37 Cal. App. 5th 675
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Jane Doe, a long-term foster child, lived with foster mother Stephanie Sykes in 2009 and secretly had a sexual relationship with Sykes's adult son Dwayne; she became pregnant.
- While Sykes was out of town one weekend, her other son Clifford raped Doe; Doe did not report the rape until four months later.
- Doe sued Los Angeles County (and social worker Valerie Arnold), Children's Institute (a private foster-placement agency), Sykes and her sons; Sykes and her sons defaulted and Doe later recovered against them, but the County and Children's Institute defended to trial.
- At the close of Doe's case-in-chief, the trial court granted defendants' motion for nonsuit, concluding defendants lacked actual knowledge of any propensities by the brothers and therefore owed no duty to protect against the crimes.
- Postjudgment, the court awarded the County attorney fees under CCP §2033.420 for unreasonable denials of requests for admission and allowed most costs; appellate court affirmed nonsuit and fee award but reduced costs by $6,988.37 for disallowed investigative expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants owed a duty to protect Doe from sexual assaults by foster-home residents | Doe: foster agencies and County had statutory/ common‑law duties to screen, monitor, and thus owed an affirmative duty; violations made harm foreseeable | Defendants: no special-relationship‑based knowledge of the brothers' propensities or Doe’s contacts; misconduct was not foreseeable | Affirmed nonsuit: no substantial evidence defendants had actual knowledge such that third‑party criminal acts were foreseeable |
| Whether County is liable under Gov. Code §815.6 for breach of mandatory duties (visits, monthly contact, CANRA reporting) | Doe: missed statutory visits and failure to report statutory rape proximately caused her harm | County: Doe concealed relationships and rape; missed visits would not have discovered contacts; failure to report post‑injury could not proximately cause the sexual assault | Affirmed: causation lacking and speculation would be required to link missed duties to the assault |
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying leave to file a fifth amended complaint adding fraud/ concealment and punitive damages | Doe: new testimony at trial showed forged certification and regulatory noncompliance, warranting amendment to conform to proof | Defendants: proposed amendment was untimely and prejudicial after long delay; facts were known well before trial | Affirmed: denial not an abuse of discretion given unexplained, late motion and prior opportunity to amend |
| Whether attorney fees under CCP §2033.420 and certain trial costs were properly awarded | Doe: denials of RFAs were reasonable; many cost items (meals, lodging, expert or travel fees) were unnecessary or not allowable | County/CI: RFAs were central; Doe unreasonably failed to investigate or admit; costs were reasonably necessary and discretionary under statutes and 998 | Affirmed fees for unreasonable RFA denials and most costs; affirmed amount of fees; reduce costs by $6,988.37 for disallowed investigative expenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Nally v. Grace Community Church, 47 Cal.3d 278 (discusses nonsuit standard and sufficiency of evidence)
- Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, 32 Cal.4th 1138 (elements of negligence and duty in childcare context)
- Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill, 36 Cal.4th 224 (no duty to control third‑party conduct absent special relationship and foreseeability)
- Romero v. Superior Court, 89 Cal.App.4th 1068 (actual‑knowledge standard for foreseeability of sexual assault by third parties)
- J.L. v. Children's Institute, Inc., 177 Cal.App.4th 388 (agency not liable where no knowledge of assailant’s propensities)
- Carson v. Facilities Development Co., 36 Cal.3d 830 (appellate review standard for nonsuit)