Preview
1 SEZGIN KHOUSADIAN LLP
ARTHUR SEZGIN, ESQ., (State Bar No. 296666)
2 arthur@sklaw.legal
ALISA KHOUSADIAN, ESQ., (State Bar No. 285497)
3 alisa@sklaw.legal
500 North Central Avenue, Suite 830
4
Glendale, California 91203
5 Phone: (818) 696-1330 | Fax: (818) 696-1331
6 Attorneys for PLAINTIFF R.G., by and through
his guardian ad litem, KRISTEN GALVAN
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH VALLEY JUDICIAL DISTRICT
10
11 R.G., by and through his guardian ad litem, ) Case No.:
KRISTEN GALVAN, )
12 ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
)
13 Plaintiff, ) (1) NEGLIGENCE;
)
14 ) (2) NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND
15 vs. ) FAILURE TO WARN;
)
16 ) (3) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
WILLIAM S. HART SCHOOL DISTRICT; ) EDUCATION CODE § 32261;
17 LA MESA JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL; )
I.M. DOE, an individual; and ) (4) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
18
DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, ) EDUCATION CODE § 44807;
19 )
) (5) FAILURE TO PROTECT PUPIL;
20 Defendants. )
) (6) ASSAULT;
21 )
) (7) BATTERY;
22
)
23 ) (8) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
24 )
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
25
26
27
1
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 COMES NOW PLAINTIFF R.G., by and through his guardian ad litem, KRISTEN
2 GALVAN, and complains against the above-named Defendant(s) and for causes of actions against
3 the Defendant(s), and each of them, as follows:
4 THE PARTIES
5 1. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “R.G.” or “Plaintiff”) was,
6 and now is, a minor residing and/or domiciled in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
7 As a minor, Plaintiff files this lawsuit as a John Doe with his initials only in order to protect his
8 privacy. Plaintiff proceeds by and through his guardian ad litem, KRISTEN GALVAN (hereinafter
9 “GALVAN” or “Plaintiff”). At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was a student at La Mesa Junior
10 High School where he was injured.
11 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times relevant herein,
12 Defendant WILLIAM S. HART SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to as “WHSD” and
13 collectively with all other Defendants as “Defendants”) was, and now is, a public school district
14 duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, having its principal place of
15 business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
16 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times relevant herein,
17 Defendant LA MESA JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL (hereinafter referred to as “LMJH” and
18 collectively with all other Defendants as “Defendants”) was, and now is, a public junior high school
19 operating within the William S. Hart School District and existing under the laws of the State of
20 California, having its principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
21 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times relevant herein,
22 Defendant I.M. DOE (hereinafter referred to as “I.M. DOE” and collectively with all other
23 Defendants as “Defendants”), was an individual domiciled in the County of Los Angeles, State of
24 California, and was a student at Defendant LMJH.
25 5. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate,
26 individual, or otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 – 100, inclusive, and therefore sues
27
2
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint
2 to assert the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named Defendants when the same have
3 been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant
4 designated as “DOES” herein is legally responsible for the events, happenings, acts, occurrences,
5 indebtedness, damages, and liabilities hereinafter alleged and caused injuries and damages
6 proximately thereby to the Plaintiff, as hereinafter alleged.
7 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants named
8 herein has, at all times relevant to this action, been the officer, agent, employee, and/or
9 representative of the remaining Defendants and has acted within the course and scope of such
10 agency and employment, and with the permission and consent of the co-defendants.
11 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12 7. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims alleged herein. The relief requested is within the
13 jurisdiction of this Court.
14 8. Venue is proper in the County of Los Angeles. Defendants reside in the County of Los
15 Angeles and all of the claims alleged herein arose in the County of Los Angeles.
16 9. The amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the sum of $35,000.00, exclusive of
17 attorney’s fees, interest, and costs.
18 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
19 10. Prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed a timely complaint against and/or gave
20 sufficient notice to each named required Defendant.
21 11. Pursuant to California Gov’t Code §§ 900 et seq., Plaintiff filed a tort claim, which was
22 rejected. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A” is Plaintiff’s tort claim form and
23 attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “B” is said notice of rejection.
24 12. At all times relevant herein, Defendant and DOES 1 through 100 have been sufficiently
25 placed on notice of Plaintiff's claims.
26 13. This action is timely filed.
27
3
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
2 14. At all times relevant herein, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through
3 100, acting through managing agents and school administrators, had a duty to protect Plaintiff,
4 entrusted to their care by Plaintiff’s parents. Plaintiff R.G’s care, welfare, and/or physical custody
5 were temporarily entrusted to said Defendants and said Defendants accepted the entrusted care of
6 the minor Plaintiff. As such, said Defendants owed minor Plaintiff a special duty of care to protect
7 him from harm, including harassment and bullying.
8 15. Defendant I.M. DOE, a student of Defendant WHSD and Defendant LMJH, demonstrated
9 a pattern of aggressive and threatening behavior towards his peers, including Plaintiff R.G, and the
10 faculty. Specifically, Defendant I.M. DOE bullied, harassed, assaulted, and/or battered his peers
11 and the faculty.
12 16. On several occasions beginning in or around November 2022, Defendant I.M. DOE
13 physically assaulted and battered Plaintiff and other students by pushing, tackling, and bumping
14 into them, despite repeated requests for him to stop.
15 17. Defendant I.M. DOE’s misconduct extended to offensive touching of female students
16 without their consent, destruction of school property, and the verbal harassment of peers and staff,
17 including the use of obscenities and attempts to provoke confrontations.
18 18. Defendant WHSD and Defendant LMJH were repeatedly made aware and/or put on notice
19 of Defendant I.M. DOE’s aggressive and threatening behavior through multiple incidents and
20 complaints from staff, students, and the parents of students.
21 19. Staff members at Defendant LMJH were witnesses to Defendant I.M. DOE’s aggressive
22 and threatening behavior, yet their responses to complaints by Plaintiff and others were inadequate
23 and dismissive, failing to provide any sense of security or assurance of safety to the students.
24 20. Indeed, despite their knowledge of Defendant I.M. DOE’s aggressive and threatening
25 behavior, Defendant WHSD and Defendant LMJH failed to take appropriate action to curb
26 Defendant I.M. DOE’s behavior or protect other students.
27
4
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 21. As a result, during lunch on or about April 26, 2023, despite being required to attend
2 detention, Defendant I.M. DOE was left unsupervised and, thus, he walked around campus
3 harassing the faculty and students.
4 22. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to grab the name tag of a staff member, mocked her, and
5 openly notified her, “I am not going anywhere until I’m done with [Plaintiff],” specifically placing
6 her on notice that he was going to engage in misconduct and that Plaintiff was in danger.
7 23. Defendant I.M. DOE further threatened to kill Plaintiff, openly stating, “I hate that
8 motherfucker. I’m going to kill him.”
9 24. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to violently attack Plaintiff and place him in a chokehold,
10 nearly causing Plaintiff to lose consciousness.
11 25. The following day, Plaintiff’s mother, Mrs. Galvan, met with school officials and a law
12 enforcement officer to express her concerns and to seek assurance that Defendant I.M. DOE would
13 no longer pose a threat to her son or others.
14 26. Despite Mrs. Galvan’s efforts, Defendant LMJH and Defendant WHSD failed to intervene
15 or take appropriate corrective and/or remedial measures.
16 27. As a direct result of the incident and Defendant LMJH and Defendant WHSD’s negligence,
17 Plaintiff has been damaged.
18 I.
19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
20 For Negligence
21 Against Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, & DOES 1 Through 100, Only
22 28. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference and re-alleges each and every paragraph in this
23 Complaint as though duly set forth in full herein.
24 29. At all times relevant herein, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100
25 had a duty to provide a safe school environment for its students, including for Plaintiff, and to take
26
27
5
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 reasonable steps to protect students from foreseeable harm while on school property, including
2 protection from bullying, violence, threats, and harassment.
3 30. California Education Code §§ 32261 and 44807 guarantee students safe schools and require
4 schools to hold students to strict account for their conduct.
