FINAL COMPLAINT 2-10-14.doc

Document Sample
FINAL COMPLAINT 2-10-14.doc Powered By Docstoc
					                        1   Stan Casper (SBN 56705)
                            CASPER, MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK
                        2   A Professional Corporation
                            2121 North California Blvd., Suite 1020
                        3   Walnut Creek, California 94596
                            Telephone: (925) 947-1147
                        4   Facsimile:   (925) 947-1131

                        5   Attorneys for Plaintiffs

                        6                    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                        7                       IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

                        8   JOHN DOE 3, a minor, by and through his           Case No.
                            guardians ad litem John Doe, Sr. 3 and
                        9   Jane Doe 3; JOHN DOE 4, a minor, by and           COMPLAINT FOR:
                            through his guardians ad litem John Doe,          (1) Negligence (Against Martin)
                      10    Sr. 4 and Jane Doe 4; JOHN DOE 5, a               (2) Sexual Battery (Against Martin)
                            minor, by and through his guardians ad            (3) Lewd & Lascivious Conduct with
                      11    litem John Doe, Sr. 5 and Jane Doe 5;                  Children, California Penal Code §
                            JOHN DOE 6, a minor, by and through his                288(a) (Against Martin)
                      12    guardians ad litem John Doe, Sr. 6 and            (4) Negligent Supervision of
                            Jane Doe 6; JOHN DOE 7, a minor, by and                Plaintiffs and Vicarious Liability
                      13    through his guardians ad litem John Doe,          (5) Negligent Hiring, Supervision,
                            Sr. 7 and Jane Doe 7; JOHN DOE 8, a                    Retention of Martin and Vicarious
                      14    minor, by and through his guardian ad                  Liability
                            litem Jane Doe 8; and JOHN DOE 9, a               (6) Interference With Personal Rights
                      15    minor, by and through his guardians ad                 By Threats, Intimidation or
                            litem John Doe, Sr. 9 and Jane Doe 9,                  Coercion and Vicarious Liability
                      16                                                           and Ratification, California Civil
                                                          Plaintiffs,              Code § 52.1
                      17                                                      (7) Sexual Harassment by a Teacher
                                   vs.                                             and Ratification of Sexual
                      18                                                           Harassment, California Civil Code
                                                                                   § 51.9
                      19    MOUNT DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL                       (8) Premises Liability—Dangerous
                            DISTRICT; JOSEPH ANDREW MARTIN;                        Condition of Property
                      20    JENNY CRONAN; MICHELLE BATESOLE;                  (9) Negligence Per Se
                            JENNIFER SACHS; STEVEN LAWRENCE;                  (10) Fraudulent Concealment
                      21    GREG ROLEN; GARY McHENRY; LINDA                   (11) Conspiracy to Commit Fraud
                            MAYO; GARY EBERHART; DICK ALLEN;                  (12) Negligent Infliction of Emotional
                      22    APRIL TREECE; BARBARA LEAL, as                         Distress
                            personal representatives of the Estate of E.      (13) Negligent Infliction of Emotional
                      23    William Leal and/or successor-in-interest to E.        Distress (On Behalf Of John Doe
                            William Leal; and DOES 1 to 100,                       4)
                      24                                                      (14) Intentional Infliction of Emotional
                                                          Defendants.              Distress
                      25
                                                                              DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
                      26
                                                                              (Unlimited Jurisdiction)
                      27

                      28             Plaintiffs John Does 3 through 9 (“Plaintiffs”), minors, by and through their
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                          Page 1
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            guardians ad litem, Guardians John Doe, Sr. 3 through 7 and 9, and Guardians Jane
                        2
                            Doe 3 through 9, come before this Honorable Court and allege:
                        3
                                                                 INTRODUCTION
                        4
                                   1.     This action arises from Defendant Joseph Andrew Martin’s sexual
                        5
                            harassment and abuse of Plaintiffs, which began while Martin was Plaintiffs’ fourth and
                        6
                            fifth grade teacher at Woodside Elementary School. Defendant Mount Diablo Unified
                        7
                            School District knew or should have known of Martin’s harassment and abuse of
                        8
                            Plaintiffs in light of previous complaints about Martin to the School’s and the District’s
                        9
                            administrators, including Principals Jenny Cronan, Michelle Batesole, and Jennifer
                      10
                            Sachs; District Superintendents Steven Lawrence and Gary McHenry; District General
                      11
                            Counsel Greg Rolen; and School Board Members Linda Mayo, Gary Eberhart, Dick
                      12
                            Allen, April Treece and now deceased E. William Leal. Despite the existence of facts
                      13
                            putting the school’s administrators and supervisors on notice of Martin’s harassment
                      14
                            and abuse, these administrators and supervisors (1) failed to supervise Plaintiffs; (2)
                      15
                            failed to properly train, supervise and retain Martin; (3) ratified Martin’s harassment
                      16
                            and interference with Plaintiffs’ personal rights by failing to investigate or take any
                      17
                            corrective action pertaining to complaints about Martin; (4) allowed a dangerous
                      18
                            condition of property to exist through the acts of a third party—i.e., Martin’s misuse of
                      19
                            the physical defect or physical characteristic of the lack of visibility and access into the
                      20
                            classroom to harass and abuse students; (5) failed to report the complaints against
                      21
                            Martin as required by California law; (6) fraudulently concealed Martin’s harassment
                      22
                            and abuse; (7) entered into a conspiracy to commit fraud; and (8) inflicted emotional
                      23
                            distress upon Plaintiffs.
                      24
                                   2.     In addition to being directly liable under several causes of action, the
                      25
                            District also is vicariously liable. Under California Government Code section 815.2(a),
                      26
                            while it is not vicariously liable for the sexual abuse of Martin, the District is vicariously
                      27
                            liable for the negligent supervision of Plaintiffs, Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified Sch.
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                              Page 2
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 741, 747; the negligent training, supervision and retention of
                        2
                            Martin, C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 865; the
                        3
                            failure to investigate Martin’s sexual harassment and abuse, C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare
                        4
                            Corp. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1110; the ratification of Martin’s sexual
                        5
                            harassment and abuse through its failure to investigate, id.; and the violations of the
                        6
                            Bane Act under California Civil Code § 52.1 that are alleged herein, Gant v. County of
                        7
                            Los Angeles (C.D. Cal. 2011) 765 F.Supp.2d 1238, 1249 (citing Robinson v. Solano
                        8
                            County (9th Cir. 2002) 278 F.3d 1007, 1016).            The District is vicariously liable
                        9
                            because its employees’ misconduct occurred within the course and scope of their
                      10
                            employment as defined in the previously cited case authority. See also Cal.Gov’t
                      11
                            Code § 815.2(a); Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th
                      12
                            291, 296 (public entity is liable under respondeat superior for torts committed within
                      13
                            the employee’s course and scope of employment).
                      14
                                   3.     Plaintiffs assert the following claims against the District and the District’s
                      15
                            supervisory employees and administrators:        Negligent Supervision of Plaintiffs and
                      16
                            Vicarious Liability; Negligent Hiring/Supervising/Retaining of Martin and Vicarious
                      17
                            Liability; Ratification of Interference with Personal Rights under California Civil Code §
                      18
                            51.2; Ratification of Sexual Harassment; Premises Liability; Negligence Per Se;
                      19
                            Fraudulent Concealment; Conspiracy to Commit Fraud; Negligent Infliction of
                      20
                            Emotional Distress; and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Plaintiffs assert the
                      21
                            following claims against Martin: Negligence; Sexual Battery, California Civil Code §
                      22
                            1708.5; Lewd and Lascivious Conduct with Children, California Penal Code § 288(a);
                      23
                            Interference with Personal Rights by Threats, Intimidation or Coercion, California Civil
                      24
                            Code § 51.2; and Sexual Harassment and Abuse, California Civil Code § 51.9.
                      25
                                                             PARTIES AND VENUE
                      26
                                   4.     Plaintiff John Doe 3 is a minor. Plaintiff John Doe 3 was ten years old
                      27
                            when Martin harassed and abused him beginning in 2012 and ending in 2013. As the
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                            Page 3
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            natural parents of and guardians ad litem for Plaintiff John Doe 3, Guardians Jane Doe
                        2
                            3 and John Doe, Sr. 3 are entitled to bring this action for the injuries to Plaintiff John
                        3
                            Doe 3. Plaintiff John Doe 3 and Guardians Jane and John Doe, Sr. 3 reside in this
                        4
                            judicial district. The acts of sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiff John Doe 3
                        5
                            described within this Complaint occurred within this judicial district.
                        6
                                    5.      Plaintiff John Doe 4 is a minor. Plaintiff John Doe 4 was ten years old
                        7
                            when he observed Martin harass and abuse his brother, Plaintiff John Doe 5, during
                        8
                            the school year 2012 to 2013. As the natural parents of and guardians ad litem for
                        9
                            Plaintiff John Doe 4, Guardians Jane Doe 4 and John Doe, Sr. 4 are entitled to bring
                      10
                            this action for the injuries to Plaintiff John Doe 4. Plaintiff John Doe 4 and Guardians
                      11
                            Jane and John Doe, Sr. 4 reside in this judicial district. The acts toward Plaintiff John
                      12
                            Doe 4 described within this Complaint occurred within this judicial district.
                      13
                                    6.      Plaintiff John Doe 5 is a minor. Plaintiff John Doe 5 was ten years old
                      14
                            when Martin began harassing and abusing him in 2009, said harassment and abuse
                      15
                            continuing through 2013. As the natural parents of and guardians ad litem for Plaintiff
                      16
                            John Doe 5, Guardians Jane Doe 5 and John Doe, Sr. 5 are entitled to bring this
                      17
                            action for the injuries to Plaintiff John Doe 5. Plaintiff John Doe 5 and Guardians Jane
                      18
                            and John Doe, Sr. 5 reside in this judicial district. The acts of sexual harassment and
                      19
                            abuse of Plaintiff John Doe 5 described within this Complaint occurred within this
                      20
                            judicial district.
                      21
                                    7.      Plaintiff John Doe 6 is a minor. Plaintiff John Doe 6 was nine years old
                      22
                            when Martin harassed and abused him beginning in 2009, said harassment and abuse
                      23
                            continuing through 2013. As the natural parents of and guardians ad litem for Plaintiff
                      24
                            John Doe 6, Guardian Jane Doe 6 and John Doe, Sr. 6 are entitled to bring this action
                      25
                            for the injuries to Plaintiff John Doe 6. Plaintiff John Doe 6 and Guardians Jane and
                      26
                            John Doe, Sr. 6 reside in this judicial district. The acts of sexual harassment and
                      27

