Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
MORGAN A. STEWART, Esq. (State Bar No. 209852)
Superior Court of California
E-Mail: mstewart@manlystewart.com
County of Santa Barbara
Haley K. Aanestad, Esq. (State Bar No.334382)
Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
E-Mail: haanestad@manlystewart.com
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 3/16/2021 10:33 AM
19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 By: Elizabeth Spann, Deputy
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel.: (949) 252-9990
Fax: (949) 252-9991
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10 JANE OB DOE, an individual, CASE NO.: 20CV03946
11 Assigned for all purposes:
Zo
BS Plaintiff, Hon. Colleen K. Sterne
Ze 12
Be Dept. 5
Vv.
aa 13
Z3oS DECLARATION OF HALEY K.
Zead
S258 AANESTAD, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF
14 SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL
ex
DISTRICT; a business entity of form PLAINTIFF JANE OB DOE’S
Bs
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MATEF
15 unknown; MATEF HARMACHIS, an
HARMACHIS’S DEMURRER TO THE
BE individual; and DOES 1 through 100, COMPLAINT
aS 16
fe Defendants.
<< [Filed Concurrently with Plaintiff's Opposition
mS 17 to Demurrer]
ac
18 Date: March 29, 2021
Time: 10:00 a.m.
19 Judge: Hon. Colleen K. Sterne
Dept.: 5
20
Complaint Filed: November 30, 2020
21
Trial Date: None
22 DECLARATION OF HALEY K. AANESTAD, ESQ
23 I, Haley K. Aanestad, hereby declare as follows:
24 1 Iam an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am an attorney
25 with Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, attorneys of record for Plaintiff in the above-entitled matter. I am
26 personally familiar with the facts of this case and the contents of this Declaration, and if called
27 upon, could and would competently testify as to its contents.
28 1
DECLARATION OF HALEY K. AANESTAD ISO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
HARMACHIS’S DEMURRER
2. This declaration is made in support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Matef
Harmachis’s (“Harmachis”) Demurrer to the Complaint.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the operative Complaint.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct and this this declaration was executed on March 16, 2021 at Irvine, California.
Manedtad
HAL) K. AANESTAD
10
11
Zo
BS
Ze 12
Be
aA aa
13
SS
faa8
14
15
Ba
aS 16
Se
<2
mS 17
ae
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2
DECLARATION OF HALEY K. AANESTAD ISO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
HARMACHIS’S DEMURRER
EXHIBITA
Morgan A. Stewart, State Bar No. 209852 ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Courtney P. Pendry, State Bar No. 327382 Superior Court of California
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI County of Santa Barbara
19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
Irvine, CA 92612 11/30/2020 5:13 PM
(949) 252-9990; (949) 252-9991 By: Elizabeth Spann, Deputy
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
JANE OB DOE, an individual
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10
11 JANE OB DOE, an individual, Case N: 0.:
20CV03946
12
Plaintiff,
——————
>
13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
Se Vv,
14 )) NEGLIGENCE;
SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL 2) NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION;
15 DISTRICT; a business entity of form 3) NEGLIGENT HIRING/RETENTION;
unknown; MATEF HARMACHIS, an 4) NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN
16 individual; and DOES | through 100, TRAIN OR EDUCATE;
5) NEGLIGENCE PER SE;
17 Defendants. 6) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
18 7) ASSAULT;
8) SEXUAL BATTERY (C.C. § 1708.5);
19 9) SEXUAL HARASSMENT (C.C. § 51.9)
10) GENDER VIOLENCE (C.C. § 52.4);
20 11) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;
12) CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD (C.C. §
21 1573);
13) PUBLIC ENTITY LIABILITY FOR
22 FAILURE TO PERFORM
MANDATORY DUTY
23
24 [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]
25
26
27
28
-l-
‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
COMES NOW, Plaintiffs JANE OB DOE, an individual, who for her Complaint, complains
and alleges as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE PARTIES
THE PARTIES
(PLAINTIFF)
1 Plaintiff JANE OB DOE (hereinafter “Plaintiff’) is a resident of the County of Santa
Barbara, State of California and was so at the time of the abuse alleged herein. The name used by
JANE OB DOE in this Complaint is not the actual name of JANE OB DOE, but is a fictitious
name utilized to protect the privacy of JANE OB DOE, a victim of childhood sexual harassment
10 and molestation. Plaintiff JANE OB DOE is a female, born on February 3, 2000, and was a minor
11 during the time of the sexual misconduct alleged herein. Plaintiff JANE OB DOE was a minor at
12 the time of all incidents alleged herein.
ge 13 2. All pertinent claims arising out of the sexual abuse occurred after January 1, 2009.
Se 28
gcd
es god
age 14 Pursuant to Government Code section 905(m), Plaintiff's claim is timely and exempted from the
- gs 15 government tort-claim filing requirement. As such, pursuant to California Government Code §
16 905(m), Plaintiff JANE OB DOE is specifically exempted from the claims presentation
17 requirements for her claims against Defendant SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL
18 DISTRICT (“SBUSD”), for the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse she suffered at the
19 hands of Defendants.
20 (DEFENDANTS)
21 3 Defendant SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter the
22 “SBUSD7”), at all times mentioned herein was and is, a business entity of form unknown, having
23 its principal place of business in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. The SBUSD
24 purposely conducts substantial educational business activities in the State of California, and was
25 the primary entity owning, operating and controlling Santa Barbara High School, employing
26 Defendant MATEF HARMACHIS, and responsible for monitoring and controlling his and other
27 employees activities and behavior.
28
-2-
‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
4 Santa Barbara High School is a public educational institution in the SBUSD, operating as
a High School for students approximately 14 years of age through approximately 18 years of age.
5 Defendant MATEF HARMACHIS (hereinafter “HARMACHIS”) at all times mentioned
herein was and is an adult male individual, who Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that
basis alleges, currently resides in the County of Santa Barbara, in the State of California. During
the period of time in which the childhood sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiff JANE OB
DOE, alleged herein, took place, HARMACHIS was a teacher, mentor, and advisor at Santa
Barbara High School; employed by both the SBUSD and Santa Barbara High School. At all times
herein alleged, HARMACHIS was an employee, agent, and/or servant of the SBUSD and Santa
10 Barbara High School, and was under their complete control and/or active supervision.
11 6 Defendants DOES | through 100, inclusive, and each of them, are sued herein under said
12 fictitious names. Plaintiff is ignorant as to the true names and capacities of DOE Defendants,
ge 13 whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, and therefore sue said Defendants by such
Se 28
gcd
es god
age 14 fictitious names. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, Plaintiff will request leave
- gs 15 of Court to amend this Complaint to state their true names and capacities herein.
16 7 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times mentioned
17 herein, each Defendant was responsible in some manner or capacity for the occurrences herein
18 alleged, and that Plaintiff's damages, as herein alleged, were proximately caused by all said
19 Defendants. Defendants SBUSD, HARMACHIS, and DOES 1-100 are sometimes collectively
20 referred to herein as “Defendants” and/or as “All Defendants”; such collective reference refers to
21 all specifically named Defendants.
22 8 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times mentioned
23 herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of them, such
24 that any individuality and separateness between Defendants, and each of them, ceased to exist.
25 Defendants and each of them, were the successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the other
26 Defendants, and each of them, in that they purchased, controlled, dominated and operated each
27 other without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or other manner of division. To
28 continue maintaining the facade of a separate and individual existence between and among
3-
‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Defendants, and each of them, would serve to perpetrate a fraud and an injustice.
