; 2014_02-11 - MDUSD Complaint _Signed and Final_.pdf
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

2014_02-11 - MDUSD Complaint _Signed and Final_.pdf

VIEWS: 21 PAGES: 30

  • pg 1
									                        1   LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
                              Paul T. Llewellyn (Bar No. 216887)
                        2     Marc R. Lewis (Bar No. 233306)
                              Ryan B. Erickson (Bar No. 268239)
                        3   505 Montgomery St., Suite 1300
                            San Francisco, California 94111
                        4   Telephone: (415) 800-0590
                            Facsimile: (415) 390-2127
                        5   Email: pllewellyn@lewisllewellyn.com
                                   mlewis@lewisllewellyn.com
                        6          rerickson@lewisllewellyn.com
                        7   Attorneys for Plaintiffs
                            JOHN DOES 1 & 2
                        8
                                               SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                        9
                                                              COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
                   10
                                                             UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
                   11
                   12       JOHN DOE 1, an individual by and through           CASE NO. _________________________
                            his guardians ad litem,
                   13       JOHN DOE 2, an individual by and through          COMPLAINT FOR:
                            his guardians ad litem,
                   14                                                          (1) Sexual Battery
                                               Plaintiffs,                     (2) Lewd & Lascivious Conduct with
                   15                                                               Children, California Penal Code § 288(a)
                                   v.                                          (3) Negligence
                   16                                                          (4) Negligent Supervision of Plaintiffs and
                            MOUNT DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL                             Vicarious Liability
                   17       DISTRICT; JOSEPH ANDREW MARTIN;
                            JENNY CRONAN; MICHELLE                             (5) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Retention
                   18       BATESOLE; JENNIFER SACHS; STEVEN                        of Martin and Vicarious Liability
                            LAWRENCE; GREG ROLEN; GARY                         (6) Interference With Personal Rights By
                   19       McHENRY; LINDA MAYO; GARY                               Threats, Intimidation or Coercion and
                            EBERHART; DICK ALLEN; APRIL                             Vicarious Liability and Ratification,
                   20       TREECE; BARBARA LEAL, as personal                       California Civil Code § 52.1
                            representatives of the Estate of E. William        (7) Sexual Harassment by a Teacher and
                   21       Leal and/or successor-in-interest to E. William         Ratification of Sexual Harassment,
                            Leal; and ROES 1 to 100,                                California Civil Code § 51.9
                   22                                                          (8) Premises Liability—Dangerous Condition
                                               Defendants.                          of Property
                   23
                                                                               (9) Negligence Per Se
                   24                                                          (10) Fraudulent Concealment
                                                                               (11) Conspiracy to Commit Fraud
                   25                                                          (12) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
                   26                                                          (13) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

                   27                                                          DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

                   28

LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                        COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1          Plaintiffs John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 (“Plaintiffs”), for their complaint against Defendants,
                        2   and each of them, alleges as follows:
                        3                                     NATURE OF THE ACTION
                        4          1.      Joseph Andrew Martin—a teacher at Woodside Elementary School—has
                        5   systematically sexually abused over a dozen preadolescent boys since 2006. Plaintiffs were
                        6   among the most severely and frequently abused of Martin’s victims.
                        7          2.      Beginning when they were ten-year-old students in Martin’s fifth-grade classroom,
                        8   Plaintiffs suffered a persistent campaign of sexual abuse at the hands of Martin, which began with
                        9   long and overly affectionate hugs and soon progressed to unsolicited skin-to-skin massages and
                   10       genital molestation.
                   11              3.      Tragically, the sexual abuse was only one dimension of Martin’s twisted predation.
                   12       Martin also subjected Plaintiffs to continued psychological and emotional abuse, which included
                   13       expressing his deep love for Plaintiffs while he sexually molested them.
                   14              4.      Perhaps even more appalling than Martin’s abuse of Plaintiffs, however, is that
                   15       School and District officials—including Defendants, the principal of the school, and the highest
                   16       levels of management at the District—knew that Martin was prone to sexual misconduct with
                   17       young boys before Plaintiffs were victimized. Evidence previously concealed by the District
                   18       proves that Defendants were aware of multiple complaints about Martin’s inappropriate physical
                   19       interactions with male students in as early as 2006, yet failed to report such incidents to the proper
                   20       authorities, as they were legally obligated to do under California law. Defendants also failed to
                   21       terminate, discipline, supervise or even credibly investigate Martin following these multiple
                   22       complaints, and failed to take sufficient measures to prevent Martin’s pattern and practice of
                   23       sexually abusing students at the School.
                   24              5.      In short, Defendants choose to conceal the complaints and reports of Martin’s
                   25       misconduct and protect their own rather than protect the young and innocent children entrusted to
                   26       their care. Had the School and District officials acted appropriately, Plaintiffs and untold others
                   27       would have never suffered Martin’s depraved abuse.
                   28       ///
                                                                               2
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                        COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1                                             THE PARTIES
                        2           6.     Plaintiff John Doe 1 is an individual residing in Contra Costa County, California.
                        3   Doe 1 is a minor and sues by and through his parents and guardians ad litem.
                        4           7.     Plaintiff John Doe 2 is an individual residing in California. At the time of his
                        5   abuse, Doe 2 resided in Contra Costa County, California. Doe 2 is a minor and sues by and
                        6   through his parents and guardians ad litem.
                        7           8.     Defendant Mount Diablo Unified School District (the “District”) is a public
                        8   entity—a public school district located in Contra Costa County, California—that is authorized by
                        9   and exists under the laws of the State of California. Under its authority, the District operates
                   10       Woodside Elementary School (the “School”) where Joseph Andrew Martin taught and where he
                   11       sexually harassed and abused Plaintiffs when they were within the custodial care of the District,
                   12       the School and their teachers, administrators and supervisors.
                   13               9.     At all relevant times, Defendant Joseph Andrew Martin resided in this judicial
                   14       district. At all relevant times, Martin was more than ten years older than Plaintiffs, both of whom
                   15       were ten years old when Martin began to sexually harass and abuse them. Martin’s acts of
                   16       harassment and abuse of Plaintiffs occurred within this judicial district.
                   17               10.    At all relevant times, Defendants Jenny Cronan, Michelle Batesole, and Jennifer
                   18       Sachs were the Principals of the School and employees of the School and the District acting within
                   19       the course and scope of their employment. The acts committed by Cronan, Batesole and Sachs as
                   20       alleged in this Complaint occurred within this judicial district.
                   21               11.    At all relevant times, Defendants Steven Lawrence and Gary McHenry were
                   22       Superintendents for the District acting within the course and scope of their employment. The acts
                   23       committed by Lawrence and McHenry as alleged in this Complaint occurred within this judicial
                   24       district.
                   25               12.    At all relevant times, Defendant Greg Rolen was General Counsel for the District
                   26       acting within the course and scope of his employment. The acts committed by Rolen as alleged in
                   27       this Complaint occurred within this judicial district.
                   28       ///
                                                                               3
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                        COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1          13.     At all relevant times, Defendants Linda Mayo, Gary Eberhart, Dick Allen, April
                        2   Treece and now deceased E. William Leal were School Board Members acting within the course
                        3   and scope of their employment. The acts committed by Mayo, Eberhart, Allen, Treece and Leal as
                        4   alleged in this Complaint occurred within this judicial district. As Leal is deceased, Plaintiffs
                        5   bring this action against the duly appointed personal representative of the Estate of E. William
                        6   Leal and/or the successor-in-interest to Leal, i.e., the widow of Leal, Barbara Leal and ROES 1
                        7   through 30 (hereinafter “personal representative/s and/or successors-in-interest of Leal”).
                        8          14.     Defendants Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen, Mayo, Eberhart,
                        9   Allen, Treece and Leal are collectively referred to in this Complaint as “the District’s supervisory
                   10       employees and administrators.”
                   11              15.     Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities of the defendants Roes 1
                   12       through 100 and sue such defendants by such fictitious names. (To avoid confusion with the
                   13       Plaintiffs, they have been named “Roe” instead of “Doe”). Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to
                   14       show the true names and capacities of these defendants when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed
                   15       and believe that each of the defendants, including each fictitiously named defendant, is liable in
                   16       some manner for the events referred to in the complaint.
                   17              16.     At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants, and each of them, were acting
                   18       as each other’s agents, and were acting within the course and scope of their agency with the full
                   19       knowledge, consent, permission, authorization and ratification, either express or implied, of each
                   20       of the other Defendants in performing the acts alleged in this complaint.
                   21              17.     As members of the conspiracy alleged herein, each of the Defendants knowingly
                   22       and willingly participated and acted with or in furtherance of said conspiracy, or aided or assisted
                   23       in carrying out the purposes of the conspiracy, and have performed acts and made statements in
                   24       furtherance of the conspiracy and other violations of law.
                   25              18.     Each of the Defendants acted both individually and in alignment with the other
                   26       Defendants with full knowledge of their respective wrongful conduct. As such, the Defendants
                   27       conspired together, building upon each other’s wrongdoing, in order to accomplish the acts
                   28       outlined in this complaint.
                                                                              4
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                          COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1          19.      Defendants are sued herein individually and as principals, participants, and aiders
                        2   and abettors in the wrongful conduct complained of and the liability of each arises from the fact
                        3   that each has engaged in all or part of the improper acts, plans, conspiracies, or transactions
                        4   complained of herein. The acts alleged to have been done by Defendants were authorized, ordered
                        5   or done by them and their officers, agents, employees, or representatives while actively engaged in
                        6   the management of each of the Defendants’ affairs.
                        7                                     JURISDICTION & VENUE
                        8          20.      Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction within California and the County of
                        9   Contra Costa.
                   10              21.      Venue is proper in Contra Costa County because the District is a public school
                   11       district wholly located in Contra Costa County, and the acts and omissions complained of occurred
                   12       predominantly within Contra Costa County.
                   13                                         FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
                   14
                                   A.       Martin Harassed and Abused Over A Dozen Preadolescent Boys—Including
                   15                       Plaintiffs—Whose Care Was Entrusted To Defendants.
                   16              22.      Plaintiffs are young boys who formerly attended Woodside Elementary School in