5 31. Specifically, California Education Code § 44807 imposes a duty on schools to “hold pupils
6 to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or during
7 recess.”
8 32. Moreover, there is a duty on the employees of a school district to supervise students for the
9 protection of students. Indeed, it is the duty of the school authorities to supervise at all times the
10 conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary
11 for their protection.
12 33. However, as alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100
13 breached their duty to Plaintiff by failing to take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff and other
14 students from the known and ongoing threatening, harassing, and violent behavior of Defendant
15 I.M. DOE.
16 34. Defendant WHSD and Defendant LMJH breached this duty of care by failing to adequately
17 supervise Defendant I.M. DOE, a known threat, thereby failing to prevent foreseeable harm to
18 Plaintiff and other students.
19 35. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 were aware, or should have
20 been aware, of the risk posed by Defendant I.M. DOE due to his long history of misconduct,
21 including prior incidents of aggressive, threatening, and violent behavior toward students, including
22 Plaintiff, and staff members.
23 36. Prior to the injuries herein alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1
24 through 100 had actual and constructive notice of Defendant I.M. DOE’s propensity for violence
25 and the risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE as evidenced by multiple complaints and reports by
26 students, including Plaintiff, and their parents, as well as observations by staff members.
27
6
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 37. Plaintiff also previously complained about Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing
2 him.
3 38. Rather than take remedial and/or corrective measures, when Plaintiff complained about
4 Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing him, a faculty member merely instructed Plaintiff to
5 avoid engaging with Defendant I.M. DOE as “he’s the type of kid that would come back with a
6 weapon and you would be his first victim.”
7 39. Despite their knowledge of Defendant I.M. DOE’s aggressive and/or harassing behavior,
8 Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to implement appropriate
9 interventions, discipline, and/or supervision to address his behavior, thereby breaching their duty of
10 care.
11 40. Moreover, despite numerous reports that Defendant I.M. DOE was harassing and bullying
12 students, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to supervise or
13 discipline Defendant I.M. DOE appropriately, allowing him to be unsupervised and unaccompanied
14 near other students.
15 41. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 further negligently failed to
16 investigate Defendant I.M. DOE’s misconduct and negligently failed to discipline Defendant I.M.
17 DOE so that further abuse would not recur.
18 42. As a result of the failure to increase supervision or take disciplinary action against Defendant
19 I.M. DOE, during lunch on or about April 26, 2023, Defendant I.M. DOE walked around campus
20 harassing staff and students.
21 43. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to grab the name tag of a staff member, mocked her, and
22 openly notified her, “I am not going anywhere until I’m done with [Plaintiff],” specifically placing
23 her on notice that he was going to engage in misconduct and that Plaintiff was in danger.
24 44. Defendant I.M. DOE further threatened to kill Plaintiff, openly stating, “I hate that
25 motherfucker. I’m going to kill him.”
26
27
7
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 45. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to violently attack Plaintiff and place him in a chokehold,
2 nearly causing Plaintiff to lose consciousness.
3 46. The lack of supervision and the subsequent injuries to Plaintiff were not due to any action
4 or inaction on the part of Plaintiff, who at all relevant times was conducting himself in a manner
5 befitting a student in the school environment.
6 47. Pursuant to California Government Code § 815.2, “[a] public entity is liable for injury
7 proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of
8 his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of
9 action against that employee.”
10 48. In addition, California Government Code § 820 provides that “a public employee is liable
11 for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person.”
12 49. As such, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 are liable for the
13 acts of Defendant I.M. DOE.
14 50. As a direct and legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH
15 and DOES 1 through 100, Plaintiff was damaged.
16 51. Plaintiff has suffered and/or continues to suffer emotional, physical, and/or mental distress.
17 The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will pray leave
18 of court to assert the same when they are ascertained.
19 52. As a further legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH
20 and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced and/or may be forced to incur
21 expenses for medical care and/or treatment, all in an amount which is at present unknown. Plaintiff
22 will pray leave of court to show the exact amount of said expenses at the time of trial.
23 53. The negligent behavior of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100
24 was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
25 54. The harm suffered by Plaintiff was a foreseeable consequence of Defendant WHSD and
26 Defendant LMJH’s failure to act upon the known risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE, which
27
8
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 constitutes a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under
2 similar circumstances.
3 55. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
4 II.
5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
6 For Negligent Supervision and Failure to Warn
7 Against Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, & DOES 1 through 100, Only
8 56. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference and re-alleges each and every paragraph in this
9 Complaint as though duly set forth in full herein.
10 57. At all times relevant herein, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100
11 had a duty to provide a safe school environment for its students, including for Plaintiff, and to take
12 reasonable steps to protect students from foreseeable harm while on school property, including
13 protection from bullying, violence, threats, and harassment.
14 58. California Education Code §§ 32261 and 44807 guarantee students safe schools and require
15 schools to hold students to strict account for their conduct.
16 59. Specifically, California Education Code § 44807 imposes a duty on schools to “hold pupils
17 to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or during
18 recess.”
19 60. Moreover, there is a duty on the employees of a school district to supervise students for the
20 protection of students. Indeed, it is the duty of the school authorities to supervise at all times the
21 conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary
22 for their protection.
23 61. Said Defendants also had a duty to warn Plaintiff and others similarly situated of the
24 dangerous propensities and specific risks associated with Defendant I.M. DOE’s behavior, which
25 were known or should have been known to Defendant WHSD and Defendant LMJH.
26
27
9
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 62. However, as alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100
2 breached their duty to Plaintiff by failing to take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff and other
3 students from the known and ongoing threatening, harassing, and violent behavior of Defendant
4 I.M. DOE.
5 63. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 breached this duty of care
6 by failing to adequately supervise Defendant I.M. DOE, a known threat, thereby failing to prevent
7 foreseeable harm to Plaintiff and other students.
8 64. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 were aware, or should have
9 been aware, of the risk posed by Defendant I.M. DOE due to his long history of misconduct,
10 including prior incidents of aggressive, threatening, and violent behavior toward students, including
11 Plaintiff, and staff members.
12 65. Prior to the injuries herein alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1
13 through 100 had actual and constructive notice of Defendant I.M. DOE’s propensity for violence
14 and the risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE as evidenced by multiple complaints and reports by
15 students, including Plaintiff, and their parents, as well as observations by staff members.
16 66. Plaintiff also previously complained about Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing
17 him.
18 67. Rather than take remedial and/or corrective measures, when Plaintiff complained about
19 Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing him, a faculty member merely instructed Plaintiff to
20 avoid engaging with Defendant I.M. DOE as “he’s the type of kid that would come back with a
21 weapon and you would be his first victim.”
22 68. Despite their knowledge of Defendant I.M. DOE’s aggressive and/or harassing behavior,
23 Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to implement appropriate
24 interventions, discipline, and/or supervision to address his behavior, thereby breaching their duty
25 of care.
26
27
10
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 69. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to take reasonable
2 steps to supervise or discipline Defendant I.M. DOE, as evidenced by allowing him to be
3 unsupervised and unaccompanied while around other students, even when he was required to be in
4 detention.
5 70. Said Defendants further failed to provide adequate warning to Plaintiff, other students, and
6 their families regarding the risk posed by Defendant I.M. DOE, despite the clear and present danger
7 he posed and the foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff and others.
8 71. The harm suffered by Plaintiff was a foreseeable consequence of Defendant WHSD,
9 Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100’s failure to exercise reasonable care in supervising
10 Defendant I.M. DOE, particularly given the prior complaints and warnings about Defendant I.M.
11 DOE’s behavior.
12 72. As a result of the failure to increase supervision or take disciplinary action against
13 Defendant I.M. DOE, during lunch on or about April 26, 2023, Defendant I.M. DOE walked around
14 campus harassing staff and students.
15 73. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to grab the name tag of a staff member, mocked her, and
16 openly notified her, “I am not going anywhere until I’m done with [Plaintiff],” specifically placing
17 her on notice that he was going to engage in misconduct and that Plaintiff was in danger.