9 At all times mentioned herein, HARMACHIS was an adult teacher, mentor, and advisor
employee of both the SBUSD and Santa Barbara High School, acting as an employee, agent,
and/or servant of such and/or was under their complete control and/or supervision, as well as the
complete control of all administrative personnel of SBUSD and Santa Barbara High School.
HARMACHIS was employed as a teacher at the SBUSD and/or Santa Barbara High School.
HARMACHIS was hired by the SBUSD and Santa Barbara High School to serve as a teacher,
mentor, and advisor to minor high school students at Santa Barbara High School. In so doing, the
SBUSD and Santa Barbara High School held HARMACHIS out to the public, Plaintiff and
10 Plaintiff's family to be of high ethical and moral repute, and to be in good standing with the
11 SBUSD, Santa Barbara High School, the State of California, and the public in general. In this
12 capacity, HARMACHIS taught, mentored, and advised students regarding personal issues,
13 academics, future employment prospects, and general emotional and psychological issues. Both
ge
Se 28
gcd
es god
age 14 the SBUSD and Santa Barbara High School held HARMACHIS out to the public, Plaintiff and
- gs 15 Plaintiffs parents to be a highly-qualified teacher, mentor, and advisor who could and would
16 assist Plaintiff JANE OB DOE with working through personal and academic issues she faced.
17 Inherent in this representation was the understanding that HARMACHIS was a person of high
18 ethical and moral standing, selected to provide leadership, guidance, mentoring, and advising to
19 students, including Plaintiff JANE OB DOE. Plaintiff JANE OB DOE and her family reasonably
20 assumed that HARMACHIS was a person worthy of their trust.
21 10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all times mentioned
22 herein, Defendants and each of them, were the agents, representatives and/or employees of each
23 and every other Defendant. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, Defendants and each of them,
24 were acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality, capacity, identity, agency,
25 representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their authority, whether actual or
26 apparent.
27 ll. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis alleges, that at all times mentioned
28 herein, Defendants and each of them, were the trustees, partners, servants, joint venturers,
4.
‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other Defendant, and the acts and
omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, through such capacity and
within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and consent of each and every other
Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by each and every other Defendant, and
that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS
12. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a student attending Santa Barbara High School
within the SBUSD.
13. At all times material here to, Plaintiff was a student that lives within the school district
10 operated by SBUSD.
11 14. Upon information and belief, SBUSD hired HARMACHIS as a teacher to work at Santa
12 Barbara High School, and appointed him as a teacher for classes, including history, government,
13 and/or economics. It is through that position with SBUSD that he came to interact with Plaintiff
ge
Se 28
gcd
es god
age 14 JANE OB DOE.
- gs 15 15. Upon information and belief, HARMACHIS was supervised by, among others, SBUSD
16 Superintendent Cary Matsuoka, SBUSD Assistant Superintendent Dr. Frann Wageneck, Santa
17 Barbara High School Principal Alicia Saballa-Santana, Santa Barbara High School Interim
18 Principal Michael Gonzalez, and other Administrators.
19 16. At all times material hereto, HARMACHIS was employed by Santa Barbara High School
20 and the SBUSD as a teacher, mentor, and advisor. In such capacities, HARMACHIS was under
21 the direct supervision, employ, agency, and control of the SBUSD, Santa Barbara High School
22 and DOES 1-100. His employment duties and responsibilities with the named Defendants
23 included, in part, providing for the mentoring, advisory, educational, and emotional needs and
24 well-being of students of Santa Barbara High School and other children, including Plaintiff JANE
25 OB DOE.
26 17. On information and belief, HARMACHIS has an extensive history of disciplinary issues
27 within SBUSD related to inappropriate conduct with students. Specifically, in or around 2004
28 while HARMACHIS teaching at Dos Pueblos High School, he was involved in an altercation with
5.
‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
a student. During the investigation into this incident, it was discovered that HARMACHIS had
made several inappropriate sexual comments to various female students during the 2003-2004
school year. Thereafter, in or around 2005, SBUSD gave HARMACHIS a notice of
unprofessional conduct and unsatisfactory performance. Rather than terminating HARMACHIS,
SBUSD transferred HARMACHIS to Santa Barbara High School. In or around January 2005,
HARMACHIS again was disciplined for threatening a student and making inappropriate sexual
comments to numerous female students. On information and belief, it was at this time that SBUSD
was made aware that HARMACHIS was sexually grooming and abusing female students. In fact,
former SBUSD Superintendent, Brian Sarvis, publicly criticized HARMACHIS, calling him “a
10 detriment to students” and noting, “we cannot have Matef teaching high school students.”
11 18. Specifically, on information and belief, by and through its investigation of
12 HARMACHIS, SBUSD knew or reasonably should have known that HARMACHIS was:
13 a. Making sexually explicit and/or inappropriate comments to female students;
ge
Se 28
gcd
es god
age 14 b, Touching female students inappropriately;
- gs 15 Hugging female students;
16 Informing male students of what HARMACHIS could do with the female
17 students in his class “if [he] wanted to;” and
18 e Openly encouraging female students to not wear bras to school;
19 19. In or around April 2005, SBUSD initiated proceedings seeking to dismiss HARMACHIS.
20 Although SBUSD reportedly spent nearly $1 million in the case against HARMACHIS,
21 ultimately, the Commission on Professional Competence determined that dismissal of
22 HARMACHIS was not warranted and HARMACHIS was reinstated at Santa Barbara High
23 School.
24 20. On information and belief, long before the sexual assault of Plaintiff, SBUSD knew or
25 reasonably should have known that HARMACHIS presented a danger to students and needed to
26 be removed from the classroom; however, SBUSD Administrators chose to ignore their legal,
27 ethical, and moral obligation to protect Plaintiff and other vulnerable students. Having already
28 spent nearly $1 million in an effort to dismiss HARMACHIS, SBUSD was no longer willing to
-6-
‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
expend time or resources dealing with HARMACHIS. Accordingly, rather than segregating
HARMACHIS away from students, placing him in an administrative position, or placing
HARMACHIS under supervision, SBUSD permitted HARMACHIS to remain in the classroom
with students, wholly unsupervised. On information and belief, throughout his continued tenure at
Santa Barbara High School, SBUSD ignored continued reports of misconduct and predatory
behavior by HARMACHIS.
21. Through his positions with Santa Barbara High School and the SBUSD, HARMACHIS
was put into direct contact with Plaintiff JANE OB DOE, a student at Santa Barbara High School.
HARMACHIS was assigned to teach, mentor, and advise Plaintiff JANE OB DOE. It is under
10 these circumstances that Plaintiff came to be under the direction and control of HARMACHIS,
11 who used his position of authority and trust over Plaintiff JANE OB DOE to sexually abuse and
12 harass her.
13 22. On or around March 8, 2020, following the sexual assault and harassment of Plaintiff,
ss
m% g28
es
Eg
52 14 HARMACHIS’ educator’s credentials were revoked due to misconduct.
sg 15 23. At no point prior to the date of his arrest, did SBUSD, the Board of Education, and/or the
16 Superintendent undertake to:
17 a. Report HARMACHIS to Child Protective Services, as per the law;
18 b, Report HARMACHIS to law enforcement, as per the law;
19 Cc Protect students from HARMACHIS’ sexual misconduct and behavior.
20 24. Instead of reporting, removing, or ceasing HARMACHIS’ behavior, SBUSD’s lack of
21 actions effectively emboldened HARMACHIS to engage in continued sexually inappropriate and
22 predatory behavior with female students.
23 25. Upon information and belief, SBUSD investigated HARMACHIS for sexual misconduct,
24 determined he was “a detriment to students,” but made the conscious choice to leave him in the
25 classroom around minors, providing him with the means and opportunity to sexually abuse,
26 assault, and harass female students, including the Plaintiff, on an ongoing basis.