                   17       Concord, California. In fifth grade, Plaintiffs were students of defendant Joseph Andrew Martin.

                   18              23.      Martin has taught at the School since 1991. Throughout his tenure at the School,

                   19       Martin was known as a popular and unconventional teacher.

                   20              24.      Martin’s bizarre and eccentric teaching methods were well known at the School.

                   21       Every inch of his classroom was adorned with excessive decorations. Martin secured posters over

                   22       the windows, covered his door with ornaments, and attached streamers to the ceiling. Defendant

                   23       Cronan, the principal of the School, described the outrageous decorations as “over the top” and

                   24       likened his classroom to “Disneyland.”

                   25              25.      During class, Martin frequently goofed around with his students, acting more like a

                   26       classmate than their teacher. Martin also devoted large amounts of classroom time to watching

                   27       and filming movies with his students, and to engaging in dramatic productions that involved

                   28       elaborate costumes.
                                                                               5
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                        COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1          26.     One recurring event in Martin’s classroom was “Magic Mornings,” during which
                        2   Martin would begin the school day by turning off the lights, turning on strobe lights and a disco
                        3   ball, and playing loud music—dancing with his students in a club-like atmosphere.
                        4          27.     Due in part to frequent play-based activities such as these, many students at the
                        5   School (including Plaintiffs) were captivated by Martin. Defendant Cronan has described Martin
                        6   as “Peter Pan,” noting that children were drawn to him like the “Pied Piper.”
                        7          28.     Martin’s interactions with his students were not limited to the school day. He often
                        8   played basketball, chess, card games, and computer games with a select group of students after
                        9   school. Martin invited select male students to participate in these afterschool activities by giving
                   10       them special passes, and rewarded them with junk food—ice cream, candy, sodas, etc.—and praise
                   11       for attending. Through the course of these interactions, several male students, including Plaintiffs,
                   12       developed what they perceived as friendly relationships with their teacher.
                   13              29.     Upon information and belief, some parents admired Martin’s seemingly
                   14       inexhaustible energy and his commitment to spending time with their children, and School and
                   15       District administrators coveted the high standardized test scores his students received.
                   16              30.     Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and their parents, however, Martin all the while fostered
                   17       a twisted sexual interest in young boys and was in fact “grooming” several of his male students for
                   18       sexual harassment and abuse.
                   19              31.     During his long tenure at the school, Martin developed a proven process for
                   20       grooming young children for sexual abuse. His strategy involved luring young male students to
                   21       his classroom, rewarding their attention and affection, and developing an emotional connection
                   22       with them in a calculated effort to earn their trust and diminish their inhibitions. Martin frequently
                   23       hugged and gave massages to the boys he targeted. These students were also given special
                   24       invitations to join him outside of school hours. Behind locked doors, Martin would take his sexual
                   25       predation to the next level.
                   26              32.     For Plaintiffs, Martin’s overtures involved special attention during and after class.
                   27       In the case of plaintiff John Doe 1, this favoritism manifested itself in the frequent encouragement
                   28       to participate in extracurricular theatre productions. Doe 1 was assigned to sit in the front row of
                                                                               6
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                           COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1   the class, next to Martin’s desk. Martin also recruited Doe 1 to participate in at least three of the
                        2   school theatrical productions he organized in late 2012 and early 2013, and he chaperoned a school
                        3   sponsored overnight camp that Doe 1 attended for several days in late 2012.
                        4          33.     Martin’s favoritism toward Doe 1 eventually led to several instances of
                        5   inappropriate touching at school, on school grounds and at school-sponsored activities. And these
                        6   incidents became more daring and abusive over time.
                        7          34.     Martin began by giving Doe 1 long hugs before and after class. This inappropriate
                        8   touching progressed to frequent unsolicited massages, during which Martin would slip his hands
                        9   inside Doe 1’s shirt to message his chest and nipples. These long massages occurred both during
                   10       and after class. During class, Martin would often turn off the lights, play a movie, and then
                   11       position himself behind Doe 1’s assigned seat on the carpet. With his legs, Martin would then
                   12       straddle the young boy so that he could molest him throughout the film.
                   13              35.     Tragically, this depraved physical abuse progressed to the point where Martin
                   14       began rubbing and fondling Doe 1’s penis. One of his preferred methods of such abuse was to
                   15       strategically place a book on Doe 1’s lap so he could molest him during “Reading Time.”
                   16              36.     Doe 2 suffered similarly horrific sexual abuse. Martin initiated his predation by
                   17       asking Doe 2 to stay after class so that he could give him long hugs and “twirl him around.” This
                   18       wildly inappropriate and unwanted touching advanced to include frequent and unsolicited
                   19       massages, during which Martin would put his hands down Doe 2’s shirt and engage in skin-to-skin
                   20       contact with his bare chest and back. Ultimately, Martin escalated his campaign of abuse to
                   21       include dozens upon dozens of incidents of skin-to-skin genital molestation.
                   22              37.     Cruelly, Martin’s abuse was not just physical; he also subjected Plaintiffs to
                   23       emotional and psychological abuse at an age when children are particularly vulnerable to
                   24       psychological damage.
                   25              38.     While sexually molesting Doe 1, Martin would often tell his victim that he loved
                   26       him. Martin also wrote notes to him that he indicated should be kept secret. These included
                   27       statements like “You know I love you, right?” and “you’re my favorite in the class.” In other notes,
                   28       Martin asked Doe 1 where on his body he liked to be rubbed.
                                                                               7
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                        COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1            39.   Similarly, Martin repeatedly expressed his love for Doe 2 while sexually abusing
                        2   him. Martin also bombarded Doe 2 with inappropriate and confusing questions, such as “which
                        3   parent hugs you more?”
                        4            40.   Some students observed this abhorrent behavior. But Martin was so highly
                        5   regarded around campus that a group of students, including plaintiff Doe 1, made a pact not to tell
                        6   anyone about their teacher’s behavior, even though they intuitively knew it to be perverse and
                        7   wrong.
                        8            41.   Upon information and belief, Martin’s victims were too young to understand his
                        9   harassment and abuse that Martin inflicted upon them. However, they did not like it and described
                   10       it as “creepy” and “weird.” They felt intimidated, threatened and coerced—even scared—by
                   11       Martin at the time of his abuse, but they said nothing because they did not understand the gravity of
                   12       his actions or the damage that it was causing them.
                   13                42.   Martin’s abuse has caused Plaintiffs to suffer physical injuries and severe
                   14       psychological and emotional injuries. The same is true of their parents, who have also suffered
                   15       psychological and emotional injury after learning about the abuse their children suffered.
                   16                43.   Upon information and belief, Martin was able to perpetrate much of his sexual
                   17       harassment and sexual abuse on school grounds because of a dangerous condition that existed on
                   18       school premises. Martin excessively decorated his classroom so as to obscure the classroom’s
                   19       door and windows. This prevented other adults from observing Martin’s conduct with students.
                   20       Even after the local fire marshal cited Martin for code violations because of the excessive
                   21       decorations in his classroom, the District’s supervisory employees and administrators did not order
                   22       Martin to remove the decorations. In addition, Martin kept the door to his classroom closed and
                   23       locked, which prevented other people from accessing his classroom when he was alone with
                   24       students.
                   25                44.   In the spring of 2013, Martin’s students and their parents ultimately discovered that
                   26       Martin was a serial sexual predator who targeted students like Plaintiffs for abuse. In April 2013,
                   27       the parents of one of Martin’s fifth-grade students complained to school principal Cronan about
                   28       Martin’s repeated molestation. Defendant Cronan informed Martin of the complaint and
                                                                              8
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                        COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1   —shockingly—permitted him to reenter the classroom full of his victims without another adult
                        2   present to “say goodbye.”
                        3          45.     In response to what he had just learned, Martin ordered the students to put their
                        4   heads down on their desk. He asked anyone who believed that he had touched him or her
                        5   inappropriately to raise his or her hand. When a student raised his hand, Martin approached him to
                        6   dissuade him from making a complaint. Martin began crying in front of the class. His students,
                        7   including John Doe 1, were extremely frightened and confused by Martin’s actions.
                        8          46.     When the parents who complained about the abuse learned that defendant Cronan
                        9   had allowed Martin to return to the classroom after making their complaint, they complained of her
                   10       conduct to the police based on a concern that Cronan and Martin were friends and that Cronan was
                   11       therefore not sufficiently objective.
                   12              47.     These concerns proved well founded. When interviewed by the Concord Police,
                   13       defendant Cronan told them that she did not believe that Martin had engaged in any inappropriate
                   14       conduct because he was like “Peter Pan” or the “Pied Piper” to his students. Upon information and
                   15       belief, to thwart these charges, Cronan even instituted her own investigation into the complaints
                   16       against Martin, which included witness intimidation and the destruction of evidence.
                   17              48.     Following an eight-week initial investigation—which included extensive victim
                   18       and eyewitness interviews and the execution of search warrants at Martin's residence and the
                   19       School—Martin was arrested by Concord Police and ultimately charged with 125 felony counts of
                   20       sex crimes against thirteen preadolescent boys whom he formerly taught. Upon information and
                   21       belief, Martin is currently being held in jail on $10 million bail.
                   22
                                   B.      The School And District Officials Knew Martin Was Prone To Sexual Abuse,
                   23                      But They Did Nothing To Protect Students From Him.
                   24              49.     Plaintiffs have now learned that the School and District had previously received

                   25       numerous credible complaints about Martin’s inappropriate interactions with young boys. Some

                   26       of these complaints occurred as early as 2005. In each instance, defendants were made aware of

