No Value: JANE DOE vs NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

On August 16, 2022 a No Value was filed involving a dispute between Doe, Jane, and Napa Valley Unified School District, for Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited (23) in the District Court of Napa County.

Preview
[Exempt From Filing Fee
Government Code § 6103]

1 McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard,
Wayte & Carruth LLP
2 Laura A. Wolfe, #266751
laura.wolfe@mccormickbarstow.com
3 Joshua D. Adams #304244
joshua.adams@mccormickbarstow.com
4 7647 North Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93720
5 Telephone: (559) 433-1300
Facsimile: (559) 433-2300
6
Attorneys for Defendant NAPA VALLEY
7 SCHOOL DISTRICT

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 COUNTY OF NAPA

12 JANE DOE, an individual, Case No. 22CV000928

13 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT’S REQUEST FOR
14 v. JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO STAY; DECLARATION OF
15 NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL JOSHUA D. ADAMS IN SUPPORT
DISTRICT, a public entity; and THEREOF
16 DOE 1 through 60, inclusive,

17 Defendants.
Assigned for All Purposes to:
18 Hon. Cynthia Smith, Dept. A
19 DATE: May 23, 2024
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
20 DEPT.: A

21 Action Filed: August 16, 2022
Trial Date: April 14, 2025
22

24 TO THIS HONORABLE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS

25 OF RECORD:

26 Pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 451, 452 and 453, NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED

27 SCHOOL DISTRICT (“Defendant” or “District”) hereby requests the Court take judicial notice of

28 the following in connection with the Motion to Stay filed concurrently herewith:
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW ,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
FRESNO, CA 93720 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
1 1. On December 18, 2023, West Contra Costa Unified School District filed a Petition

2 for a Writ of Mandate, bearing Case Number A169314, seeking to have the First District Court of

3 Appeal compel the Superior Court of Contra Costa County to reverse its decision dated October 31,

4 2023, in Contra Costa County Superior Court Case Number C22-02774, entitled Jane Doe A.M.M.

5 v. West Contra Costa Unified School District, overruling a demurrer which had been filed predicated

6 on the fact that AB 218 was an unlawful gift of public funds as applied to claims against public

7 entities for childhood sexual abuse which had occurred prior to January 1, 2009.

8 2. On December 22, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal issued an Order directing

9 that any Opposition to the Petition be filed before January 26, 2024, and a Reply to any Opposition

10 be filed within fifteen days thereafter. Both West Contra Costa Unified School District and Jane

11 Doe A.M.M. filed the permitted briefs.

12 3. On February 27, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal issued an Order to Show

13 Cause which ordered in part that the Respondent superior court show cause, when the matter is

14 ordered on calendar, why the relief requested in the Petition should not be granted.

15 4. The February 27, 2024 Order to Show Cause additionally required Jane Doe A.M.M.

16 serve and file a Return to the Petition within thirty (30) days unless she provides notice to deem

17 previous filed Opposition the Return, and that the Reply to the Return be served and filed within

18 fifteen (15) days of the filing of the Return.
19 5. The February 27, 2024 Order to Show Cause also provided that any requests for oral

20 argument must be served and filed within ten (10) days of the order to show cause.

21 6. On March 7, 2024, both parties requested oral argument.

22 7. Thereafter, On March 28, 2024, Jane Doe A.M.M. filed the Return to the Petition.

23 8. On April 12, 2024, West Contra Costa Unified School District filed its Reply to the

24 Return. On April 16, 2024, Jane Doe A.M.M. filed a Motion to Strike or Disregard Portions of

25 Petitioner’s Reply to the Return, and Petitioner’s Opposition to same was filed on April 19,

26 2024. The Court established May 9, 2024, as the deadline for Jane Doe A.M.M. to file her Reply
27 to the Opposition.

28 9. Multiple amicus curiae briefs were submitted in support of Petitioner’s position by
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW ,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
2
FRESNO, CA 93720 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
1 school districts and other Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) on April 24, 2024. The parties have until

2 June 3, 2024 to file answers to the amicus briefs. Accordingly, the parties have submitted their

3 principal briefing, and this matter will be ripe for oral argument after the June 3, 2024 deadline to

4 file any answers to the amicus briefs.