27 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF
28
-7-
‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
26. HARMACHIS did sexually harass, molest, and abuse Plaintiff JANE OB DOE, who was
a minor at the time. Such conduct was done for HARMACHIS’ sexual gratification, and was
performed on Plaintiff without her free consent, as Plaintiff JANE OB DOE was a minor and thus
unable to give valid, legal consent to such sexual acts. These actions upon Plaintiff JANE OB
DOE constituted conduct that is believed to be in violation of California Penal Code §§ 288(b)(1),
647.6(a)(1), and potentially other provisions. HARMACHIS has been placed on administrative
leave and has been formally charged with the crimes that he committed against Plaintiff JANE OB
DOE.
27. As a student at Santa Barbara High School and the SBUSD, where HARMACHIS was
10 employed and worked, Plaintiff JANE OB DOE was under HARMACHIS’ direct supervision,
11 care and control, thus creating a special relationship, fiduciary relationship, and/or special care
12 relationship with Defendants, and each of them. Additionally, as a minor child under the custody,
13 care and control of Defendants SBUSD, Defendant SBUSD stood in loco parentis with respect to
ss
m% g28
es
Eg
52 14 Plaintiff JANE OB DOE while she was attending school and school-related functions at Santa
sg 15 Barbara High School and the SBUSD. As the responsible parties and/or employers controlling
16 HARMACHIS, Defendant SBUSD was also in a special relationship with Plaintiff, and owed
17 special duties to Plaintiff JANE OB DOE.
18 28. Plaintiff
is informed and believes, and on that basis allege, that Defendant SBUSD, knew
19 or should have known that HARMACHIS had engaged in unlawful sexually-related conduct with
20 minors in the past, and/or was continuing to engage in such conduct with Plaintiff JANE OB
21 DOE. Defendant SBUSD had a duty to disclose to these facts to Plaintiff JANE OB DOE, her
22 parents and others, but negligently and/or intentionally suppressed, concealed or failed to disclose
23 this information. The duty to disclose this information arose by the special, trusting, confidential,
24 fiduciary, and/or in loco parentis relationship between Defendants and Plaintiffs.
25 29. Defendant SBUSD failed to take reasonable steps and/or implement reasonable safeguards
26 to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by HARMACHIS, including, but not limited to
27 preventing abuse of Plaintiff JANE OB DOE by HARMACHIS avoiding placement of
28 HARMACHIS in a function or environment in which contact with children is an inherent part of
-8-
‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
that function or environment. Instead, Defendant SBUSD ignored and/or concealed the sexual
harassment and abuse of Plaintiff JANE OB DOE and others by HARMACHIS that had already
occurred. Plaintiff JANE OB DOE is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
Defendants and each of them were given notice of incidents of inappropriate conduct by
HARMACHIS, including such facts as those set forth in this Complaint.
30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, on that basis allege, that prior to and during the sexual
harassment and abuse of Plaintiff JANE OB DOE, Defendants knew or should have known that
HARMACHIS had violated his role as a teacher, mentor, advisor and faculty member, and used
his position of authority and trust acting on behalf
of Defendants to gain access to children,
10 including Plaintiff JANE OB DOE, on and off the school facilities and grounds of Santa Barbara
11 High School, in which he engaged in sexual misconduct, harassment and abuse, with such
12 children including Plaintiff JANE OB DOE.
13 31. With actual or constructive knowledge that Defendant HARMACHIS had previously
ss
m% g28
es
Eg
52 14 engaged in dangerous and inappropriate conduct, including sexually harassing and abusing other
sg 15 minors at Santa Barbara High School and other minors, Defendants conspired to and did
16 knowingly fail to take reasonable steps, and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid
17 acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by HARMACHIS, including, but not limited to,
18 preventing or avoiding placement of HARMACHIS in a function or environment in which contact
19 with children is an inherent aspect of that function or environment.
20 32. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants failed to report and did hide and conceal from
21 students, parents, teachers, law enforcement authorities, civil authorities and others, the true facts
22 and relevant information necessary to bring HARMACHIS to justice for the sexual misconduct he
23 committed with minors, as well as protect their fiduciaries, including Plaintiff JANE OB DOE.
24 Defendants also implemented various measures designed to, or which effectively, made
25 HARMACHIS’ conduct harder to detect including, but not limited to:
26 a. Permitting HARMACHIS to remain in a position of authority and trust after
27 Defendants knew or should have known that HARMACHIS was sexually abusing
28 and/or harassing students;
-9-
‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
b. Placing HARMACHIS in a separate and secluded environment, including placing him
in charge of children, mentoring programs, advising programs, and youth programs
where they purported to supervise the children, which allowed him to sexually interact
with and sexually abuse children, including Plaintiff;
Allowing HARMACHIS to come into contact with minors, including Plaintiff,
without adequate supervision;
Failing to inform, or concealing from Plaintiff's parents and law enforcement officials
the fact that Plaintiff and others were or may have been sexually abused, after
Defendants knew or should have known that HARMACHIS may have been sexually
10 abusive and harassing towards Plaintiff
or others, thereby enabling Plaintiff
to
11 continue to be endangered and sexually harassed, abused, and/or creating the
12 circumstance where Plaintiff and others were less likely to receive medical/mental
13 health care and treatment, thus exacerbating the harm to Plaintiff;
ss
m% g28
es
Eg
52 14 Holding out HARMACHIS to Plaintiff and her parents, students, and to the school
sg 15 community as being in good standing and trustworthy;
16 Failing to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts
17 of unlawful sexual conduct by HARMACHIS with students, who were minor children;
18 and
19 Failing to put in place a system or procedure to supervise or monitor employees,
20 volunteers, representatives or agents to insure that they did not harass or abuse minors
21 in Defendants' care, including Plaintiff.
22 33. By his position within the Defendants' institutions, Defendants and HARMACHIS
23 demanded and required that Plaintiff respect HARMACHIS in his position of teacher, mentor, and
24 advisor at Santa Barbara High School and the SBUSD.
25 34. The incidents of abuse outlined herein took place while Plaintiff was under the control of
26 HARMACHIS, in his capacity and position as a teacher, mentor, and advisor at Santa Barbara
27 High School and the SBUSD, and while acting specifically on behalf of Defendants, including,
28 but not limited to, the following:
-10-
‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
a. HARMACHIS was at all times relevant to this Complaint a teacher, mentor, and
advisor at Santa Barbara High School, an institution wholly operated by SBUSD.
While HARMACHIS sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff, Defendants were well
aware that HARMACHIS took an unusual interest, and spent an inordinate amount of
time with Plaintiff.
Beginning in or around 2016 through 2017, the perpetrator HARMACHIS sexually
abused, harassed and molested the Plaintiff on the school premises, including within
his Santa Barbara High School classroom. This sexual abuse included, but is not
limited to: sexual talk and innuendo by HARMACHIS, biting Plaintiffs ear, hugging
Plaintiff, and groping Plaintiff's buttocks.
10
35. As set forth more fully herein above, HARMACHIS did sexually harass and abuse
11
Plaintiff, who was a minor at the time. Plaintiff JANE OB DOE is informed and believes, and on
12
that basis alleges, that such conduct by Defendant HARMACHIS was based upon Plaintiff's
ss
m% g28
13
es
Eg gender, and was done for his sexual gratification. These actions upon Plaintiff JANE OB DOE
52 14
were performed by Defendant HARMACHIS without the free consent of Plaintiff, who was a
sg 15
minor during the abuse period.
