O R B A C H H U F F S U A R E Z + H E N D E R S O N LL P 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19CV 343088 Santa Clara - Civil Kevin E. Gilbert, Esq. (SBN: 209236) kgilbert@ohshlaw.com Carolyn M. Aguilar (SBN: 289550) caguilar@ohshlaw.com Christopher R. Creech, Esq. (SBN: 293037) ccreech@ohshlaw.com ORBACH HUFF SUAREZ + HENDERSON LLP 6210 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 210 Pleasanton, California 94588 Telephone: (510) 999-7908 Facsimile: (510) 999-7918 Attorneys for Defendants UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, JACQUELINE HOREIJS (erroneously sued herein as HORJES), MARY L. BERKEY and CAROLE CARLSON R. Burc Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 4/14/2020 10:46 AM Reviewed By: R. Burciaga Case #19CV343088 Envelope: 4251370 Exempt from filing fees per Gov’t Code § 6103 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JANE DOE 1, and JANE DOE 2, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Janice Doe, Plaintiffs, Vv. UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, SAMUEL NEIPP, JACQUELINE HORJES, MARY L. BERKEY, CAROLE CARLSON, and ROES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 19CV343088 [Consolidated Case Nos. 19CV343101 and 19CV348167] Unlimited REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, JACQUELINE HOREJS, MARY BERKEY AND CAROLE CARLSON’S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFFS DOE 1 AND DOE 2 [CASE NO. 19CV348167] DATE: April 21, 2020 TIME: 9:00 a.m. DEPT: 21 JUDGE: Hon. Thang N. Barrett Complaint Filed: May 15,2019 Trial Date: Not yet set Reply ISO Defendants” Demurrer to First Amended Complaint Filed by Plts Doe 1 and Doe 2 [19CV343088] O R B A C H H U F F S U A R E Z + H E N D E R S O N LL P 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS L TINT RCL ITHC TH INT 2s estas oem tes, 0 SA FSA AHS SASH OAT II. LEGAL DISCUSSION .....otitiiitiiientiet sitet saee sae se ania ens A. Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged Facts to Support a Bane Act Claim......................... B. Plaintiffs’ Public Nuisance Claim is Precluded as a Matter of Law..................... C. Plaintiffs’ Claims Against the Administrators Fail as a Matter of Law ............... III. CONCLUSION... cect eee steers estate sabe sb east esses be esse enbesaee nes . Reply ISO Defendants” Demurrer to First Amended Complaint Filed by Plts Doe 1 and Doe 2 [19CV343088] O R B A C H H U F F S U A R E Z + H E N D E R S O N LL P 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 77 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Allen v. City of Sacramento CELE 23s Koll AEBS AEs: Boomers oesonsntssccoestcoesesso1,AS TT 6855 7 Bartell v. Palos Verdes Peninsula School District (1978) 83 Cal. APP-3A 402 cee eee ee estes ee eae she sees eaeesaeeee 13 Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. CLOBDY AB CLI. TILL, 50000 5005005055500 5005505055500 50555 55.5555 40556 5 5963 50.55.45, 35M 5 ARORA A355 12 Caldwell v. Montoya, (1995) 10 CaliAth O72 coer sees e hee eae sbeebs sees tetas best enbe saan 11 Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. The Irvine Co., LLC (2019) 37 Cal. APD-Sth 7 eee eee settee eee eae setae see ee beste seen ene en 7 City of San Diego v. U.S. Gypsum Co. (1995) 30 Cal. APPA 575 nes eae eb bestest sees sae sa een ens 9 Cornell v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 17 CalLAPP-Sh TOO... eee eerste sees estates sate seen ene ens 7 Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1970) 2 Cal.3d TAL eee eee ee eae sates eee be ebb sa eee estes sate sees 13 El Escorial Owners’ Ass'n. v. DLC Plastering, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal. APP-Ath 1337 eects ste ete eae testes sbeebs nee se ante se anaes 9 Gillian v. City of San Marino CERO 5 145 Call ABE ALE: | CBE 50 mmmsosommnss osmosis ims 00mm. 50 e05es ss 4005s 58s mss 5 13 Jennifer C. v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2008) 168 Cal. APP.Ath 1320 eee sees et eee se eet ene ese ese enbeenens 13 Kaplan v. La Barbera CLIO) 8B Cll INIATIL 173 sams sn m50..0055500 0050550505800 0050505058555. 