This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Sexual Assault
Negligence of District Employees

Jane Doe v. West Valley-Mission Community College District; San Andreas Regional Center; Raymond Ruiz; Annabel Tomacder-Ruiz, and Does 1-25, inclusive

Published: Nov. 4, 2022 | Result Date: Sep. 20, 2022 | Filing Date: Sep. 23, 2020 |

Case number: 20CV371166 Settlement –  $7,600,000

Judge

Christopher G. Rudy

Court

Santa Clara County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

B. Robert Allard
(Corsiglia, McMahon & Allard LLP)

Mark J. Boskovich
(Corsiglia, McMahon & Allard LLP)


Defendant

Adam J. Davis
(Davis & Young APLC)

Mark E. Davis
(Davis & Young APLC)

Rodney N. Mayr
(Mayr Law Firm PC)


Facts

Jane Doe, 25, is a female with cerebral palsy and cortical visual impairment who requires use of a wheelchair. Jane Doe was enrolled in a program for students with developmental disabilities (PSDD) at Mission College in Santa Clara. The program was operated by West Valley-Mission Community College District. San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) referred Jane Doe to the PSDD program. Jane Doe filed an action against the District, SARC, Raymond Ruiz, a former instructional aid in the PSDD program, and Raymond Ruiz's wife, Annabel Ruiz, a former co-director of the program.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that on two occasions Raymond Ruiz sexually assaulted her while on the Mission College campus and during school hours, and that Annabel Ruiz was aware of her husband's conduct yet failed to prevent Raymond Ruiz from engaging in inappropriate behavior. Plaintiff claimed that Raymond Ruiz used his position of trust and authority as a teacher to groom plaintiff for sexual assault, thereby endangering plaintiff's emotional well-being, and thereon sexually assaulted plaintiff on school grounds. Plaintiff asserted that, as a student with developmental disabilities enrolled in the PSDD program, a special relationship existed with the District and SARC by which plaintiff was entitled to a reasonably safe environment in which to learn, free from inappropriate sexual displays, grooming behaviors, inappropriate touching, and sexual behaviors from teachers and others employed in a position of trust at the school. Plaintiff argued that the district ratified the endangerment of plaintiff's emotional well-being in failing to appropriately act upon prior reports of Raymond Ruiz's inappropriate conduct towards other dependent adults entrusted to its care and, in particular, failing to appropriately address plaintiff's mother's report of inappropriate conduct reflecting endangerment to plaintiff's emotional well-being, thereby enabling Raymond Ruiz's sexual assaults on plaintiff. Plaintiff contended that the district employees owed plaintiff a duty of care to avoid harming her by, among other things, properly training employees on inappropriate behaviors and supervising school personnel to detect and deter inappropriate conduct around students, and that the district employees, including but not limited to Annabel Ruiz, had a duty to properly supervise plaintiff to protect her from potential dangers while on the Mission College campus during school hours. Plaintiff contended that the district employees, including but not limited to Annabel Ruiz, breached said duties owed to plaintiff by failing to take appropriate action against Raymond Ruiz after plaintiff's mother complained about his misconduct, failing to report the incident to the proper authorities, failing to properly supervise plaintiff and Raymond Ruiz, and failing to properly train employees on preventing abuse of vulnerable students.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions.

Result

The case settled for $7.6 million.


#139722

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390