                   27       Martin’s misconduct and his sexual proclivities toward boys, yet they did nothing to protect

                   28       students from Martin, and they did nothing to bring these matters to the attention of the appropriate
                                                                               9
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                        COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1   authorities so as to eliminate a known danger to the students at Woodside Elementary School.
                        2          50.     These defendants include the District’s supervisory employees and administrators,
                        3   including members of its Board of Trustees and the General Counsel. All of these individuals had
                        4   ample notice of Martin’s sexual misconduct. But rather than act on these numerous prior
                        5   complaints from teachers and parents, they “buried” the complaints and did nothing. In doing so,
                        6   these Defendants ignored mandatory reporting obligations imposed by the Child Abuse and
                        7   Neglect Reporting Act. And they continued to ignore these reporting requirements even after an
                        8   outside investigator who was hired by the District to investigate Martin reached the alarming
                        9   conclusion in 1996 that he was engaging in “potential child abuse.” Again, Defendants did
                   10       nothing in response to that finding and other reported incidents of abuse.
                   11              51.     Upon information and belief, one of the reasons Defendants allowed Martin to act
                   12       inappropriately and with impunity was because his students tested well on standardized exams.
                   13       When asked why he was allowed to be around students in spite of one particular complaint,
                   14       defendant Batesole responded, “Everyone loves him and his STAR scores are high.” Martin even
                   15       suggested to other teachers that his popularity with students and school officials allowed him to act
                   16       as he pleased. When discussing another complaint made against him by another student, Martin
                   17       told another teacher that he predicted the District would do nothing. As he said, “Who are they
                   18       going to believe, this kid, or teacher of the year?”
                   19              52.     Defendants had numerous opportunities to protect students like Plaintiffs from
                   20       Martin, but they failed to do so. Had they done so, Plaintiffs and other victims would never have
                   21       suffered months and months of sexual and psychological abuse while at school.
                   22              53.     Based on current information, the most prominent of the reported incidents of
                   23       Martin’s child harassment and are as follows:
                   24              54.     In or about the 2005 – 2006 school year, a fellow teacher of Martin’s opened the
                   25       door to his classroom after hours and was shocked to discover Martin and a young boy hiding in
                   26       Martin’s classroom closet. When they came out of the closet, neither Martin nor the boy were
                   27       wearing shoes. The two were startled by the teacher’s presence and “froze.” The teacher later
                   28       reported that Martin had a “deer in the headlights” look on his face and appeared very nervous.
                                                                               10
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                        COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1   The teacher reported the incident and her concerns to the principal at the time—defendant Sachs.
                        2   In addition to this report, the teacher also complained that Martin frequently engaged in
                        3   inappropriate hugging of young male students, and that his afterhours, invitation-only gatherings
                        4   were inappropriate, especially since he appeared to be targeting his favorite male students. This
                        5   single act, standing alone, was sufficient to put Defendants on notice of Martin’s sexually abusive
                        6   pathology. But Defendants did nothing.
                        7          55.     Other teachers also complained to administrators during the 2005 – 2006 school
                        8   year. One teacher saw Martin walking in an overly intimate fashion with a male student, late in the
                        9   afternoon, off school grounds. The teacher was so troubled by what she saw that she reported the
                   10       incident and her concerns to the principal—again, defendant Sachs. And Sachs did nothing.
                   11              56.     Another teacher reported to School administrators that she saw Martin exiting a
                   12       school bathroom with his arms wrapped around a young male student. And Defendants did
                   13       nothing.
                   14              57.      Another teacher reported to defendant Sachs that Martin would hold “Magic
                   15       Mornings” in his classroom where he would turn off all the lights, turn on strobe lights and disco
                   16       balls, and blast loud music. According to this teacher, this twisted simulation of a dance club filled
                   17       with young boys was only one example of the extraordinary lengths Martin would go to in order to
                   18       attract children to him.
                   19              58.     This same teacher also reported to defendant Sachs that she had witnessed a pattern
                   20       of 12 to 13 year old boys visiting Martin’s classroom after school, even though the boys were no
                   21       longer students at Woodside Elementary School. The teacher observed them knock on Martin’s
                   22       classroom door, and he would let them enter. The suspicious teacher attempted to open Martin’s
                   23       classroom door after the boys were inside, but it was locked. The boys sometimes did not leave
                   24       until 8 p.m. in the evening.
                   25              59.     Another teacher complained that Martin would come to her class and point to
                   26       pictures of boys in her class, saying things like “I want him in my class, I want him, I want him.”
                   27       Most of the boys fit a profile—blonde hair and with blue eyes.
                   28              60.     Another teacher complained to the principal that Martin exhibited all of the
                                                                              11
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                           COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1   hallmarks of a child molester. Most disturbing to this teacher was a conversation in which Martin
                        2   told the teacher that he routinely went to Disneyland several times a year and knew “where all the
                        3   bathrooms and exits were.” And of course, Defendants failed to act.
                        4          61.     Martin’s colleagues were not the only adults to complain of his inappropriate and
                        5   predatory behavior. Upon information and belief, numerous parents also lodged complaints
                        6   against Martin on or around this time.
                        7          62.     In response to the overwhelming evidence of Martin’s sexual proclivities towards
                        8   young boys, the District hired a law firm—Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo LLP—to
                        9   conduct an independent investigation of Martin in 2006. The report produced by the firm
                   10       ultimately concluded that Martin’s behavior, at the very least, suggested that he was engaging in
                   11       child abuse. As the lead investigator ominously stated, “[T]his report would not be honest and its
                   12       conclusions not fully supported if I did not report that the circumstances surrounding these
                   13       allegations did at least suggest the subject matter of potential child abuse.”
                   14              63.     Armed with a multitude of consistent and alarming complaints from School
                   15       employees and parents alike, as wells as report from an independent investigation that concluded
                   16       that at the very least Martin may be abusing young children, School and District administrators
                   17       —including certain defendants—did nothing. Not a thing. They failed to report these complaints
                   18       to the proper authorities, as they were legally mandated to do under California law. They failed to
                   19       terminate or discipline Martin for his misconduct. And they failed to properly monitor Martin to
                   20       prevent any further harassment or abuse. Instead, School and District administrators concealed the
                   21       complaints about Martin, permitting him to continue interacting with his current and future victims
                   22       on a daily basis.
                   23              64.     The 2006 investigative report stated that Martin had agreed to improve his conduct
                   24       with students by keeping his classroom door open, having more than one student in the room with
                   25       him and place a greater distance between himself and his students. Years later, in 2013, the police
                   26       investigating new allegations about Martin noted that Defendants did not ensure that Martin
                   27       followed through on “doing any of these things.”
                   28              65.     The District’s 2006 investigation further advised Martin to refrain from activities
                                                                             12
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                       COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1   that were not educationally sound. The activities explicitly told Martin to (i) refrain from closing
                        2   the classroom door when alone with a student; (ii) refrain from encouraging only male students to
                        3   participate in school activities and after-school activities; and (iii) refrain from devising acting
                        4   skits between teacher and student that would result in physical contact between the two, no matter
                        5   how innocent.
                        6          66.      Despite making these explicit recommendations—which were prompted by prior
                        7   reports that Martin had engaged in such behavior—the District failed to enforce any of these
                        8   restrictions since issuing the 2006 report.
                        9          67.      Even after the District’s 2006 investigation, a parent brought a complaint to the
                   10       school principal about an inappropriate letter that Martin sent home with students telling them to
                   11       wash all their “parts,” including their “private parts,” before they came to school. The school
                   12       principal did nothing to investigate this report or to determine why Martin wanted his students to
                   13       wash their private parts or why he thought they might not be doing so.
                   14              68.      The District’s supervisory employees and administrators, including district
                   15       administrators, members of the Board of Trustees, General Counsel and all other defendants
                   16       named herein, failed to report these various instances of suspected child abuse to the appropriate
                   17       legal authorities as they were required to do under the Child Abuse and Reporting Act. In addition,
                   18       they also failed to take any meaningful investigatory, remedial or other disciplinary action against
                   19       Martin. Upon information and belief, the persons who failed to report these various instances of
                   20       suspected child abuse include, but is not limited to, defendants Cronan, Batesole, Sachs,
                   21       Lawrence, McHenry, Mayo, Eberhart, Allen, Treece, Leal, and Rolan.
                   22              69.      In addition, the conduct of defendants Martin, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence,
                   23       McHenry, Mayo, Eberhart, Allen, Treece, Leal, and Rolan was despicable and was performed with
                   24       a willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiffs. It also was oppressive and
                   25       fraudulent. Plaintiffs will therefore seek an award of punitive damages against defendants Martin,
                   26       Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Mayo, Eberhart, Allen, Treece, Leal, and Rolan.
                   27       ///
                   28       ///
                                                                               13
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                         COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1                      COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT
                        2           70.     In July 2013, plaintiff Doe 1 filed a notice of claim for damages against the School
                        3   District pursuant to the Government Claims Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 910 et seq. By letter dated
                        4   September 13, 2013, the School District denied the claim.
                        5           71.     In October 2013, plaintiff Doe 2 filed a notice of claim for damages against the
                        6   School District pursuant to the Government Claims Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 910 et seq. By letter
                        7   dated November 20, 2013, the School District denied the claim.
                        8           72.     This action and the claims asserted herein are timely.
                        9                                         CAUSES OF ACTION
                   10
                                                               FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
                   11
                                                           (Sexual Battery, Civil Code § 1708.5)
                   12                                               (Against Martin)
                   13               73.     Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

                   14       paragraphs 1 through 72 as though fully set forth herein.

                   15               74.     By engaging in the conduct described in this Complaint, Martin committed

                   16       numerous acts of sexual battery against Plaintiffs and other underage students for which he is

                   17       liable under Civil Code section 1708.5.

                   18               75.     As a result of Martin’s acts of sexual battery, Plaintiffs suffered damages as

                   19       described in this Complaint.

                   20               76.     Plaintiffs further request punitive damages because, in doing the acts herein

                   21       alleged, Martin acted with oppression, fraud and malice, willfully and wantonly, in conscious

                   22       disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiffs.

