, and DOES ze 17 | 1-20, inclusive, 2 a4 18 | Defendant(s). & we 19 Come now Plaintiffs DANIEL JESUS PULIDO , a minor, by and through his parents and 20 | guardian ad litem, Alejandra Pulido-L ugo, ALEJANDRA PULIDO-LUGO, individu ally, and 2] JESUS PULIDO, individually, and allege as follows: 22 | THE PARTIES : 23 1. Plaintiff DANIEL JESUS PULIDO is a minor whose date of birth is October 28, 24 | 2007. 25 | 2. Plaintiff ALEJANDRA PULIDO-LUGO is the mother of DANIEL JESUS a 27) 3. Plaintiff JESUS PULIDO is the father of DANIEL JESUS PULIDO, 28 4, Defendant SANTA ROSA CITY SCHOOLS (“S RCS”) is a public entity that -]- | FE RRO | | _ I | operates as a public school district located in the City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California, 2 organized, existing, and operating under the laws of the State of California. At all relevant times, 3 SRCS, its governing board, officers, and employees were responsible for the administration, 4 operation, management, and control of numerous schools throughout the City of Santa Rosa, 5 |) including Montgomery High School (“MHS”). 6 | 5. The true names and capacities of DOES 1-20 inclusive are unknown to Plaintiffs 7 : who therefore sue Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, on 8 that basis, allege that Defendants and DOES 1-20, and each of them, were and are responsible for 9 | the acts, omissions, and occurrences causing Plaintiffs’ damages as hereinafter alleged. When the 10 | true names and capacities of DOES 1-20 are ascertained, Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint by x il inserting the true names and capacities herein. gi 35 12 , 6, Plaintiffs hereby allege that DOES 1-10 at all relevant times were employees, 3 E $ 13 agents, or contractors of SRCS acting in the course and scope of their employment, agency, or -g 8 a 14 contract with SRCS at the time the events alleged herein occurred. <= : i = 15 7. Plaintiffs hereby allege that DOES 11-20 at all relevant times were other individuals | g 2k 16 | or entities yet unknown that owed duties to Plaintiffs and that the injuries alleged hereafter were a ze 17 proximately caused by the breach of said duties by said Defendants. | SB 22 is : JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7 ve 19 | 8. This action involves a civil dispute, the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000.00, 20 and the acts and occurrences giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Sonoma County, State of 21 California. Further, SRCS has its principal place of business and is domiciled in the County of 22 | Sonoma, State of California. 23 | ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITE 24 | 9. Plaintiffs properly and timely presented a government tort claim to SRCS pursuant 25 | to and in compliance with Government Code section 910, et seq. on July 31, 2023, which was 26 rejected by Redwood Empire Schools’ Insurance Group (“RESIG”) on behalf of SRCS on August ~ 27 |) 23, 2023. 28 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION | - i | 10. DANIEL JESUS PULIDO (“DANIEL”) was enrolled as a freshman at MHS during 2 | the academic year 2022-2023 until March 1, 2023. 3 ll. Throughout DANIEL’s freshman year, students at MHS who were either members 4 1 of Nortenos, a criminal gang, or Nortenos-associates/affiliates, harassed, intimidated, threatened, 5 and beat DANIEL for his refusal to join them in gang-related activities or to otherwise follow their 6 dictates regarding where he could eat, use the bathroom, congregate or socialize with other 7 students. 8 | 12. These actions by such students occurred on the campus of MHS during school hours 9 and were well-known to MHS administrators, faculty, and employees of MHS. | 10 13, On February 7, 2023, DANIEL was attacked while he was in the hallway of ¥ ik MHS. He suffered two black eyes and a fractured nose in this attack. Ee 23 12 | 14. On February 8, 2023, someone painted DANIEL's name, as well as the names of fe ig 13 other MHS students, on a wall and/or locker on the campus of MHS followed by the letter “K”, a Q 5 G 14 , well-known gang sign to designate that DANIEL and the other named students were marked for ig f= 15 | death g : a 16 | 15. On February 24, 2023, DANIEL received text messages telling him that he would by é i 17 “jumped” or “killed” when he returned to school and that he should “watch his back.” > a ~ 18 | 16. On February 28, 2023, DANIEL and his father meet with MHS principal, Adam 5 vr 19 | Paulson, and told Mr. Paulson that DANIEL feared for his life and did not feel safe returning to 20 MHS. Mr. Paulson assured DANIEL that he was safe and that ifhe ever felt threatened all he al needed to do was go into a school office or classroom where he would be protected by MHS staff. 