18 74. Defendant I.M. DOE further threatened to kill Plaintiff, openly stating, “I hate that
19 motherfucker. I’m going to kill him.”
20 75. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to violently attack Plaintiff and place him in a chokehold,
21 nearly causing Plaintiff to lose consciousness.
22 76. The lack of supervision and the subsequent injuries to Plaintiff were not due to any action
23 or inaction on the part of Plaintiff, who at all relevant times was conducting himself in a manner
24 befitting a student in the school environment.
25 77. Pursuant to California Government Code § 815.2, “[a] public entity is liable for injury
26 proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of
27
11
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of
2 action against that employee.”
3 78. In addition, California Government Code § 820 provides that “a public employee is liable
4 for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person.”
5 79. As such, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 are liable for the
6 acts of Defendant I.M. DOE.
7 80. As a direct and legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH
8 and DOES 1 through 100, Plaintiff was damaged.
9 81. Plaintiff has suffered and/or continues to suffer emotional, physical, and/or mental distress.
10 The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will pray leave
11 of court to assert the same when they are ascertained.
12 82. As a further legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH,
13 and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced and/or may be forced to incur
14 expenses for medical care and/or treatment, all in an amount which is at present unknown. Plaintiff
15 will pray leave of court to show the exact amount of said expenses at the time of trial.
16 83. The negligent behavior of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100
17 was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
18 84. The harm suffered by Plaintiff was a foreseeable consequence of Defendant WHSD and
19 Defendant LMJH’s failure to act upon the known risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE, which
20 constitutes a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under
21 similar circumstances.
22 85. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27
12
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 III.
2 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
3 For Violation of California Education Code § 32261
4 Against Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, & DOES 1 Through 100, Only
5 86. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference and re-alleges each and every paragraph in this
6 Complaint as though duly set forth in full herein.
7 87. At all times relevant herein, pursuant to California Education Code § 32261, Defendant
8 WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 had a duty to provide a safe school
9 environment for its students, including for Plaintiff, and to take reasonable steps to protect students
10 from foreseeable harm while on school property, including protection from bullying, violence,
11 threats, and harassment.
12 88. As alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 breached their
13 duty to Plaintiff by failing to take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff and other students from
14 the known and ongoing threatening, harassing, and violent behavior of Defendant I.M. DOE.
15 89. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 breached their duty of care
16 by failing to adequately supervise Defendant I.M. DOE, a known threat, thereby failing to prevent
17 foreseeable harm to Plaintiff and other students.
18 90. Through the foregoing, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100
19 were in violation of California Education Code § 32261, which declares:
20
All pupils enrolled in the state public schools have the inalienable right to attend
21 classes on school campuses that are safe, secure, and peaceful… [and] encourage
school districts, county offices of education, law enforcement agencies, and
22 agencies serving youth to develop and implement interagency strategies, in-service
training programs, and activities that will improve school attendance and reduce
23 school crime and violence, including vandalism, drug and alcohol abuse, gang
membership, gang violence, hate crimes, bullying, including bullying committed
24
personally or by means of an electronic act, teen relationship violence, and
25 discrimination and harassment...
26
27
13
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 91. The statute mandates that public school officials take immediate action to secure the safety
2 of students and staff in the event of any incident involving violence or threats of violence on school
3 grounds.
4 92. Moreover, there is a duty on the employees of a school district to supervise students for the
5 protection of students. Indeed, it is the duty of the school authorities to supervise at all times the
6 conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary
7 for their protection.
8 93. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 were aware, or should have
9 been aware, of the risk posed by Defendant I.M. DOE due to his long history of misconduct,
10 including prior incidents of aggressive, threatening, and violent behavior toward students, including
11 Plaintiff, and staff members.
12 94. Prior to the injuries herein alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1
13 through 100 had actual and constructive notice of Defendant I.M. DOE’s propensity for violence
14 and the risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE as evidenced by multiple complaints and reports by
15 students, including Plaintiff, and their parents, as well as observations by staff members.
16 95. Plaintiff also previously complained about Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing
17 him.
18 96. Rather than take remedial and/or corrective measures, when Plaintiff complained about
19 Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing him, a faculty member merely instructed Plaintiff to
20 avoid engaging with Defendant I.M. DOE as “he’s the type of kid that would come back with a
21 weapon and you would be his first victim.”
22 97. Despite their knowledge of Defendant I.M. DOE’s aggressive and/or harassing behavior,
23 Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to implement appropriate
24 interventions, discipline, and/or supervision to address his behavior, thereby breaching their duty
25 of care.
26
27
14
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 98. Moreover, despite numerous reports that Defendant I.M. DOE was harassing and bullying
2 students, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to supervise or
3 discipline Defendant I.M. DOE appropriately, allowing him to be unsupervised and unaccompanied
4 near other students.
5 99. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 further negligently failed
6 to investigate Defendant I.M. DOE’s misconduct and negligently failed to discipline Defendant
7 I.M. DOE so that further abuse would not recur.
8 100. As a result of the failure to increase supervision or take disciplinary action against
9 Defendant I.M. DOE, during lunch on or about April 26, 2023, Defendant I.M. DOE walked around
10 campus harassing staff and students.
11 101. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to grab the name tag of a staff member, mocked her, and
12 openly notified her, “I am not going anywhere until I’m done with [Plaintiff],” specifically placing
13 her on notice that he was going to engage in misconduct and that Plaintiff was in danger.
14 102. Defendant I.M. DOE further threatened to kill Plaintiff, openly stating, “I hate that
15 motherfucker. I’m going to kill him.”
16 103. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to violently attack Plaintiff and place him in a chokehold,
17 nearly causing Plaintiff to lose consciousness.
18 104. The lack of supervision and the subsequent injuries to Plaintiff were not due to any action
19 or inaction on the part of Plaintiff, who at all relevant times was conducting himself in a manner
20 befitting a student in the school environment.
21 105. Pursuant to California Government Code § 815.2, “[a] public entity is liable for injury
22 proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of
23 his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of
24 action against that employee.”
25 106. In addition, California Government Code § 820 provides that “a public employee is liable
26 for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person.”
27
15
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 107. As such, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 are liable for the
2 acts of Defendant I.M. DOE.
3 108. As a direct and legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH
4 and DOES 1 through 100, Plaintiff was damaged.
5 109. Plaintiff has suffered and/or continues to suffer emotional, physical, and/or mental distress.
6 The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will pray leave
7 of court to assert the same when they are ascertained.
8 110. As a further legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH,
9 and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced and/or may be forced to incur
10 expenses for medical care and/or treatment, all in an amount which is at present unknown. Plaintiff
11 will pray leave of court to show the exact amount of said expenses at the time of trial.
12 111. The negligent behavior of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH and DOES 1 through 100
13 was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
14 112. The harm suffered by Plaintiff was a foreseeable consequence of Defendant WHSD and
15 Defendant LMJH’s failure to act upon the known risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE, which
16 constitutes a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under
17 similar circumstances.
18 113. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
19 IV.
20 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
21 For Violation of California Education Code § 44807
22 Against Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, & DOES 1 Through 100, Only
23 114. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference and re-alleges each and every paragraph in this
24 Complaint as though duly set forth in full herein.
25 115. At all times relevant herein, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100
26 had a duty to provide a safe school environment for its students, including for Plaintiff, and to take
27
16
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 reasonable steps to protect students from foreseeable harm while on school property, including
2 protection from bullying, violence, threats, and harassment.
3 116. As alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 breached their
4 duty to Plaintiff by failing to take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff and other students from
5 the known and ongoing threatening, harassing, and violent behavior of Defendant I.M. DOE.
6 117. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 breached their duty of care
7 by failing to adequately supervise Defendant I.M. DOE, a known threat, thereby failing to prevent
8 foreseeable harm to Plaintiff and other students.
9 118. Through the foregoing, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100
10 were in violation of California Education Code § 44807, which imposes a duty on schools to “hold
11 pupils to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or
12 during recess.”