                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                          Page 4
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            abuse of Plaintiff John Doe 6 described within this Complaint occurred within this
                        2
                            judicial district.
                        3
                                    8.      Plaintiff John Doe 7 is a minor born. Plaintiff John Doe 7 was ten years
                        4
                            old when Martin harassed and abused him beginning in 2012 and ending in 2013. As
                        5
                            the natural parents of and guardians ad litem for Plaintiff John Doe 7, Guardians Jane
                        6
                            Doe 7 and John Doe, Sr. 7 are entitled to bring this action for the injuries to Plaintiff
                        7
                            John Doe 7. Plaintiff John Doe 7 and Guardians Jane and John Doe, Sr. 7 reside in
                        8
                            this judicial district. The acts of sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiff John Doe 7
                        9
                            described within this Complaint occurred within this judicial district.
                      10
                                    9.      Plaintiff John Doe 8 is a minor. Plaintiff John Doe 8 was eleven years
                      11
                            old when Martin harassed and abused him beginning in 2012 and ending in 2013. As
                      12
                            the natural parent of and guardian ad litem for Plaintiff John Doe 8, Guardian Jane
                      13
                            Doe 8 is entitled to bring this action for the injuries to Plaintiff John Doe 8. Plaintiff
                      14
                            John Doe 8 and Guardian Jane Doe 8 reside in this judicial district. The acts of sexual
                      15
                            harassment and abuse of Plaintiff John Doe 8 described within this Complaint
                      16
                            occurred within this judicial district.
                      17
                                    10.     Plaintiff John Doe 9 is a minor. Plaintiff John Doe 9 was nine years old
                      18
                            when Martin harassed and abused him beginning in 2009, said harassment and abuse
                      19
                            continuing through 2013. As the natural parents of and guardians ad litem for Plaintiff
                      20
                            John Doe, Sr., 9, Guardians Jane Doe 9 and John Doe, Sr. 9 are entitled to bring this
                      21
                            action for the injuries to Plaintiff John Doe 9. Plaintiff John Doe 9 and Guardians Jane
                      22
                            and John Doe, Sr. 9 reside in this judicial district. The acts of sexual harassment and
                      23
                            abuse of Plaintiff John Doe 9 described within this Complaint occurred within this
                      24
                            judicial district.
                      25
                                    11.     Defendant Mount Diablo Unified School District (the “District”) is a public
                      26
                            entity, authorized and existing under the laws of the State of California. The District
                      27
                            operates under its authority Woodside Elementary School (sometimes the “School”)
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                           Page 5
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            where Joseph Andrew Martin taught and where he sexually harassed and abused
                        2
                            Plaintiffs when they were within the custodial care of the District, the School and their
                        3
                            teachers, administrators and supervisors. The District and the School are located
                        4
                            within this judicial district.
                        5
                                    12.     At all relevant times, Defendant Joseph Andrew Martin (“Martin”) resided
                        6
                            in this judicial district. At all relevant times, Martin was more than ten years older than
                        7
                            Plaintiffs, who were minors ranging in age from nine years old and eleven years old
                        8
                            when Martin began to sexually harass and abuse Plaintiffs.               Martin’s acts of
                        9
                            harassment and abuse of Plaintiffs occurred within this judicial district.
                      10
                                    13.     At all relevant times, Defendants Jenny Cronan (“Cronan”), Michelle
                      11
                            Batesole (“Batesole”), and Jennifer Sachs (“Sachs”) were the Principals of the School
                      12
                            and employees of the School and the District acting within the course and scope of
                      13
                            their employment. The acts committed by Cronan, Batesole and Sachs as alleged in
                      14
                            this Complaint occurred within this judicial district.
                      15
                                    14.     At all relevant times, Defendants Steven Lawrence (“Lawrence”) and
                      16
                            Gary McHenry (“McHenry”) were Superintendents for the District acting within the
                      17
                            course and scope of their employment.            The acts committed by Lawrence and
                      18
                            McHenry as alleged in this Complaint occurred within this judicial district.
                      19
                                    15.     At all relevant times, Defendant Greg Rolen (“Rolen”) was General
                      20
                            Counsel for the District acting within the course and scope of his employment. The
                      21
                            acts committed by Rolen as alleged in this Complaint occurred within this judicial
                      22
                            district.
                      23
                                    16.     At all relevant times, Defendants Linda Mayo (“Mayo”), Gary Eberhart
                      24
                            (“Eberhart”), Dick Allen (“Allen”), April Treece (“Treece”) and now deceased E. William
                      25
                            Leal (“Leal”) were School Board Members acting within the course and scope of their
                      26
                            employment.       The acts committed by Mayo, Eberhart, Allen, Treece and Leal as
                      27
                            alleged in this Complaint occurred within this judicial district. As Leal is deceased,
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                           Page 6
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            Plaintiffs bring this action against the duly appointed personal representative of the
                        2
                            Estate of E. William Leal and/or the successor-in-interest to Leal, i.e., the widow of
                        3
                            Leal, Barbara Leal and DOES 1 through 30 (hereinafter “personal representative/s
                        4
                            and/or successors-in-interest of Leal”).
                        5
                                   17.      Defendants Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen, Mayo,
                        6
                            Eberhart, Allen, Treece and Leal are collectively referred to in this Complaint as “the
                        7
                            District’s supervisory employees and administrators.”
                        8
                                   18.      Plaintiffs are ignorant as to the true names and capacities of those
                        9
                            Defendants named in this Complaint as DOES 1 through 100. Plaintiffs will amend
                      10
                            this Complaint to state the true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 100 when
                      11
                            they have been ascertained.         Each of the fictitiously named defendants are
                      12
                            responsible in some manner for the events giving rise to this Complaint, and the
                      13
                            conduct of each fictitiously named Defendant proximately caused Plaintiffs’ damages
                      14
                            alleged.     Each reference in this Complaint to “Defendant” or “Defendants” or to a
                      15
                            specifically named Defendant refers also to Defendants DOES 1 through 100.
                      16
                                   19.      At all relevant times, every Defendant was the agent or employee of
                      17
                            every other Defendant. Defendants engaged in the acts and omissions alleged in this
                      18
                            Complaint within the course and scope of such agency or employment.
                      19
                                   20.      Plaintiffs timely filed a Government Claim against Defendants in
                      20
                            compliance with the provisions of the Government Claims Act, Government Code §
                      21
                            911 et. seq., which the District denied.        Plaintiffs now timely file suit against
                      22
                            Defendants.
                      23
                                                      EVENTS PRECIPITATING THIS SUIT
                      24
                            The Arrest And Criminal Prosecution Of Martin
                      25
                                   21.      The harassment and abuse by Martin that is alleged herein first came to
                      26
                            light on April 25, 2013, when the Concord Police responded to a report that Martin had
                      27
                            inappropriately touched Plaintiff John Doe 5. Over the following months, the police
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                       Page 7
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            conducted an investigation. A criminal complaint was filed. On June 27, 2013, Martin
                        2
                            was arrested. An Information has now been filed, which charges 125 felony counts
                        3
                            against Martin for lewd and lascivious conduct with children in violation of California
                        4
                            Penal Code § 288(a). Upon information and belief, Martin is currently in jail in lieu of
                        5
                            $10 million bail.
                        6
                            Martin, As Harasser And Abuser
                        7
                                   22.    Martin sexually harassed and abused Plaintiffs and other students, many
                        8
                            of whom were in his fourth and fifth grade classes. Martin’s victims were all young
                        9
                            male students.      He enticed these male students to him by using his position of
                      10
                            authority and trust, which he gained by making himself a well-liked teacher. Martin
                      11
                            was very popular with students and parents. Parents favored Martin because their
                      12
                            children performed well in school. Many students found him to be fun. He excessively
                      13
                            decorated his classroom such that the decoration violated fire codes, thereby blocking
                      14
                            visibility into the room so that his harassment and abuse could go on undetected. He
                      15
                            would have “Magic Mornings,” where he turned off the lights, turned on strobe lights
                      16
                            and a disco ball, and played loud music. He played basketball, chess, card games,
                      17
                            and computer games with select students. People described him as a Peter Pan, and
                      18
                            Cronan, meaning to compliment Martin, referred to him as the Pied Piper, a Freudian
                      19
                            slip that was, in fact, all too accurate. According to a number of teachers, Martin lured
                      20
                            young male students to him, grooming them for his advances. He was permitted this
                      21
                            access to students despite numerous complaints because, as Batesole stated as the
                      22
                            reason she took no action on a complaint about Martin: “Everyone loves him and his
                      23
                            STAR scores are high.”
                      24
                                   23.    Martin would begin grooming students early on, even before they were in
                      25
                            his class. He would look at pictures of young boys to decide which ones he would
                      26
                            invite into his classroom.   He would also issue special invitations to select male
                      27
                            students to visit him after school in his classroom. He would play basketball with
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                         Page 8
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            them, changing his clothes before them in the classroom. He would play games in the
                        2
                            classroom with them. These boys would arrive after school and knock on the door.
                        3
                            Martin would let them in and then close the door, locking it. One night, a teacher who
                        4
                            complained about Martin’s inappropriate conduct, tried to open the door only to find it
                        5
                            locked. She also noticed that the boys did not leave until about 7 p.m. or 8 p.m.
                        6
                                  24.    When another teacher discussed a complaint about Martin with Martin,
                        7
                            Martin predicted how the District would react: “Who are they going to believe, this kid,
                        8
                            or teacher of the year?”
                        9
                                  25.    In sum, Martin was able to sexually harass and sexually abuse students
                      10
                            by making himself fun to children, and by obtaining approval from school
                      11
                            administrators through the high performance of his students. Even though he made
                      12
                            himself popular with students, Plaintiffs were too young to understand his harassment
                      13
                            and abuse. However, they did describe how they did not like Martin’s harassment and
                      14
                            abuse, finding it “creepy” and “weird.” They felt intimidated, threatened and coerced—
                      15
                            even scared—by Martin at the time of his harassment and abuse, but said nothing
                      16
                            because they did not understand the gravity of his actions or the damage that it was
                      17
                            causing. Plaintiffs are finding they are having psychological issues arising from what
                      18
                            they underwent. As shown through this Complaint, Martin’s sexual harassment and
                      19
                            sexual abuse would never have been possible without the assistance of the District’s
                      20
                            supervisory employees and administrators, including members of the Board of
                      21
                            Trustees and the General Counsel, all of whom ignored numerous complaints going as
                      22
                            far back as 2005. Martin’s high student scores apparently trumped the welfare of the
                      23
                            students under their care.
                      24
                            Sexual Harassment And Abuse Of Plaintiffs
                      25
                                  26.    Plaintiffs, except for Plaintiff John Doe 4, were originally harassed and
                      26
                            abused by Martin when he was their fourth and/or fifth grade teacher. John Does 5, 6
                      27
                            and 9 were harassed and abused by Martin even after they were no longer in his
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                           Page 9
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            class. Martin invited John Does 5, 6 and 9 to school grounds after school hours to
                        2
                            play basketball in the school playground and play games in his classroom. John Doe
                        3
                            3 was harassed and abused from 2012 to 2013; John Doe 5 was harassed and
                        4
                            abused from 2009 to 2013; John Doe 6 was harassed and abused from 2009 to 2013;
                        5
                            John Doe 7 was harassed and abused from 2012 to 2013; John Doe 8 was harassed
                        6
                            from 2012 to 2013; and John Doe 9 was harassed and abused from 2009 to 2013.
                        7
                                  27.    Martin would sexually harass and sexually abuse Plaintiffs in the
                        8
                            classroom during and after school hours while the Plaintiffs were within the custodial
                        9
                            care of the District. With regard to his actions after school hours, Martin would invite
                      10
                            Plaintiffs to visit him in his classroom after school hours, including when they were no
                      11
                            longer in his class, at which time he would harass and abuse them. It was only
                      12
                            because Martin held a position of authority and trust, which was reinforced by his use
                      13
                            of school grounds, that he was able to perpetrate harassment and abuse upon
                      14
                            Plaintiffs during and after school hours in his classroom. Plaintiffs did not consent to
                      15
                            Martin’s conduct, and were intimidated, threatened and/or coerced into submitting to
                      16
                            his treatment of them.
                      17
                                  28.    All of the Plaintiffs, with the exception of John Doe 4, were the victims of
                      18
                            sexual battery as well as lewd and lascivious conduct with children, including, but not
                      19
