Naghash v. Board of Trustees CA3, C075207

Background

Plaintiff (CSUS student) was allegedly raped by another CSUS student in a dormitory after drinking at multiple dorm rooms; she had earlier sought to terminate her residency agreement citing campus sexual assaults and safety concerns.
Plaintiff sued CSUS, the Board, State, university officials and others (University defendants) asserting 11 causes of action including breach of contract (residency agreement), premises liability/premises dangerous condition, multiple negligence theories (failure to provide/maintain security, failure to prevent underage drinking), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud/concealment; she also referenced Title IX and various statutory theories.
University defendants demurred on grounds including lack of statutory basis for public-entity tort liability, no special duty to protect students from third-party crime, Government Code immunities (e.g., §845), failure to plead contract terms, and B&P §25602 immunity for furnishing alcohol.
Trial court sustained the demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend (except initially as to contract), and later dismissed after plaintiff failed to timely file an amended complaint; judgment for defendants entered and plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the SAC failed to state viable claims against the University defendants and that defects could not reasonably be cured by amendment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of contract / implied warranty of habitability / covenant of good faith	Residency agreement promised "safe, secured" housing and CSUS breached by permitting unsafe conditions, underage drinking, failing policies/enforcement	Plaintiff did not plead the actual contract terms or show any contractual duty breached by university conduct; plaintiff's injuries resulted from third-party criminal acts, not contractual obligations	Demurrer sustained — no contractual duty shown; warranty and covenant claims conclusory and superfluous; claim cannot be cured
Negligence / premises liability / duty to protect from third-party criminal acts	CSUS owed duties to warn, protect, supervise, prevent underage drinking and provide secure housing; plaintiff relied on university custodial role	Public entities are liable only by statute; established precedent rejects imposing broad duty on universities to police student-on-student conduct absent special relationship or specific notice of a threat	Demurrer sustained — no legal duty to control/ warn third parties; premises allegations lacked causal link to rape; §845 bars failure-to-provide-police-protection claims; defects incurable
Fraud / concealment (intentional misrepresentation)	CSUS misrepresented campus safety and concealed prior crimes and investigative failures; plaintiff justifiably relied and was damaged	Fraud must be pleaded with particularity; plaintiff’s own pleadings show she knew of safety concerns and sought to terminate residency before the assault, negating justifiable reliance	Demurrer sustained — fraud pleadings lack particularity and reliance element; cannot be cured
Statutory claims / Title IX / alcohol-liability statutes	Various statutes (e.g., B&P §25602.1, Civil Code provisions, Title IX) provide bases for liability	Public-entity tort liability requires a statutory predicate; the statutes cited either don’t impose mandatory duties on public entities, are inapplicable, or have been construed narrowly (e.g., alcohol statutes require active causation)	Demurrer sustained / forfeited on Title IX — plaintiff forfeited Title IX argument on appeal; statutory theories fail as pleaded

Key Cases Cited

Baldwin v. Zoradi, 123 Cal.App.3d 275 (Cal. Ct. App.) (university not liable for third-party student conduct; dorm license does not create custodial duty)
Crow v. State of California, 222 Cal.App.3d 192 (Cal. Ct. App.) (CSUS not liable for student-on-student assault; no duty to police adult students’ conduct)
Tanja H. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 228 Cal.App.3d 434 (Cal. Ct. App.) (refusing to impose duty requiring intrusive supervision to prevent student crimes)
Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 17 Cal.3d 425 (Cal. 1976) (duty exists to control/warn only with a special relationship or specific knowledge of threat)
Peterson v. San Francisco Cmty. Coll. Dist., 36 Cal.3d 799 (Cal. 1984) (distinguishes duties owed by secondary schools vs. colleges; limits supervisory duties for adult students)
Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197 (Cal. 1982) (police inaction without intent to harm does not support intentional infliction of emotional distress)
Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist., 19 Cal.4th 925 (Cal. 1998) (public-entity tort liability is statutory; section 815 limits common-law liability)
Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, 31 Cal.4th 1074 (Cal. 2003) (standard for determining whether a demurrer should have been sustained without leave to amend)
Nestle v. City of Santa Monica, 6 Cal.3d 920 (Cal. 1972) (nuisance actions against public entities permissible when founded on Civil Code §3479)