5 10. On January 25, 2024, a public entity elementary school district designated as “Roe

6 #2” in an AB 218 action, filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate seeking to have the Second District

7 Court of Appeal, Division Six, compel the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County reverse its

8 decision dated November 29, 2023, in Case Number 22CV05157, entitled John Doe 1, John Doe 2,

9 John Doe 3 v. Roe 1 et. al. overruling a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings which had been filed

10 predicated on the fact that AB 218 was an unlawful gift of public funds as applied to claims against

11 public entities for childhood sexual abuse which had occurred prior to January 1, 2009.

12 11. On March 27, 2024, the Second District Court of Appeal sent a Letter requesting

13 Does 1-3 file an Informal Response to the Petition, on or before April 22, 2024, which in addition

14 to addressing the issues raised in the Petition, would address the question of whether “the trial court

15 had conflate[d] the ‘public policy’ reasons motivating the legislative enactment of AB218 with the

16 constitutional requirement that the appropriation of public funds serve a ‘public purpose’?”

17 12. The March 27, 2024 Letter also requested Does 1-3’s Informal Response address the

18 question of whether “the retroactive elimination of the claims presentation requirements for legally
19 invalid claims serve a public purpose, i.e. does it benefit the state or does it solely benefit the private

20 individual plaintiffs? (See, e.g., Conlin v. Board of Supervisors (1893) 99 Cal. 17, 21-22 [‘An

21 appropriation of money by the legislature for the relief of one who has no legal claim therefor must

22 be regarded as a ‘gift,’ within the meaning of that term, as used in [article XVI, section 6, of the

23 California Constitution], and it is none the less a gift that a sufficient motive appears for its

24 appropriation, if the motive does not rest upon a valid consideration’]; Orange County Foundation

25 v. Irvine Co. (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 195, 201 [where state funds are expended in exchange for

26 relinquishment of an invalid claim, no public purpose is achieved; such expenditure violates the gift
27 clause]; County of Alameda v. Carleson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 730, 745-746 [the benefit to the state from

28 an expenditure for a public purpose is in the nature of consideration and the funds expended are
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW ,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
3
FRESNO, CA 93720 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
1 therefore not a gift even though private persons are benefited]; Civ. Code Section 1146 [‘A gift is a

2 transfer of personal property, made voluntarily, without consideration’].)”

3 13. The Second District Court of Appeal granted the school district until May 17, 2024,

4 to file an Informal Letter Reply to any Informal Response filed by Does 1-3.

5 14. On April 22, 2024, Does 1-3 filed their Informal Response Letter.

6 STANDARDS FOR TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE
7 A. JUDICIAL NOTICE IS APPROPRIATELY TAKEN OF COURT RECORDS AND
FACTS NOT REASONABLY SUBJECT TO DISPUTE.
8

9 Judicial notice shall be taken of: (a) the decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law

10 of this state and of the United States, and (f) facts and propositions of generalized knowledge that

11 are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. (Evidence Code, §

12 451.) Additionally, judicial notice may be taken of: (d) records of (1) any court of this state or (2)

13 any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States; (g) facts and propositions

14 that are of such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdiction of the court that they cannot

15 reasonably be the subject of dispute; and (h) facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject

16 to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of

17 reasonably indisputable accuracy. (Evidence Code, § 452.) Notably, a trial court is required to take

18 judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and both gives the adverse
19 party sufficient notice of the request to enable the party to meet the request and furnishes the court

20 with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. (Evidence Code, § 453.)

21 In this case, the District has done both.

22 B. EACH OF THE ITEMS OF WHICH THE DISTRICT HAS REQUESTED JUDICIAL
NOTICE ARE ITEMS OF WHICH JUDICIAL NOTICE IS APPROPRIATELY
23 TAKEN.
24

25 Judicial notice of each of the items of which the District has requested is appropriate and the

26 court has been furnished sufficient information to allow it to take such judicial notice. Each of the
27 facts of which the District has requested is a copy of a court record, and sufficient proof of each has

28 been attached to the Declaration of Joshua D. Adams filed concurrently herewith. None are
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW ,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
4
FRESNO, CA 93720 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
1 reasonably subject to dispute and each is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort

2 to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy (the courts’ records).

3 Thus, for the above stated reasons, and as more fully set forth in the Declaration of Joshua

4 D. Adams in Support of Judicial Notice, which is filed concurrently herewith, the District requests

5 that judicial notice of each of the above facts be taken in connection with the Motion for Stay filed

6 concurrently herewith.