                            limited to, having Martin repeatedly put his hands down Plaintiffs’ shirts, rubbing their
                      20
                            bare chests and stomachs, positioning books on their laps so as to sweep their groins
                      21
                            and penises in the process, and continually coming up from behind them and giving
                      22
                            them long overly affectionate and inappropriate hugs.
                      23
                            Bystander Liability
                      24
                                  29.    John Doe 4, a fifth grade student of Martin in 2012 and 2013, is the
                      25
                            brother of John Doe 5. John Doe 4 observed Martin’s harassment and abuse of John
                      26
                            Doe 5 during the school year 2012-2013.           John Doe 4’s observations of the
                      27
                            harassment and abuse to John Doe 4 occurred in Martin’s classroom after school
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                        Page 10
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            hours. These observations of Martin’s outrageous conduct caused John Doe 4 to
                        2
                            experience severe emotional distress.
                        3
                            Location Of The Harassment
                        4
                                  30.    Martin was able to perpetrate much of his sexual harassment and sexual
                        5
                            abuse, including that which was observed by John Doe 4, on school grounds because
                        6
                            of a dangerous condition of property on the premises, which were owned, leased
                        7
                            and/or controlled by the District. Martin excessively decorated his classroom such that
                        8
                            visibility through windows and doors was blocked, preventing other adults from
                        9
                            observing Martin’s conduct with students. The fire marshal even cited Martin for code
                      10
                            violations because of the excessive decorations, but the District’s supervisory
                      11
                            employees and administrators never required Martin to remove the decorations until
                      12
                            he was ready to do so. Moreover, Martin kept the door closed and locked, preventing
                      13
                            access to outside adults. A dangerous condition of property was created through the
                      14
                            combination of Martin’s misuse of the physical defect or physical characteristic of the
                      15
                            property of the lack of visibility and access into the classroom to harass and abuse
                      16
                            students and Martin’s harassment and abuse of students.          The District and the
                      17
                            District’s supervisory employees and administrators could have altered this physical
                      18
                            condition or physical characteristic of the property so as to make the property safe by
                      19
                            requiring Martin to remove decorations that blocked visibility and requiring Martin to
                      20
                            keep his door opened and unlocked when alone with students and when with students
                      21
                            after school hours.
                      22
                            The District Permitted Martin To Confront Plaintiffs
                      23
                                  31.    After the parents of John Doe 5 had complained to Cronan about Martin,
                      24
                            Cronan informed Martin of the complaint and allowed him to return to his classroom.
                      25
                            Martin then had the students put their heads down on their desk and asked anyone
                      26
                            who believed he had touched him or her inappropriately to raise his or her hand.
                      27
                            Martin then approached one student to dissuade him from making a complaint. Martin
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                      Page 11
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            began crying in front of the class. His students, including John Does 3, 4, 7 and 8
                        2
                            became extremely frightened and confused by Martin’s actions.
                        3
                                   32.    When John Doe 5’s parents learned that Cronan had permitted Martin to
                        4
                            return to the classroom after their complaint, they complained of Cronan’s conduct to
                        5
                            the police based on a concern that Cronan was not being sufficiently objective. In fact,
                        6
                            John Doe 5’s parents’ concerns were well-founded. Cronan had stated outright to the
                        7
                            police that she did not believe that Martin had engaged in any inappropriate conduct
                        8
                            with any students because Martin was like Peter Pan or the Pied Piper to students.
                        9
                            Cronan even instituted her own investigation into the complaints against Martin. The
                      10
                            District eventually instructed Cronan to refrain from any further investigations because
                      11
                            of her inappropriate conduct.
                      12
                            Evidence Of Prior Complaints Regarding Martin’s Abusive Behavior
                      13
                                   33.    The Districts supervisory employees and administrators, including its
                      14
                            Board of Trustee members and the General Counsel had ample notice of Martin’s
                      15
                            sexual misconduct with students. Rather than act on these numerous prior complaints
                      16
                            from teachers and parents, they “buried” the complaints and did nothing; the
                      17
                            mandatory reporting obligations imposed by the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting
                      18
                            Act were ignored, even in the face of the District’s own outside investigator’s
                      19
                            conclusion that …”this report would not be honest and its conclusions not fully
                      20
                            supported if I did not report the circumstances surrounding these allegations that at
                      21
                            least suggest the subject matter of potential child abuse”.
                      22
                                   34.    At some time in 2005-2006, a fellow teacher of Martin’s discovered
                      23
                            Martin and a 12 or 13 year old boy at approximately 6:30 p.m. in Martin’s classroom
                      24
                            behind a closet door. Both had their shoes off. When they came out of the closet,
                      25
                            both looked startled by the teacher’s entry and “froze”. Martin had a “deer in the
                      26
                            headlights” look on his face and appeared very nervous. The teacher complained to
                      27
                            Sachs about the obviously inappropriate and suspicious behavior by Martin.         This
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                       Page 12
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            teacher also complained of inappropriate hugging of young male students, and the
                        2
                            inappropriate nature of Martin’s male-only, by invitation only, after hours Chess Club
                        3
                            that targeted Martin’s hand-picked favorite students. She repeated her concerns to
                        4
                            each new principal at Woodside, namely, Batesole and Cronan.
                        5
                                   35.    Other fellow teachers complained to administrators during this same
                        6
                            approximate time frame (2005-2006). One teacher saw Martin walking in an overly
                        7
                            intimate fashion with a male student, late in the afternoon, off school grounds. The
                        8
                            teacher was so troubled she went to her principal (Sachs) to complain.
                        9
                                   36.    Yet another teacher expressed her concerns to Sachs that Martin would
                      10
                            hold “Magic Mornings” in his classroom where he would turn off all the lights and play
                      11
                            loud music. This teacher also complained that she would constantly see 12 to 13 year
                      12
                            old boys coming to Martin’s classroom after school.          The boys were no longer
                      13
                            attending Woodside Elementary School, but were now at Oak Grove. The teacher
                      14
                            observed them knock on Martin’s classroom door and he would let them in. The
                      15
                            suspicious teacher would, at times, try to open Martin’s classroom door after the boys
                      16
                            were inside but found it locked.    It would sometimes be after 8:00 p.m. before the
                      17
                            boys left.
                      18
                                   37.    Another teacher complained that Martin would come to her class and
                      19
                            point to pictures of boys in her class, saying things like “I want him in my class, I want
                      20
                            him, I want him.” Most of the boys fit a profile – he pointed to boys with blonde hair
                      21
                            and blue eyes.
                      22
                                   38.    Another teacher complained to the principal that Martin exhibited all of
                      23
                            the hallmarks of a child molester. Most disturbing was a conversation that Martin
                      24
                            related to this teacher indicating that he routinely went to Disneyland several times a
                      25
                            year and that he knew “where all the bathrooms and exits were.”
                      26
                                   39.    As a result of some or all of these complaints, the District investigated
                      27
                            Martin by hiring and paying the law firm of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo,
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                         Page 13
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            an outside law firm, in 2006. That report concluded as noted above that Martin’s
                        2
                            behavior at least suggested that he was engaging in potential child abuse. The District
                        3
                            never reported the complaints to the police or any other authority as required by the
                        4
                            Child Abuse or Neglect Reporting Act. Furthermore, the District took no further action
                        5
                            against Martin. The District did nothing to monitor Martin or advise other teachers or
                        6
                            administrators who later became suspicious of Martin, of the prior complaints or the
                        7
                            investigation.
                        8
                                   40.       The District’s 2006 investigation stated that Martin agreed that he would
                        9
                            do things differently to ameliorate his conduct with students, including keeping his
                      10
                            classroom door open, having more than one student in the room and putting distance
                      11
                            between himself and students.          With regard to the police department’s current
                      12
                            investigation of Martin in 2013, the police report notes that Martin “did not follow
                      13
                            through with doing any of these things.”
                      14
                                   41.       The District’s 2006 investigation also noted that, going forward, Martin
                      15
                            should refrain from activities that are not educationally sound such as: 1) closing the
                      16
                            door to a classroom when he is alone in a classroom with a student; 2) encouraging
                      17
                            only male students to engage in before or after school activities; and 3) devising skits
                      18
                            between teacher and student that results in physical contact between the two, no
                      19
                            matter how innocent. The District failed to enforce any of these restrictions since the
                      20
                            2006 report.
                      21
                                   42.       Even after the District’s 2006 investigation, a parent brought a complaint
                      22
                            to the Woodside Principal about a letter that Martin sent home with students telling
                      23
                            them to wash all their parts, including their private parts, fore they came to school.
                      24
                            Nothing was done in follow-up.
                      25
                                   43.       The evidence of these prior complaints reveals that the District’s
                      26
                            supervisory employees and administrators, including district administrators, members
                      27
                            of the Board of Trustees and General Counsel, not only failed to report abuse to legal
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                          Page 14
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            authorities in compliance with the Child Abuse and Reporting Act, but also failed to
                        2
                            take any meaningful investigatory, remedial or other disciplinary action against Martin.
                        3
                            Those failing to report include, but are not limited to, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs,
                        4
                            Lawrence, McHenry, Mayo, Eberhart, Allen, Treece, Leal, and Rolen.
                        5
                                                                  DAMAGES
                        6
                                   44.    As a proximate result of Defendants’ misconduct as alleged in this
                        7
                            Complaint, Plaintiffs suffered physical injury and severe emotional distress, confusion,
                        8
                            guilt, mental anguish, humiliation, fear, and anxiety. Plaintiffs have incurred and will
                        9
                            continue to incur expenses for the medical and psychotherapeutic treatment of these
                      10
                            injuries.
                      11
                                   45.    The conduct of Martin, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry,
                      12
                            Rolen, Mayo, Eberhart, Allen, Treece and Leal was despicable, was conducted with a
                      13
                            willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiffs, and was
                      14
                            oppressive and fraudulent. Plaintiffs will therefore seek an award of punitive damages
                      15
                            against Martin, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen, Mayo, Eberhart,
                      16
                            Allen, and Treece.
                      17
                                   46.    As further alleged herein, Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees from
                      18
                            Martin, the District, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen, Mayo,
                      19
                            Eberhart, Allen, Treece and the personal representative/s and/or successors-in-
                      20
                            interest of Leal.
                      21
                                                          FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
                      22
                                                                  Negligence
                      23
                                                 (Against Martin and DOES 1 through 100)
                      24
                                   47.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the preceding
                      25
                            paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
                      26
                                   48.    Martin owed a duty of care to conduct his relations with Plaintiffs and
                      27
                            other students in a reasonable manner to avoid causing foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs.
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                       Page 15
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                                  49.    At all times mentioned, it was reasonably foreseeable that children would
                        2
                            suffer severe emotional harm if an adult responsible for their safety and well-being
                        3
                            engaged in the types of inappropriate conduct demonstrated by Martin, including, but
                        4
                            not limited to, putting his hands down Plaintiffs’ shirts, rubbing their bare chests and
                        5
                            stomachs, positioning books on their laps so as to sweep their groins and penises in
                        6
                            the process, and continually coming up from behind them and giving them long overly
                        7
                            affectionate and inappropriate hugs.
                        8
                                  50.    In engaging in the conduct described in this Complaint, Martin breached
                        9
                            this duty of care to Plaintiffs and proximately caused Plaintiffs to suffer the damages
                      10
                            described in this Complaint.
                      11
                                  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
                      12
                            ///
                      13