                   23                                        SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
                   24                     (Lewd and Lascivious Conduct with Children, Penal Code § 288(a))
                   25                                                 (Against Martin)
                   26               77.     Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

                   27       Paragraphs 1 through 76 as though fully set forth herein.

                   28               78.     By committing the acts described in this Complaint, Defendant Martin engaged in
                                                                                14
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                         COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1   abusive, lewd and lascivious conduct with Plaintiffs. This conduct was unlawful and violated
                        2   numerous provisions of the California Penal Code, including California Penal Code sections
                        3   288(a) and 647.6.
                        4           79.     Defendant Martin’s unlawful violation of the Penal Code subjects him to civil
                        5   liability.
                        6           80.     As a proximate result of defendant Martin’s unlawful, lewd, and lascivious
                        7   conduct, Plaintiffs suffered damages as described in this Complaint, entitling them to, among other
                        8   damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees under California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.4.
                        9           81.     Plaintiffs request punitive damages because, in doing the acts herein alleged,
                   10       Martin acted with oppression, fraud and malice, willfully and wantonly, in conscious disregard of
                   11       the rights and safety of Plaintiffs.
                   12
                                                               THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
                   13                                                (Negligence)
                   14                              (Against All Defendants and ROES 1 through 100)

                   15               82.     Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

                   16       paragraphs 1 through 81 as though fully set forth herein.

                   17               83.     Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff. Defendants also owed a heightened

                   18       duty of care to plaintiff, particularly when her parents had entrusted her into their care. Each of the

                   19       defendants stood in a special relationship with plaintiff in loco parentis.

                   20               84.     Defendants breached their duty of care by failing to take any reasonable or

                   21       sufficient actions in response to allegations of Martin’s inappropriate physical interactions with his

                   22       students.

                   23               85.     Defendant Martin breached the various duties of care he owed to Plaintiffs by using

                   24       his position of authority over Plaintiffs to engage in unpermitted, harmful, offensive, and unlawful

                   25       sexual contact upon Plaintiffs in his classroom.

                   26               86.     At all times mentioned, it was reasonably foreseeable that children would suffer

                   27       severe emotional harm if an adult responsible for their safety and well-being engaged in the types

                   28       of inappropriate conduct demonstrated by Martin, including, but not limited to, putting his hands
                                                                               15
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                         COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1   down Plaintiffs’ shirts, rubbing their bare chests and stomachs, molesting Plaintiffs’ groins and
                        2   penises, and giving them long, overly affectionate and inappropriate hugs.
                        3           87.    Defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm suffered by
                        4   Plaintiffs.
                        5           88.    The harm suffered by Plaintiffs was foreseeable.
                        6           89.    As a direct and proximate result of Defendants negligence, Plaintiffs have suffered
                        7   damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
                        8                                 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                        9                   (Negligent Supervision of Plaintiffs and Vicarious Liability)
                                 (Against The District, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen, Mayo,
                   10                  Eberhart, Allen, Treece, the Estate of Leal and ROES 1 through 100)
                   11               90.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
                   12       paragraphs 1 through 89 as though fully set forth herein.
                   13               91.    The District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators were
                   14       entrusted with the supervision and protection of Plaintiffs and other students; were subject to a
                   15       duty to protect Plaintiffs and other students from foreseeable harm, including the risk of harm
                   16       presented by third parties, including, but not limited to, teachers employed by the School and the
                   17       District; and were subject to a duty to reasonably hire, retain, train, and/or supervise Martin, whose
                   18       job duties entailed contact with children, including Plaintiffs.
                   19               92.    At all times, it was reasonably foreseeable that Plaintiffs were subject to a risk that
                   20       an adult in a position of trust and authority over children, including, but not limited to, those
                   21       employed as teachers by the School and the District, would engage in harmful and injurious
                   22       misconduct with respect to those children if the District’s supervisory employees and
                   23       administrators did not properly supervise and/or observe the interactions of teachers with minor
                   24       students such as Plaintiffs. This is especially so with regard to Martin, as the District’s supervisory
                   25       employees and administrators had received, prior to Martin’s harassment and molestation of
                   26       Plaintiffs, numerous complaints with regard to Martin’s inappropriate misconduct with minor
                   27       students such that they knew or should have known that Martin was sexually harassing and
                   28       abusing Plaintiffs and other students.
                                                                               16
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                         COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1          93.     In light of numerous prior complaints about Martin’s sexual abuse of minor
                        2   students, Defendants breached their duty of care toward Plaintiffs when they engaged in a
                        3   negligent and/or reckless lack of diligence in supervising Plaintiffs, as students, and Martin, as
                        4   teacher by, among other things, failing to (1) prevent Martin’s harassment and molestation of
                        5   Plaintiffs and other students; (2) discover Martin’s harassment and molestation of Plaintiffs and
                        6   other students; (3) investigate complaints of Martin’s inappropriate sexual misconduct with minor
                        7   students; (4) ensure that Martin understood what constituted inappropriate sexual contact with a
                        8   minor student; (5) ensure that Martin understood that inappropriate sexual harassment and contact
                        9   with a minor student would be grounds for suspension, termination and/or other discipline; (6)
                   10       ensure that Martin was not engaging in inappropriate sexual misconduct with minor students; (7)
                   11       observe and supervise Martin’s interactions with Plaintiffs and other minor students so as to
                   12       prevent Martin’s sexual harassment and abuse; (8) refrain from engaging in fraudulent
                   13       concealment and conspiracy to commit fraud with regard to the prior complaints involving
                   14       Martin’s misconduct with students; (9) make safe the dangerous condition of Martin’s misuse of
                   15       the classroom’s lack of visibility and accessibility to adults outside the classroom to harass and
                   16       abuse students such as Plaintiffs by (a) insisting that Martin refrain from excessively decorating
                   17       the classroom such that visibility into the classroom was blocked, (b) insisting that Martin keep his
                   18       door open and unlocked when alone with a student or when with students after school hours, or (c)
                   19       by supervising, suspending and/or terminating Martin; and/or (10) warn parents of the risk of
                   20       sexual abuse that Martin posed to their children.
                   21              94.     The District is liable for the negligent supervision of Plaintiffs by the District’s
                   22       supervisory employees and administrators under a theory of respondeat superior because said
                   23       supervisory employees and administrators were acting within the course and scope of their
                   24       employment.
                   25              95.     As a proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and/or lack of diligence of
                   26       Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered damages as described in this Complaint.
                   27       ///
                   28       ///
                                                                                17
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                        COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1                                 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                        2          (Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Retention of Martin and Vicarious Liability)
                                (Against The District, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen, Mayo,
                        3             Eberhart, Allen, Treece, the Estate of Leal and ROES 1 through 100)
                        4          96.     Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

                        5   Paragraphs 1 through 95 as though fully set forth herein.

                        6          97.      The District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators were

                        7   entrusted with the supervision and protection of Plaintiffs, and were subject to a duty to reasonably

                        8   hire, retain, train, and/or supervise those persons, including Martin, whose job functions entailed

                        9   contact with children, including Plaintiffs.

                   10              98.     Before Plaintiffs were abused, the District and the District’s supervisory employees

                   11       and administrators had actual and/or constructive knowledge that Martin demonstrated deviant

                   12       sexual propensities of sexual misconduct with minor students that presented a foreseeable risk that

                   13       Martin would abuse children with whom he came into contact in a position of trust and authority.

                   14              99.     The District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators had actual

                   15       and/or constructive knowledge of Martin’s sexual abuse of minor students at the School prior to

                   16       Plaintiffs’ molestation because they had received numerous complaints of this inappropriate

                   17       misconduct.

                   18              100.    The District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators breached

                   19       the duty of care to Plaintiffs in negligently retaining Martin in a position of trust and authority at

                   20       the School without properly training and/or supervising him with regard to his interactions with

                   21       minor students, including Plaintiffs.

