Party Discovery: DOE vs DOE 1, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, et al.

On January 25, 2022 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between Jane Bwn Doe, and Doe 1, A California Local Public Entity, Doe 2, An Individual, for Unlimited Civil (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) in the District Court of Alameda County.

Preview
MORGAN A. STEWART (State Bar No. 209852)
mstewart@manlystewart.com
SAUL E. WOLF (State Bar No. 244833)

CRISTINA J. NOLAN (State Bar No. 318495)

MANLY STEWART FINALDI

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA – HAYWARD HALL OF JUSTICE

Case No.: 22CV006012

[REDACTED]
DOE 1, a California local public entity; DOE
DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J.
inclusive. NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF
APPLICATION FOR
REVIEW AND FOR AN ORDER
APPROVING CERTIFICATES OF
MERIT, PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL

COMPLAINT

[Filed concurrently with the

Trial Date: None

1
DECLARATOIN OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
APPROVING CERTIFICATES OF MERIT
DECLARATION OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN, ESQ.

law in the State of California. I am an

Finaldi, attorneys of record

entitled matter. I am personally familiar with the facts of this case and the contents of this

of Merit filed with Plaintiff’s Complaint,

As there are no defendants yet in this action and Plaintiff brings the instant

Plaintiff JANE BWN DOE filed this lawsuit after her 40

Plaintiff JANE BWN DOE, in her Compla

nia Code of Civil Procedure §340.1.

Pursuant to California Code of Civil

until the Court has reviewed the Certificates of Merit filed by Plaintiff with the Complaint,

ntiff permission to serve said Complaint.

There is “good cause” to grant the instant

without it, Plaintiff cannot serv

with the instant action.

Plaintiff will suffer clear “irreparable harm” if this

granted, as such a denial would result in the Plaintiff losing her ability to proceed with her action
2
DECLARATOIN OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
APPROVING CERTIFICATES OF MERIT
against the Defendants. Such a finding would result in Plaintiff

aintiff’s Complaint.

Certificates of Merit are for Doe 1 and Doe 2, and the psychotherapist’s declaration as well; three

(3) total certificates.

I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the

Executed this 2

___________________________
Cristina J. Nolan

DECLARATOIN OF CRISTINA J. NOLAN IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
APPROVING CERTIFICATES OF MERIT
EXHIBIT A
1 MORGAN A. STEWART (State Bar No. 209852)
mstewart@manlystewart.com
2 SAUL E. WOLF (State Bar No. 244833)
swolf@manlystewart.com
3 CRISTINA J. NOLAN (State Bar No. 318495)
cnolan@manlystewart.com
4 MANLY STEWART FINALDI
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
5 Irvine, California 92612
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
6 Facsimile: (949) 252-9991

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

11 JANE BWN DOE, an individual; Case No.:
Judge:
12 Plaintiff, Dept.:
13 v.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
14 DOE 1, a California local public entity; DOE
2, an individual; and DOES 3 to 100, 1. NEGLIGENCE;
15 inclusive. 2. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION;
3. NEGLIGENT HIRING/RETENTION;
16 Defendants. 4. NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN,
TRAIN OR EDUCATE;
17
5. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
18 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
6. SEXUAL HARASSMENT (C.C. § 51.9);
19 7. SEXUAL ABUSE AND HARASSMENT
IN THE EDUCATIONAL
20 ENVIRONMENT (EDUCATION
21 CODE § 220);
8. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;
22 9. CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD (C.C. §
1573);
23 10. ASSAULT
11. SEXUAL BATTERY (C.C. § 1708.5);
24 12. GENDER VIOLENCE (C.C. § 52.4)
25
[DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]
26 [Filed pursuant to AB 218[C.C.P. §340.1]]

28
1
_______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 COMES NOW, Plaintiff JANE BWN DOE, an individual who for her Complaint,

2 complains and alleges as follows:

3 INTRODUCTION

4 1. The instant action involves the sexual predation of former DOE 1 employee and teacher,

5 DOE 2 (“DOE 2”).

6 2. DOE 2 is alleged to have abused several minors during his time as a teacher, coach, and

7 employee of institutions, including DOE 1.