                      14

                      15

                      16

                      17

                      18

                      19
                      20

                      21

                      22

                      23

                      24

                      25

                      26

                      27

                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                       Page 16
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                                                         SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
                        2
                                                     Sexual Battery, Civil Code § 1708.5
                        3
                                                                (Against Martin)
                        4
                                   51.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the preceding
                        5
                            paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
                        6
                                   52.    In engaging in the conduct described in this Complaint, Martin committed
                        7
                            numerous acts of sexual battery against Plaintiffs, rendering Martin liable to Plaintiffs
                        8
                            under Civil Code section 1708.5.
                        9
                                   53.    As a result of Martin’s acts of sexual battery, Plaintiffs suffered damages
                      10
                            as described in this Complaint, and Plaintiffs are also entitled to punitive damages as
                      11
                            described herein.
                      12
                                   WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
                      13
                                                          THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
                      14
                                    Lewd and Lascivious Conduct with Children, Penal Code § 288(a)
                      15
                                                                (Against Martin)
                      16
                                   54.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the preceding
                      17
                            paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
                      18
                                   55.    In committing the acts described in this Complaint, Martin engaged in
                      19
                            abusive lewd and lascivious conduct with Plaintiffs. This conduct was unlawful, and in
                      20
                            violation of numerous provisions of the California Penal Code, including California
                      21
                            Penal Code sections 288(a), and subjects Martin to civil liability.
                      22
                                   56.    As a proximate result of Martin’s unlawful, lewd, and lascivious conduct,
                      23
                            Plaintiffs suffered damages as described in this Complaint, entitling them to, among
                      24
                            other damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees under California Code of Civil
                      25
                            Procedure 1021.4.
                      26
                                   WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
                      27