7 Dated: April 25, 2024 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,
WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP
8

10
By:
11 Laura A. Wolfe
Joshua D. Adams
12 Attorneys for Defendant NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
13

15 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

16 I, Joshua D. Adams, declare as follows:

17 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State of California

18 and before this Court. I am an attorney with McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte &

19 Carruth LLP, attorneys of record for Defendant NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

20 (“Defendant” or the “District”) in the above-entitled action.

21 2. If called as a witness, I would and could competently testify to all facts stated herein

22 from my personal knowledge except where stated upon information and belief and, as to these

23 matters, I am informed and believe them to be true. I am submitting this Declaration in support of

24 Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of its Motion to Stay.

25 West Contra Costa USD v. Superior Court (First Appellate District Case No. A16934)

26 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference as though fully set

27 forth herein, is a true and correct copy of a decision denying a demurrer in Contra Costa County

28 Superior Court Case Number C22-02774, entitled Jane Doe A.M.M. v. West Contra Costa Unified
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW ,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
5
FRESNO, CA 93720 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
1 School District, which was entered on October 31, 2023.

2 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated by reference as though fully set
3 forth herein, is a true and correct copy of the Petition filed on December 18, 2023, by West Contra

4 Costa Unified School District, in Case Number A169314 in the First District Court of Appeal,

5 seeking to have the First District Court of Appeal compel the Superior Court of Contra Costa County

6 reverse its decision in Case Number C22-02774 overruling the above referenced demurrer, which

7 had been filed predicated on the fact that AB 218 was an unlawful gift of public funds as applied to

8 claims against public entities for childhood sexual abuse which had occurred prior to January 1,

9 2009.

10 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated by reference as though fully set
11 forth herein, is a true and correct copy of the docket in Case Number A169314 in the First District

12 Court of Appeal, entitled West Contra Costa USD v. Superior Court, which was posted on the

13 court’s website located at

14 https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2866777&doc_no

15 =A169314&request_token=NiIwLSEnXkw7WzAtSSJdUExIIEg6UVxfJSBOSztSMCAgCg%3D

16 %3D, and retrieved on April 24, 2024, along with the First District Court of Appeal’s listing of

17 scheduled actions as of that date which was posted at

18 https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/scheduledActions.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=286677
19 7&doc_no=A169314&request_token=NiIwLSEnXkw7WzAtSSJdTE1IQEg6UVxfJSBOSztSMC

20 AgCg%3D%3D. In addition to the filing of the writ by the school district, the docket shows the

21 following orders and filings have been issued and/or filed in the case:

22 a. On December 22, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal issued an Order directing

23 that any Opposition to the Petition be filed before January 26, 2024, and a Reply to
24
any Opposition be filed within fifteen days thereafter;
25
b. In conformance with the Court’s December 22, 2023 Order, on January 25, 2024,
26
Jane Doe A.M.M. filed an Opposition to the Petition, and on February 9, 2024,
27
West Contra Costa Unified School District filed a Reply in Support of the Petition;
28
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW ,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
6
FRESNO, CA 93720 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
1 c. On February 27, 2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause which provided in

2 part:
3
i. That Respondent superior court show cause, when the matter is ordered on
4
calendar, why the relief requested in the Petition should not be granted;
5
ii. That Jane Doe A.M.M. serve and file a Return to the Petition within thirty
6
(30) days unless she provides notice to deem previous filed Opposition the
7

8 Return;

9 iii. That the Reply to the Return be served and filed within fifteen (15) days of
10 the filing of the Return; and
11
iv. That if oral argument is requested, the request must be served and filed
12
within ten (10) days of the Order to Show Cause;
13

14 6. On March 7, 2024, both Jane Doe A.M.M. and West Contra Costa Unified School

15 District requested oral argument.

16 7. On March 28, 2024, Jane Doe A.M.M. filed the Return to the Petition;

17 8. On April 12, 2024, Petitioner filed its Reply to the Return. On April 16, 2024, Jane

18 Doe A.M.M. filed a Motion to Strike or Disregard Portions of Petitioner’s Reply to the Return, and
19 Petitioner’s Opposition to same was filed on April 19, 2024. The Court established May 9, 2024,

20 as the deadline for Jane Doe A.M.M. to file her Reply to the Opposition.