16
36. Plaintiff
is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants and each of
17
them should have been aware of HARMACHIS’ wrongful conduct at or about the time it was
18
occurring, and thereafter, but took no action to obstruct, inhibit or stop such continuing conduct,
19
or to help Plaintiff JANE OB DOE endure the trauma from such conduct. Despite the authority
20
and ability to do so, these Defendants negligently and/or willfully refused to, and/or did not, act
21
effectively to stop the sexual assaults on Plaintiff JANE OB DOE, to inhibit or obstruct such
22
abuse, or to protect Plaintiff JANE OB DOE from the results of that trauma.
23
37. During the period of abuse of Plaintiff
at the hands of HARMACHIS, Defendants had the
24
authority and the ability to obstruct or stop HARMACHIS’ sexual assaults on Plaintiff JANE OB
25
DOE, but negligently and/or willfully failed to do so, thereby allowing the abuse to occur and to
26
continue unabated. This failure was a part of Defendants’ plan and arrangement to conceal
27
wrongful acts, to avoid and inhibit detection, to block public disclosure, to avoid scandal, to avoid
28
-ll-
‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
the disclosure of their tolerance of child sexual harassment and abuse, to preserve a false
appearance of propriety, and to avoid investigation and action by public authority including law
enforcement. Plaintiff JANE OB DOE is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
such actions were motivated by a desire to protect the reputation of Defendants and each of them,
and to protect the monetary support of Defendants while fostering an environment where such
abuse could continue to occur.
38. Subsequent to his sexual abuse at the hands of HARMACHIS, Plaintiff began to
experience multiple mental, emotional and psychological problems, due to the sexual harassment
and abuse she suffered at the hands of HARMACHIS, including, but not limited to: Plaintiff
JANE OB DOE being angry; Plaintiff JANE OB DOE experiencing frequent anxiety; Plaintiff
10
JANE OB DOE experiencing depression; Plaintiff JANE OB DOE feeling helpless; Plaintiff
11
JANE OB DOE experiencing sleeplessness; and Plaintiff JANE OB DOE having significant trust
12
and control issues.
ss
m% g28
13
es
Eg
39. As a direct result of the sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiff JANE OB DOE by
52 14
HARMACHIS, Plaintiff JANE OB DOE has difficulty in reasonably or meaningfully interacting
sg 15
with others, including those in positions of authority over Plaintiff JANE OB DOE, including
16
supervisors, and in intimate, confidential and familial relationships, due to the trauma of childhood
17
sexual harassment and abuse inflicted upon her by HARMACHIS. This inability to interact creates
18
conflict with Plaintiff JANE OB DOE’s values of trust and confidence in others, and has caused
19
Plaintiff JANE OB DOE substantial emotional distress, anxiety, nervousness and fear. As a direct
20
result of Plaintiff's abuse and harassment by HARMACHIS, Plaintiff JANE OB DOE experienced
21
severe issues with her personal life, including issues with trust and difficulties in maintaining
22
meaningful relationships, and difficulty with school. These feelings have caused Plaintiff JANE
23
OB DOE substantial emotional distress, anxiety, nervousness and fear.
24
40. Asa direct and proximate result of the Defendants' tortuous acts, omissions, wrongful
25
conduct and/or breaches of their duties, whether willful or negligent, Plaintiff JANE OB DOE’s
26
employment and personal development has or will be adversely affected. Plaintiff JANE OB
27
DOE has or will lose wages as a result of the abuse she suffered at the hands of Defendants, and
28
will continue to lose wages in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiff JANE OB DOE has
-12-
‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
suffered economic injury, all to Plaintiff JANE OB DOEF’s general, special and consequential
damage in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than the minimum jurisdictional
amount of this Court.
41. As is set forth herein, Defendants and each of them have failed to uphold numerous
mandatory duties imposed upon them by state and federal law, and by written policies and
procedures applicable to Defendants, including but not limited to the following:
* Duty to use reasonable care to protect students from known or foreseeable dangers
(Government Code §§ 820, 815.2);
Duty to refrain from taking official action that contradicts the provisions of Article 1,
section 28(c) of the California Constitution;
10
Duty to enact policies and procedures that are not in contravention of the Federal Civil
11
Rights Act, section 1983, and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution;
12
Duty to protect students and staff, and provide adequate supervision;
ss 13
ge2
Eg
Duty to ensure that any direction given to faculty and students is lawful, and that
52 14
adults act fairly, responsibly and respectfully towards faculty and students;
sg 15
Duty to properly train teachers, athletic directors, athletic coaches, youth counselors,
16
mentors, administrators, and staff so that they are aware of their individual
17
responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe environment;
18
Duty to supervise faculty and students and enforce rules and regulations prescribed for
19
schools, exercise reasonable control over students as is reasonably necessary to
20
maintain order, protect property, or protect the health and safety of faculty and
21
students or to maintain proper and appropriate conditions conducive to learning;
22
Duty to exercise careful supervision of the moral conditions in the school;
23
Duty to hold pupils to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school,
24
on the playgrounds or during recess;
25
Duty to properly monitor students, prevent or correct harmful situations or call for
26
help when a situation is beyond their control;
27
Duty to ensure that personnel are actually on hand and supervising students;
28
-13-
‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Duty to provide enough supervision to students;
Duty to supervise diligently;
Duty to act promptly and diligently and not ignore or minimize problems;
Duty to refrain from violating Plaintiff's right to protection from bodily restraint or
harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to her personal relations
(Civil Code § 43);
Duty to abstain from injuring the person or property of Plaintiff, or infringing upon
any of her rights (Civil Code § 1708);
Duty to report suspected incidents of child abuse and more specifically childhood
sexual abuse (Penal Code §§ 11166, 11167); and
10
Duty to prevent discrimination or sexual harassment and abuse from occurring in
11
public educational facilities (Education Code § 200, et seq.).
12
42. Compulsory education laws create a special relationship between students and
ss
m% g28
13
es
Eg
Defendants, and students have a constitutional guarantee to a safe, secure and peaceful school
52 14
environment. Defendants and each of them failed to acknowledge unsafe conditions, and
sg 15
therefore failed to guarantee safe surroundings in an environment in which Plaintiff was not free
16
to leave, specifically including but not limited to allowing HARMACHIS to take children for
17
purposes of sexual activity and allowing HARMACHIS to operate isolated environments,
18
incapable of monitoring from the outside, wherein HARMACHIS sexually harassed and abused
19
Plaintiff and others.
20
43. Defendants and each of them had and have a duty to protect students, including Plaintiff.
21
Defendants were required, and failed, to provide adequate campus and off-site school event
22
supervision, and failed to be properly vigilant in seeing that supervision was sufficient to ensure
23
the safety of Plaintiff and others.
24
44. Defendants and each of them lodged with HARMACHIS the color of authority, by which
25
she was able to influence, direct and abuse Plaintiff JANE OB DOE and others, and to act
26
illegally, unreasonably and without respect for the person and safety of Plaintiff JANE OB DOE.
27
45. Defendants and each of them had a duty to and failed to adequately train and supervise all
28
-14-
‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
advisors, teachers, mentors and staff to create a positive, safe, spiritual and educational
environment, specifically including training to perceive, report and stop inappropriate conduct by
other members of the staff, specifically including HARMACHIS, with children.
46. Defendants and each of them had a duty to and failed to enact and enforce rules and
regulations prescribed for schools, and execute reasonable control over students necessary to
protect the health and safety of the student and maintain proper and appropriate conditions
conducive to learning.
47. Defendants and each of them were required to and failed to exercise careful supervision of
the moral conditions in their school, and provide supervision before and after school. This duty
extended beyond the classroom.