                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                        Page 17
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                                                              FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                        2
                                         Negligent Supervision of Plaintiffs and Vicarious Liability
                        3
                               (Against The District, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen,
                        4
                               Mayo, Eberhart, Allen, Treece, the Estate of Leal and DOES 1 through 100)
                        5
                                   57.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the preceding
                        6
                            paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
                        7
                                   58.    The District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators
                        8
                            were entrusted with the supervision and protection of Plaintiffs and other students;
                        9
                            were subject to a duty to protect Plaintiffs and other students from foreseeable harm,
                      10
                            including the risk of harm presented by third parties, including, but not limited to,
                      11
                            teachers employed by the School and the District; and were subject to a duty to
                      12
                            reasonably hire, retain, train, and/or supervise Martin, whose job duties entailed
                      13
                            contact with children, including Plaintiffs.
                      14
                                   59.    At all times, it was reasonably foreseeable that Plaintiffs were subject to
                      15
                            a risk that an adult in a position of trust and authority over children, including, but not
                      16
                            limited to, those employed as teachers by the School and the District, would engage in
                      17
                            harmful and injurious misconduct with respect to those children if the District’s
                      18
                            supervisory employees and administrators did not properly supervise and/or observe
                      19
                            the interactions of teachers with minor students such as Plaintiffs. This is especially
                      20
                            so with regard to Martin, as the District’s supervisory employees and administrators
                      21
                            had received, prior to Martin’s harassment and molestation of Plaintiffs, numerous
                      22
                            complaints with regard to Martin’s inappropriate misconduct with minor students such
                      23
                            that they knew or should have known that Martin was sexually harassing and abusing
                      24
                            Plaintiffs and other students.
                      25
                                   60.    In light of numerous prior complaints about Martin’s sexual abuse of
                      26
                            minor students, Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs when they, in supervising
                      27
                            Plaintiffs, engaged in a negligent and/or reckless lack of diligence in failing to (1)
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                          Page 18
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            prevent Martin’s harassment and molestation of Plaintiffs and other students; (2)
                        2
                            discover Martin’s harassment and molestation of Plaintiffs and other students; (3)
                        3
                            investigate complaints of Martin’s inappropriate sexual misconduct with minor
                        4
                            students; (4) ensure that Martin understood what constituted inappropriate sexual
                        5
                            contact with a minor student; (5) ensure that Martin understood that inappropriate
                        6
                            sexual harassment and contact with a minor student would be grounds for suspension,
                        7
                            termination and/or other discipline; (6) ensure that Martin was not engaging in
                        8
                            inappropriate sexual misconduct with minor students; (7) observe and supervise
                        9
                            Martin’s interactions with Plaintiffs and other minor students so as to prevent Martin’s
                      10
                            sexual harassment and abuse; (8) refrain from engaging in fraudulent concealment
                      11
                            and conspiracy to commit fraud with regard to the prior complaints involving Martin’s
                      12
                            misconduct with students; (9) make safe the dangerous condition of Martin’s misuse of
                      13
                            the classroom’s lack of visibility and accessibility to adults outside the classroom to
                      14
                            harass and abuse students such as Plaintiffs by (a) insisting that Martin refrain from
                      15
                            excessively decorating the classroom such that visibility into the classroom was
                      16
                            blocked, (b) insisting that Martin keep his door open and unlocked when alone with a
                      17
                            student or when with students after school hours, or (c) by supervising, suspending
                      18
                            and/or terminating Martin; and/or (10) warn parents of the risk of sexual abuse that
                      19
                            Martin posed to their children.
                      20
                                   61.    The District is liable for the negligent supervision of Plaintiffs by the
                      21
                            District’s supervisory employees and administrators under a theory of respondeat
                      22
                            superior because said supervisory employees and administrators were acting within
                      23
                            the course and scope of their employment as defined in Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified
                      24
                            Sch. Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 741, 747.
                      25
                                   62.    As a proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and/or lack of
                      26
                            diligence of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered damages as described in this Complaint.
                      27
                                   WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                       Page 19
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                                                           FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                        2
                                Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Retention of Martin and Vicarious Liability
                        3
                               (Against The District, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen,
                        4
                               Mayo, Eberhart, Allen, Treece, the Estate of Leal and DOES 1 through 100)
                        5
                                   63.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the preceding
                        6
                            paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
                        7
                                   64.    The District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators
                        8
                            were entrusted with the supervision and protection of Plaintiffs, and were subject to a
                        9
                            duty to reasonably hire, retain, train, and/or supervise those persons, including Martin,
                      10
                            whose job functions entailed contact with children, including Plaintiffs.
                      11
                                   65.    Prior to the time Plaintiffs were molested, the District and the District’s
                      12
                            supervisory employees and administrators had actual and/or constructive knowledge
                      13
                            that Martin demonstrated deviant sexual propensities of sexual misconduct with minor
                      14
                            students that presented a foreseeable risk that Martin would abuse children with whom
                      15
                            he came into contact in a position of trust and authority.
                      16
                                   66.    The District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators
                      17
                            had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Martin’s sexual abuse of minor students
                      18
                            at the School prior to Plaintiffs’ molestation because they had received numerous
                      19
                            complaints of this inappropriate misconduct.
                      20
                                   67.    The District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators
                      21
                            breached the duty of care to Plaintiffs in negligently retaining Martin in a position of
                      22
                            trust and authority at the School without properly training and/or supervising him with
                      23
                            regard to his interactions with minor students, including Plaintiffs.
                      24
                                   68.    Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs when they, in training,
                      25
                            supervising and retaining Martin, engaged in a negligent and/or reckless lack of
                      26
                            diligence in failing to (1) prevent Martin’s harassment and molestation of Plaintiffs and
                      27
                            other students; (2) discover Martin’s harassment and molestation of Plaintiffs and
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                        Page 20
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            other students; (3) investigate complaints of Martin’s inappropriate sexual misconduct
                        2
                            with minor students; (4) ensure that Martin understood what constituted inappropriate
                        3
                            sexual contact with a minor student; (5) ensure that Martin understood that
                        4
                            inappropriate sexual harassment and contact with a minor student would be grounds
                        5
                            for suspension, termination and/or other discipline; (6) ensure that Martin was not
                        6
                            engaging in inappropriate sexual misconduct with minor students; (7) observe and
                        7
                            supervise Martin’s interactions with Plaintiffs and other minor students so as to prevent
                        8
                            Martin’s sexual harassment and abuse; (8) refrain from engaging in fraudulent
                        9
                            concealment and conspiracy to commit fraud with regard to the prior complaints
                      10
                            involving Martin’s misconduct with students; (9) make safe the dangerous condition of
                      11
                            Martin’s misuse of the classroom’s lack of visibility and accessibility to adults outside
                      12
                            the classroom to harass and abuse students such as Plaintiffs by (a) insisting that
                      13
                            Martin refrain from excessively decorating the classroom such that visibility into the
                      14
                            classroom was blocked, (b) insisting that Martin keep his door open and unlocked
                      15
                            when alone with a student or when with students after school hours, or (c) by
                      16
                            supervising, suspending and/or terminating Martin; and/or (10) warn parents of the risk
                      17
                            of sexual abuse that Martin posed to their children.
                      18
                                  69.    The District is liable for the negligent training, supervision and retention
                      19
                            of Martin by its supervisory employees and administrators under a theory of
                      20
                            respondeat superior because said supervisory employees and administrators were
                      21
                            acting within the course and scope of their employment as defined in C.A. v. William S.
                      22
                            Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 865.
                      23
                                  70.    As a proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and/or lack of
                      24
                            diligence of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered damages as described in this Complaint.
                      25
                                  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
                      26
                            ///
                      27
                            ///
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
                            ///
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                        Page 21
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                                                           SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                        2
                                  Interference with Personal Rights by Threats, Intimidation or Coercion
                        3
                                                      Vicarious Liability And Ratification
                        4
                                                          California Civil Code § 52.1
                        5
                             (Against Martin, The District, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen,
                        6
                                 Mayo, Eberhart, Allen, Treece, the Estate of Leal and DOES 1 through 100)
                        7
                                   71.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the preceding
                        8
                            paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
                        9
                                   72.    In abusing his authority over Plaintiffs to sexually harass and molest
                      10
                            them, Martin interfered and attempted to interfere with Plaintiffs’ rights to privacy and
                      11
                            bodily integrity, as protected by Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution, and
                      12
                            Plaintiffs’ right to be safe from sexual predation by adults as protected by California
                      13
                            Penal Code §288(a).       Martin interfered with these and other rights by means of
                      14
                            threats, intimidation and coercion, in violation of California Civil Code § 52.1.
                      15
                                   73.    As a proximate result of the conduct of Martin, Plaintiffs sustained
                      16
                            damages as described in this Complaint, including actual damages within the meaning
                      17
                            of California Civil Code section 52.
                      18
                                   74.    As a proximate result of the conduct of Martin, Plaintiffs are entitled to an
                      19
                            award of exemplary damages against Martin, as well as civil penalties and attorneys’
                      20
                            fees, as provided by California Civil Code section 52.
                      21
                                   75.    The District is vicariously liable for Martin’s violation of the Bane Act,
                      22
                            California Civil Code § 52.1. Gant v. County of Los Angeles (C.D. Cal. 2011) 765
                      23
                            F.Supp.2d 1238, 1249 (discussing respondeat superior liability under the Bane Act)
                      24
                            (citing Robinson v. Solano County (9th Cir. 2002) 278 F.3d 1007, 1016). The District
                      25
                            is also liable for the acts of Martin because its supervisory employees and
                      26
                            administrators knew or should have known of said acts and authorized and ratified
                      27