13 119. Moreover, there is a duty on the employees of a school district to supervise students for the
14 protection of students. Indeed, it is the duty of the school authorities to supervise at all times the
15 conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary
16 for their protection.
17 120. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 were aware, or should have
18 been aware, of the risk posed by Defendant I.M. DOE due to his long history of misconduct,
19 including prior incidents of aggressive, threatening, and violent behavior toward students, including
20 Plaintiff, and staff members.
21 121. Prior to the injuries herein alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH and DOES 1
22 through 100 had actual and constructive notice of Defendant I.M. DOE’s propensity for violence
23 and the risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE as evidenced by multiple complaints and reports by
24 students, including Plaintiff, and their parents, as well as observations by staff members.
25 122. Plaintiff also previously complained about Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing
26 him.
27
17
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 123. Rather than take remedial and/or corrective measures, when Plaintiff complained about
2 Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing him, a faculty member merely instructed Plaintiff to
3 avoid engaging with Defendant I.M. DOE as “he’s the type of kid that would come back with a
4 weapon and you would be his first victim.”
5 124. Despite their knowledge of Defendant I.M. DOE’s aggressive and/or harassing behavior,
6 Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to implement appropriate
7 interventions, discipline, and/or supervision to address his behavior, thereby breaching their duty
8 of care.
9 125. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to hold Defendant
10 I.M. DOE to a strict account for his conduct on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or
11 during break.
12 126. The harm suffered by Plaintiff was a foreseeable consequence of Defendant WHSD,
13 Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100’s failure to exercise reasonable care in supervising
14 Defendant I.M. DOE, particularly given the prior complaints and warnings about Defendant I.M.
15 DOE’s behavior.
16 127. As a result of the failure to increase supervision or take disciplinary action against
17 Defendant I.M. DOE, during lunch on or about April 26, 2023, Defendant I.M. DOE walked around
18 campus harassing staff and students.
19 128. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to grab the name tag of a staff member, mocked her, and
20 openly notified her, “I am not going anywhere until I’m done with [Plaintiff],” specifically placing
21 her on notice that he was going to engage in misconduct and that Plaintiff was in danger.
22 129. Defendant I.M. DOE further threatened to kill Plaintiff, openly stating, “I hate that
23 motherfucker. I’m going to kill him.”
24 130. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to violently attack Plaintiff and place him in a chokehold,
25 nearly causing Plaintiff to lose consciousness.
26
27
18
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 131. The lack of supervision and the subsequent injuries to Plaintiff were not due to any action
2 or inaction on the part of Plaintiff, who at all relevant times was conducting himself in a manner
3 befitting a student in the school environment.
4 132. Pursuant to California Government Code § 815.2, “[a] public entity is liable for injury
5 proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of
6 his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of
7 action against that employee.”
8 133. In addition, California Government Code § 820 provides that “a public employee is liable
9 for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person.”
10 134. As such, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH and DOES 1 through 100 are liable for the
11 acts of Defendant I.M. DOE.
12 135. As a direct and legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH
13 and DOES 1 through 100, Plaintiff was damaged.
14 136. Plaintiff has suffered and/or continues to suffer emotional, physical, and/or mental distress.
15 The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will pray leave
16 of court to assert the same when they are ascertained.
17 137. As a further legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH,
18 and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced and/or may be forced to incur
19 expenses for medical care and/or treatment, all in an amount which is at present unknown. Plaintiff
20 will pray leave of court to show the exact amount of said expenses at the time of trial.
21 138. The negligent behavior of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH and DOES 1 through 100
22 was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
23 139. The harm suffered by Plaintiff was a foreseeable consequence of Defendant WHSD and
24 Defendant LMJH’s failure to act upon the known risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE, which
25 constitutes a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under
26 similar circumstances.
27
19
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 140. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
2 V.
3 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 For Failure to Protect Pupil
5 Against Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, & DOES 1 Through 100, Only
6 141. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference and re-alleges each and every paragraph in this
7 Complaint as though duly set forth in full herein.
8 142. At all times relevant herein, a special relationship existed between Defendant WHSD,
9 Defendant LMJH, and Plaintiff.
10 143. At all times relevant herein, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100
11 had a duty to provide a safe school environment for its students, including for Plaintiff, and to take
12 reasonable steps to protect students from foreseeable harm while on school property, including
13 protection from bullying, violence, threats, and harassment.
14 144. California Education Code §§ 32261 and 44807 guarantee students safe schools and require
15 schools to hold students to strict account for their conduct.
16 145. Specifically, California Education Code § 44807 imposes a duty on schools to “hold pupils
17 to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or during
18 recess.”
19 146. Moreover, there is a duty on the employees of a school district to supervise students for the
20 protection of students. Indeed, it is the duty of the school authorities to supervise at all times the
21 conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary
22 for their protection.
23 147. However, as alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100
24 breached their duty to Plaintiff by failing to take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff and other
25 students from the known and ongoing threatening, harassing, and violent behavior of Defendant
26 I.M. DOE.
27
20
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 148. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 breached this duty of care
2 by failing to adequately supervise Defendant I.M. DOE, a known threat, thereby failing to prevent
3 foreseeable harm to Plaintiff and other students.
4 149. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 were aware, or should have
5 been aware, of the risk posed by Defendant I.M. DOE due to his long history of misconduct,
6 including prior incidents of aggressive, threatening, and violent behavior toward students, including
7 Plaintiff, and staff members.
8 150. Prior to the injuries herein alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH and DOES 1
9 through 100 had actual and constructive notice of Defendant I.M. DOE’s propensity for violence
10 and the risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE as evidenced by multiple complaints and reports by
11 students, including Plaintiff, and their parents, as well as observations by staff members.
12 151. Plaintiff also previously complained about Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing
13 him.
14 152. Rather than take remedial and/or corrective measures, when Plaintiff complained about
15 Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing him, a faculty member merely instructed Plaintiff to
16 avoid engaging with Defendant I.M. DOE as “he’s the type of kid that would come back with a
17 weapon and you would be his first victim.”
18 153. Despite their knowledge of Defendant I.M. DOE’s aggressive and/or harassing behavior,
19 Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to implement appropriate
20 interventions, discipline, and/or supervision to address his behavior, thereby breaching their duty
21 of care.
22 154. Moreover, despite numerous reports that Defendant I.M. DOE was harassing and bullying
23 students, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to supervise or
24 discipline Defendant I.M. DOE appropriately, allowing him to be unsupervised and unaccompanied
25 near other students.
26
27
21
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 155. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 further negligently failed
2 to investigate Defendant I.M. DOE’s misconduct and negligently failed to discipline Defendant
3 I.M. DOE so that further abuse would not recur.
4 156. As a result of the failure to increase supervision or take disciplinary action against
5 Defendant I.M. DOE, during lunch on or about April 26, 2023, Defendant I.M. DOE walked around
6 campus harassing staff and students.
7 157. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to grab the name tag of a staff member, mocked her, and
8 openly notified her, “I am not going anywhere until I’m done with [Plaintiff],” specifically placing
9 her on notice that he was going to engage in misconduct and that Plaintiff was in danger.
10 158. Defendant I.M. DOE further threatened to kill Plaintiff, openly stating, “I hate that
11 motherfucker. I’m going to kill him.”
12 159. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to violently attack Plaintiff and place him in a chokehold,
13 nearly causing Plaintiff to lose consciousness.
14 160. The lack of supervision and the subsequent injuries to Plaintiff were not due to any action
15 or inaction on the part of Plaintiff, who at all relevant times was conducting himself in a manner
16 befitting a student in the school environment.
17 161. Pursuant to California Government Code § 815.2, “[a] public entity is liable for injury
18 proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of
19 his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of
20 action against that employee.”
21 162. In addition, California Government Code § 820 provides that “a public employee is liable
22 for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person.”
23 163. As such, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 are liable for the
24 acts of Defendant I.M. DOE.