8 3. Upon learning of sexual misconduct directed towards minor students, DOE 1 failed to

9 comply with their legal and statutory duties to report DOE 2.

10 4. DOE 1 employee and Administrators, chose to move DOE 2 within the school district

11 upon an investigation and report of sexual misconduct, effectively “passing the trash” within the

12 District, in a concerted effort to hide DOE 2’s sexual abusive crimes against minors.

13 5. DOE 1’s negligent and intentional acts were a primary cause of the sexual abuse of the

14 minor Plaintiff herein.

15 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE PARTIES

16 6. Plaintiff JANE BWN DOE, an individual (hereinafter “JANE BWN DOE” and/or

17 “Plaintiff”) is a resident of the County of Contra Costa, State of California and was a resident of

18 the County of Alameda at the time of the abuse alleged herein. The name used by JANE BWN

19 DOE in this Complaint is not the actual name of JANE BWN DOE, but is a fictitious name

20 utilized to protect the privacy of JANE BWN DOE, a victim of childhood sexual harassment,

21 molestation and abuse. Plaintiff JANE BWN DOE is a female, born December, 1981, and was a

22 minor during the time of the sexual misconduct alleged herein. Beginning in approximately 1997

23 and continuing thereafter, Plaintiff was sexually harassed, assaulted and abused by Berkeley High

24 School teacher, DOE 2, former employee and agent of Defendant DOE 1 (“DOE 1”) and Berkeley

25 High School.

26 7. The Plaintiff’s claims all arise out of sexual abuse and sexual assault claims that occurred

27 during the time periods of approximately 1997-1998. In 2019, the California State legislature

28 enacted Assembly Bill No. 281, which was signed by the Governor on October 13, 2019. This
2
_______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 law, as enacted, went into effect on January 1, 2020. Among other things, this law amended

2 statutory code sections Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1; Code of Civil Procedure section

3 1002 and Government Code section 905.

4 8. The amendments, among other things, extended the statute of limitations for childhood

5 sexual assault, inclusive of claims against persons or entities who owed duties of care to Plaintiff,

6 premised upon wrongful or negligent acts by those persons or entities.

7 9. As amended, Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1(q), further provides: Notwithstanding

8 any other provision of law, any claim for damages described in paragraphs (1) through (3),

9 inclusive, of subdivision (a) that has not been litigated to finality and that would otherwise be

10 barred as of January 1, 2020, because the applicable statute of limitations, claim presentation

11 deadline, or any other time limit had expired, is revived, and these claims may be commenced

12 within three years of January 1, 2020. A plaintiff shall have the later of the three-year time period

13 under this subdivision or the time period under subdivision (a) as amended by the act that added

14 this subdivision.

15 10. As amended, Government Code section 905(m), exempts out any requirement that a

16 Plaintiff asserting a claim for the recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual

17 assault make a government tort claim prior to filing litigation.

18 11. Pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 218, and changes to Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1;

19 Code of Civil Procedure section 1002 and Government Code section 905, Plaintiff may now bring

20 forward her legitimate claims.

21 12. The law with respect to Government Code section 905(m) changed rendering any board

22 policy that would bar the instant claims as not operative, due to nonconformance with the law, and

23 the failure to conduct any changes to these requirements to conform with the law.

24 13. Defendant DOE 1, at all times mentioned herein was and is, a business entity of form

25 unknown, having its principal place of business in the County of Alameda, State of California.

26 The DOE 1 purposely conducts substantial educational business activities in the State of

27 California, and was the primary entity owning, operating and controlling Berkeley High School,

28 employing DOE 2 and responsible for monitoring and controlling his activities and behavior.
3
_______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 14. Berkeley High School (hereinafter “Berkeley High School”) is a public educational

2 institution in the DOE 1, operating as a public High School for students approximately 13 years of

3 age through approximately 18 years of age.

