Judge Joel L. Lofton, Case 22STCV15003 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22STCV15003, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15003 Hearing Date: April 20, 2023 Dept: X

Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE: April 20, 2023 TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE: MARI MIURA, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem CALVIN JOHN BLASCO, v. SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public entity, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive.

CASE NO.: 22STCV15003

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Mari Miura by and through her guardian ad litem Calvin John Blasco (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant South Pasadena Unified School District

SERVICE: Filed January 23, 2023

OPPOSITION: Filed March 14, 2023

REPLY: Filed April 13, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling further responses to requests for production of documents (“RFPs”) and requests for admissions (“RFAs”).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Mari Miura (“Plaintiff”) brings this claim against Defendant South Pasadena Unified School District (“Defendant”) alleging that Defendant failed to take reasonable steps or implement reasonable safeguards to prevent Plaintiff from being sexually assaulted. Plaintiff alleges that she was sexually molested, raped, assaulted, fondled, groped, and battered by another student (“Assailant”) on October 2, 2021, while she was a student at South Pasadena High School. Plaintiff alleges she informed Defendant, but Defendant failed to prevent Plaintiff from being sexually assaulted on multiple occasions.

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on December 22, 2022, alleging four causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) negligence, negligent hiring, training, retention, and/or supervision of unfit employees, (3) breach of mandatory statutory duties which proximately caused Plaintiff s sexual assault and battery, and (4) breach of mandatory statutory duties which proximately caused Plaintiff additional damages separate and distinct from her sexual assault and battery.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her requests for the production of documents is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents numbers 24, 25, 41, and 42.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her requests for admissions is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant is ordered to produce responses to Plaintiff’s requests for requests for admission number 11.

LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff provides she served Defendant with her requests for production and requests for admissions on August 17, 2022. (Nalbandyan Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff provides Defendant provided responses on October 4, 2022. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff brings the present motions for an order compelling Defendant to provide further responses.

Requests for Production of Documents

RFP No. 24: All DOCUMENTS related to the hiring process of YOUR teachers of the SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

RFP No. 25: All DOCUMENTS RELATED to YOUR policies and procedures regarding YOUR teachers and/or staff monitoring SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT during class and/or break by stating the name, authors, recipients and dates of the DOCUMENTS.

RFP No. 41: All DOCUMENTS regarding YOUR policies and procedures to ensure YOUR compliance with the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act.

RFP No. 42: All DOCUMENTS regarding YOUR policies and procedures to ensure YOUR compliance with keeping YOUR children safe at YOUR schools.

Defendant is ordered to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents numbers 24, 25, 41, and 42.

Requests for Admissions

RFA No. 10: Admit that YOU failed to properly supervise the children enrolled in YOUR SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT from three (3) years prior to the INCIDENT, up to and including the date of the INCIDENT.

RFA No. 11: Admit that had YOU the responsibility to supervise and care for children of the community enrolled in YOUR SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT from three (3) years prior to the INCIDENT, up to and including the date of the INCIDENT.

RFA No. 12: Admit that YOU failed to report the child abuse Plaintiff reported to YOUR staff from three (3) years prior to the INCIDENT up to and including the date of the INCIDENT.

Defendant is ordered to produce responses to Plaintiff’s requests for requests for admission number 11. Defendant’s objections are sustained in part as overbroad and vague as to requests for admissions numbers 10 and 12.

CONCLUSION

Tentative Ruling

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY: Defendant South Pasadena Unified School District

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Mari Miura by and through her guardian ad litem Calvin John Blasco (“Plaintiff”)

SERVICE: Filed January 23, 2023

OPPOSITION: Untimely filed April 13, 2023

REPLY: No reply filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant demurrers to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for negligence, negligent hiring, training, retention, and/or supervision of unfit employees.

BACKGROUND

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s second cause of action is OVERRULED.

LEGAL STANDARD

A general demurrer may be taken to a complaint where “[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. section 430.30(a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Additionally, a special demurrer to a complaint may be brought on the ground the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. Code Civ. Proc section 430.10(f); Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Mateo (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1180, 1191.) A demurrer based on uncertainty is disfavored and will be strictly construed even when the pleading is uncertain in some respects. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrers based on uncertainty are “granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for negligence, negligent hiring, training, retention, and/or supervision of unfit employees on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts.

“The elements of a cause of action for negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages.” (Melton v. Boustred (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 521, 529.) “ ‘An employer may be liable to a third person for the employer's negligence in hiring or retaining an employee who is incompetent or unfit.’ ” (Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139.) “Negligence liability will be imposed on an employer if it ‘knew or should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes.’ ” (Ibid.) “To establish negligent supervision, a plaintiff must show that a person in a supervisorial position over the actor had prior knowledge of the actor's propensity to do the bad act.” (Z.V. v. County of Riverside (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 889, 902.)

This court previously sustained Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligent hiring. In her FAC, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s employees John Eldrige, Linda Junge, Ed.D., David Speck, and Jill Timothy were unfit in their supervision of students at South Pasadena High School. (FAC ¶ 52.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the employees allowed students to disappear from physical education classes for extended periods of time with no supervision. (Ibid.) Plaintiff further alleges that the employees knew or should have known that the restrooms could be locked from the inside, posing danger to students by preventing employees from intervening if a satiation arises. (Id. ¶ 53.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant had reason to know that its employees had previously failed to prevent inappropriate conduct and that Defendant failed to use reasonable care to investigate its employees. (Id. ¶¶ 57-59.)

At the pleading stage, Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient. Defendant’s demurrer is overruled.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s second cause of action is OVERRULED.

Dated: April 20, 2023 ___________________________________

Joel L. Lofton

Judge of the Superior Court