25 164. As a direct and legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant
26 LMJH, and DOES 1 through 10
Preview
1 SEZGIN KHOUSADIAN LLP ARTHUR SEZGIN, ESQ., (State Bar No. 296666) 2 arthur@sklaw.legal ALISA KHOUSADIAN, ESQ., (State Bar No. 285497) 3 alisa@sklaw.legal 500 North Central Avenue, Suite 830 4 Glendale, California 91203 5 Phone: (818) 696-1330 | Fax: (818) 696-1331 6 Attorneys for PLAINTIFF R.G., by and through his guardian ad litem, KRISTEN GALVAN 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH VALLEY JUDICIAL DISTRICT 10 11 R.G., by and through his guardian ad litem, ) Case No.: KRISTEN GALVAN, ) 12 ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: ) 13 Plaintiff, ) (1) NEGLIGENCE; ) 14 ) (2) NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND 15 vs. ) FAILURE TO WARN; ) 16 ) (3) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM S. HART SCHOOL DISTRICT; ) EDUCATION CODE § 32261; 17 LA MESA JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL; ) I.M. DOE, an individual; and ) (4) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA 18 DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, ) EDUCATION CODE § 44807; 19 ) ) (5) FAILURE TO PROTECT PUPIL; 20 Defendants. ) ) (6) ASSAULT; 21 ) ) (7) BATTERY; 22 ) 23 ) (8) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. 24 ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 25 26 27 1 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 COMES NOW PLAINTIFF R.G., by and through his guardian ad litem, KRISTEN 2 GALVAN, and complains against the above-named Defendant(s) and for causes of actions against 3 the Defendant(s), and each of them, as follows: 4 THE PARTIES 5 1. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “R.G.” or “Plaintiff”) was, 6 and now is, a minor residing and/or domiciled in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 7 As a minor, Plaintiff files this lawsuit as a John Doe with his initials only in order to protect his 8 privacy. Plaintiff proceeds by and through his guardian ad litem, KRISTEN GALVAN (hereinafter 9 “GALVAN” or “Plaintiff”). At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was a student at La Mesa Junior 10 High School where he was injured. 11 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times relevant herein, 12 Defendant WILLIAM S. HART SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to as “WHSD” and 13 collectively with all other Defendants as “Defendants”) was, and now is, a public school district 14 duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, having its principal place of 15 business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 16 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times relevant herein, 17 Defendant LA MESA JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL (hereinafter referred to as “LMJH” and 18 collectively with all other Defendants as “Defendants”) was, and now is, a public junior high school 19 operating within the William S. Hart School District and existing under the laws of the State of 20 California, having its principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 21 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times relevant herein, 22 Defendant I.M. DOE (hereinafter referred to as “I.M. DOE” and collectively with all other 23 Defendants as “Defendants”), was an individual domiciled in the County of Los Angeles, State of 24 California, and was a student at Defendant LMJH. 25 5. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, 26 individual, or otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 – 100, inclusive, and therefore sues 27 2 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint 2 to assert the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named Defendants when the same have 3 been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant 4 designated as “DOES” herein is legally responsible for the events, happenings, acts, occurrences, 5 indebtedness, damages, and liabilities hereinafter alleged and caused injuries and damages 6 proximately thereby to the Plaintiff, as hereinafter alleged. 7 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants named 8 herein has, at all times relevant to this action, been the officer, agent, employee, and/or 9 representative of the remaining Defendants and has acted within the course and scope of such 10 agency and employment, and with the permission and consent of the co-defendants. 11 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12 7. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims alleged herein. The relief requested is within the 13 jurisdiction of this Court. 14 8. Venue is proper in the County of Los Angeles. Defendants reside in the County of Los 15 Angeles and all of the claims alleged herein arose in the County of Los Angeles. 16 9. The amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the sum of $35,000.00, exclusive of 17 attorney’s fees, interest, and costs. 18 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 19 10. Prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed a timely complaint against and/or gave 20 sufficient notice to each named required Defendant. 21 11. Pursuant to California Gov’t Code §§ 900 et seq., Plaintiff filed a tort claim, which was 22 rejected. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A” is Plaintiff’s tort claim form and 23 attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “B” is said notice of rejection. 24 12. At all times relevant herein, Defendant and DOES 1 through 100 have been sufficiently 25 placed on notice of Plaintiff's claims. 26 13. This action is timely filed. 27 3 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 2 14. At all times relevant herein, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 3 100, acting through managing agents and school administrators, had a duty to protect Plaintiff, 4 entrusted to their care by Plaintiff’s parents. Plaintiff R.G’s care, welfare, and/or physical custody 5 were temporarily entrusted to said Defendants and said Defendants accepted the entrusted care of 6 the minor Plaintiff. As such, said Defendants owed minor Plaintiff a special duty of care to protect 7 him from harm, including harassment and bullying. 8 15. Defendant I.M. DOE, a student of Defendant WHSD and Defendant LMJH, demonstrated 9 a pattern of aggressive and threatening behavior towards his peers, including Plaintiff R.G, and the 10 faculty. Specifically, Defendant I.M. DOE bullied, harassed, assaulted, and/or battered his peers 11 and the faculty. 12 16. On several occasions beginning in or around November 2022, Defendant I.M. DOE 13 physically assaulted and battered Plaintiff and other students by pushing, tackling, and bumping 14 into them, despite repeated requests for him to stop. 15 17. Defendant I.M. DOE’s misconduct extended to offensive touching of female students 16 without their consent, destruction of school property, and the verbal harassment of peers and staff, 17 including the use of obscenities and attempts to provoke confrontations. 18 18. Defendant WHSD and Defendant LMJH were repeatedly made aware and/or put on notice 19 of Defendant I.M. DOE’s aggressive and threatening behavior through multiple incidents and 20 complaints from staff, students, and the parents of students. 21 19. Staff members at Defendant LMJH were witnesses to Defendant I.M. DOE’s aggressive 22 and threatening behavior, yet their responses to complaints by Plaintiff and others were inadequate 23 and dismissive, failing to provide any sense of security or assurance of safety to the students. 24 20. Indeed, despite their knowledge of Defendant I.M. DOE’s aggressive and threatening 25 behavior, Defendant WHSD and Defendant LMJH failed to take appropriate action to curb 26 Defendant I.M. DOE’s behavior or protect other students. 27 4 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 21. As a result, during lunch on or about April 26, 2023, despite being required to attend 2 detention, Defendant I.M. DOE was left unsupervised and, thus, he walked around campus 3 harassing the faculty and students. 4 22. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to grab the name tag of a staff member, mocked her, and 5 openly notified her, “I am not going anywhere until I’m done with [Plaintiff],” specifically placing 6 her on notice that he was going to engage in misconduct and that Plaintiff was in danger. 7 23. Defendant I.M. DOE further threatened to kill Plaintiff, openly stating, “I hate that 8 motherfucker. I’m going to kill him.” 9 24. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to violently attack Plaintiff and place him in a chokehold, 10 nearly causing Plaintiff to lose consciousness. 11 25. The following day, Plaintiff’s mother, Mrs. Galvan, met with school officials and a law 12 enforcement officer to express her concerns and to seek assurance that Defendant I.M. DOE would 13 no longer pose a threat to her son or others. 14 26. Despite Mrs. Galvan’s efforts, Defendant LMJH and Defendant WHSD failed to intervene 15 or take appropriate corrective and/or remedial measures. 16 27. As a direct result of the incident and Defendant LMJH and Defendant WHSD’s negligence, 17 Plaintiff has been damaged. 18 I. 19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 20 For Negligence 21 Against Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, & DOES 1 Through 100, Only 22 28. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference and re-alleges each and every paragraph in this 23 Complaint as though duly set forth in full herein. 24 29. At all times relevant herein, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 25 had a duty to provide a safe school environment for its students, including for Plaintiff, and to take 26 27 5 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 reasonable steps to protect students from foreseeable harm while on school property, including 2 protection from bullying, violence, threats, and harassment. 3 30. California Education Code §§ 32261 and 44807 guarantee students safe schools and require 4 schools to hold students to strict account for their conduct. 5 31. Specifically, California Education Code § 44807 imposes a duty on schools to “hold pupils 6 to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or during 7 recess.” 8 32. Moreover, there is a duty on the employees of a school district to supervise students for the 9 protection of students. Indeed, it is the duty of the school authorities to supervise at all times the 10 conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary 11 for their protection. 12 33. However, as alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 13 breached their duty to Plaintiff by failing to take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff and other 14 students from the known and ongoing threatening, harassing, and violent behavior of Defendant 15 I.M. DOE. 16 34. Defendant WHSD and Defendant LMJH breached this duty of care by failing to adequately 17 supervise Defendant I.M. DOE, a known threat, thereby failing to prevent foreseeable harm to 18 Plaintiff and other students. 