22 17. On February 28, 2023, DANIEL’s mother had discussions and email correspondence 23 with MHS personnel regarding DANIEL’s safety. She received no meaningful response or 24 suggested course of action to address her concerns. Mrs. Pulido-Lugo told MHS personnel that 25 | DANIEL was fearful of being beaten or killed at school and that this accounted for his recent 26 truancy. She asked if DANIEL could be enrolled in an Independent Study Program and was told ~ 27 that this was not available, and that DANIEL would have to come to school or face truancy charges. 28 18. On March 1, 2023, DANIEL was followed across campus on his way to Arts class po RE AMENDED COMBE AINE : | sen, i : by a group of students known to MHS administrators, faculty, and employees to have previously 2 assaulted and threatened DANIEL. While this pack was following DANIEL, Mr. Paulson and 3 : MHS Vice-Principal Tyler Ahlborn drove past them in a golf cart but did nothing to warn DANIEL 4 | or otherwise intervene to disarm this obvious, potentially dangerous situation. 5 19. After DANIEL entered Arts class on March 1, 2023, two MHS juniors who had 6 || previously assaulted DANIEL and who were not members of the class entered the classroom and 7 attacked DANIEL while other members of the pack blocked the doorway to prevent his escape; this 8 even though three teachers and/or teacher-assistants were present. After DANIEL was hit in the 9 | face and head numerous times, DANIEL, fearing for his life, used a knife to fend off his attackers 10 and in justifiable self-defense killed one of his attackers and injured the other. x li 20. DANIEL was charged with felony manslaughter and incarcerated in juvenile FB 3 : 12 detention from March 1, 2023 to December 14, 2023, fe 5 13 21. The juvenile court determined that DANIEL was not guilty of manslaughter and that g 5 i i4 he was justified in using the force he did to defend himself against his attackers. 3 e 5 = 15 | 22. Defendant engaged in such acts and omissions as to cause and allow the MHS g E B 16 | campus to become unsafe for its students. These acts and omissions include, but are not limited to: ye 17 ° Failing to properly and effectively supervise students on campus and during school Z ni Z 18 hours; g F 19 ® Removing the Santa Rosa Police Department student resource officer from campus, | 20 | and failing to plan and/or implement an adequate substitute resource for the students 21 and faculty; 22 ® Allowing a culture of violence to grow and become acceptable on campus and 23 during school hours, in which students were allowed to settle differences through 24 physical violence; 25 | : ® Failing to take effective action to address students who engage in repeated violent 26 altercations with other students, including, but not limited to, reassignment, : 27 Segregation, supervision, education, counseling, intervention, and expulsion; 28 8 Failing to properly retain, train, supervise, and implement effective and appropriate ee | ons I staffing to prevent and respond to student violence on campus and during school | zZ hours; 3 | ® Allowing students to engage in increasing and frequent violent altercations with each | 4 other on campus and during school hours; 5 e Failing to affect appropriate discipline, including the suspension, transfer, or 6 | expulsion of dangerous and disruptive students, in accordance with Education Code 7 section 48900; 8 ® Failure to hold pupils to a strict account for their conduct in violation of Education 9 | Code section 44807; 10 | ® Failure to have a safe environment supportive of learni ng in violation of Education g 1 | Code section 51101(a)(7); = Be 12 ® Failure to develop, adopt, and implement a policy that outlines the manner in which 3 ag 13 parents, school staff, and pupils share in the responsibili ty for continuing the g 5 gi 14 | physical and emotional well-being of students at MHS in violation of Education i : Es 18 Code section 51101(b); g E : 16 ® Failure to immediately report to law enforcement the homic idal threat to DANIEL a 17 and other MHS students in violation of Education Code sections 49390 and 49393. a 3 18 | 23. Such actions and inactions caused, allowed, and foster ed a violent atmosphere on the ve 19 campus of MHS. Students were frequently targeted by viole nce to their property and persons. The 20 culture of the school became one in which students expec ted and were allowed to settle al disagreements with violence, and those students who failed to respond to provocations against them 22 became targets for further violence. 23 24. Videos posted by students on social media show that this activity was widespread 24 | amongst the student body and took place all over the campus during school hours. Social media 25 | postings for MHS contain at least 47 videos of fights on campus posted by students in the 26 2022/2023 school year. There is minimal indication of schoo l staff being present to monitor, ~ 27 prevent, or intercede in these altercations, despite the prese nce at times of large numbers of students 28 | spectating. fo oR A MENTED COMBE RR . i , 25.MHS’s student body contains elements of multiple feuding gang affiliations. This 2 | mix has led to past acts of violence, including fights and at least one prior stabbing incident in 2018 3 wherein two girls were arrested during a football game with one of the girls sustaining serious 4 | injuries. 