10
48. In subjecting Plaintiff JANE OB DOE to the wrongful treatment herein described,
11
HARMACHIS acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff JANE OB DOE,
12
and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, so as to constitute malice and/or oppression under
ss
m% g28
13
es
Eg
California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiff JANE OB DOE is therefore entitled, to the recovery
52 14
of punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against HARMACHIS, in a sum
sg 15
to be shown according to proof.
16
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND ASSEMBLY BILL-218
17
49. Effective January 1, 2020, California’s statute o
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED MORGAN A. STEWART, Esq. (State Bar No. 209852) Superior Court of California E-Mail: mstewart@manlystewart.com County of Santa Barbara Haley K. Aanestad, Esq. (State Bar No.334382) Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer E-Mail: haanestad@manlystewart.com MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 3/16/2021 10:33 AM 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 By: Elizabeth Spann, Deputy Irvine, CA 92612 Tel.: (949) 252-9990 Fax: (949) 252-9991 Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 JANE OB DOE, an individual, CASE NO.: 20CV03946 11 Assigned for all purposes: Zo BS Plaintiff, Hon. Colleen K. Sterne Ze 12 Be Dept. 5 Vv. aa 13 Z3oS DECLARATION OF HALEY K. Zead S258 AANESTAD, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF 14 SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL ex DISTRICT; a business entity of form PLAINTIFF JANE OB DOE’S Bs OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MATEF 15 unknown; MATEF HARMACHIS, an HARMACHIS’S DEMURRER TO THE BE individual; and DOES 1 through 100, COMPLAINT aS 16 fe Defendants. << [Filed Concurrently with Plaintiff's Opposition mS 17 to Demurrer] ac 18 Date: March 29, 2021 Time: 10:00 a.m. 19 Judge: Hon. Colleen K. Sterne Dept.: 5 20 Complaint Filed: November 30, 2020 21 Trial Date: None 22 DECLARATION OF HALEY K. AANESTAD, ESQ 23 I, Haley K. Aanestad, hereby declare as follows: 24 1 Iam an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am an attorney 25 with Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, attorneys of record for Plaintiff in the above-entitled matter. I am 26 personally familiar with the facts of this case and the contents of this Declaration, and if called 27 upon, could and would competently testify as to its contents. 28 1 DECLARATION OF HALEY K. AANESTAD ISO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT HARMACHIS’S DEMURRER 2. This declaration is made in support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Matef Harmachis’s (“Harmachis”) Demurrer to the Complaint. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the operative Complaint. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and this this declaration was executed on March 16, 2021 at Irvine, California. Manedtad HAL) K. AANESTAD 10 11 Zo BS Ze 12 Be aA aa 13 SS faa8 14 15 Ba aS 16 Se <2 mS 17 ae 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DECLARATION OF HALEY K. AANESTAD ISO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT HARMACHIS’S DEMURRER EXHIBITA Morgan A. Stewart, State Bar No. 209852 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Courtney P. Pendry, State Bar No. 327382 Superior Court of California MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI County of Santa Barbara 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer Irvine, CA 92612 11/30/2020 5:13 PM (949) 252-9990; (949) 252-9991 By: Elizabeth Spann, Deputy Attorneys for Plaintiff, JANE OB DOE, an individual SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 11 JANE OB DOE, an individual, Case N: 0.: 20CV03946 12 Plaintiff, —————— > 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: Se Vv, 14 )) NEGLIGENCE; SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL 2) NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION; 15 DISTRICT; a business entity of form 3) NEGLIGENT HIRING/RETENTION; unknown; MATEF HARMACHIS, an 4) NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN 16 individual; and DOES | through 100, TRAIN OR EDUCATE; 5) NEGLIGENCE PER SE; 17 Defendants. 6) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; 18 7) ASSAULT; 8) SEXUAL BATTERY (C.C. § 1708.5); 19 9) SEXUAL HARASSMENT (C.C. § 51.9) 10) GENDER VIOLENCE (C.C. § 52.4); 20 11) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; 12) CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD (C.C. § 21 1573); 13) PUBLIC ENTITY LIABILITY FOR 22 FAILURE TO PERFORM MANDATORY DUTY 23 24 [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL] 25 26 27 28 -l- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES COMES NOW, Plaintiffs JANE OB DOE, an individual, who for her Complaint, complains and alleges as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE PARTIES THE PARTIES (PLAINTIFF) 1 Plaintiff JANE OB DOE (hereinafter “Plaintiff’) is a resident of the County of Santa Barbara, State of California and was so at the time of the abuse alleged herein. The name used by JANE OB DOE in this Complaint is not the actual name of JANE OB DOE, but is a fictitious name utilized to protect the privacy of JANE OB DOE, a victim of childhood sexual harassment 10 and molestation. Plaintiff JANE OB DOE is a female, born on February 3, 2000, and was a minor 11 during the time of the sexual misconduct alleged herein. Plaintiff JANE OB DOE was a minor at 12 the time of all incidents alleged herein. ge 13 2. All pertinent claims arising out of the sexual abuse occurred after January 1, 2009. Se 28 gcd es god age 14 Pursuant to Government Code section 905(m), Plaintiff's claim is timely and exempted from the - gs 15 government tort-claim filing requirement. As such, pursuant to California Government Code § 16 905(m), Plaintiff JANE OB DOE is specifically exempted from the claims presentation 17 requirements for her claims against Defendant SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL 18 DISTRICT (“SBUSD”), for the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse she suffered at the 19 hands of Defendants. 20 (DEFENDANTS) 21 3 Defendant SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter the 22 “SBUSD7”), at all times mentioned herein was and is, a business entity of form unknown, having 23 its principal place of business in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. The SBUSD 24 purposely conducts substantial educational business activities in the State of California, and was 25 the primary entity owning, operating and controlling Santa Barbara High School, employing 26 Defendant MATEF HARMACHIS, and responsible for monitoring and controlling his and other 27 employees activities and behavior. 28 -2- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 4 Santa Barbara High School is a public educational institution in the SBUSD, operating as a High School for students approximately 14 years of age through approximately 18 years of age. 5 Defendant MATEF HARMACHIS (hereinafter “HARMACHIS”) at all times mentioned herein was and is an adult male individual, who Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, currently resides in the County of Santa Barbara, in the State of California. During the period of time in which the childhood sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiff JANE OB DOE, alleged herein, took place, HARMACHIS was a teacher, mentor, and advisor at Santa Barbara High School; employed by both the SBUSD and Santa Barbara High School. At all times herein alleged, HARMACHIS was an employee, agent, and/or servant of the SBUSD and Santa 10 Barbara High School, and was under their complete control and/or active supervision. 11 6 Defendants DOES | through 100, inclusive, and each of them, are sued herein under said 12 fictitious names. Plaintiff is ignorant as to the true names and capacities of DOE Defendants, ge 13 whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, and therefore sue said Defendants by such Se 28 gcd es god age 14 fictitious names. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, Plaintiff will request leave - gs 15 of Court to amend this Complaint to state their true names and capacities herein. 16 7 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times mentioned 17 herein, each Defendant was responsible in some manner or capacity for the occurrences herein 18 alleged, and that Plaintiff's damages, as herein alleged, were proximately caused by all said 19 Defendants. Defendants SBUSD, HARMACHIS, and DOES 1-100 are sometimes collectively 20 referred to herein as “Defendants” and/or as “All Defendants”; such collective reference refers to 21 all specifically named Defendants. 22 8 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times mentioned 23 herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of them, such 24 that any individuality and separateness between Defendants, and each of them, ceased to exist. 