                   22              101.    Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs when they, in training, supervising and

                   23       retaining Martin, engaged in a negligent and/or reckless lack of diligence in failing to (1) prevent

                   24       Martin’s harassment and molestation of Plaintiffs and other students; (2) discover Martin’s

                   25       harassment and molestation of Plaintiffs and other students; (3) investigate complaints of Martin’s

                   26       inappropriate sexual misconduct with minor students; (4) ensure that Martin understood what

                   27       constituted inappropriate sexual contact with a minor student; (5) ensure that Martin understood

                   28       that inappropriate sexual harassment and contact with a minor student would be grounds for
                                                                               18
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                         COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1   suspension, termination and/or other discipline; (6) ensure that Martin was not engaging in
                        2   inappropriate sexual misconduct with minor students; (7) observe and supervise Martin’s
                        3   interactions with Plaintiffs and other minor students so as to prevent Martin’s sexual harassment
                        4   and abuse; (8) refrain from engaging in fraudulent concealment and conspiracy to commit fraud
                        5   with regard to the prior complaints involving Martin’s misconduct with students; (9) make safe the
                        6   dangerous condition of Martin’s misuse of the classroom’s lack of visibility accessibility to adults
                        7   outside the classroom to harass and abuse students such as Plaintiffs by (a) insisting that Martin
                        8   refrain from excessively decorating the classroom such that visibility into the classroom was
                        9   blocked, (b) insisting that Martin keep his door open and unlocked when alone with a student or
                   10       when with students after school hours, or (c) by supervising, suspending and/or terminating
                   11       Martin; and/or (10) warn parents of the risk of sexual abuse that Martin posed to their children.
                   12              102.    The District is liable for the negligent training, supervision and retention of Martin
                   13       by its supervisory employees and administrators under a theory of respondeat superior because
                   14       said supervisory employees and administrators were acting within the course and scope of their
                   15       employment.
                   16              103.    As a proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and/or lack of diligence of
                   17       Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered damages as described in this Complaint.
                   18                                       SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                   19                 (Interference with Personal Rights by Threats, Intimidation of Coercion,
                                          Vicarious Liability and Ratification, California Civil Code § 52.1)
                   20                             (Martin, The District and ROES 1 through 100)
                   21              104.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
                   22       Paragraphs 1 through 103 as though fully set forth herein.
                   23              105.    In abusing his authority over Plaintiffs to sexually harass and molest them, Martin
                   24       interfered and attempted to interfere with Plaintiffs’ rights to privacy and bodily integrity, as
                   25       protected by Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution, and Plaintiffs’ right to be safe from
                   26       sexual predation by adults as protected by California Penal Code §288(a). Martin interfered with
                   27       these and other rights by means of threats, intimidation and coercion, in violation of California
                   28       Civil Code § 52.1.
                                                                               19
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                        COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1             106.   As a proximate result of the conduct of Martin, Plaintiffs sustained damages as
                        2   described in this Complaint, including actual damages within the meaning of California Civil
                        3   Code § 52.1.
                        4             107.   As a proximate result of the conduct of Martin, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of
                        5   exemplary damages against Martin, as well as civil penalties and attorneys’ fees, as provided by
                        6   California Civil Code § 52.1.
                        7             108.   The District is vicariously liable for Martin’s violation of the Bane Act, California
                        8   Civil Code § 52.1.
                        9             109.   The District is also liable for the acts of Martin because its supervisory employees
                   10       and administrators knew or should have known of said acts and authorized and ratified those acts,
                   11       including when they failed to take any corrective action with regard to those acts.
                   12
                                                             SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                   13
                                      (Sexual Harassment by a Teacher; Ratification of Sexual Harassment;
                   14                                      California Civil Code § 51.9)
                            (Against Martin, The District, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen, Mayo,
                   15                  Eberhart, Allen, Treece, the Estate of Leal and ROES 1 through 100)
                   16                 110.   Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
                   17       Paragraphs 1 through 109 as though fully set forth herein.
                   18                 111.   The acts alleged against Martin include: giving Plaintiffs long and overly
                   19       affectionate and inappropriate hugs; putting his hands down Plaintiffs’ shirts; rubbing their bare
                   20       chests and stomachs, and molesting Plaintiffs, and Martin’s intimidation and coercion against
                   21       Plaintiffs that allowed him to engage in this nonconsensual conduct with Plaintiffs. Martin’s
                   22       conduct directed against Plaintiffs was based on Plaintiffs’ gender, and was unwelcome and
                   23       severe.
                   24                 112.   As previously alleged, the negligent supervision of Plaintiffs and the negligent
                   25       hiring, supervision and retention of Martin of the District and the District’s supervisory employees
                   26       and administrators resulted in Martin’s sexual harassment and sexual abuse of Plaintiffs. Thus, the
                   27       District is liable under respondeat superior for its supervisory employees’ and administrators’
                   28       negligent supervision of Plaintiffs that caused the sexual harassment and negligent hiring,
                                                                               20
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                         COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1   supervision and retention of Martin that caused the sexual harassment. This is so because, when
                        2   committing this misconduct, the District’s supervisory employees and administrators were acting
                        3   within the course and scope of their employment.
                        4           113.    Furthermore, the District and the District’s supervisory employees and
                        5   administrators ratified Martin’s actions when they failed to investigate or otherwise respond to
                        6   complaints about Martin’s sexual misconduct with minor students and/or take any corrective
                        7   actions with regard to Martin’s sexual misconduct with minor students. This ratification was
                        8   within the course and scope of the employment of the District’s supervisory employees and
                        9   administrators with the District.
                   10               114.    As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered the damages
                   11       described in this Complaint, including actual damages within the meaning of Civil Code § 52, and
                   12       Plaintiffs are also entitled to punitive damages as described herein, as well as civil penalties and
                   13       attorneys’ fees, as provided by California Civil Code § 52.
                   14               115.    Plaintiffs request punitive damages because, in doing the acts herein alleged,
                   15       Defendants acted with oppression, fraud and malice, willfully and wantonly, in conscious
                   16       disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiffs.
                   17                                    EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                   18                        (Premises Liability—Dangerous Condition of Property)
                                (Against The District, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen, Mayo,
                   19                 Eberhart, Allen, Treece, the Estate of Leal and ROES 1 through 100)
                   20               116.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
                   21       Paragraphs 1 through 115 as though fully set forth herein.
                   22               117.    The District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators owned,
                   23       possessed and/or controlled the premises on which the classroom was located where Martin
                   24       harassed and molested Plaintiffs.
                   25               118.    A dangerous condition of property of a public entity existed in violation of
                   26       Government Code § 835 in the classroom where Martin harassed and molested Plaintiffs.
                   27               119.    The dangerous condition was presented by (i) Martin’s misuse of the property by
                   28       erecting obstructions that made the activities in his classroom invisible or inaccessible to adults
                                                                                21
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                         COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1   outside the classroom, and (ii) the continuing presence of a lock on the door to Martin’s classroom
                        2   (even after it became apparent that he had pedophilic tendencies) which also made his classroom
                        3   inaccessible to other adults who could have observed and supervised Martin’s interactions with
                        4   students so as to prevent his sexual misconduct). The classroom lacked visibility because Martin
                        5   decorated the classroom at every opportunity in such a way as to block visibility through the
                        6   classroom’s windows and doors. The District’s supervisory employees and administrators never