                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                           Page 22
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            those acts, including when they failed to take any corrective action with regard to those
                        2
                            acts. C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1110.
                        3
                                   WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
                        4
                                                        SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                        5
                                                      Sexual Harassment By A Teacher
                        6
                                                      Ratification of Sexual Harassment
                        7
                                                         California Civil Code § 51.9
                        8
                             (Against Martin, The District, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen,
                        9
                                 Mayo, Eberhart, Allen, Treece, the Estate of Leal and DOES 1 through 100)
                      10
                                   76.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the preceding
                      11
                            paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
                      12
                                   77.    The acts alleged against Martin include: putting his hands down
                      13
                            Plaintiffs’ shirts, rubbing their bare chests and stomachs, positioning books on their
                      14
                            laps so as to sweep their groins and penises in the process, and continually coming up
                      15
                            from behind them and giving them long overly affectionate and inappropriate hugs,
                      16
                            and Martin’s intimidation and coercion against Plaintiffs that allowed him to engage in
                      17
                            this nonconsensual conduct with Plaintiffs. Martin’s conduct directed against Plaintiffs
                      18
                            was based on Plaintiffs’ gender, and was unwelcome and severe.
                      19
                                   78.    As previously alleged, the negligent supervision of Plaintiffs and the
                      20
                            negligent hiring, supervision and retention of Martin of the District and the District’s
                      21
                            supervisory employees and administrators resulted in Martin’s sexual harassment and
                      22
                            sexual abuse of Plaintiffs. Thus, the District is liable under respondeat superior for its
                      23
                            supervisory employees’ and administrators’ negligent supervision of Plaintiffs that
                      24
                            caused the sexual harassment and negligent hiring, supervision and retention of
                      25
                            Martin that caused the sexual harassment. This is so because, when committing this
                      26
                            misconduct, the District’s supervisory employees and administrators were acting within
                      27
                            the course and scope of their employment as defined in C.A. v. William S. Hart Union
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                         Page 23
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 865; Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.
                        2
                            (1970) 2 Cal.3d 741, 747.
                        3
                                  79.    Furthermore, the District and the District’s supervisory employees and
                        4
                            administrators ratified Martin’s actions when they failed to investigate or otherwise
                        5
                            respond to complaints about Martin’s sexual misconduct with minor students and/or
                        6
                            take any corrective actions with regard to Martin’s sexual misconduct with minor
                        7
                            students. This ratification was within the course and scope of the employment of the
                        8
                            District’s supervisory employees and administrators with the District as that phrase is
                        9
                            defined in Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291,
                      10
                            296 (discussing “course and scope of employment” with regard to public entity). See
                      11
                            also C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1110 (ratification by
                      12
                            the employer occurs when there is a failure to investigate a complaint; ratification
                      13
                            subjects the employer to respondeat superior liability under section 51.9).
                      14
                                  80.    As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered the
                      15
                            damages described in this Complaint, including actual damages within the meaning of
                      16
                            California Civil Code section 52, and Plaintiffs are also entitled to punitive damages as
                      17
                            described herein, as well as civil penalties and attorneys’ fees, as provided by
                      18
                            California Civil Code section 52.
                      19
                                  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
                      20
                                                         EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                      21
                                           Premises Liability—Dangerous Condition of Property
                      22
                               (Against The District, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen,
                      23
                                Mayo, Eberhart, Allen, Treece, the Estate of Leal and DOES 1 through 10)
                      24
                                  81.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the preceding
                      25
                            paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
                      26

                      27

                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                        Page 24
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                                    82.   The District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators
                        2
                            owned, possessed and/or controlled the premises on which the classroom was located
                        3
                            where Martin harassed and molested Plaintiffs.
                        4
                                    83.   A dangerous condition of property of a public entity existed in violation of
                        5
                            Government Code § 835 in the classroom where Martin harassed and molested
                        6
                            Plaintiffs.
                        7
                                    84.   The dangerous condition was a combination of the acts of a third party,
                        8
                            i.e., Martin’s misuse of the property’s physical defect or physical characteristic of not
                        9
                            being visible or accessible to adults outside the classroom in order to harass and
                      10
                            abuse Plaintiffs, and a physical defect or physical characteristic of property, i.e., the
                      11
                            classroom was not sufficiently visible or accessible to adults outside the room for
                      12
                            adults to observe and supervise Martin’s interactions with minor students so as to
                      13
                            prevent Martin’s sexual misconduct. The classroom lacked visibility because Martin
                      14
                            decorated the classroom at every opportunity in such a way as to block visibility
                      15
                            through the classroom’s windows and doors.         Moreover, the District’s supervisory
                      16
                            employees and administrators never admonished Martin to refrain from such
                      17
                            decorations, even though Martin was cited for code violations by the fire marshal.
                      18
                            Furthermore, the classroom lacked visibility and accessibility because, when alone
                      19
                            with a student or when with one or more students after school hours, Martin would
                      20
                            close and lock the classroom door to prevent visibility and accessibility to other adults.
                      21
                            Although the District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators
                      22
                            instructed Martin to keep his door open and unlocked when alone with a student and
                      23
                            when with one or more students after school hours, Martin failed to comply with the
                      24
                            instruction and the District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators
                      25
                            failed to enforce the instruction.
                      26
                                    85.   In light of the numerous complaints to the District’s supervisory
                      27
                            employees and administrators concerning Martin’s sexual misconduct toward minor
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                         Page 25
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            students, it was foreseeable that the dangerous condition of property created a
                        2
                            foreseeable risk of injury to minor students. The lack of visibility or accessibility of the
                        3
                            classroom intensified the risk that Martin would engage in sexual misconduct with
                        4
                            minor students in the classroom, as it gave Martin an ease of access to act upon his
                        5
                            dangerous sexual propensities of which Defendants had actual, constructive and/or
                        6
                            imputed notice.    Consequently, Martin’s misuse of the physical defect or physical
                        7
                            characteristic of property of the lack of visibility or accessibility into the classroom by
                        8
                            outside adults in order to carry out his harassment and abuse of students created a
                        9
                            substantial risk of injury to students, including Plaintiffs, of being harassed and abused
                      10
                            by Martin, and thus a dangerous condition of property existed on the School’s and the
                      11
                            District’s premises that were controlled by the District’s supervisory employees and
                      12
                            administrators.   Also establishing a substantial risk of injury is the existence of
                      13
                            substantially similar prior incidents involving Martin’s misuse of the classroom’s lack of
                      14
                            visibility or accessibility in order to harass and abuse students before harassing and
                      15
                            abusing Plaintiffs, as shown by the complaints made to the District’s supervisory
                      16
                            employees and administrators prior to the harassment and abuse of Plaintiffs.
                      17
                                   86.    Defendants had actual and/or constructive notice of the dangerous
                      18
                            condition in sufficient time before Plaintiffs’ harassment and molestation to take
                      19
                            preventative measures to make safe or warn of the dangerous condition so that
                      20
                            Plaintiffs would not have been sexually harassed and abused by Martin.
                      21
                                   87.    Defendants had actual notice because, prior to Plaintiffs’ molestation,
                      22
                            teachers and others had made numerous complaints about Martin’s sexual
                      23
                            misconduct with students to the District’s supervisory employees and administrators.
                      24
                            In addition, Defendants knew the classroom was not sufficiently visible or accessible
                      25
                            from the outside for them to properly and adequately supervise Martin’s interactions
                      26
                            with the children inside. The District and the District’s supervisory employees and
                      27
                            administrators were aware of the citations of code violations by the fire marshal,
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                           Page 26
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            thereby giving them actual notice of the lack of visibility as a result of Martin’s
                        2
                            excessive decorations. Furthermore, given that the District’s supervisory employees
                        3
                            and administrators instructed Martin to keep his door open and unlocked when alone
                        4
                            with a student or when with one or more students after school hours, Defendants knew
                        5
                            that Martin was acting to block visibility and accessibility to adults into the classroom
                        6
                            by closing and locking the door when with students.
                        7
                                  88.    Defendants had constructive knowledge because they had received
                        8
                            complaints about Martin, and, had they properly investigated these complaints,
                        9
                            sufficient information existed for them to discover his harassment and molestation of
                      10
                            minor students. Moreover, a reasonable inspection of the classroom, especially after
                      11
                            complaints concerning Martin’s misconduct were made and after the fire marshal cited
                      12
                            Martin for code violations due to his excessive decorations, would have revealed that
                      13
                            the classroom was not sufficiently visible or accessible to adults outside so that they
                      14
                            would be able to adequately supervise Martin to prevent sexual harassment and
                      15
                            molestation of students inside the classroom.         Indeed, Defendants would have
                      16
                            discovered that the excessive decorations blocked visibility into the classroom and that
                      17
                            Martin was closing and locking the classroom door to prevent visibility and accessibility
                      18
                            into the classroom by supervisory adults.
                      19
                                  89.    Plus, Martin and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators
                      20
                            created the dangerous condition of property. Martin created the dangerous condition
                      21
                            by his misuse of the physical defect or physical characteristic of the property that the
                      22
                            classroom was not visible or accessible to adults outside the classroom to supervise
                      23
                            his interactions with students inside the classroom in order to harass and abuse
                      24
                            students such as Plaintiffs. The District’s supervisory employees and administrators
                      25
                            created the dangerous condition of property because they negligently failed to follow
                      26
                            through on their investigation of complaints about Martin’s sexual molestation of
                      27
                            students in such a way as to ensure that Martin was not molesting students and they
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                        Page 27
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            negligently failed to follow through on their instructions to Martin that he keep the door
                        2
                            open and unlocked so that adults outside the classroom could supervise Martin’s
                        3
                            interactions with the students inside the classroom. Furthermore, Defendants acted
                        4
                            negligently with regard to Martin’s excessive decorations of the classroom that blocked
                        5
                            visibility into the classroom by not ensuring that Martin refrain from decorations that
                        6
                            blocked visibility into the classroom. Thus, after the initial complaints about Martin,
                        7
                            which occurred prior to Martin’s molestation of Plaintiffs, the District’s supervisory
                        8
                            employees’ and administrators’ negligence created the dangerous condition of
                        9
                            property such that they have imputed notice of the dangerous condition.
                      10
                                   90.    Defendants had a duty to make safe the dangerous condition. With little
                      11
                            to no burden, Defendants were capable of altering the physical defect or physical
                      12
                            characteristic of the property to make the property safe in that they had the ability to
                      13
                            make the classroom visible and accessible to adults outside the classroom so that
                      14
                            they could supervise Martin’s interactions with students inside the classroom. Little to
                      15
                            no burden would have fallen on the District’s supervisory employees and
                      16
                            administrators to make safe the physical defect or physical characteristic of lack of
                      17
                            sufficient visibility and accessibility into Martin’s classroom because they could have
                      18
                            required that Martin complied with their instructions to keep the door open and
                      19
                            unlocked, they could have required Martin to not decorate the classroom in ways that
                      20
                            blocked visibility into the classroom, and/or they could have otherwise easily made the
                      21
                            classroom sufficiently visible and accessible to adults outside the classroom.
                      22
                            Moreover, given the extensive complaints about Martin, little to no burden would have
                      23
                            fallen on the District’s supervisory employees and administrators to make the
                      24
                            dangerous condition safe by properly investigating the complaints against Martin and
                      25
                            taking proper disciplinary action against him, such as more attentively supervising him,
                      26
                            suspending him and/or terminating him.        As Defendants already had the duty to
                      27