050 0 6559 AR 50 TRS 55 13 Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary School District (1961) 55 Cal.2d 224... eee ete easter eee eae sheen ete ete eeen besten eran 12 Longval v. Commissioner of Correction (Mass. 1989) 404 Mass. 325, 535 NE. 2d 588 ....oiioiiiiieiieieieseeie sees st ers ees 8 Melton v. Boustred (2010) 183 Cal. APP. Ath 521 onic este ete eastern sree sheen e stent sr enna 9 Reply ISO Defendants” Demurrer to First Amended Complaint Filed by Plts Doe 1 and Doe 2 [19CV343088] O R B A C H H U F F S U A R E Z + H E N D E R S O N LL P 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 77 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Nicole M. By and Through Jacqueline M. v. Martinez Unified Sch. Dist. (N.D. Cal. 1997) 964 F.SUPP. 13609 ....ooriiiiiieeie cesses sae sree ee sees sae 12 Ortega v. Sacramento Cty. Dept. of Health and Human Servs. (2008) 161 Cal. APP.ALh 713 Lo ss ste e atest es estes be ste be eb eese ene enbe naan 12 P.S. v. San Bernardino City Unified School District (2009) 174 Cal. APP-Ath O53 o.oo eee eee ete estaba sheet enae ee snens 10, 11 Patterson v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 174 Cal. APP.-Ath 1393 o.oo eee eres eaten sb eset ese e st enbesnens 13 Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School District CLOG 14) AH TE mementos, secon. sms 50508608 5 A OE 10, 11 Ronald S. v. Cty. of San Diego (1993) 16 Cal. APP-Ath 887 neice eee eee sates tee ese sate sb esses eae saan 12 Santiago v. Keyes (D055. 2012) BVO Fo SUPPL TAD 1.500050 0550.50 550000500500 5500507005555.5. 558350005505 550 05 5.55 S08 80 8 SH 8 Scott v. County of Los Angeles (1994) 27 Cal. APP.Ath 125 o.oo eee sees tebe eb esses tetas st abe saens 12 Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles (2012) 203 Cal. APPA OAT o.oo eee eet ete ete eset eben ne antennas 7 Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal.Ath 820 .....eeieieeieeeieeie eee eee ee eae sheets eshte sheet eee ee ebb eht esha n eae ens 7 Statutes Civil Code section: 5 eee hehehehehe shee heehee hehehe shee sheet eee abe ea be ebb sheet eee ebeenbe eaten 7,8 3480 eee eee eee heehee nee h be ehh teeta eh heehee sheet ee ae eae enbe shee nae e tear ens 9 Education Code section: AAB30-AAE34 eee eee eee heehee teeta eae hte shee na ents eh teehee nee e ten ae en 11 BAOB2-AA04S5 eee eee hehehe eee beste sheen a eats eh teehee ste e nena en 11 BAOBA eee ae heehee abe hte hee e eee bee a be eh eh tent eee eh eae hte shee nae e tent en 11 Government Code section: 8200.2 ee heehee ee eae hte shee eee b een ebb sheet eee eaten be eats nae nee 11,12, 13 821.0 heehee heehee eee bee abe sha sheet eee abe ebb she este e tenia en 11,13 Reply ISO Defendants” Demurrer to First Amended Complaint Filed by Plts Doe 1 and Doe 2 [19CV343088] O R B A C H H U F F S U A R E Z + H E N D E R S O N LL P 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 77 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) 5 C.C.R. section: DD ee 11 OTHER California Constitution: Article 1, section 28(f)(1) of the California CONSttUtION .........ccccveviiierieeiieniieiie citer 8 -5- Reply ISO Defendants” Demurrer to First Amended Complaint Filed by Plts Doe 1 and Doe 2 [19CV343088] O R B A C H H U F F S U A R E Z + H E N D E R S O N LL P 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 77 28 Defendants UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT (“District”), JACQUELINE HOREJS, MARY BERKEY and CAROLE CARLSON (“Administrators”) (collectively “Defendants’) hereby submit this Reply in support of their Demurrer! to Plaintiffs JANE DOE 1 (“Doe 17) and JANE DOE 2’s (“Doe 27) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”). I. INTRODUCTION No school would ever intentionally employ a child predator. Any school district, principal or superintendent would naturally be horrified and heartbroken to learn that a predator was present at their school, as are the District and Administrators in this case. Plaintiffs, however, attempt to paint the District and its Administrators as predators by association. Such vilification is inappropriate and unsupported by the facts and applicable law. One bad actor does not make everyone else guilty by association. Rather than focus on the undisputed deficiencies in their Complaint identified within the Defendants’ Demurrer, Plaintiffs ignore material facts, sling accusations and liberally espouse passionate arguments in hopes of eliciting an emotional response and distracting from the applicable precedent. As explained in its opening brief, the Defendants’ Demurrer challenges Plaintiffs’ superfluous claims, which are still unsupported by any facts or law. If Plaintiffs wish to speed up this action (as they allege), they can agree to dismiss their Third, Fourth and Fifth causes of action so the case can proceed beyond the pleadings stage. However, if Plaintiffs continue to assert unmeritorious and superfluous causes of action, the District and its Administrators are entitled to challenge the baseless claims. Plaintiffs’ Opposition further mispresents and distorts Defendants’ arguments and defenses, including failing to recognize the policy maker positions of the Administrators and even failing to address the fact that Principal Carlson retired prior to Plaintiff Doe 2 being a student at the school, thereby precluding any liability against her. Similarly, Plaintiffs still fail to identify any protected activity as necessary to support a claim under the Bane Act. Accordingly, this Demurrer must be sustained in its entirety. ! Notably, the scope of this Demurrer is limited to challenging the extraneous claims and parties, which are improper in this litigation. Even assuming this Demurrer is sustained in its entirety, Plaintiffs’ claims for sexual abuse and failure to supervise will continue to progress as against Neipp and the District. -6- Reply ISO Defendants” Demurrer to First Amended Complaint Filed by Plts Doe 1 and Doe 2 [19CV343088] O R B A C H H U F F S U A R E Z + H E N D E R S O N LL P 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 77 28 IL. LEGAL DISCUSSION A. Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged Facts to Support a Bane Act Claim Defendants challenged Plaintiffs’ claim under the Bane Act based upon the lack of facts to satisfy the prerequisite elements - particularly as those elements are emphasized in CACI. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is void of any facts to illustrate they were subjected to any threats, intimidation or coercion exerted by any Defendant in response to Plaintiffs’ exercises of a constitutional right. Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege the District (through Defendant Samuel Neipp (“Neipp”’)) specifically intended to violate Plaintiffs’ rights to attend school. As confirmed by the California Supreme Court in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, the Bane Act “does not extend to all ordinary tort actions because its provisions are limited to threats, intimidation, or coercion that interferes with a constitutional or statutory right.” (Id. at 843, emphasis added.) In Cornell v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 766, the Court of Appeal further clarified the limited circumstances where a claim under section 52.1 may be asserted, explaining that “the egregiousness required by Section 52.1 is tested by whether the circumstances indicate the [person] had a specific intent to violate the [plaintiff’s] right.” (/d. at 801-802, emphasis added; see also, Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. The Irvine Co., LLC (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 97.) In other words, the wrongful conduct must have been undertaken for the express purpose of interfering with a constitutionally protected right. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ arguments, California Courts have made clear that in order to sustain a claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, the plaintiff must allege threats, intimidation or coercion independent of the constitutional violation. (Venegas, 32 Cal.4th at 843; Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles (2012) 203 Cal. App.4th 947; see also, Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41.) In Shoyoye, the court held that “[t]he statute requires coercion independent from the coercion inherent in the wrongful [act] itself.” (Id. at 962.) Shoyoye further held, “The act of interference with a constitutional right must itself be deliberate or spiteful.” (Shoyoye, 203 Cal. App.4th at 959.) The Court in Allen observed that section 52.1 is modeled upon the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act of 1979. Significantly, the Allen court noted that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has expressly stated that conduct that “take[s] someone’s rights away directly,” even if the conduct is unlawful, does