                        7   admonished Martin to refrain from such decorations, even though Martin had been cited for code
                        8   violations by the fire marshal. Furthermore, the classroom lacked visibility and accessibility
                        9   because, when alone with a student or when with one or more students after school hours, Martin
                   10       would close and lock the classroom door to prevent visibility and accessibility to other adults.
                   11              120.    Although the District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators
                   12       instructed Martin to keep his door open and unlocked when alone with a student and when with
                   13       one or more students after school hours, Martin failed to comply with the instruction and the
                   14       District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators failed to enforce the
                   15       instruction.
                   16              121.    In light of the numerous complaints to the District’s supervisory employees and
                   17       administrators concerning Martin’s sexual misconduct toward minor students, it was foreseeable
                   18       that the dangerous condition of property created a foreseeable risk of injury to minor students. The
                   19       lack of visibility or accessibility of the classroom intensified the risk that Martin would engage in
                   20       sexual misconduct with minor students in the classroom, as it enabled and empowered Martin to
                   21       act upon his dangerous sexual propensities of which Defendants had actual, constructive and/or
                   22       imputed notice. This dangerous condition of property created a substantial risk of injury to
                   23       students, including Plaintiffs, of being harassed and abused by Martin, and thus a dangerous
                   24       condition of property existed on the School’s and the District’s premises that were controlled by
                   25       the District’s supervisory employees and administrators. Also establishing a substantial risk of
                   26       injury is the existence of substantially similar prior incidents involving Martin’s misuse of the
                   27       classroom’s lack of visibility or accessibility in order to harass and abuse students before harassing
                   28       and abusing Plaintiffs, as shown by the complaints made to the District’s supervisory employees
                                                                              22
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                        COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1   and administrators prior to the harassment and abuse of Plaintiffs.
                        2          122.    Defendants had actual and/or constructive notice of the dangerous condition in
                        3   sufficient time before Plaintiffs’ harassment and molestation to take preventative measures to
                        4   make safe or warn of the dangerous condition so that Plaintiffs would not have been sexually
                        5   harassed and abused by Martin.
                        6          123.    Defendants had actual notice because, prior to Plaintiffs’ molestation, teachers and
                        7   others had made numerous complaints about Martin’s sexual misconduct with students to the
                        8   District’s supervisory employees and administrators. In addition, Defendants knew the classroom
                        9   was not sufficiently visible or accessible from the outside for them to properly and adequately
                   10       supervise Martin’s interactions with the children inside. The District and the District’s
                   11       supervisory employees and administrators were aware of the citations of code violations by the fire
                   12       marshal, which also gave them actual notice of the lack of visibility into Martin’s classroom
                   13       because of his excessive decorations. Furthermore, Martin’s colleagues and supervisors knew that
                   14       Martin locked his doors when along with students, which was further evidenced by instructions
                   15       given to him to keep his door open and unlocked when alone with students. Defendants knew that
                   16       Martin was acting to block visibility and accessibility to adults into the classroom by closing and
                   17       locking the door when alone with students.
                   18              124.    Defendants also had constructive knowledge of these dangerous conditions of
                   19       property because they had received complaints about Martin, and, had they properly investigated
                   20       these complaints, sufficient information existed for them to discover his harassment and
                   21       molestation of minor students. Moreover, a reasonable inspection of the classroom, especially
                   22       after complaints concerning Martin’s misconduct were made and after the fire marshal cited
                   23       Martin for code violations due to his excessive decorations, would have revealed that the
                   24       classroom was not sufficiently visible or accessible to adults outside so that they would be able to
                   25       adequately supervise Martin to prevent sexual harassment and molestation of students inside the
                   26       classroom. Indeed, Defendants would have discovered that the excessive decorations blocked
                   27       visibility into the classroom and that Martin was closing and locking the classroom door to prevent
                   28       visibility and accessibility into the classroom by supervisory adults.
                                                                              23
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                        COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1          125.       Additionally, Martin and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators
                        2   created the dangerous condition of property by making the classroom inaccessible and
                        3   unobservable to other adults. Martin did so by decorating his classroom in a dangerous manner
                        4   and by misusing the lock on his door so that he could abuse students like Plaintiffs. The District’s
                        5   supervisory employees and administrators created the dangerous condition of property because
                        6   they negligently failed to resolve their investigation of complaints about Martin’s sexual
                        7   molestation of students in such a way as to ensure that Martin was not molesting students. They
                        8   failed to enforce their instructions to Martin that he keep the door open and unlocked so that adults
                        9   outside the classroom could supervise Martin’s interactions with the students inside the classroom.
                   10       They also failed to order Martin to remove the excessive decorations that blocked visibility into the
                   11       classroom. Because the initial complaints about Martin occurred prior to Martin’s molestation of
                   12       Plaintiffs, the District’s supervisory employees’ and administrators’ negligence created the
                   13       dangerous condition of property such that they have imputed notice of the dangerous condition.
                   14              126.       Defendants had a duty to make safe the dangerous condition. With little to no
                   15       burden, Defendants were capable of altering the physical defect or physical characteristic of the
                   16       property to make the property safe. They could have ordered Martin to remove the decorations
                   17       that obstructed the view into his classroom, and they could have removed the lock from his
                   18       classroom door or otherwise enforced their prior directive to keep the door unlocked. Little to no
                   19       burden would have fallen on the District’s supervisory employees and administrators to make
                   20       these conditions of property safe. This is particularly true in light of the extensive complaints
                   21       made about Martin. As Defendants already had the duty to investigate such complaints and
                   22       engage in appropriate disciplinary action in response to such complaints, little to no burden would
                   23       have fallen on the District’s supervisory employees and administrators to make the dangerous
                   24       condition safe.
                   25              127.       Because Defendants had decided not to make the dangerous condition safe by
                   26       ordering the removal of obstructions or the removal of the lock from his classroom door,
                   27       Defendants had the duty to warn against the dangerous condition by informing parents that Martin
                   28       posed a risk of sexually harassing and abusing their children and that the classroom was not
                                                                               24
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                          COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1   sufficiently visible for adult staff to observe such conduct.
                        2          128.    Defendants breached their duties to make the dangerous condition safe and/or warn
                        3   of it. They did not make the classroom sufficiently visible or accessible to adult staff outside the
                        4   room to observe Martin’s interactions with minor students so that they could prevent sexual abuse;
                        5   they did not order him to remove his obstructing decorations; they did not remove the lock from
                        6   his door; they did not properly investigate and follow through with the complaints against Martin;
                        7   they did not engage in any training, supervision or disciplinary action regarding Martin; they did
                        8   not warn parents of the dangerous condition; and they fraudulently concealed and entered into a
                        9   conspiracy to commit fraud with regard to the prior complaints about Martin.
                   10              129.    As a proximate result of the dangerous condition of property and the negligence,
                   11       recklessness and/or lack of diligence of Defendants, Plaintiffs were injured in that they were was
                   12       sexually harassed and abused by Martin, suffering the damages as described in this Complaint.
                   13                                         NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                                                                    (Negligence Per Se)
                   14
                                 (Against the District, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen, Mayo,
                   15                  Eberhart, Allen, Treece, the Estate of Leal and ROES 1 through 100)
                   16              130.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
                   17       Paragraphs 1 through 129 as though fully set forth herein.