                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                         Page 28
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            investigate complaints and engage in appropriate disciplinary action when such
                        2
                            complaints are meritorious, little to no burden exists in taking such actions.
                        3
                                   91.    If Defendants decided not to make the dangerous condition safe or it was
                        4
                            not possible for them to do so (e.g., not possible to make the classroom sufficiently
                        5
                            visible or accessible to outside staff), then Defendants had the duty to warn against
                        6
                            the dangerous condition by informing parents that Martin posed a risk of sexually
                        7
                            harassing and abusing their children and that the classroom was not sufficiently visible
                        8
                            for adult staff to observe such conduct.
                        9
                                   92.    Defendants breached their duties to make the dangerous condition safe
                      10
                            and/or warn of it. They did not make the classroom sufficiently visible or accessible to
                      11
                            adult staff outside the room to observe Martin’s interactions with minor students so that
                      12
                            they could prevent sexual abuse; they did not properly investigate and follow through
                      13
                            with the complaints against Martin; they did not engage in any training, supervision or
                      14
                            disciplinary action regarding Martin; they did not warn parents of the dangerous
                      15
                            condition; and they fraudulently concealed and entered into a conspiracy to commit
                      16
                            fraud with regard to the prior complaints about Martin.
                      17
                                   93.    As a proximate result of the dangerous condition of property and the
                      18
                            negligence, recklessness and/or lack of diligence of Defendants, Plaintiffs were injured
                      19
                            in that they were was sexually harassed and abused by Martin, suffering the damages
                      20
                            as described in this Complaint.
                      21
                                   WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
                      22
                                                               NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                      23
                                                                  NEGLIGENCE PER SE
                      24
                               (Against The District, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen,
                      25
                               Mayo, Eberhart, Allen, Treece, the Estate of Leal and DOES 1 through 100)
                      26
                                   94.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs
                      27
                            of this Complaint as though fully set forth here.
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                        Page 29
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                                   95.    When Plaintiffs were sexually harassed and abused by Martin as alleged
                        2
                            in this Complaint, Martin was their fourth and fifth grade teacher and was employed by
                        3
                            the School and the District. At the time of the harassment and molestation toward
                        4
                            Plaintiffs alleged herein, Plaintiffs were in attendance at the School, which was
                        5
                            operated by the District, and therefore was in the custodial care of the School, the
                        6
                            District, and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators.            As such,
                        7
                            Plaintiffs were entitled to the protections of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act,
                        8
                            California Penal Code §§ 11164 et. seq. from the School, the District and the District’s
                        9
                            supervisory employees and administrators.
                      10
                                   96.    Before Plaintiffs were sexually harassed and abused by Martin, the
                      11
                            District’s supervisory employees and administrators received complaints about
                      12
                            Martin’s sexual misconduct toward minor children, and therefore they knew or should
                      13
                            have known of Martin’s sexual misconduct at the time of Plaintiffs’ sexual harassment
                      14
                            and abuse by Martin.
                      15
                                   97.    Under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, California Penal Code
                      16
                            §§ 1164 et. seq., the stated purpose is as follows: “The intent and purpose of this
                      17
                            article is to protect children from abuse and neglect.” Plaintiffs fell within the definition
                      18
                            of a victim of abuse under California Pena Code §§ 11165.3 and 11165.4. Hence,
                      19
                            Plaintiffs are within the class of people intended to be protected by the Act, as they
                      20
                            were children who were subjected to abuse while in the custodial care the School, the
                      21
                            District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators.
                      22
                                   98.    Under California Penal Code § 1165.7, the School, the District and the
                      23
                            District’s supervisory employees and administrators had a mandatory duty to report
                      24
                            child abuse and neglect to the police or the county welfare department in the manner
                      25
                            proscribed under California Penal Code § 1165.9.
                      26
                                   99.    As Plaintiffs fall within the class of people protected by the Act, the
                      27
                            School, the District and the District’s supervisory employees and administrators owed
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                            Page 30
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            Plaintiffs a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs by
                        2
                            refraining from violating the provisions of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act.
                        3
                            It was foreseeable that violating the Act by failing to report Martin’s sexual harassment
                        4
                            and abuse of minor students as required by the Act and in accordance with § 1165.9
                        5
                            would result in harm to minor students such as Plaintiffs because the District’s
                        6
                            supervisory employees and administrators knew or should have known of Martin’s
                        7
                            sexual misconduct in light of prior complaints about Martin.
                        8
                                   100.   The School, the District and the District’s supervisory employees and
                        9
                            administrators breached their duty of care to Plaintiffs to refrain from violating the Child
                      10
                            Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act when they failed to report in the manner specified in
                      11
                            California Penal Code § 11165.9 the abuse of students that occurred prior to Plaintiffs’
                      12
                            abuse.
                      13
                                   101.   As a direct and proximate result of the violation of the Child Abuse and
                      14
                            Neglect Reporting Act by the School, the District and the District’s supervisory
                      15
                            employees and administrators Plaintiffs suffered damages as described in this
                      16
                            Complaint.
                      17
                                   102.   When the District’s supervisory employees and administrators failed to
                      18
                            report Martin’s sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiffs and other minor students in
                      19
                            violation of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, they were acting within the
                      20
                            course and scope of their employment such that the District is liable to Plaintiffs under
                      21
                            the doctrine of respondeat superior.       Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial
                      22
                            Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 296; Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School Dist.
                      23
                            (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1066, 1086 (negligence per se claim not allowed only because
                      24
                            student was not within school district’s custodial care; where student within custodial
                      25
                            care of school district, negligence per se claim allowed).
                      26
                                   WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
                      27
                                                          TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                           Page 31
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                                                       FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
                        2
                               (Against the District, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen,
                        3
                               Mayo, Eberhart, Allen, Treece, the Estate of Leal and DOES 1 through 100)
                        4
                                   103.   Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs
                        5
                            of this Complaint as though fully set forth here.
                        6
                                   104.   As students attending the School, Defendants were in a special
                        7
                            relationship with Plaintiffs and owed Plaintiffs a duty of protective care and a duty to
                        8
                            supervise.
                        9
                                   105.   As alleged in this Complaint, the District’s supervisory employees and
                      10
                            administrators actively concealed from Plaintiffs and others the fact that it had been
                      11
                            reported to them that Martin was suspected of harassing and abusing students, a fact
                      12
                            that the School, the District and the District’s supervisory employees and
                      13
                            administrators knew or should have known.
                      14
                                   106.   Plaintiffs were unaware of the fact that it had been reported to the
                      15
                            District’s supervisory employees and administrators that Martin was suspected of
                      16
                            harassing and abusing students.
                      17
                                   107.   The District’s supervisory employees and administrators intended to
                      18
                            deceive Plaintiffs and others by concealing the fact that Martin was suspected of
                      19
                            harassing and abusing students.
                      20
                                   108.   As a student of the School with the District, Plaintiffs had an expectation
                      21
                            that the District’s supervisory employees and administrators would ensure a safe
                      22
                            environment and prevent the possibility of sexual abuse.           Therefore, Plaintiffs
                      23
                            reasonably relied on the District’s supervisory employees’ and administrators’
                      24
                            deception that there were no suspected perpetrators of sexual harassment and abuse
                      25
                            employed by the School and the District.
                      26
                                   109.   Plaintiffs were harmed by the District’s supervisory employees’ and
                      27
                            administrators’ concealment of Martin’s suspected sexual harassment and abuse.
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                        Page 32
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                                   110.   The District’s supervisory employees’ and administrators’ concealment of
                        2
                            suspected sexual harassment and abuse by Martin was a substantial factor in causing
                        3
                            harm to Plaintiffs.
                        4
                                   111.   As a direct and proximate result of the District’s supervisory employees’
                        5
                            and administrators’ fraudulent concealment, Plaintiffs have suffered damages as
                        6
                            alleged in this Complaint, including punitive damages.
                        7
                                   WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
                        8
                            ///
                        9
                            ///
                      10