4 15. Defendant DOE 2 at all times mentioned herein was and is an adult male individual, who

5 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, currently resides in the County of

6 Contra Costa, in the State of California. During the period of time in which the childhood sexual

7 harassment and abuse of Plaintiff, alleged herein, took place, DOE 2 was a teacher, mentor, and

8 advisor at Berkeley High School; employed by both the DOE 1 and Berkeley High School. At all

9 times herein alleged, DOE 2 was an employee, agent, and/or servant of the DOE 1, Berkeley High

10 School, and was under their complete control and/or active supervision.

11 16. Defendants DOES 1 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,

13 whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, and therefore sue said Defendants by such

14 fictitious names. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, Plaintiff will request leave

15 of Court to amend this Complaint to state their true names and capacities herein.

16 17. 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 DOE 1, DOE 2 and DOES 1-100 are sometimes collectively referred to

20 herein as “Defendants” and/or as “All Defendants”; such collective reference refers to all

21 specifically named Defendants.

22 18. 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
4
_______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Defendants, and each of them, would serve to perpetrate a fraud and an injustice.

2 19. At all times mentioned herein, DOE 2 was an adult teacher, mentor, advisor and employee

3 of the DOE 1, Berkeley High School, among other schools, acting as an employee, agent, and/or

4 servant of such and/or was under their complete control and/or supervision, as well as the

5 complete control of the Board, Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents of DOE 1. DOE 2

6 was employed as a teacher at the DOE 1 and/or Berkeley High School. DOE 2 was hired by the

7 DOE 1, Berkeley High School to serve as a teacher, mentor, and advisor to high school students.

8 In so doing, the DOE 1 held DOE 2 out to the public, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family to be of high

9 ethical and moral repute, and to be in good standing with the DOE 1, the State of California, and

10 the public in general. In this capacity, DOE 2 taught, mentored, and advised students regarding

11 personal issues, academics, future employment prospects, and general emotional and

12 psychological issues. The DOE 1 held DOE 2 out to the public, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s parents to

13 be a highly-qualified teacher, mentor, and advisor who could and would assist Plaintiff with

14 working through personal and academic issues they faced. Inherent in this representation was the

15 understanding that DOE 2 was a person of high ethical and moral standing, selected to provide

16 leadership, guidance, mentoring, and advising to students, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff and her

17 family reasonably assumed that DOE 2 was a person worthy of their trust.

18 20. Upon information and belief, DOE 2 was at some time investigated by DOE 1, during the

19 course of the abuse for sexual misconduct, however, DOE 1 undertook no controls or methods to

20 prevent DOE 2 from accessing Plaintiff both on and off campus during and following this

21 investigation, and he continued to use his position within DOE 1 to abuse Plaintiff. Upon

22 information and belief, DOE 1 undertook no actions to prevent DOE 2 from teaching, being

23 around students, assaulting and abusing minors, including this Plaintiff.

24 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times mentioned

25 herein, Defendants and each of them, were the agents, representatives and/or employees of each

26 and every other Defendant. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, Defendants and each of them,

27 were acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality, capacity, identity, agency,

28 representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their authority, whether actual or
5
_______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 apparent.

2 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times mentioned

3 herein, Defendants and each of them, were the trustees, partners, servants, joint venturers,

4 shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other Defendant, and the acts and

5 omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, through such capacity and within

6 the scope of their authority, and with the permission and consent of each and every other

7 Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by each and every other Defendant, and

8 that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff.

