A.M. v. Ventura Unified School Dist.
B266650M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 19, 2016Background
- A.M., a minor represented by guardian D.G., alleged that fellow students sexually abused her at a Ventura Unified School District elementary school in 2012–2013 and that district employees failed to stop it.
- Parents reported the incidents to the teacher and principal; no timely tort claim was presented to the District (a claim was presented to Ventura County, a separate entity).
- Plaintiffs sued the District and individual employees for negligent supervision and statutory/constitutional violations; non-sexual common-law claims were voluntarily dismissed.
- The District moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs failed to file a required government tort claim under the Government Tort Claims Act.
- Plaintiff argued she was exempt from the claim-presentation requirement under Gov. Code § 905(m) because her action is governed by Code Civ. Proc. § 340.1 (childhood sexual abuse limitations).
- Trial court granted summary judgment, reasoning § 905(m)/§ 340.1 applied only when the abuse was committed by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent of the public entity. The Court of Appeal reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gov. Code § 905(m) exempts a § 340.1 childhood sexual abuse claim against a public entity from the government tort claim presentation requirement | A.M.: § 905(m) exempts § 340.1 claims against public entities, so no claim was required | District: § 905(m)/§ 340.1 exemption applies only where the abuse was committed by an employee/volunteer/representative/agent of the public entity | Held: § 905(m) applies to § 340.1 claims; plaintiff need not present a tort claim to the District for childhood sexual abuse claims governed by § 340.1 |
| Whether § 340.1(a)(2) is limited to cases where the perpetrator is an employee/agent of the defendant entity | A.M.: § 340.1(a)(2) covers actions against any person or entity who owed a duty of care, not only where the perpetrator is an employee/agent | District: § 340.1(a)(2) should be read to require the perpetrator be an employee/agent for the special rules to apply | Held: § 340.1(a)(2) is not so limited; the statute applies to third parties generally, with the age-26 exception in (b)(2) limited to defendants who knew of unlawful conduct by an employee/agent |
| Whether a minor plaintiff can invoke § 340.1 protections (timing/revival provisions) | A.M.: § 340.1 applies regardless of whether plaintiff is still a minor | District: § 340.1 was enacted primarily for adult plaintiffs; minors are not within the intended class | Held: § 340.1 applies to claims brought while plaintiff is still a minor; nothing in the statute excludes minors |
| Whether alleged acts by young children fall within § 340.1’s definition of "childhood sexual abuse" | A.M.: Allegations (touching, exposure, rubbing) fall within Penal Code offenses that § 340.1(e) references | District: Acts by seven-year-old children may not satisfy Penal Code mental-state requirements, so § 340.1 may not apply | Held: Court declines to decide factual/mental-state issue on summary judgment because district did not present evidence on criminal capacity; statutory definition on its face covers acts described in the complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist., 42 Cal.4th 201 (trial court: timely government claim is prerequisite to suit against public entity; prompted legislative change) (Supreme Court decision prompting § 905(m) amendment)
- Quarry v. Doe I, 53 Cal.4th 945 (statutory history and meaning of § 340.1; scope of post-26 revival for certain third-party defendants)
- Doe v. City of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.4th 531 (interpretation of § 340.1(b)(2) extending limitations for nonperpetrator defendants in specified relationships with perpetrator)
- County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 127 Cal.App.4th 1263 (discusses § 340.1 as special limitations for childhood sexual abuse and limits of pre-2009 claims)
- J.P. v. Carlsbad Unified School Dist., 232 Cal.App.4th 323 (notes § 905(m) exempts post-2008 childhood sexual abuse claims from claim-presentation requirement)