                   18              131.    When Plaintiffs were sexually harassed and abused by Martin as alleged in this
                   19       Complaint, Martin was their fifth grade teacher and was employed by the School and the District.
                   20       At the time of the harassment and molestation toward Plaintiffs alleged herein, Plaintiffs were in
                   21       attendance at the School, which was operated by the District, and therefore was in the custodial
                   22       care of the School, the District, and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators. As
                   23       such, Plaintiffs was entitled to the protections of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act,
                   24       California Penal Code §§ 11164 et. seq. from the School, the District and the District’s supervisory
                   25       employees and administrators.
                   26              132.    Before Plaintiffs were sexually harassed and abused by Martin, the District’s
                   27       supervisory employees and administrators received complaints about Martin’s sexual misconduct
                   28       toward minor children, and therefore they knew or should have known of Martin’s sexual
                                                                           25
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                        COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1   misconduct at the time of Plaintiffs’ sexual harassment and abuse by Martin.
                        2          133.    Under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, California Penal Code §§ 1164
                        3   et. seq., the stated purpose is as follows: “The intent and purpose of this article is to protect
                        4   children from abuse and neglect.” Plaintiffs fell within the definition of a victim of abuse under
                        5   California Penal Code §§ 11165.3 and 11165.4. Hence, Plaintiffs are within the class of people
                        6   intended to be protected by the Act, as they were children who were subjected to abuse while in the
                        7   custodial care the School, the District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators.
                        8          134.    Under California Penal Code § 1165.7, the School, the District and the District’s
                        9   supervisory employees and administrators had a mandatory duty to report child abuse and neglect
                   10       to the police or the county welfare department in the manner proscribed under California Penal
                   11       Code § 1165.9.
                   12              135.    As Plaintiffs fall within the class of people protected by the Act, the School, the
                   13       District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators owed Plaintiffs a duty to
                   14       exercise reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs by refraining from violating the
                   15       provisions of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act. It was foreseeable that violating the Act
                   16       by failing to report Martin’s sexual harassment and abuse of minor students as required by the Act
                   17       and in accordance with § 1165.9 would result in harm to minor students such as Plaintiffs because
                   18       the District’s supervisory employees and administrators knew or should have known of Martin’s
                   19       sexual misconduct in light of prior complaints about Martin.
                   20              136.    The School, the District and the District’s supervisory employees and
                   21       administrators breached their duty of care to Plaintiffs to refrain from violating the Child Abuse
                   22       and Neglect Reporting Act when they failed to report in the manner specified in California Penal
                   23       Code § 11165.9 the abuse of students that occurred prior to Plaintiffs’ abuse.
                   24              137.    As a direct and proximate result of the violation of the Child Abuse and Neglect
                   25       Reporting Act by the School, the District and the District’s supervisory employees and
                   26       administrators Plaintiffs suffered damages as described in this Complaint.
                   27              138.    When the District’s supervisory employees and administrators failed to report
                   28       Martin’s sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiffs and other minor students in violation of the
                                                                               26
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                         COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1   Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, they were acting within the course and scope of their
                        2   employment such that the District is liable to Plaintiffs under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
                        3                                    TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                                                                (Fraudulent Concealment)
                        4
                                 (Against the District, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen, Mayo,
                        5              Eberhart, Allen, Treece, the Estate of Leal and ROES 1 through 100)
                        6           139.   Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
                        7   Paragraphs 1 through 138 as though fully set forth herein.
                        8           140.   As students attending the School, Defendants were in a special relationship with
                        9   Plaintiffs and owed Plaintiffs a duty of protective care and a duty to supervise.
                   10               141.   As alleged in this Complaint, the District’s supervisory employees and
                   11       administrators actively concealed from Plaintiffs and others the fact that it had been reported to
                   12       them that Martin was suspected of harassing and abusing students, a fact that the School, the
                   13       District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators knew or should have known.
                   14               142.   Plaintiffs were unaware of the fact that it had been reported to the District’s
                   15       supervisory employees and administrators that Martin was suspected of harassing and abusing
                   16       students.
                   17               143.   The District’s supervisory employees and administrators intended to deceive
                   18       Plaintiffs and others by concealing Martin’s pattern of student harassment and abuse.
                   19               144.   As a student of the School in the District, Plaintiffs had an expectation that the
                   20       District’s supervisory employees and administrators would ensure a safe environment and prevent
                   21       the possibility of sexual abuse. Therefore, Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the District’s supervisory
                   22       employees’ and administrators’ deception that there were no suspected perpetrators of sexual
                   23       harassment and abuse employed by the School and the District.
                   24               145.   Plaintiffs were harmed by the District’s supervisory employees’ and
                   25       administrators’ concealment of Martin’s suspected sexual harassment and abuse.
                   26               146.   The District’s supervisory employees’ and administrators’ concealment of
                   27       suspected sexual harassment and abuse by Martin was a substantial factor in causing harm to
                   28       Plaintiffs.
                                                                              27
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                        COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1          147.    As a direct and proximate result of the District’s supervisory employees’ and
                        2   administrators’ fraudulent concealment, Plaintiffs have suffered damages as alleged in this
                        3   Complaint.
                        4          148.    Plaintiffs further request punitive damages because, in doing the acts herein
                        5   alleged, District’s supervisory employees and administratorsacted with oppression, fraud and
                        6   malice, willfully and wantonly, in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiffs.
                        7                                 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                                                             (Conspiracy to Commit Fraud)
                        8
                                 (Against the District, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen, Mayo,
                        9              Eberhart, Allen, Treece, the Estate of Leal and ROES 1 through 100)
                   10              149.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
                   11       Paragraphs 1 through 148 as though fully set forth herein.
                   12              150.    Prior to the time that Martin harassed and abused Plaintiffs, the District’s
                   13       supervisory employees and administrators were aware that Martin was suspected of sexual
                   14       harassment and abuse of students.
                   15              151.    The District’s supervisory employees and administrators fraudulently concealed
                   16       Martin’s suspected criminal behavior.
                   17              152.    The District’s supervisory employees and administrators were aware that each of
                   18       them planned to conceal suspicion of Martin’s actions from other School and District employees,
                   19       parents of students, and the students themselves.
                   20              153.    The District’s supervisory employees and administrators agreed with each other
                   21       and intended to perpetually conceal the suspicion of Martin’s sexual harassment and abuse.
                   22              154.    Plaintiffs were harmed by the District’s supervisory employees’ and
                   23       administrators’ conspiracy to fraudulently conceal Martin’s suspected sexual abuse.
                   24              155.    As a direct and proximate result of the District’s supervisory employees and
                   25       administrators, Plaintiffs has suffered damages as alleged in this Complaint.
                   26              156.    Plaintiffs further request punitive damages because, in doing the acts herein
                   27       alleged, District’s supervisory employees and administrators acted with oppression, fraud and
                   28       malice, willfully and wantonly, in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiffs.
                                                                             28
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                        COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO
                        1                                    TWELFTH CAUSE ACTION
                        2                             (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
                        3                                       (Against All Defendants)