5 26. MHS crime statistics, documented by calls to 911 and Santa Rosa Police Department 6 i dispatch, include 664 law enforcement responses to the campus betwee n 1/1/18 and 5/24/23, 7 including 47 reports of disturbances, 26 reports of battery, 14 reports of theft, 9 reports of fights, 8 g reports of weapons on school grounds, 5 reports of threats of death or great bodily harm, 4 reports 9 of child molestation, and 2 reports of rape. 10 27. Despite this history of violence and the clear need to engage in proactive 2 Il interventions to quell violence and provide students with a safe environment on campus , Defendant : 5 12 chose to limit resources available to protect students, including the removal of the Santa Rosa ES 5 g 13 Police Department Resource Officer assigned to MHS. Further, they failed to properly retain, train, g 5 i 14 equip, and supervise staff to deal with these issues. The result was an unsafe school enviro nment wel ® 5 a 15 | that left students vulnerable to violence and without adequate resources to address that violence. g E a5 16 28. Teachers, students, and parents have emphatically voiced their concern that MHS a re 17 | does not provide adequate supervision or resources to their students. Libby Dalton, a parent of a a a 18 | MHS student, has stated: “There’s a lot of fights at Montgomery. They just have that culture there : ve 19 that they fight. The kids fight there. They pick on each other and they try and stand up for 20 themselves and then they all end up suspended.” (San Diego Tribune, 3/2/23). Teache rs have also 21 spoken up: “Teachers are not trained in this and should not be expected to break up fights, to have 22 to chase gang members from other schools off our campus before they jump somebody. Staff have 23 been assaulted and we need to protect them, as well. The saying ‘Throwing the baby out with the 24 bathwater,” sums it all up on what the school board has done with canceling the SRO progra m.” 25 (Press Democrat, 3/7/23). A MHS student identified as Olive Blane stated: “I just turned 15 years 26 | old, and I fear for my life every single day.” (Press Democrat, 3/7/23). Another teacher stated: ~ 27 “Teachers have been complaining for many months about an escalation of violence on campus. And 28 what happened there (at MHS) could just as easily happen at any school in this district, Santa Rosa, _ 1 [Maria] Carillo, Piner, Elsie [Allen]. Little to no consequences are handed down when earlier 2 indications of violence happen.” (Press Democrat, 3/2/23). 3 | 29. Defendant were aware of this violence occurring on the campus of MHS. Defendants 4 failed and refused to take reasonable, appropriate, and effective action to protect students from 5 | foreseeable harm at the hands of other students. | FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION i Negligence 7 (By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 8 | 30. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 above as though set 9} forth in full herein, 10 31. Atal times throughout the 2022-2023 academic year, Defendants, and each of them, ¥ ll had legal duties to the students of MHS and their parents, including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs | th Fe 12 herein, Fe i ; 13 32. California law has long imposed on school authorities a duty to "supervise at all © 5 Fr 14 times the conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations p] é ie 15 necessary to their protection." (Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 741, 747.) Z E : & 16 | A special relationship is formed between a school district and its students, resulting in the - 17 imposition of an affirmative duty on the school district to take all reasonable steps to protect its i i 18 students. (Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School Dist. (1986)186 Cal.App-3d 707, 714-715.) e 19 Either a total lack of supervision (Forgnone v. Salvador Union Elementary School Dist. (1940) 41 20 : Cal.App.2d 423) or ineffective supervision (Buzzard v. East Lake School Dist. (1939) 34 21 Cal.App.2d 316) may constitute a lack of ordinary care on the part of those responsible for student 22 supervision. (Dailey, supra, 2 Cal.3d at 747). Under section 815.2, subdivision (a) of the 23 Government Code, a school district is vicariously liable for injuries proximately caused by such 24 negligence. (Id.