9 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS

10 I. PRIOR NOTICE THAT DOE 2 PRESENTED A RISK OF SEXUAL
PROPENSITIES BY DOE 1
11
23. Plaintiff, upon information and belief, allege that prior to the date of his arrest, DOE 1
12
knew or had reason to know of DOE 2's sexual misconduct with minors at schools within DOE 1,
13
including with the Plaintiff.
14
24. During DOE 2’s term of employment at DOE 1, DOE 2 did and would frequently engage
15
female minors in grooming behavior indicative of an intent to commit sexual contact.
16
25. This behavior included positioning himself next to Plaintiff while on campus, pressing his
17
touching her back and her buttocks on numerous occasions.
18
26. Upon information and belief, it is alleged that DOE 2 was a teacher located and placed at
19
Berkeley High School by DOE 1 during the approximate time period from 1997 to 2021. DOE 2
20
further taught and/or mentored at Berkeley High School during the same approximate time frame.
21
27. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a student within DOE 1.
22
28. During all relevant times, DOE 2 would exhibit behavior that was indicative of grooming
23
of Plaintiff in open and obvious manners, capable of being viewed by staff and administrators of
24
DOE 1, including, but not limited to:
25
a. Placing himself directly behind female students, including Plaintiff, in order to grope the
26
students;
27
b. Pressing his genitals against female students during class time;
28
6
_______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 c. Focusing on female students in particular, and including Plaintiff;

2 d. Communicating one on one with minors;

3 e. Touching Plaintiff openly , by rubbing her back and her buttocks;

4 f. Hugging and touching students inappropriately, including Plaintiff, in open and obvious

5 locations on campus.

6 29. Upon information and belief, these behaviors were in violation of DOE 1 policy, but

7 Administration failed to cease such actions.

8 30. Upon information and belief, DOE 1, knew or should have known of the sexual

9 propensities exhibited by DOE 2 towards minors based on the correspondence. Recognizing such

10 risks to students, DOE 1, including its Administrators, concealed the crimes of DOE 2.

11 31. Upon information and belief, staff and administrators of DOE 1 expressed concern that

12 DOE 2 presented a risk to students and should not be transferred or allowed to continue to be

13 present around minors.

14 32. Such efforts by DOE 1 were meant to conceal and cover for DOE 2’s abuse of minor

15 students, as a concerted effort to hide the existence of abuse.

16 33. Upon information and belief, despite the clear knowledge that DOE 2 was a risk and acting

17 sexually inappropriate with minor females, DOE 1, Berkeley High School and the Administration

18 of same, failed to:

19 a. Mandatorily report DOE 2 to law enforcement and/or child protective services despite the

20 existence of “reasonable suspicion”;

21 b. Remove DOE 2 from the school environment;

22 c. Recognize the existence of grooming behavior by DOE 2 that was a predicate to his

23 ultimate sexual assault and sexual abuse of minor Plaintiff.

24 34. Despite the recognition that DOE 2’s behavior discussing sexual acts and sexual touching

25 and other behavior with minor students during the course of their investigation, DOE 1 undertook

26 no corrective measures and allowed DOE 2 to remain in the school classroom and school

27 environment, including by moving him to another school in order to hide his prior misdeeds.

28 35. Upon information and belief, Berkeley High School was permitted to proliferate as a
7
_______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 sexual abuse breeding ground for teachers and staff of DOE 1, including DOE 2.