21 9. Multiple amicus curiae briefs were submitted in support of Petitioner’s position by

22 school districts and other Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) on April 24, 2024. The parties have until

23 June 3, 2024 to file answers to the amicus briefs. Accordingly, the parties have submitted their

24 principal briefing, and this matter will be ripe for oral argument after the June 3, 2024 deadline to

25 file any answers to the amicus briefs.

26 Roe #2 v. Superior Court (Second Appellate District, Div. 6, Case No. B334707)

27 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated by reference as though fully set

28 forth herein, is a true and correct copy of a decision denying a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW ,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
7
FRESNO, CA 93720 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
1 dated November 29, 2023, in Santa Barbara County Superior Court Case Number 22CV05157,

2 entitled John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3 v. Roe 1 et. al.

3 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit “E” and incorporated by reference as though fully set
4 forth herein, is a true and correct copy of the Petition for a Writ of Mandate filed on January 25,

5 2024, by the public elementary school district designated as “Roe #2,” seeking to have the Second

6 District Court of Appeal compel the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County reverse its decision

7 denying a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which had been filed predicated on the fact that

8 AB 218 was an unlawful gift of public funds as applied to claims against public entities for

9 childhood sexual abuse which had occurred prior to January 1, 2009.

10 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit “F” and incorporated by reference as though fully set
11 forth herein, is a true and correct copy of the docket in Case Number B334707 in the Second District

12 Court of Appeal, Division Six, entitled Roe #2, a Public Entity School District v. Superior Court,

13 which was posted on the court’s website located at

14 https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=2915436&doc_no

15 =B334707&request_token=NiIwLSEnXkw7WzAtSSJdTEpIUDg6USxXICNeWzpSQCAgCg%3

16 D%3D and retrieved on April 23, 2024 along with the Court’s listing of scheduled actions on that

17 date which was posted at

18 https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/scheduledActions.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=291543
19 6&doc_no=B334707&request_token=NiIwLSEnXkw7WzAtSSJdSEtIUFA6USxXICNeWzpSQC

20 AgCg%3D%3D .

21 d. In addition to the filing of the Petition for a Writ of Mandate by the school district

22 Roe #2, the docket shows that on March 27, 2024, the Second District Court of
23
Appeal sent a Letter requesting Does 1-3 file an Informal Response to the Petition
24
for a Writ of Mandate, on or before April 22, 2024. A true and correct copy of the
25
Second District Court of Appeal’s March 27, 2024 Letter is attached hereto as
26
Exhibit “G” and incorporated herein by reference.
27

28
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW ,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
8
FRESNO, CA 93720 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
1 e. The Second District Court of Appeal’s March 27, 2024 Letter, in addition to

2 requesting Does 1-3 file an Informal Response to the issues raised in the Petition,
3
requested the following issues be discussed:
4
i. “Did the trial court conflate the ‘public policy’ reasons motivating the
5
legislative enactment of AB218 with the constitutional requirement that the
6
appropriation of public funds serve a ‘public purpose’?”; and
7

8 ii. “Does the retroactive elimination of the claims presentation requirements for

9 legally invalid claims serve a public purpose, i.e. does it benefit the state or
10 does it solely benefit the private individual plaintiffs? (See, e.g., Conlin v.
11
Board of Supervisors (1893) 99 Cal. 17, 21-22 [‘An appropriation of money
12
by the legislature for the relief of one who has no legal claim therefor must
13
be regarded as a gift,’ within the meaning of that term, as used in [article XVI,
14

15 section 6, of the California Constitution], and it is none the less a gift that a

16 sufficient motive appears for its appropriation, if the motive does not rest

17 upon a valid consideration’]; Orange County Foundation v. Irvine Co. (1983)
18 139 Cal.App.3d 195, 201 [where state funds are expended in exchange for
19
relinquishment of an invalid claim, no public purpose is achieved; such
20
expenditure violates the gift clause]; County of Alameda v. Carleson (1971)
21
5 Cal.3d 730, 745-746 [the benefit to the state from an expenditure for a
22

23 public purpose is in the nature of consideration and the funds expended are

24 therefore not a gift even though private persons are benefited]; Civ. Code

25 Section 1146 [‘A gift is a transfer of personal property, made voluntarily,
26
without consideration’].)”
27

28
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW ,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
9
FRESNO, CA 93720 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
1 f. The Second District Court of Appeal granted the school district until May 17, 2024,

2 to file an Informal Letter Reply to any Informal Response filed by Does 1-3.
3
g. On April 22, 2024, Does 1-3 filed their Informal Response Letter.
4