19 35. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 were aware, or should have 20 been aware, of the risk posed by Defendant I.M. DOE due to his long history of misconduct, 21 including prior incidents of aggressive, threatening, and violent behavior toward students, including 22 Plaintiff, and staff members. 23 36. Prior to the injuries herein alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 24 through 100 had actual and constructive notice of Defendant I.M. DOE’s propensity for violence 25 and the risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE as evidenced by multiple complaints and reports by 26 students, including Plaintiff, and their parents, as well as observations by staff members. 27 6 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 37. Plaintiff also previously complained about Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing 2 him. 3 38. Rather than take remedial and/or corrective measures, when Plaintiff complained about 4 Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing him, a faculty member merely instructed Plaintiff to 5 avoid engaging with Defendant I.M. DOE as “he’s the type of kid that would come back with a 6 weapon and you would be his first victim.” 7 39. Despite their knowledge of Defendant I.M. DOE’s aggressive and/or harassing behavior, 8 Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to implement appropriate 9 interventions, discipline, and/or supervision to address his behavior, thereby breaching their duty of 10 care. 11 40. Moreover, despite numerous reports that Defendant I.M. DOE was harassing and bullying 12 students, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to supervise or 13 discipline Defendant I.M. DOE appropriately, allowing him to be unsupervised and unaccompanied 14 near other students. 15 41. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 further negligently failed to 16 investigate Defendant I.M. DOE’s misconduct and negligently failed to discipline Defendant I.M. 17 DOE so that further abuse would not recur. 18 42. As a result of the failure to increase supervision or take disciplinary action against Defendant 19 I.M. DOE, during lunch on or about April 26, 2023, Defendant I.M. DOE walked around campus 20 harassing staff and students. 21 43. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to grab the name tag of a staff member, mocked her, and 22 openly notified her, “I am not going anywhere until I’m done with [Plaintiff],” specifically placing 23 her on notice that he was going to engage in misconduct and that Plaintiff was in danger. 24 44. Defendant I.M. DOE further threatened to kill Plaintiff, openly stating, “I hate that 25 motherfucker. I’m going to kill him.” 26 27 7 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 45. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to violently attack Plaintiff and place him in a chokehold, 2 nearly causing Plaintiff to lose consciousness. 3 46. The lack of supervision and the subsequent injuries to Plaintiff were not due to any action 4 or inaction on the part of Plaintiff, who at all relevant times was conducting himself in a manner 5 befitting a student in the school environment. 6 47. Pursuant to California Government Code § 815.2, “[a] public entity is liable for injury 7 proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of 8 his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of 9 action against that employee.” 10 48. In addition, California Government Code § 820 provides that “a public employee is liable 11 for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person.” 12 49. As such, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 are liable for the 13 acts of Defendant I.M. DOE. 14 50. As a direct and legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH 15 and DOES 1 through 100, Plaintiff was damaged. 16 51. Plaintiff has suffered and/or continues to suffer emotional, physical, and/or mental distress. 17 The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will pray leave 18 of court to assert the same when they are ascertained. 19 52. As a further legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH 20 and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced and/or may be forced to incur 21 expenses for medical care and/or treatment, all in an amount which is at present unknown. Plaintiff 22 will pray leave of court to show the exact amount of said expenses at the time of trial. 23 53. The negligent behavior of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 24 was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 25 54. The harm suffered by Plaintiff was a foreseeable consequence of Defendant WHSD and 26 Defendant LMJH’s failure to act upon the known risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE, which 27 8 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 constitutes a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under 2 similar circumstances. 3 55. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 4 II. 5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 6 For Negligent Supervision and Failure to Warn 7 Against Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, & DOES 1 through 100, Only 8 56. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference and re-alleges each and every paragraph in this 9 Complaint as though duly set forth in full herein. 10 57. At all times relevant herein, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 11 had a duty to provide a safe school environment for its students, including for Plaintiff, and to take 12 reasonable steps to protect students from foreseeable harm while on school property, including 13 protection from bullying, violence, threats, and harassment. 14 58. California Education Code §§ 32261 and 44807 guarantee students safe schools and require 15 schools to hold students to strict account for their conduct. 16 59. Specifically, California Education Code § 44807 imposes a duty on schools to “hold pupils 17 to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or during 18 recess.” 19 60. Moreover, there is a duty on the employees of a school district to supervise students for the 20 protection of students. Indeed, it is the duty of the school authorities to supervise at all times the 21 conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary 22 for their protection. 23 61. Said Defendants also had a duty to warn Plaintiff and others similarly situated of the 24 dangerous propensities and specific risks associated with Defendant I.M. DOE’s behavior, which 25 were known or should have been known to Defendant WHSD and Defendant LMJH. 26 27 9 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 62. However, as alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 2 breached their duty to Plaintiff by failing to take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff and other 3 students from the known and ongoing threatening, harassing, and violent behavior of Defendant 4 I.M. DOE. 5 63. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 breached this duty of care 6 by failing to adequately supervise Defendant I.M. DOE, a known threat, thereby failing to prevent 7 foreseeable harm to Plaintiff and other students. 8 64. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 were aware, or should have 9 been aware, of the risk posed by Defendant I.M. DOE due to his long history of misconduct, 10 including prior incidents of aggressive, threatening, and violent behavior toward students, including 11 Plaintiff, and staff members. 12 65. Prior to the injuries herein alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 13 through 100 had actual and constructive notice of Defendant I.M. DOE’s propensity for violence 14 and the risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE as evidenced by multiple complaints and reports by 15 students, including Plaintiff, and their parents, as well as observations by staff members. 16 66. Plaintiff also previously complained about Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing 17 him. 18 67. Rather than take remedial and/or corrective measures, when Plaintiff complained about 19 Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing him, a faculty member merely instructed Plaintiff to 20 avoid engaging with Defendant I.M. DOE as “he’s the type of kid that would come back with a 21 weapon and you would be his first victim.” 22 68. Despite their knowledge of Defendant I.M. DOE’s aggressive and/or harassing behavior, 23 Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to implement appropriate 24 interventions, discipline, and/or supervision to address his behavior, thereby breaching their duty 25 of care. 26 27 10 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 69. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to take reasonable 2 steps to supervise or discipline Defendant I.M. DOE, as evidenced by allowing him to be 3 unsupervised and unaccompanied while around other students, even when he was required to be in 4 detention. 5 70. Said Defendants further failed to provide adequate warning to Plaintiff, other students, and 6 their families regarding the risk posed by Defendant I.M. DOE, despite the clear and present danger 7 he posed and the foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff and others. 8 71. The harm suffered by Plaintiff was a foreseeable consequence of Defendant WHSD, 9 Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100’s failure to exercise reasonable care in supervising 10 Defendant I.M. DOE, particularly given the prior complaints and warnings about Defendant I.M. 11 DOE’s behavior. 12 72. As a result of the failure to increase supervision or take disciplinary action against 13 Defendant I.M. DOE, during lunch on or about April 26, 2023, Defendant I.M. DOE walked around 14 campus harassing staff and students. 15 73. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to grab the name tag of a staff member, mocked her, and 16 openly notified her, “I am not going anywhere until I’m done with [Plaintiff],” specifically placing 17 her on notice that he was going to engage in misconduct and that Plaintiff was in danger. 18 74. Defendant I.M. DOE further threatened to kill Plaintiff, openly stating, “I hate that 19 motherfucker. I’m going to kill him.” 20 75. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to violently attack Plaintiff and place him in a chokehold, 21 nearly causing Plaintiff to lose consciousness. 22 76. The lack of supervision and the subsequent injuries to Plaintiff were not due to any action 23 or inaction on the part of Plaintiff, who at all relevant times was conducting himself in a manner 24 befitting a student in the school environment. 25 77. Pursuant to California Government Code § 815.2, “[a] public entity is liable for injury 26 proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of 27 11 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of 2 action against that employee.” 