2 II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATIVE TO DOE 1 RELATIVE TO SEXUAL
ASSAULTS AND FAILURES TO REPORT
3
36. Upon information and belief, DOE 1, has a history of failing to protect students from
4
sexual misconduct of its staff members, teachers and employees.
5
37. DOE 1, upon information and belief, has had multiple sexual perpetrators amongst its
6
school staff, including teachers, coaches and classified personnel.
7
38. Upon information and belief, Berkeley High School had prior perpetrators placing the
8
Administration on notice of the risk of abusive teachers, coaches and other staff.
9
39. The correlations between the DOE 2 and other allegations against other staff members of
10
DOE 1 are stark and alarming, and show that the DOE 1 continues its pattern and practice of
11
protection of predators over students. DOE 2 evidences that the DOE 1 has historically failed to
12
protect the lives of its students going back more than twenty years, and yet has on an ongoing
13
basis continually failed in the protection of those minors with whom they are entrusted.
14
40. Upon information and belief, DOE 1 failed to, among other things:
15
a. Recognize the abuse that DOE 2 was undertaking against students;
16
b. Report the abuse that DOE 2 was undertaking against students in their roles as mandatory
17
reporters;
18
c. Failed to monitor DOE 2;
19
d. Disrupted an investigation of DOE 2;
20
e. Actively dissuaded victims from airing their abuse;
21
f. Destroyed evidence relative to abuse;
22
g. Moved DOE 2 to other schools following accusations in a concerted effort to cover for
23
his abuse.
24
41. DOE 1 did nothing to change the environment in which it operated from 1997 to the
25
present. Rather, the Administration has simply reinforced the practices that existed then and
26
continue to exist today, creating a present and ongoing risk to those who attend schools within
27
DOE 1.
28
8
_______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATIVE TO DOE 2 AND PLAINTIFF

2 42. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a student within the DOE 1, and was a student in

3 DOE 2’s classroom in 10th grade, and was under their complete control and supervision.

4 43. At all times material hereto, DOE 2 was employed by Berkeley High School and the DOE

5 1 as a teacher, mentor, coach, and advisor and/or retained the power and control entrusted to him

6 by the DOE 1. In such capacities, DOE 2 was under the direct supervision, employ, agency, and

7 control of the DOE 1, and DOES 1-100. His employment duties and responsibilities with the

8 named Defendants included, in part, providing for the mentoring, advisory, educational, and

9 emotional needs and well-being of students of DOE 1 and other children, including Plaintiff.

10 44. DOE 1 operated as a nothing more than a grooming opportunity for DOE 2's sexual desires

11 with young girls, like Plaintiff and other individuals.

12 45. Through his positions with the DOE 1, DOE 2 was put into direct contact with Plaintiff, a

13 student within DOE 1 and at Berkeley High School. DOE 2 was assigned to teach, mentor, and

14 advise Plaintiff. It is under these circumstances that Plaintiff came to be under the direction and

15 control of DOE 2, who used his position of authority and trust over Plaintiff to sexually attack,

16 abuse and harass her.

17 46. DOE 2 did sexually harass, molest, attack and abuse Plaintiff, who was a minor at the time.

18 Such conduct was done for DOE 2’s sexual gratification, and which was performed on Plaintiff

19 without her free consent, as Plaintiff was a mere minor and thus unable to give valid, legal consent

20 to such sexual acts. These actions upon Plaintiff constituted conduct that is believed to be in

21 violation of California Penal Code §§ 261.5(c), 288a(b)(1), 288.2(a)(2), 647.6(a)(1), and

22 potentially other provisions.

23 47. As student within the DOE 1, where DOE 2 was employed and worked, Plaintiff was

24 under DOE 2's direct supervision, care and control, thus creating a special relationship, fiduciary

25 relationship, and/or special care relationship with Defendants, and each of them. Additionally, as

26 a minor child under the custody, care and control of Defendants, Defendants stood in loco parentis

27 with respect to Plaintiff while she was attending school and school-related functions at the DOE 1.

28 As the responsible parties and/or employers controlling DOE 2, Defendants were also in a special
9
_______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 relationship with Plaintiff, and owed special duties to Plaintiff.

2 48. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants, knew or

3 should have known that DOE 2 had engaged in unlawful sexually-related conduct with minors in

4 the past, and/or was continuing to engage in such conduct with Plaintiff. Defendants had a duty to

5 disclose to these facts to Plaintiff, her parents and others, but negligently and/or intentionally

6 suppressed, concealed or failed to disclose this information. The duty to disclose this information

7 arose by the special, trusting, confidential, fiduciary, and/or in loco parentis relationship between

8 Defendants and Plaintiff.

9 49. The DOE 1, knew or should have known, of the sexual abuse of minors within its care,

10 including individuals such as Plaintiff. Further, upon information and belief, staff within the DOE

11 1, knew or should have known that DOE 2 had expressed such propensities of sexual abuse,

12 sexual misconduct and sexual harassment and directed them towards minor students and therefore

13 had an obligation of notice, and choose to act negligently and/or wrongfully in their duties towards

14 the Plaintiff.