25 Defendants and each of them, were the successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the other 26 Defendants, and each of them, in that they purchased, controlled, dominated and operated each 27 other without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or other manner of division. To 28 continue maintaining the facade of a separate and individual existence between and among 3- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Defendants, and each of them, would serve to perpetrate a fraud and an injustice. 9 At all times mentioned herein, HARMACHIS was an adult teacher, mentor, and advisor employee of both the SBUSD and Santa Barbara High School, acting as an employee, agent, and/or servant of such and/or was under their complete control and/or supervision, as well as the complete control of all administrative personnel of SBUSD and Santa Barbara High School. HARMACHIS was employed as a teacher at the SBUSD and/or Santa Barbara High School. HARMACHIS was hired by the SBUSD and Santa Barbara High School to serve as a teacher, mentor, and advisor to minor high school students at Santa Barbara High School. In so doing, the SBUSD and Santa Barbara High School held HARMACHIS out to the public, Plaintiff and 10 Plaintiff's family to be of high ethical and moral repute, and to be in good standing with the 11 SBUSD, Santa Barbara High School, the State of California, and the public in general. In this 12 capacity, HARMACHIS taught, mentored, and advised students regarding personal issues, 13 academics, future employment prospects, and general emotional and psychological issues. Both ge Se 28 gcd es god age 14 the SBUSD and Santa Barbara High School held HARMACHIS out to the public, Plaintiff and - gs 15 Plaintiffs parents to be a highly-qualified teacher, mentor, and advisor who could and would 16 assist Plaintiff JANE OB DOE with working through personal and academic issues she faced. 17 Inherent in this representation was the understanding that HARMACHIS was a person of high 18 ethical and moral standing, selected to provide leadership, guidance, mentoring, and advising to 19 students, including Plaintiff JANE OB DOE. Plaintiff JANE OB DOE and her family reasonably 20 assumed that HARMACHIS was a person worthy of their trust. 21 10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all times mentioned 22 herein, Defendants and each of them, were the agents, representatives and/or employees of each 23 and every other Defendant. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, Defendants and each of them, 24 were acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality, capacity, identity, agency, 25 representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their authority, whether actual or 26 apparent. 27 ll. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis alleges, that at all times mentioned 28 herein, Defendants and each of them, were the trustees, partners, servants, joint venturers, 4. ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other Defendant, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and consent of each and every other Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by each and every other Defendant, and that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS 12. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a student attending Santa Barbara High School within the SBUSD. 13. At all times material here to, Plaintiff was a student that lives within the school district 10 operated by SBUSD. 11 14. Upon information and belief, SBUSD hired HARMACHIS as a teacher to work at Santa 12 Barbara High School, and appointed him as a teacher for classes, including history, government, 13 and/or economics. It is through that position with SBUSD that he came to interact with Plaintiff ge Se 28 gcd es god age 14 JANE OB DOE. - gs 15 15. Upon information and belief, HARMACHIS was supervised by, among others, SBUSD 16 Superintendent Cary Matsuoka, SBUSD Assistant Superintendent Dr. Frann Wageneck, Santa 17 Barbara High School Principal Alicia Saballa-Santana, Santa Barbara High School Interim 18 Principal Michael Gonzalez, and other Administrators. 19 16. At all times material hereto, HARMACHIS was employed by Santa Barbara High School 20 and the SBUSD as a teacher, mentor, and advisor. In such capacities, HARMACHIS was under 21 the direct supervision, employ, agency, and control of the SBUSD, Santa Barbara High School 22 and DOES 1-100. His employment duties and responsibilities with the named Defendants 23 included, in part, providing for the mentoring, advisory, educational, and emotional needs and 24 well-being of students of Santa Barbara High School and other children, including Plaintiff JANE 25 OB DOE. 26 17. On information and belief, HARMACHIS has an extensive history of disciplinary issues 27 within SBUSD related to inappropriate conduct with students. Specifically, in or around 2004 28 while HARMACHIS teaching at Dos Pueblos High School, he was involved in an altercation with 5. ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES a student. During the investigation into this incident, it was discovered that HARMACHIS had made several inappropriate sexual comments to various female students during the 2003-2004 school year. Thereafter, in or around 2005, SBUSD gave HARMACHIS a notice of unprofessional conduct and unsatisfactory performance. Rather than terminating HARMACHIS, SBUSD transferred HARMACHIS to Santa Barbara High School. In or around January 2005, HARMACHIS again was disciplined for threatening a student and making inappropriate sexual comments to numerous female students. On information and belief, it was at this time that SBUSD was made aware that HARMACHIS was sexually grooming and abusing female students. In fact, former SBUSD Superintendent, Brian Sarvis, publicly criticized HARMACHIS, calling him “a 10 detriment to students” and noting, “we cannot have Matef teaching high school students.” 11 18. Specifically, on information and belief, by and through its investigation of 12 HARMACHIS, SBUSD knew or reasonably should have known that HARMACHIS was: 13 a. Making sexually explicit and/or inappropriate comments to female students; ge Se 28 gcd es god age 14 b, Touching female students inappropriately; - gs 15 Hugging female students; 16 Informing male students of what HARMACHIS could do with the female 17 students in his class “if [he] wanted to;” and 18 e Openly encouraging female students to not wear bras to school; 19 19. In or around April 2005, SBUSD initiated proceedings seeking to dismiss HARMACHIS. 20 Although SBUSD reportedly spent nearly $1 million in the case against HARMACHIS, 21 ultimately, the Commission on Professional Competence determined that dismissal of 22 HARMACHIS was not warranted and HARMACHIS was reinstated at Santa Barbara High 23 School. 24 20. On information and belief, long before the sexual assault of Plaintiff, SBUSD knew or 25 reasonably should have known that HARMACHIS presented a danger to students and needed to 26 be removed from the classroom; however, SBUSD Administrators chose to ignore their legal, 27 ethical, and moral obligation to protect Plaintiff and other vulnerable students. Having already 28 spent nearly $1 million in an effort to dismiss HARMACHIS, SBUSD was no longer willing to -6- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES expend time or resources dealing with HARMACHIS. Accordingly, rather than segregating HARMACHIS away from students, placing him in an administrative position, or placing HARMACHIS under supervision, SBUSD permitted HARMACHIS to remain in the classroom with students, wholly unsupervised. On information and belief, throughout his continued tenure at Santa Barbara High School, SBUSD ignored continued reports of misconduct and predatory behavior by HARMACHIS. 21. Through his positions with Santa Barbara High School and the SBUSD, HARMACHIS was put into direct contact with Plaintiff JANE OB DOE, a student at Santa Barbara High School. HARMACHIS was assigned to teach, mentor, and advise Plaintiff JANE OB DOE. It is under 10 these circumstances that Plaintiff came to be under the direction and control of HARMACHIS, 11 who used his position of authority and trust over Plaintiff JANE OB DOE to sexually abuse and 12 harass her. 13 22. On or around March 8, 2020, following the sexual assault and harassment of Plaintiff, ss m% g28 es Eg 52 14 HARMACHIS’ educator’s credentials were revoked due to misconduct. sg 15 23. At no point prior to the date of his arrest, did SBUSD, the Board of Education, and/or the 16 Superintendent undertake to: 17 a. Report HARMACHIS to Child Protective Services, as per the law; 18 b, Report HARMACHIS to law enforcement, as per the law; 19 Cc Protect students from HARMACHIS’ sexual misconduct and behavior. 20 24. Instead of reporting, removing, or ceasing HARMACHIS’ behavior, SBUSD’s lack of 21 actions effectively emboldened HARMACHIS to engage in continued sexually inappropriate and 22 predatory behavior with female students. 23 25. Upon information and belief, SBUSD investigated HARMACHIS for sexual misconduct, 24 determined he was “a detriment to students,” but made the conscious choice to leave him in the 25 classroom around minors, providing him with the means and opportunity to sexually abuse, 26 assault, and harass female students, including the Plaintiff, on an ongoing basis. 