5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing

6 is true and correct and that this declaration was executed by me on April 25, 2024, at Fresno,

7 California.

11
Joshua D. Adams
12

18
19

26
27

28
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW ,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
10
FRESNO, CA 93720 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS

2 DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT PAGE
Decision denying a demurrer in Contra Costa County Superior A 12
3 Court Case Number C22-02774
4 Petition filed on December 18, 2023, by West Contra Costa Unified B 19
School District
5
Docket in Case Number A169314 in the First District Court of C 67
6 Appeal, entitled West Contra Costa USD v. Superior Court
7
Decision denying Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, dated D 74
8 November 29, 2023

9 Petition for a Writ of Mandate filed January 25, 2024 E 86

10 Docket in Case Number B334707 in the Second District Court of F 131
Appeal, Roe #2, a Public Entity School District v. Superior Court
11
Second District Court of Appeal March 27, 2024 Letter G 136
12

13 041986-000000 9871750.1

18
19

26
27

28
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW ,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
11
FRESNO, CA 93720 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
EXHIBIT A
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

JANE DOE A.M.M.,
F 8 [L OCT 3 1 2023
fg!D
/Y
Plaintiff 0 1EKER CLERK OF THE COURT
PERIOR COURT OF CALIFOBNIA
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

J\ Yu111•11 n.,1....,tv c,.,,-..