                        4           157.   Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

                        5   Paragraphs 1 through 156 as though fully set forth herein.

                        6           158.   At all relevant times, Defendants owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid

                        7   foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs. It was highly foreseeable to Defendants that failing to exercise

                        8   reasonable care posed a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiffs.

                        9           159.   Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs by failing to act with reasonable care so

                   10       as to avoid foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs.

                   11               160.   As a direct legal and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiffs

                   12       suffered emotional distress and sustained the damages as alleged in this Complaint.

                   13               161.   Defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment such that

                   14       the District is liable for their conduct under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The District is

                   15       also liable for the acts of Defendants because the District’s supervisory employees and

                   16       administrators knew or should have known of said acts and authorized and ratified those acts,

                   17       including when they failed to take any corrective action with regard to those acts.

                   18
                                                         THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                   19
                                                     (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
                   20                                           (Against All Defendants)
                   21               162.   Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in
                   22       Paragraphs 1 through 161 as though fully set forth herein.
                   23               163.   The conduct of Defendants was despicable and outrageous and done with a wanton
                   24       and reckless disregard of the consequences to Plaintiffs, and was done with knowledge that it was
                   25       highly probable that Plaintiffs would suffer severe mental anguish, and emotional and physical
                   26       distress.
                   27               164.   As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered severe mental
                   28       anguish, and emotional and physical distress and incurred damages as described in this complaint.
                                                                              29
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                                                        COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  SAN FRANCISCO

								
To top