27 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF 28 -7- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 26. HARMACHIS did sexually harass, molest, and abuse Plaintiff JANE OB DOE, who was a minor at the time. Such conduct was done for HARMACHIS’ sexual gratification, and was performed on Plaintiff without her free consent, as Plaintiff JANE OB DOE was a minor and thus unable to give valid, legal consent to such sexual acts. These actions upon Plaintiff JANE OB DOE constituted conduct that is believed to be in violation of California Penal Code §§ 288(b)(1), 647.6(a)(1), and potentially other provisions. HARMACHIS has been placed on administrative leave and has been formally charged with the crimes that he committed against Plaintiff JANE OB DOE. 27. As a student at Santa Barbara High School and the SBUSD, where HARMACHIS was 10 employed and worked, Plaintiff JANE OB DOE was under HARMACHIS’ direct supervision, 11 care and control, thus creating a special relationship, fiduciary relationship, and/or special care 12 relationship with Defendants, and each of them. Additionally, as a minor child under the custody, 13 care and control of Defendants SBUSD, Defendant SBUSD stood in loco parentis with respect to ss m% g28 es Eg 52 14 Plaintiff JANE OB DOE while she was attending school and school-related functions at Santa sg 15 Barbara High School and the SBUSD. As the responsible parties and/or employers controlling 16 HARMACHIS, Defendant SBUSD was also in a special relationship with Plaintiff, and owed 17 special duties to Plaintiff JANE OB DOE. 18 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis allege, that Defendant SBUSD, knew 19 or should have known that HARMACHIS had engaged in unlawful sexually-related conduct with 20 minors in the past, and/or was continuing to engage in such conduct with Plaintiff JANE OB 21 DOE. Defendant SBUSD had a duty to disclose to these facts to Plaintiff JANE OB DOE, her 22 parents and others, but negligently and/or intentionally suppressed, concealed or failed to disclose 23 this information. The duty to disclose this information arose by the special, trusting, confidential, 24 fiduciary, and/or in loco parentis relationship between Defendants and Plaintiffs. 25 29. Defendant SBUSD failed to take reasonable steps and/or implement reasonable safeguards 26 to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by HARMACHIS, including, but not limited to 27 preventing abuse of Plaintiff JANE OB DOE by HARMACHIS avoiding placement of 28 HARMACHIS in a function or environment in which contact with children is an inherent part of -8- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES that function or environment. Instead, Defendant SBUSD ignored and/or concealed the sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiff JANE OB DOE and others by HARMACHIS that had already occurred. Plaintiff JANE OB DOE is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants and each of them were given notice of incidents of inappropriate conduct by HARMACHIS, including such facts as those set forth in this Complaint. 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, on that basis allege, that prior to and during the sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiff JANE OB DOE, Defendants knew or should have known that HARMACHIS had violated his role as a teacher, mentor, advisor and faculty member, and used his position of authority and trust acting on behalf of Defendants to gain access to children, 10 including Plaintiff JANE OB DOE, on and off the school facilities and grounds of Santa Barbara 11 High School, in which he engaged in sexual misconduct, harassment and abuse, with such 12 children including Plaintiff JANE OB DOE. 13 31. With actual or constructive knowledge that Defendant HARMACHIS had previously ss m% g28 es Eg 52 14 engaged in dangerous and inappropriate conduct, including sexually harassing and abusing other sg 15 minors at Santa Barbara High School and other minors, Defendants conspired to and did 16 knowingly fail to take reasonable steps, and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid 17 acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by HARMACHIS, including, but not limited to, 18 preventing or avoiding placement of HARMACHIS in a function or environment in which contact 19 with children is an inherent aspect of that function or environment. 20 32. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants failed to report and did hide and conceal from 21 students, parents, teachers, law enforcement authorities, civil authorities and others, the true facts 22 and relevant information necessary to bring HARMACHIS to justice for the sexual misconduct he 23 committed with minors, as well as protect their fiduciaries, including Plaintiff JANE OB DOE. 24 Defendants also implemented various measures designed to, or which effectively, made 25 HARMACHIS’ conduct harder to detect including, but not limited to: 26 a. Permitting HARMACHIS to remain in a position of authority and trust after 27 Defendants knew or should have known that HARMACHIS was sexually abusing 28 and/or harassing students; -9- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES b. Placing HARMACHIS in a separate and secluded environment, including placing him in charge of children, mentoring programs, advising programs, and youth programs where they purported to supervise the children, which allowed him to sexually interact with and sexually abuse children, including Plaintiff; Allowing HARMACHIS to come into contact with minors, including Plaintiff, without adequate supervision; Failing to inform, or concealing from Plaintiff's parents and law enforcement officials the fact that Plaintiff and others were or may have been sexually abused, after Defendants knew or should have known that HARMACHIS may have been sexually 10 abusive and harassing towards Plaintiff or others, thereby enabling Plaintiff to 11 continue to be endangered and sexually harassed, abused, and/or creating the 12 circumstance where Plaintiff and others were less likely to receive medical/mental 13 health care and treatment, thus exacerbating the harm to Plaintiff; ss m% g28 es Eg 52 14 Holding out HARMACHIS to Plaintiff and her parents, students, and to the school sg 15 community as being in good standing and trustworthy; 16 Failing to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts 17 of unlawful sexual conduct by HARMACHIS with students, who were minor children; 18 and 19 Failing to put in place a system or procedure to supervise or monitor employees, 20 volunteers, representatives or agents to insure that they did not harass or abuse minors 21 in Defendants' care, including Plaintiff. 22 33. By his position within the Defendants' institutions, Defendants and HARMACHIS 23 demanded and required that Plaintiff respect HARMACHIS in his position of teacher, mentor, and 24 advisor at Santa Barbara High School and the SBUSD. 25 34. The incidents of abuse outlined herein took place while Plaintiff was under the control of 26 HARMACHIS, in his capacity and position as a teacher, mentor, and advisor at Santa Barbara 27 High School and the SBUSD, and while acting specifically on behalf of Defendants, including, 28 but not limited to, the following: -10- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES a. HARMACHIS was at all times relevant to this Complaint a teacher, mentor, and advisor at Santa Barbara High School, an institution wholly operated by SBUSD. While HARMACHIS sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff, Defendants were well aware that HARMACHIS took an unusual interest, and spent an inordinate amount of time with Plaintiff. Beginning in or around 2016 through 2017, the perpetrator HARMACHIS sexually abused, harassed and molested the Plaintiff on the school premises, including within his Santa Barbara High School classroom. This sexual abuse included, but is not limited to: sexual talk and innuendo by HARMACHIS, biting Plaintiffs ear, hugging Plaintiff, and groping Plaintiff's buttocks. 10 35. As set forth more fully herein above, HARMACHIS did sexually harass and abuse 11 Plaintiff, who was a minor at the time. Plaintiff JANE OB DOE is informed and believes, and on 12 that basis alleges, that such conduct by Defendant HARMACHIS was based upon Plaintiff's ss m% g28 13 es Eg gender, and was done for his sexual gratification. These actions upon Plaintiff JANE OB DOE 52 14 were performed by Defendant HARMACHIS without the free consent of Plaintiff, who was a sg 15 minor during the abuse period. 16 36. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants and each of 17 them should have been aware of HARMACHIS’ wrongful conduct at or about the time it was 18 occurring, and thereafter, but took no action to obstruct, inhibit or stop such continuing conduct, 19 or to help Plaintiff JANE OB DOE endure the trauma from such conduct. Despite the authority 20 and ability to do so, these Defendants negligently and/or willfully refused to, and/or did not, act 21 effectively to stop the sexual assaults on Plaintiff JANE OB DOE, to inhibit or obstruct such 22 abuse, or to protect Plaintiff JANE OB DOE from the results of that trauma. 