3 78. In addition, California Government Code § 820 provides that “a public employee is liable 4 for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person.” 5 79. As such, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 are liable for the 6 acts of Defendant I.M. DOE. 7 80. As a direct and legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH 8 and DOES 1 through 100, Plaintiff was damaged. 9 81. Plaintiff has suffered and/or continues to suffer emotional, physical, and/or mental distress. 10 The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will pray leave 11 of court to assert the same when they are ascertained. 12 82. As a further legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, 13 and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced and/or may be forced to incur 14 expenses for medical care and/or treatment, all in an amount which is at present unknown. Plaintiff 15 will pray leave of court to show the exact amount of said expenses at the time of trial. 16 83. The negligent behavior of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 17 was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 18 84. The harm suffered by Plaintiff was a foreseeable consequence of Defendant WHSD and 19 Defendant LMJH’s failure to act upon the known risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE, which 20 constitutes a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under 21 similar circumstances. 22 85. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 12 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 III. 2 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 3 For Violation of California Education Code § 32261 4 Against Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, & DOES 1 Through 100, Only 5 86. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference and re-alleges each and every paragraph in this 6 Complaint as though duly set forth in full herein. 7 87. At all times relevant herein, pursuant to California Education Code § 32261, Defendant 8 WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 had a duty to provide a safe school 9 environment for its students, including for Plaintiff, and to take reasonable steps to protect students 10 from foreseeable harm while on school property, including protection from bullying, violence, 11 threats, and harassment. 12 88. As alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 breached their 13 duty to Plaintiff by failing to take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff and other students from 14 the known and ongoing threatening, harassing, and violent behavior of Defendant I.M. DOE. 15 89. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 breached their duty of care 16 by failing to adequately supervise Defendant I.M. DOE, a known threat, thereby failing to prevent 17 foreseeable harm to Plaintiff and other students. 18 90. Through the foregoing, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 19 were in violation of California Education Code § 32261, which declares: 20 All pupils enrolled in the state public schools have the inalienable right to attend 21 classes on school campuses that are safe, secure, and peaceful… [and] encourage school districts, county offices of education, law enforcement agencies, and 22 agencies serving youth to develop and implement interagency strategies, in-service training programs, and activities that will improve school attendance and reduce 23 school crime and violence, including vandalism, drug and alcohol abuse, gang membership, gang violence, hate crimes, bullying, including bullying committed 24 personally or by means of an electronic act, teen relationship violence, and 25 discrimination and harassment... 26 27 13 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 91. The statute mandates that public school officials take immediate action to secure the safety 2 of students and staff in the event of any incident involving violence or threats of violence on school 3 grounds. 4 92. Moreover, there is a duty on the employees of a school district to supervise students for the 5 protection of students. Indeed, it is the duty of the school authorities to supervise at all times the 6 conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary 7 for their protection. 8 93. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 were aware, or should have 9 been aware, of the risk posed by Defendant I.M. DOE due to his long history of misconduct, 10 including prior incidents of aggressive, threatening, and violent behavior toward students, including 11 Plaintiff, and staff members. 12 94. Prior to the injuries herein alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 13 through 100 had actual and constructive notice of Defendant I.M. DOE’s propensity for violence 14 and the risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE as evidenced by multiple complaints and reports by 15 students, including Plaintiff, and their parents, as well as observations by staff members. 16 95. Plaintiff also previously complained about Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing 17 him. 18 96. Rather than take remedial and/or corrective measures, when Plaintiff complained about 19 Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing him, a faculty member merely instructed Plaintiff to 20 avoid engaging with Defendant I.M. DOE as “he’s the type of kid that would come back with a 21 weapon and you would be his first victim.” 22 97. Despite their knowledge of Defendant I.M. DOE’s aggressive and/or harassing behavior, 23 Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to implement appropriate 24 interventions, discipline, and/or supervision to address his behavior, thereby breaching their duty 25 of care. 26 27 14 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 98. Moreover, despite numerous reports that Defendant I.M. DOE was harassing and bullying 2 students, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to supervise or 3 discipline Defendant I.M. DOE appropriately, allowing him to be unsupervised and unaccompanied 4 near other students. 5 99. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 further negligently failed 6 to investigate Defendant I.M. DOE’s misconduct and negligently failed to discipline Defendant 7 I.M. DOE so that further abuse would not recur. 8 100. As a result of the failure to increase supervision or take disciplinary action against 9 Defendant I.M. DOE, during lunch on or about April 26, 2023, Defendant I.M. DOE walked around 10 campus harassing staff and students. 11 101. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to grab the name tag of a staff member, mocked her, and 12 openly notified her, “I am not going anywhere until I’m done with [Plaintiff],” specifically placing 13 her on notice that he was going to engage in misconduct and that Plaintiff was in danger. 14 102. Defendant I.M. DOE further threatened to kill Plaintiff, openly stating, “I hate that 15 motherfucker. I’m going to kill him.” 16 103. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to violently attack Plaintiff and place him in a chokehold, 17 nearly causing Plaintiff to lose consciousness. 18 104. The lack of supervision and the subsequent injuries to Plaintiff were not due to any action 19 or inaction on the part of Plaintiff, who at all relevant times was conducting himself in a manner 20 befitting a student in the school environment. 21 105. Pursuant to California Government Code § 815.2, “[a] public entity is liable for injury 22 proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of 23 his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of 24 action against that employee.” 25 106. In addition, California Government Code § 820 provides that “a public employee is liable 26 for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person.” 27 15 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 107. As such, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 are liable for the 2 acts of Defendant I.M. DOE. 3 108. As a direct and legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH 4 and DOES 1 through 100, Plaintiff was damaged. 5 109. Plaintiff has suffered and/or continues to suffer emotional, physical, and/or mental distress. 6 The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will pray leave 7 of court to assert the same when they are ascertained. 8 110. As a further legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, 9 and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced and/or may be forced to incur 10 expenses for medical care and/or treatment, all in an amount which is at present unknown. Plaintiff 11 will pray leave of court to show the exact amount of said expenses at the time of trial. 12 111. The negligent behavior of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH and DOES 1 through 100 13 was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 14 112. The harm suffered by Plaintiff was a foreseeable consequence of Defendant WHSD and 15 Defendant LMJH’s failure to act upon the known risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE, which 16 constitutes a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under 17 similar circumstances. 18 113. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 19 IV. 20 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 21 For Violation of California Education Code § 44807 22 Against Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, & DOES 1 Through 100, Only 23 114. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference and re-alleges each and every paragraph in this 24 Complaint as though duly set forth in full herein. 25 115. At all times relevant herein, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 26 had a duty to provide a safe school environment for its students, including for Plaintiff, and to take 27 16 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 reasonable steps to protect students from foreseeable harm while on school property, including 2 protection from bullying, violence, threats, and harassment. 3 116. As alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 breached their 4 duty to Plaintiff by failing to take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff and other students from 5 the known and ongoing threatening, harassing, and violent behavior of Defendant I.M. DOE. 6 117. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 breached their duty of care 7 by failing to adequately supervise Defendant I.M. DOE, a known threat, thereby failing to prevent 8 foreseeable harm to Plaintiff and other students. 9 118. Through the foregoing, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 10 were in violation of California Education Code § 44807, which imposes a duty on schools to “hold 11 pupils to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or 12 during recess.” 13 119. Moreover, there is a duty on the employees of a school district to supervise students for the 14 protection of students. Indeed, it is the duty of the school authorities to supervise at all times the 15 conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary 16 for their protection. 