                      11

                      12

                      13

                      14

                      15

                      16

                      17

                      18

                      19
                      20

                      21

                      22

                      23

                      24

                      25

                      26

                      27

                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                      Page 33
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                                                       ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                        2
                                                      CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD
                        3
                               (Against the District, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs, Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen,
                        4
                               Mayo, Eberhart, Allen, Treece, the Estate of Leal and DOES 1 through 100)
                        5
                                   112.   Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs
                        6
                            of this Complaint as though fully set forth here.
                        7
                                   113.   Prior to the time that Martin harassed and abused Plaintiffs, the District’s
                        8
                            supervisory employees and administrators were aware that Martin was suspected of
                        9
                            sexual harassment and abuse of students.
                      10
                                   114.   The District’s supervisory employees and administrators fraudulently
                      11
                            concealed the fact of Martin’s suspected criminal behavior.
                      12
                                   115.   The District’s supervisory employees and administrators were aware that
                      13
                            each of them planned to conceal suspicion of Martin’s actions from other School and
                      14
                            District employees, parents of students, and the students themselves.
                      15
                                   116.   The District’s supervisory employees and administrators agreed with
                      16
                            each other and intended to perpetually conceal the suspicion of Martin’s sexual
                      17
                            harassment and abuse.
                      18
                                   117.   Plaintiffs were harmed by the District’s supervisory employees’ and
                      19
                            administrators’ conspiracy to fraudulently conceal Martin’s suspected sexual abuse.
                      20
                                   118.   As a direct and proximate result of the District’s supervisory employees
                      21
                            and administrators, Plaintiffs have suffered damages as alleged in this Complaint,
                      22
                            including punitive damages.
                      23
                                   WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
                      24
                                                          TWELFTH CAUSE ACTION
                      25
                                           NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
                      26
                                                            (Against All Defendants)
                      27

                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                         Page 34
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                                   119.   Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the preceding
                        2
                            paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
                        3
                                   120.   At all relevant times, Defendants owed a duty to exercise reasonable
                        4
                            care to avoid foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs. It was highly foreseeable to Defendants
                        5
                            that failing to exercise reasonable care posed a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiffs.
                        6
                                   121.   Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs by failing to act with
                        7
                            reasonable care so as to avoid foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs.
                        8
                                   122.   As a direct legal and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants,
                        9
                            Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress and sustained the damages as alleged in this
                      10
                            Complaint.
                      11
                                   123.   Defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment
                      12
                            such that the District is liable for their conduct under the doctrine of respondeat
                      13
                            superior. The District is also liable for the acts of Defendants because the District’s
                      14
                            supervisory employees and administrators knew or should have known of said acts
                      15
                            and authorized and ratified those acts, including when they failed to take any
                      16
                            corrective action with regard to those acts.
                      17
                                   WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
                      18
                                                      THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                      19
                                            NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
                      20
                                                      (On Behalf of Plaintiff John Doe 4)
                      21
                                                            (Against All Defendants)
                      22
                                   124.   Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the preceding
                      23
                            paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
                      24
                                   125.   During the school year of 2012 - 2013, Plaintiff John Doe 4 was present
                      25
                            and observed Martin harass and abuse his brother, Plaintiff John Doe 5.              Thus,
                      26
                            Plaintiff John Doe 4 was present and observed the injury by Martin to his brother,
                      27

                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                          Page 35
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                            Plaintiff John Doe 5, and Plaintiff John Doe 4 was aware that his brother, Plaintiff John
                        2
                            Doe 5, was being injured.
                        3
                                   126.   Plaintiff John Doe 4 suffered serious emotional distress because of his
                        4
                            observations of Martin injuring his brother, Plaintiff John Doe 5.
                        5
                                   127.   Martin’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff John Doe
                        6
                            4’s serious emotional distress.
                        7
                                   128.   As a direct legal and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants,
                        8
                            Plaintiff John Doe 4 sustained the damages as alleged in this Complaint.
                        9
                                   WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
                      10
                                                      FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                      11
                                          INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
                      12
                                                              (Against All Defendants)
                      13
                                   129.   Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the preceding
                      14
                            paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
                      15
                                   130.   The conduct of Defendants was despicable and outrageous and done
                      16
                            with a wanton and reckless disregard of the consequences to Plaintiffs, and was done
                      17
                            with knowledge that it was highly probable that Plaintiffs would suffer severe mental
                      18
                            anguish, and emotional and physical distress.
                      19
                                   131.   As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered severe
                      20
                            mental anguish and emotional and physical distress and incurred damages as
                      21
                            described in this complaint.
                      22
                                   132.   Defendants’ conduct was malicious and despicable, was done in
                      23
                            conscious and reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, was oppressive and/or was
                      24
                            fraudulent, and subjects Defendants to exemplary damages.
                      25
                                   WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
                      26
                                                                        PRAYER
                      27
                                   WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                        Page 36
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131
                        1
                                   1.     For general damages, according to proof;
                        2
                                   2.     For special damages, according to proof;
                        3
                                   3.     For exemplary damages from Martin, Cronan, Batesole, Sachs,
                        4
                            Lawrence, McHenry, Rolen, Mayo, Eberhart, Allen, and Treece, including, but not
                        5
                            limited to, pursuant to California Civil Code section 52 according to proof;
                        6
                                   4.     For treble damages, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees pursuant to
                        7
                            California Civil Code section 52 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.4;
                        8
                                   5.     For prejudgment interest pursuant to California Civil Code section 3288;
                        9
                                   6.     For costs of suit incurred herein; and
                      10
                                   7.     For further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
                      11
                                                          DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
                      12
                                   Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
                      13

                      14
                            Dated: February ____, 2014
                      15                                                  Stan Casper
                                                                          CASPER, MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK
                      16                                                  Attorneys for Plaintiffs

                      17

                      18

                      19
                      20

                      21

                      22

                      23

                      24

                      25

                      26

                      27

                      28
 CASPER, MEADOWS
 SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
       Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596      COMPLAINT                                                                       Page 37
  TEL: (925) 947-1147
  FAX (925) 947-1131

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:22
posted:2/11/2014
language:Unknown
pages:37
Bay Area News Group Bay Area News Group http://www.insidebayarea.com
About The bayarea.com network of news sites includes MercuryNews.com, ContraCostaTimes.com, InsideBayArea.com and SiliconValley.com.