23 37. During the period of abuse of Plaintiff at the hands of HARMACHIS, Defendants had the 24 authority and the ability to obstruct or stop HARMACHIS’ sexual assaults on Plaintiff JANE OB 25 DOE, but negligently and/or willfully failed to do so, thereby allowing the abuse to occur and to 26 continue unabated. This failure was a part of Defendants’ plan and arrangement to conceal 27 wrongful acts, to avoid and inhibit detection, to block public disclosure, to avoid scandal, to avoid 28 -ll- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES the disclosure of their tolerance of child sexual harassment and abuse, to preserve a false appearance of propriety, and to avoid investigation and action by public authority including law enforcement. Plaintiff JANE OB DOE is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that such actions were motivated by a desire to protect the reputation of Defendants and each of them, and to protect the monetary support of Defendants while fostering an environment where such abuse could continue to occur. 38. Subsequent to his sexual abuse at the hands of HARMACHIS, Plaintiff began to experience multiple mental, emotional and psychological problems, due to the sexual harassment and abuse she suffered at the hands of HARMACHIS, including, but not limited to: Plaintiff JANE OB DOE being angry; Plaintiff JANE OB DOE experiencing frequent anxiety; Plaintiff 10 JANE OB DOE experiencing depression; Plaintiff JANE OB DOE feeling helpless; Plaintiff 11 JANE OB DOE experiencing sleeplessness; and Plaintiff JANE OB DOE having significant trust 12 and control issues. ss m% g28 13 es Eg 39. As a direct result of the sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiff JANE OB DOE by 52 14 HARMACHIS, Plaintiff JANE OB DOE has difficulty in reasonably or meaningfully interacting sg 15 with others, including those in positions of authority over Plaintiff JANE OB DOE, including 16 supervisors, and in intimate, confidential and familial relationships, due to the trauma of childhood 17 sexual harassment and abuse inflicted upon her by HARMACHIS. This inability to interact creates 18 conflict with Plaintiff JANE OB DOE’s values of trust and confidence in others, and has caused 19 Plaintiff JANE OB DOE substantial emotional distress, anxiety, nervousness and fear. As a direct 20 result of Plaintiff's abuse and harassment by HARMACHIS, Plaintiff JANE OB DOE experienced 21 severe issues with her personal life, including issues with trust and difficulties in maintaining 22 meaningful relationships, and difficulty with school. These feelings have caused Plaintiff JANE 23 OB DOE substantial emotional distress, anxiety, nervousness and fear. 24 40. Asa direct and proximate result of the Defendants' tortuous acts, omissions, wrongful 25 conduct and/or breaches of their duties, whether willful or negligent, Plaintiff JANE OB DOE’s 26 employment and personal development has or will be adversely affected. Plaintiff JANE OB 27 DOE has or will lose wages as a result of the abuse she suffered at the hands of Defendants, and 28 will continue to lose wages in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiff JANE OB DOE has -12- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES suffered economic injury, all to Plaintiff JANE OB DOEF’s general, special and consequential damage in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court. 41. As is set forth herein, Defendants and each of them have failed to uphold numerous mandatory duties imposed upon them by state and federal law, and by written policies and procedures applicable to Defendants, including but not limited to the following: * Duty to use reasonable care to protect students from known or foreseeable dangers (Government Code §§ 820, 815.2); Duty to refrain from taking official action that contradicts the provisions of Article 1, section 28(c) of the California Constitution; 10 Duty to enact policies and procedures that are not in contravention of the Federal Civil 11 Rights Act, section 1983, and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution; 12 Duty to protect students and staff, and provide adequate supervision; ss 13 ge2 Eg Duty to ensure that any direction given to faculty and students is lawful, and that 52 14 adults act fairly, responsibly and respectfully towards faculty and students; sg 15 Duty to properly train teachers, athletic directors, athletic coaches, youth counselors, 16 mentors, administrators, and staff so that they are aware of their individual 17 responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe environment; 18 Duty to supervise faculty and students and enforce rules and regulations prescribed for 19 schools, exercise reasonable control over students as is reasonably necessary to 20 maintain order, protect property, or protect the health and safety of faculty and 21 students or to maintain proper and appropriate conditions conducive to learning; 22 Duty to exercise careful supervision of the moral conditions in the school; 23 Duty to hold pupils to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, 24 on the playgrounds or during recess; 25 Duty to properly monitor students, prevent or correct harmful situations or call for 26 help when a situation is beyond their control; 27 Duty to ensure that personnel are actually on hand and supervising students; 28 -13- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Duty to provide enough supervision to students; Duty to supervise diligently; Duty to act promptly and diligently and not ignore or minimize problems; Duty to refrain from violating Plaintiff's right to protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to her personal relations (Civil Code § 43); Duty to abstain from injuring the person or property of Plaintiff, or infringing upon any of her rights (Civil Code § 1708); Duty to report suspected incidents of child abuse and more specifically childhood sexual abuse (Penal Code §§ 11166, 11167); and 10 Duty to prevent discrimination or sexual harassment and abuse from occurring in 11 public educational facilities (Education Code § 200, et seq.). 12 42. Compulsory education laws create a special relationship between students and ss m% g28 13 es Eg Defendants, and students have a constitutional guarantee to a safe, secure and peaceful school 52 14 environment. Defendants and each of them failed to acknowledge unsafe conditions, and sg 15 therefore failed to guarantee safe surroundings in an environment in which Plaintiff was not free 16 to leave, specifically including but not limited to allowing HARMACHIS to take children for 17 purposes of sexual activity and allowing HARMACHIS to operate isolated environments, 18 incapable of monitoring from the outside, wherein HARMACHIS sexually harassed and abused 19 Plaintiff and others. 20 43. Defendants and each of them had and have a duty to protect students, including Plaintiff. 21 Defendants were required, and failed, to provide adequate campus and off-site school event 22 supervision, and failed to be properly vigilant in seeing that supervision was sufficient to ensure 23 the safety of Plaintiff and others. 24 44. Defendants and each of them lodged with HARMACHIS the color of authority, by which 25 she was able to influence, direct and abuse Plaintiff JANE OB DOE and others, and to act 26 illegally, unreasonably and without respect for the person and safety of Plaintiff JANE OB DOE. 27 45. Defendants and each of them had a duty to and failed to adequately train and supervise all 28 -14- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES advisors, teachers, mentors and staff to create a positive, safe, spiritual and educational environment, specifically including training to perceive, report and stop inappropriate conduct by other members of the staff, specifically including HARMACHIS, with children. 46. Defendants and each of them had a duty to and failed to enact and enforce rules and regulations prescribed for schools, and execute reasonable control over students necessary to protect the health and safety of the student and maintain proper and appropriate conditions conducive to learning. 47. Defendants and each of them were required to and failed to exercise careful supervision of the moral conditions in their school, and provide supervision before and after school. This duty extended beyond the classroom. 10 48. In subjecting Plaintiff JANE OB DOE to the wrongful treatment herein described, 11 HARMACHIS acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff JANE OB DOE, 12 and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, so as to constitute malice and/or oppression under ss m% g28 13 es Eg California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiff JANE OB DOE is therefore entitled, to the recovery 52 14 of punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against HARMACHIS, in a sum sg 15 to be shown according to proof. 16 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND ASSEMBLY BILL-218 17 49. Effective January 1, 2020, California’s statute o