15 50. The DOE 1, knew or should have known, of the sexual abuse of minors within its care,

16 including individuals such as Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that

17 during the period of time in which DOE 2 worked at Berkeley High School for DOE 1, the

18 administration, staff and district received notice as detailed herein and above, regarding DOE 2.

19 Upon information and belief, despite such notice and knowledge, DOE 1 hid the process of the

20 investigation from parents and the public, amounting to a cover up for which treble damages are

21 warranted. Such conduct was evidenced by DOE 2’s relocation during time periods in which

22 DOE 1 was made aware of his sexual proclivities involving minor students.

23 51. Plaintiff, upon information and belief, and thereon allege that Defendant DOE 1 knew or

24 should have known of the sexual abuse of Plaintiff by DOE 2.

25 52. Defendants failed to take reasonable steps and/or implement reasonable safeguards to

26 avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by DOE 2, including, but not limited to preventing abuse of

27 Plaintiff by DOE 2 avoiding placement of DOE 2 in a function or environment in which contact

28 with children is an inherent part of that function or environment. Instead, Defendants ignored
10
_______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 and/or concealed the sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiff and others by DOE 2 that had

2 already occurred. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants and

3 each of them were given notice of incidents of inappropriate conduct by DOE 2, including such

4 facts as those set forth in this Complaint.

5 53. Plaintiff is informed and believes, on that basis alleges, that prior to and during the sexual

6 harassment, assault and abuse of Plaintiff, Defendants knew or should have known that DOE 2

7 had violated his role as a teacher, mentor, advisor and faculty member, and used this position of

8 authority and trust acting on behalf of Defendants to gain access to children, including Plaintiff, on

9 and off the school facilities and grounds, in which he engaged in sexual misconduct, harassment

10 and abuse, with such children including Plaintiff.

11 54. With actual or constructive knowledge that Defendant DOE 2 had previously engaged in

12 dangerous and inappropriate conduct, including sexually harassing and abusing other minors at

13 Berkeley High School and other minors, Defendants conspired to and did knowingly fail to take

14 reasonable steps, and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual

15 conduct in the future by DOE 2, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding placement of

16 DOE 2 in a function or environment in which contact with children is an inherent aspect of that

17 function or environment.

18 55. The Defendants and each of them, upon information and belief, have a history of the

19 covering up of sexual abuse claims, including, in particular the alleged destruction of evidence and

20 concerted cover ups that has arisen in past instances of sexual abuse cases involving employees of

21 DOE 1 in addition to the cover up by moving DOE 2 upon reporting of sexual misconduct. Upon

22 information and belief, this is a basis for the application of treble damages against DOE 1.

23 56. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants failed to report and did hide and conceal from

24 students, parents, teachers, law enforcement authorities, civil authorities and others, the true facts

25 and relevant information necessary to bring DOE 2 to justice for the sexual misconduct he

26 committed with minors, as well as protect their fiduciaries, including Plaintiff. Defendants also

27 implemented various measures designed to, or which effectively, made DOE 2's conduct harder to

28 detect including, but not limited to:
11
_______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 a. Permitting DOE 2 to remain in a position of authority and trust after Defendants knew

2 or should have known that DOE 2 was sexually abusing, assaulting and/or harassing

3 students;

4 b. Placing DOE 2 in a separate and secluded environment, including placing him in charge

5 of children, mentoring programs, advising programs, and youth programs where he

6 purported to supervise the children, which allowed him to sexually interact with and