17 120. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 were aware, or should have 18 been aware, of the risk posed by Defendant I.M. DOE due to his long history of misconduct, 19 including prior incidents of aggressive, threatening, and violent behavior toward students, including 20 Plaintiff, and staff members. 21 121. Prior to the injuries herein alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH and DOES 1 22 through 100 had actual and constructive notice of Defendant I.M. DOE’s propensity for violence 23 and the risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE as evidenced by multiple complaints and reports by 24 students, including Plaintiff, and their parents, as well as observations by staff members. 25 122. Plaintiff also previously complained about Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing 26 him. 27 17 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 123. Rather than take remedial and/or corrective measures, when Plaintiff complained about 2 Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing him, a faculty member merely instructed Plaintiff to 3 avoid engaging with Defendant I.M. DOE as “he’s the type of kid that would come back with a 4 weapon and you would be his first victim.” 5 124. Despite their knowledge of Defendant I.M. DOE’s aggressive and/or harassing behavior, 6 Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to implement appropriate 7 interventions, discipline, and/or supervision to address his behavior, thereby breaching their duty 8 of care. 9 125. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to hold Defendant 10 I.M. DOE to a strict account for his conduct on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or 11 during break. 12 126. The harm suffered by Plaintiff was a foreseeable consequence of Defendant WHSD, 13 Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100’s failure to exercise reasonable care in supervising 14 Defendant I.M. DOE, particularly given the prior complaints and warnings about Defendant I.M. 15 DOE’s behavior. 16 127. As a result of the failure to increase supervision or take disciplinary action against 17 Defendant I.M. DOE, during lunch on or about April 26, 2023, Defendant I.M. DOE walked around 18 campus harassing staff and students. 19 128. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to grab the name tag of a staff member, mocked her, and 20 openly notified her, “I am not going anywhere until I’m done with [Plaintiff],” specifically placing 21 her on notice that he was going to engage in misconduct and that Plaintiff was in danger. 22 129. Defendant I.M. DOE further threatened to kill Plaintiff, openly stating, “I hate that 23 motherfucker. I’m going to kill him.” 24 130. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to violently attack Plaintiff and place him in a chokehold, 25 nearly causing Plaintiff to lose consciousness. 26 27 18 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 131. The lack of supervision and the subsequent injuries to Plaintiff were not due to any action 2 or inaction on the part of Plaintiff, who at all relevant times was conducting himself in a manner 3 befitting a student in the school environment. 4 132. Pursuant to California Government Code § 815.2, “[a] public entity is liable for injury 5 proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of 6 his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of 7 action against that employee.” 8 133. In addition, California Government Code § 820 provides that “a public employee is liable 9 for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person.” 10 134. As such, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH and DOES 1 through 100 are liable for the 11 acts of Defendant I.M. DOE. 12 135. As a direct and legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH 13 and DOES 1 through 100, Plaintiff was damaged. 14 136. Plaintiff has suffered and/or continues to suffer emotional, physical, and/or mental distress. 15 The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will pray leave 16 of court to assert the same when they are ascertained. 17 137. As a further legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, 18 and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, Plaintiff has been forced and/or may be forced to incur 19 expenses for medical care and/or treatment, all in an amount which is at present unknown. Plaintiff 20 will pray leave of court to show the exact amount of said expenses at the time of trial. 21 138. The negligent behavior of Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH and DOES 1 through 100 22 was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 23 139. The harm suffered by Plaintiff was a foreseeable consequence of Defendant WHSD and 24 Defendant LMJH’s failure to act upon the known risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE, which 25 constitutes a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under 26 similar circumstances. 27 19 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 140. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 2 V. 3 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 For Failure to Protect Pupil 5 Against Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, & DOES 1 Through 100, Only 6 141. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference and re-alleges each and every paragraph in this 7 Complaint as though duly set forth in full herein. 8 142. At all times relevant herein, a special relationship existed between Defendant WHSD, 9 Defendant LMJH, and Plaintiff. 10 143. At all times relevant herein, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 11 had a duty to provide a safe school environment for its students, including for Plaintiff, and to take 12 reasonable steps to protect students from foreseeable harm while on school property, including 13 protection from bullying, violence, threats, and harassment. 14 144. California Education Code §§ 32261 and 44807 guarantee students safe schools and require 15 schools to hold students to strict account for their conduct. 16 145. Specifically, California Education Code § 44807 imposes a duty on schools to “hold pupils 17 to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or during 18 recess.” 19 146. Moreover, there is a duty on the employees of a school district to supervise students for the 20 protection of students. Indeed, it is the duty of the school authorities to supervise at all times the 21 conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary 22 for their protection. 23 147. However, as alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 24 breached their duty to Plaintiff by failing to take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff and other 25 students from the known and ongoing threatening, harassing, and violent behavior of Defendant 26 I.M. DOE. 27 20 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 148. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 breached this duty of care 2 by failing to adequately supervise Defendant I.M. DOE, a known threat, thereby failing to prevent 3 foreseeable harm to Plaintiff and other students. 4 149. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 were aware, or should have 5 been aware, of the risk posed by Defendant I.M. DOE due to his long history of misconduct, 6 including prior incidents of aggressive, threatening, and violent behavior toward students, including 7 Plaintiff, and staff members. 8 150. Prior to the injuries herein alleged, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH and DOES 1 9 through 100 had actual and constructive notice of Defendant I.M. DOE’s propensity for violence 10 and the risks posed by Defendant I.M. DOE as evidenced by multiple complaints and reports by 11 students, including Plaintiff, and their parents, as well as observations by staff members. 12 151. Plaintiff also previously complained about Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing 13 him. 14 152. Rather than take remedial and/or corrective measures, when Plaintiff complained about 15 Defendant I.M. DOE threatening and pushing him, a faculty member merely instructed Plaintiff to 16 avoid engaging with Defendant I.M. DOE as “he’s the type of kid that would come back with a 17 weapon and you would be his first victim.” 18 153. Despite their knowledge of Defendant I.M. DOE’s aggressive and/or harassing behavior, 19 Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to implement appropriate 20 interventions, discipline, and/or supervision to address his behavior, thereby breaching their duty 21 of care. 22 154. Moreover, despite numerous reports that Defendant I.M. DOE was harassing and bullying 23 students, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 failed to supervise or 24 discipline Defendant I.M. DOE appropriately, allowing him to be unsupervised and unaccompanied 25 near other students. 26 27 21 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 155. Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 further negligently failed 2 to investigate Defendant I.M. DOE’s misconduct and negligently failed to discipline Defendant 3 I.M. DOE so that further abuse would not recur. 4 156. As a result of the failure to increase supervision or take disciplinary action against 5 Defendant I.M. DOE, during lunch on or about April 26, 2023, Defendant I.M. DOE walked around 6 campus harassing staff and students. 7 157. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to grab the name tag of a staff member, mocked her, and 8 openly notified her, “I am not going anywhere until I’m done with [Plaintiff],” specifically placing 9 her on notice that he was going to engage in misconduct and that Plaintiff was in danger. 10 158. Defendant I.M. DOE further threatened to kill Plaintiff, openly stating, “I hate that 11 motherfucker. I’m going to kill him.” 12 159. Defendant I.M. DOE proceeded to violently attack Plaintiff and place him in a chokehold, 13 nearly causing Plaintiff to lose consciousness. 14 160. The lack of supervision and the subsequent injuries to Plaintiff were not due to any action 15 or inaction on the part of Plaintiff, who at all relevant times was conducting himself in a manner 16 befitting a student in the school environment. 17 161. Pursuant to California Government Code § 815.2, “[a] public entity is liable for injury 18 proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of 19 his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of 20 action against that employee.” 21 162. In addition, California Government Code § 820 provides that “a public employee is liable 22 for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person.” 23 163. As such, Defendant WHSD, Defendant LMJH, and DOES 1 through 100 are liable for the 24 acts of Defendant I.M. DOE. 25 164. As a direct and legal result of the acts and omissions of Defendant WHSD, Defendant 26 LMJH, and DOES 1 through 10