} 25 33. The mere fact that some third party is the immediate actor in causing the injury (here 26 DANIEL’s attackers) does not of itself absolve a school district from liability if it was negligent in 27 failing to provide adequate supervision. (Hoyem v Manhattan Beach City School Dist. (1978) 22 28 Cal.3d 508, 521). Willful misconduct by the injured student or another student does not relieve the | a 1 school district of liability since the duty to supervise is necessary in part because of the tendency of 2 students to engage in aggressive and impulsive behavior which exposes them and their peers to the 3 | risk of serious physical harm. (Dailey, supra, 2 Cal,3d at 748), 4] 34, Further, California law creates specific duties, the breach of which is negligence per 5 | se, including: 6 | ® California Constitution ArtI §§ 26 and 28, Right to Safe Schools (all students and 7 | staff of public primary, elementary, junior high, and senior high schools have the 8 | inalienable right to attend campuses that are safe, secure, and peaceful. All school 9 districts must comply with Cal. Const. Art. I, § 28(c), and are prohibited from taking 10 official actions that violate or contravene its provisions). x li | ® Pursuant to Cal. Ed. Code§ 48200 (compulsory education) and§ 44807, "[e]very FA : : 12 teacher in the public schools shall hold pupils to a strict account for their conduct on 3 : g 13 the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or during recess." g & i 14 ® Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 5, §5551 (the principal is 3 : is 15 : responsible for the supervision and administration of his school) (McGrath v. g E =e 16 | Burkhard (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 367, 372) ['[T]he principal has the necessary a8 7 | power which is inherent in his office to properly administer and supervise his u ay 18 | school"]. 5 “49 ° Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 5, § 5552, "[w]here playground 20 | supervision is not otherwise provided, the principal of each school shall provide for 21 the supervision by certified employees of the conduct and safety ... of the pupils of 22 the school who are on the grounds during recess and other intermissions and before 23 and after school.” 24 e The purpose of the foregoing laws is to regulate students’ conduct "so as to prevent 25 | disorderly and dangerous practices which are likely to result in physical injury to 26 immature scholars." (MW. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School Dist. (2003) 110 7” 27 Cal App.4th 508, 517-518 review denied (Oct. 01, 2003). 28 a "Such regulation is necessary precisely because of the commonly known tendency of RSP AMENDED COMPLAINT | 1 | students to engage in aggressive and impulsive behavior which exposes them and 2 their peers to the risk of serious physical harm." (Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. 3 | Dist, supra, 2 Cal.3d at 748.) 4 * Government Code § 11344 requires the Office of Administrative Law to provide for 3 | the official compilation, printing, and publication of state regulations in the 6 California Code of Regulations. The courts "shall take judicial notice of the contents 7 of each regulation as compiled by the office.'(Govt. Code §11344.6.) Hence, these 8 || regulations have the power of law. g | 35. Further, these individuals and entities owed a legal duty to provide reasonable 10 training, supervision, management, and retention of employees charged with the supervision of xg 1] students. (C.W. v, William S. Hart Union High School District, (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861.) = 3 : 12 36. Defendants, and each of them, breached these legal duties to Plaintiffs, and each of Fe i g 13 them, as alleged herein. ° 5 if 14 37. Asa legal and proximate cause of Defendants’ breaches, DANIEL was repeatedly pd g : = 15 | assaulted, harassed, intimidated, and put in fear of his life on numerous occasions throughout the g a 16 2022-2023 academic years while he was a student at MHS. ge 17 38. Asa further legal and proximate cause of Defendants’ breaches, on March 1, 2023, rs 2 18 DANIEL was forced to take the life of a fellow student in justifiable defense of himself against a : ve 19 violent attack. As a result, DANIEL was charged with a felony and imprisoned for 289 days. 20 39. Asa direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, and breaches of Defendants, Zi DANIEL has suffered loss of freedom, severe emotional distress, anxiety, fear, sleeplessness, guilt, 22 depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, physical pain and suffering, loss of reputation, public 23 humiliation, loss of education, and loss of future earnings/earning capacity. 24 | 40. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts, omissions, and breaches of Defendants, 25 ALEJANDRA PULIDO-LUGO and JESUS PULIDO have suffered severe emotional! distress, fear, 26 | anxiety, sleeplessness, loss of reputation, public humiliation, out-of-pocket expenses incurred for ~ 27 the legal defense and psychological care of DANIEL, as well as