7 sexually assault and abuse children, including Plaintiff;

8 c. Allowing DOE 2 to come into contact with minors, including Plaintiff, without adequate

9 supervision;

10 d. Failing to inform, or concealing from Plaintiff’s parents and law enforcement officials the

11 fact that Plaintiff and others were or may have been sexually abused, after Defendants

12 knew or should have known that DOE 2 may have been sexually abusive and harassing

13 towards Plaintiff or others, thereby enabling Plaintiff to continue to be endangered and

14 sexually harassed, abused, and/or creating the circumstance where Plaintiff and others

15 were less likely to receive medical/mental health care and treatment, thus exacerbating the

16 harm to Plaintiff;

17 e. Holding out DOE 2 to Plaintiff and her parents, students, and to the school community

18 as being in good standing and trustworthy;

19 f. Failing to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of

20 unlawful sexual conduct by DOE 2 with students, who were minor children;

21 g. Removing complaining students from DOE 2’s presence and classroom without

22 addressing DOE 2’s inappropriate and sexual misconduct;

23 h. Reprimanding, without reporting or removing DOE 2 for his sexual misconduct with

24 female students; and

25 i. Failing to put in place a system or procedure to supervise or monitor employees,

26 volunteers, representatives or agents to insure that they did not harass or abuse minors in

27 Defendants' care, including Plaintiff.

28 57. By his position within the Defendants’ institutions, Defendants and DOE 2 demanded and
12
_______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 required that Plaintiff respect DOE 2 in his position of teacher, mentor, and advisor at the DOE 1.

2 58. DOE 2 engaged in open and obvious grooming behavior with Plaintiff, that should have

3 and would have placed DOE 1 on notice of sexual misconduct by DOE 2, including but not

4 limited to:

5 a. Placing himself directly behind female students, including Plaintiff, in order to grope the

6 students;

7 b. Pressing his genitals against female students during class time;

8 c. Focusing on female students in particular, and including Plaintiff;

9 d. Communicating one on one with minors;

10 e. Touching Plaintiff openly in the middle of class time sessions, by rubbing her back;

11 f. Hugging and touching students inappropriately, including Plaintiff, in open and obvious

12 locations on campus.

13 59. DOE 2 utilized the foregoing steps to groom the Plaintiff.

14 60. DOE 2 had several minor victims within the DOE 1.

15 61. Upon information and belief, DOE 1 transferred DOE 2 in order to hide the abuses that he

16 had committed at Berkeley High School.

17 62. DOE 2 abused Plaintiff in his classroom at Berkeley High School.

18 63. The incidents of abuse outlined herein took place while Plaintiff was under the control of

19 DOE 2, in his capacity and position as a teacher, mentor, and advisor at DOE 1, and while acting

20 specifically on behalf of Defendants, including, but not limited to, the following:

21 a. DOE 2 was at all times relevant to this Complaint a teacher, mentor, and advisor at

22 Berkeley High School, an institution wholly operated by DOE 1

23 b. While DOE 2 sexually harassed, attacked and abused Plaintiff, Defendants were well

24 aware that DOE 2 took an unusual interest, and spent an inordinate amount of time with

25 Plaintiff.

26 c.

Case Info

Judge

Brad Seligman Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

February 02, 2022

Case Filing Date

January 25, 2022

County

Parties

Alison McNaboe Crane Att
DOE 1, a California local public entity Def
DOE 1, a California local public entity Defendant
DOE 2, an individual Def
DOE 2, an individual Defendant
JANE BWN DOE Plain
JANE BWN DOE Plaintiff
Julia Spain Party
Morgan A. Stewart Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Morgan A. Stewart Attorney
ROSS NOTT Attorneys for Defendants
ROSS NOTT Attorney
Cristina Nolan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Saul Wolf Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Rima Haggar Attorneys for Defendants

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

Party Discovery: DOE vs DOE 1, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, et al.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties