Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 19STCV39789, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV39789    Hearing Date: August 10, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On November 4, 2019, Plaintiffs Ken Ceasar (“Ceasar”) and Brandon Smith-Bailey (“Smith-Bailey”) filed this action against Defendants Antelope Valley Union High School District (“AVUHSD”), Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) and Camren Dejaune Thomas (“Thomas”) for negligence and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention. 

On January 31, 2020, AVUHSD field an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Thomas and Porsha Bryant (“Bryant”) for equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief. 

On March 4, 2020, LAUSD filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Thomas and Bryant for equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief. 

On March 17, 2023, the Court denied LAUSD’s motion for summary judgment. 

On June 16, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding a cause of action for battery. 

On July 17, 2023, LAUSD filed a demurrer to be heard on August 10, 2023. On July 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On August 3, 2023, LAUSD filed a reply. 

Trial is currently scheduled for February 7, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

LAUSD requests that the Court sustain the demurrer to the first and second causes of action asserted by Plaintiff Ceasar.^[1]

 Plaintiffs request that the Court overrule the demurrer. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A.   Demurrer 

“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: 

“(a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. 

“(b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue. 

“(c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action. 

“(d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties. 

“(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 

“(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible. 

“(g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct. 

“(h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.) 

In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a) [“When any ground for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the pleading”].)  

B.   Negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention 

“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.’” (Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139.) “[A] negligent supervision claim depends, in part, on a showing that the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable. [Citations.] ‘Foreseeability is determined in light of all the circumstances and does not require prior identical events or injuries.’ [Citations.] ‘ “It is not necessary to prove that the very injury which occurred must have been foreseeable by the school authorities . . .. Their negligence is established if a reasonably prudent person would foresee that injuries of the same general type would be likely to happen in the absence of [adequate] safeguards.” ’ ” (D.Z. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 210, 229.) 

DISCUSSION 

A.   Judicial Notice 

The Court grants LAUSD’s request to take judicial notice of the Court’s March 17, 2023 minute order.  (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453.) 

B.   Demurrer 

Plaintiffs allege they were assaulted by a group of people after Plaintiffs, members of the Quartz Hills High School (“QHHS”) basketball team, participated in a basketball tournament against students from LAUSD’s San Pedro High School (“SPHS”).  Plaintiffs allege employees of LAUSD watched the assault but made no attempt to intervene. 

According to the First Amended Complaint, during the basketball game that preceded the assault, a SPHS student named Camren Thomas acted aggressively toward members of Plaintiffs’ team.  After Plaintiffs left the gymnasium, Thomas approached them and punched Ceasar in the face.  Other people then attacked Plaintiffs and their teammates, inflicting additional injuries. 

LAUSD argues it had no duty of care to Ceasar because the threat from Thomas was not foreseeable.  According to LAUSD, Thomas’s attack was “entirely spontaneous” and “came out of nowhere.” Therefore, “there was nothing that LAUSD or its coaches could have done to prevent this unforeseeable attack” on Ceasar. 

On March 17, 2023, the Court denied LAUSD’s motion for summary judgment on the claims for negligence and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention.  The Court found “[t]here is conflicting evidence on whether the coaches attempted to stop the melee” and “whether the coaches failed to act reasonably under the circumstances and, if so, what damages flowed from that failure.” 

LAUSD now asks the Court to go back to the demurrer stage and determine whether the First Amended Complaint states claims for negligence and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention.  The Court concludes that it does.  The First Amended Complaint alleges Thomas, some of his team members, and several people in the audience “reacted visibly and audibly in a hostile manner” when one of Plaintiffs’ team members hit Thomas with the ball.  “Thomas jumped aggressively toward the QHHS player who inbounded the ball, and Thomas had to be separated and restrained from the QHHS player. Thomas subsequently made several follow-up plays where he aggressively made physical contact with QHHS players. Other people seated behind the QHHS bench, also reacted aggressively to Thomas being hit. They yelled, heckled, and made abusive comments to the QHHS team throughout the remainder of the game. During the game, [LAUSD basketball coaches] [John] Bobich and [Anthony] Rogosic, made no attempt to control or subdue the aggressive conduct of Thomas.”  (Complaint ¶ 25.) 

The First Amended Complaint also alleges: 

“After the game ended and as the QHHS team was leaving the [Eastside High School] gymnasium to approach their team van parked on the [Eastside High School] campus, Thomas walked up to the QHHS team and asked them if they 'have a problem.' The QHHS players responded that they did not. Thomas then violently punched Plaintiff Ceasar in his face. The attack by Thomas is believed to have caused extensive, permanent injuries to Ceasar. 

“After Thomas punched Ceasar, a melee ensued in which members of the QHHS team were punched, hit, and kicked by several people including but not limited to members of the SPHS basketball team. The attacking crowd also included some of the people who had been sitting behind the QHHS bench yelling abusive comments during the game. As a group they attacked individual members of the QHHS team and delivered punches, kicks, and stomps to the QHHS players including but not limited to plaintiffs. Plaintiff Bailey was rendered unconscious during the attack. 

“Both Bobich and Rogosic stood by and watched Thomas attack the QHHS players and negligently failed to make attempts to physically or verbally intervene, supervise, control, or prevent the conduct of Thomas or any of the other members of the SPHS basketball team. Further, Bobich and Rogosic negligently failed to supervise, control, or prevent Thomas’ conduct or contact with the QHHS team after the game.”  (Complaint ¶¶ 26-28.) 

          Plaintiff Ceasar has alleged facts that state causes of action against LAUSD for negligence and negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention. The Court overrules the demurrer. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court OVERRULES the demurrer of Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.