V. Case No: C22-02774

DOES 2-20 inclusive, et al.,
Defendant

ORDER.AFTER HEARING
October 2, 2023

West Contra Costa Unified School District's demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"), is sustained as to the first, second, and third causes of action, and othenvise
overruled, as discussed below. Any amended complaint shall be filed by October 12, 2023.
Should plaintiff choose not to amend, the time to answer shall run from that date.
Background
Plaintiff, who filed this action under the pseudonym "Jane Doe A.M.M.," is a former high
school student at Richmond High School in West Contra Costa Unified School District's
("District"). (SAC, ifl 3.) Plaintiff alleges that, during the time she attended, approximately 1979
to 1983, District employed a counselor who used his position to groom, lure, and exploit minor
students, including plaintiff. (SAC, ,r,r13-15.) At the approximate age of thirteen (13) years old
and continuing throughout her four years of high school, this counselor sexually assaulted
plaintiff. (SAC, ,r,r17-23.) Plaintiff reported the conduct to the "Girls Dean," but her reports fell
on deaf ears and, as a result, she suffered the assaults at least twice a month throughout her entire
high school education. (SAC, ,r,r24-30.) The Dean told plaintiff the counselor simply had a
"touchy feely" and flirtatious reputation. (SAC, ,r,r26, 34.) Plaintiff alleges she has been severely
psychologically damaged by the sexual abuse. (SAC, ,r38.)
Plaintiff filed this action on December 27, 2022. She twice amended the complaint prior to
this demurrer. Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action against District (and all defendants) in her
Second Amended Complaint: (1) child sexual abuse, (2) sexual battery, (3) intentional infliction
of emotional distress ("IIED"), (4) negligence, (5) negligence per se, (6) negligent hiring,
retention, and supervision of an unfit employee, (7) negligent supervision of a minor, (8)
negligent failure to warn, train, and educate.
The District states in its demurrer that, prior to filing, it met and conferred with counsel
for plaintiff, but could not reach an agreement. (Demurrer, 2:21-22.) While Code of Civil
Procedure Section 430.41 (a)(3) requires more (a declaration stating particular facts), plaintiff does
not raise the issue and the Court accepts the District's representation that a meet and confer
occurred.
In its moving papers, the District demurs to each cause of action on the basis that plaintiffs
fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 430.l0(e).)
Additionally, District demurs to the fourth through eighth causes of action on the basis that they
are uncertain. (Id. at subd. (f).)
Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.
Standard
In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, all material facts properly pleaded are deemed
admitted, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Blank v. Kirwan ( 1985)
39 Cal.3d 311, 318, citations omitted.) The complaint is read as a whole and the parts in their
context, considering matters which may be judicially noticed. (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc.
§ 430.30(a).) Where a demurrer is sustained, the burden of proving a reasonable possibility that it
can be cured through amendment is on the plaintiff. (Blank, supra, at 318.)
Requests for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff requests judicial notice of rulings from various courts. District, in support of its
reply brief, also requests judicial notice of a court ruling from another department of this Court.
Both requests are uncontested and are granted.
Discussion
A. All Causes of Action - Constitutional Challenge
The first argument District advances is based on time limitations and plaintiffs failure to
file a Government Code claim during the time such claim was allowed (in the early 1980's).
District contends that AB 218, the bill which made certain changes to the Government Claims Act
retroactive (such that the exemption to presenting a Government Code claim now applies to pre-
2009 assaults as well as post-2009 assaults), violates the state constitution and specifically the
prohibition on gifts of public funds articulated in Article XVI § 6.
The District argues the presentation of a Government Code claim was a "substantive
element" of plaintiffs' causes of action and therefore, the lifting this requirement with respect to
pre-2009 claims impermissibly imposes liability for the private benefit of victims.
Whether an appropriation of public funds is to be considered a gift depends on whether the
funds are to be used for a "public" or "private" purpose. (County ofAlameda v. Carleson (1971) 5
Cal.3d 730, 745-746.) What constitutes a "public" purpose is primarily a matter for the
Legislature, and its discretion will not be disturbed by the courts so long as that determination has
a reasonable basis. (Ibid.)
Here, in its passage of AB 218 the Legislature's intent was to expressly make the claims
presentation exemption retroactive to compensate victims, punish perpetrators, and encourage
reporting. (See Opposition, p. 17-18.) This is sufficient. The District has not met its burden on
demurrer to demonstrate that this was not a public purpose for purposes of the Court's review.
The presentation of a Government Code claim is more akin to a procedural step (i.e., condition
precedent), such as statutes of limitation, not necessarily giving rise to a "liability" that would
otherwise not exist. Plaintiff must still prove the case prior to any award of public funds.
The demurrer is overruled on these grounds.
B. First and Second Causes of Action (Childhood Sexual Assault and Sexual
Battery)
District contends that the first and second causes of action, which allege intentional torts
(assault and battery) against all defendants, are insufficiently pleaded as to the District.
Specifically, District cites John R. v. Oakland ( 1989) 48 Cal.3d 43 8, for the rule that, as a matter
of law, a school may not be held vicariously liable for the intentional torts of its employees where
the conduct at issue falls outside the scope of employment. The Supreme Court has interpreted
this rule to mean that vicarious liability does not apply to make a school liable for school
personnel's sexual abuse of a student, even when such abuse occurs while the employee was
conducting school-related tasks such as teaching. (See id. at 447-452.)
Plaintiff does not allege facts that would constitute intentional conduct on the part of the
District and essentially concedes the District's arguments in this respect. While other theories of
liability are mentioned, the facts pleaded do not demonstrate intentionality on the part of the
District.
The demurrer to the first and second causes of action on this ground is sustained, with
leave to amend.
Notably, this is not a motion to strike so, even if plaintiff opts not to amend, her concerns
regarding loss of certain paragraphs (see footnote 11) are unfounded. Plaintiff suggests the Court
should strike the titles of the causes of action, but that is not required or necessary-the relevant
paragraphs do not disappear from the complaint even if the cause of action is not viable.
C. Third Cause of Action (IIED)
District demurs to the IIED cause of action on the basis that plaintiff fails to allege a
statutory basis for liability and because the District cannot be vicariously liable for the intentional
tort alleged. As to the latter argument, discussed above with respect to the first two causes of
action, school districts are not generally vicariously liable for the intentional torts of employees.
Here, it would appear that any intentional infliction of emotional distress would clearly be outside
the scope of employment so the theory of vicarious liability against the District fails.
Plaintiff argues it was the conduct of administrators such as the Girls Dean that was
outrageous. Plaintiff cites Government Code, § 815.2, § 815.6, and District's mandatory reporting
duties under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (see SAC 1127).
A showing of IIED requires (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the
intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the
plaintifrs suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation
of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46
Cal.4th 1035, 1050, citations omitted.) A defendant's conduct is "outrageous" when it is so
extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community. (Id. at 1050-
1051.) And the defendant's conduct must be intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the
realization that injury will result. (Ibid.)
The outrageous conduct here was the assaults, not the failure to report them. To the extent
the issue here is whether the District failed to report or stop abuse, the allegations amount to
negligence, not an IIED cause of action. All allegations that suggest intentional conduct by the
District are conclusory.
The demurrer to the third cause of action is sustained, with leave to amend.
D. Sixth Cause of Action (Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision)
District demurs to the sixth cause of action for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision.
In cases of sexual abuse of children, a District can be held directly liable for its own negligent
hiring, retention and supervision. (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53
Cal.4th 861, 865-866.) The demurrer contends plaintiff cannot allege any administrator or
supervisor was on notice of the alleged misconduct. Plaintiff argues she has sufficiently alleged
notice.
Here, plaintiff directly alleges the District had notice of the perpetrator's predatory
behavior. (See SAC, ,,71-72.) Plaintiff states she reported the perpetrator "was always touching
her in a sexual manner" and she did not like it. Plaintiff alleges that she requested a different
counselor, but that she was told there was no other. Plaintiff alleges that the Girls Dean told her
the perpetrator was "just touchy feely" like that, and he did not mean anything by it. The
perpetrator's office was in close proximity to the workspaces of administrators, including the
principal, deans, and counselors, who "routinely witnessed" him taking plaintiff into his office,
locking the door, and drawing the blinds shut, as well as his "openly inappropriate behavior"
toward plaintiff and her peers. The perpetrator further had a known "flirtatious" reputation. (See,
e.g., SAC, ,,24-29, 31-34.) Nonetheless, the assaults continued throughout plaintiffs high school
experience "at least twice per month." (SAC, ,30.)
These allegations are sufficient. Further details can be explored in discovery.
The demurrer to the sixth cause of action is overruled.
E. Negligence Causes of Action (4 th -8 th )
Finally, District contends the fourth through eighth causes of action are uncertain and
ambiguous based on the evolution of the standard of care over time.
This contention lacks merit. Uncertainty is a disfavored ground for sustaining a demurrer,
and a demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only when the pleading is such that the'
responding party cannot even discern what it must respond to. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition
Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139.) The SAC here meets that low bar. The Court expects that
any lingering issues can be illuminated through discovery. (Khoury v. Maly's of Calif., Inc. (1993)
14 Cal.App.4th 612,616 ["demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint
is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modem discovery
procedures"].)
The demurrer based on uncertainty is overruled.

DATED: October 31, 2023
P. DEVINE
GE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
CV - Martinez-Wakefield Taylor Courthouse K. Bieker
725 Court Street Court Executive Officer
Martinez CA 94553
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
CASE NAME: CASE NUMBER:
JANE DOE A.M.M. VS. WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT I C22-02774
THIS NOTICE/DOCUMENT HAS BEEN SENT TO THE FOLLOWING ATTORNEYS/PARTIES:
RAYMOND P BOUCHER
21600 OXNARD STREET
SUITE 600
WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367

ROYA COMBS
70 WASHINGTON STREET
SUITE 205
OAKLAND, CA 94607

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT I AM NOT A PARTY TO THE WITHIN ACTION OR PROCEEDING; THAT ON THE DATE
BELOW INDICATED, I SERVED A COPY OF THE ORDER AFTER HEARING BY DEPOSITING SAID COPY ENCLOSED IN A SEALED
ENVELOPE WITH POSTAGE THEREON FULLY PREPAID IN THE UNITED STATES MAIL AT MARTINEZ, CA AS INDICATED ABOVE TO
ALL ACTIVE AND DISPOSITION ED PARTIES.

DATE: 11/1/2023
~~-------
~A. YOUNG, DEPUTY CLERK
EXHIBIT B
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION _________

WEST CONTR

Case Info

Judge

Joseph J. Solga Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 26, 2024

Case Filing Date

August 16, 2022

County

Parties

DOE, JANE Plaintiff
Garcia, Lynn Anne Attorney for the Defendant
Lewis, James Warren Attorney for the Plaintiff
NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Defendant
Wolfe, Laura Anne Attorney for the Defendant
Ivanna Shakh Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Sandra Farzam Attorney
Michael Amaro Attorney
Joshua Adams Attorneys for Defendants
Roy Combs Attorney
David Mishook Attorney
Rami Noeil Attorney
Thomas Anderle Attorney
Craig Price Attorneys for Plaintiffs
John Eck Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Eric Bengtson Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Austin Payne Attorneys for Plaintiffs
John Richards Attorneys for Defendants
Timothy Hale Attorneys for Defendants
Jon Daggett Attorneys for Defendants
Jeffrey Arnold Attorneys for Defendants

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

No Value: JANE DOE vs NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties