Barstow Unified Complaint 2021-08-17

1 COMES NOW, Plaintiff, JANE RAB DOE (“Plaintiff”), who complains and allege as follows:
2 INTRODUCTION
3 1. This action arises out of the sexual abuse, assault and harassment of Plaintiff JANE
4 RAB DOE, a minor at the relevant time period, by BARSTOW UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5 (“BUSD”) Principal and Administrator, MARK L. HASSELL (“HASSELL”).
6 2. In or about 2015, Plaintiff was 16 and 17 years old and openly groomed for sexual abuse
7 on the campus of Barstow High School (“BHS”) and Barstow Stem Academy (“BSA”) by
8 HASSELL.
9 3. Upon information and belief, the staff, administrators and employees of BUSD allowed,
10 acquiesced and permitted HASSELL to openly groom and subsequently remove Plaintiff from the
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
11 school campus in order to engage in sexual contact with Plaintiff.

(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12 4. During the law enforcement investigation of HASSELL, it was confirmed that the
19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800
13 following BUSD employees had actual notice of his sexually inappropriate behavior and
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
14 misconduct with students:
15 a. Jeffrey Malan, Superintendent of BUSD;
16 b. Derrick Delton, Principal of BHS;
17 c. James Davis, Former Assistant Superintendent of BUSD;
18 d. Daron Banks, Assistant Principal of BHS;
19 e. Maryann Garrison aka Hassell, Teacher at BHS;
20 f. Rebekah Michelson, BSA Office Assistant;
21 g. Nancy Wilcox, BSA Executive Assistant.
22 5. Upon information and belief, at no time prior to hiring HASSELL in the position of
23 Administrator, including as Assistant Principal and Principal did BUSD engage a proper
24 background check and professional reference check on HASSELL to ensure that he could be
25 alone with school aged children.
26 6. Upon information and belief, HASSELL pled guilty to the sexual abuse of Plaintiff, and
27 is currently a registered sexual offender.
28
-2-
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 7. Plaintiff now brings this litigation to hold BUSD and HASSELL responsible for the
2 significant and substantial damages caused to her by the abuse.
3 THE PARTIES
4 PLAINTIFF
5 8. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Plaintiff JANE RAB DOE was a resident of the
6 County of San Bernardino, State of California. The name used by JANE RAB DOE in this
7 Complaint is not the actual name of JANE RAB DOE, but is a fictitious name utilized to protect
8 the privacy of JANE RAB DOE, a victim of childhood sexual harassment, molestation and abuse.
9 Plaintiff JANE RAB DOE is a female minor, who was born in April, 1997, and was a minor
10 during the entire time of the sexual misconduct alleged herein. Plaintiff JANE RAB DOE was a
11 minor at the time of all incidents alleged herein.

(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12 9. The Plaintiff’s claims all arise out of sexual abuse and sexual assault claims that
13 occurred during the time periods of approximately 2004 to 2005. In 2019, the California State
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
14 legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 281, which was signed by the Governor on October 13,
15 2019. This law, as enacted, went into effect on January 1, 2020. Among other things, this law
16 amended statutory code sections Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1; Code of Civil Procedure
17 section 1002 and Government Code section 905.
18 10. The amendments, among other things, extended the statute of limitations for childhood
19 sexual assault, inclusive of claims against persons or entities who owed duties of care to Plaintiff,
20 premised upon wrongful or negligent acts by those persons or entities.
21 11. As amended, Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1(q), further provides:
22 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any claim for damages described in paragraphs
(1) through (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a) that has not been litigated to finality and that
23 would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2020, because the applicable statute of
limitations, claim presentation deadline, or any other time limit had expired, is revived, and
24 these claims may be commenced within three years of January 1, 2020. A plaintiff shall have
the later of the three-year time period under this subdivision or the time period under
25 subdivision (a) as amended by the act that added this subdivision.
26 12. As amended, Government Code section 905(m), exempts out any requirement that a
27 Plaintiff asserting a claim for the recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual
28 assault make a government tort claim prior to filing litigation.
-3-
1 13. Pursuant to the Assembly Bill No. 218, and changes to Code of Civil Procedure section
2 340.1; Code of Civil Procedure section 1002 and Government Code section 905, Plaintiff may
3 now bring forward her legitimate claims against these Defendants.
4 14. At all relevant times mentioned herein, the Plaintiff JANE RAB DOE, shall be referred
5 to as “Plaintiff.”
6 (DEFENDANTS)
7 15. Defendant BARSTOW UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter “BUSD”), at all
8 times mentioned herein was and is, a business entity of form unknown, having its principal place
9 of business in the County of San Bernardino, State of California. Plaintiff is informed and
10 believes and on that basis allege that Defendant BUSD is a local public entity. BUSD purposely
conducts substantial educational business activities in the State of California, and was the primary
11
entity owning, operating and controlling BHS and BSA and the activities and behavior of its
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
13 employee and agent HASSELL, and supervisory personnel assigned to BHS and BSA.
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
14 16. Defendant MARK L. HASSELL (hereinafter “HASSELL”), at all times mentioned
15 herein was and is an adult male individual, who Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that
16 basis allege, currently resides in the City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, in the State of
17 California. During the period of time in which the childhood sexual harassment and abuse of
18 Plaintiff, alleged herein, took place, HASSELL was employed with BUSD in the position of
19 Assistant Principal for BHS and Principal for BSA within BUSD, and was in charge of, among
20 other things, supervision and mentorship of Plaintiff during the relevant time periods to this
21 litigation.
22 17. At all relevant times herein, Defendants BUSD, HASSELL, and DOES 1 through 100,
23 shall be referred to collectively as “Defendants.”
24 18. Defendants DOES 1 through 100 are sued herein under said fictitious names. Plaintiff
25 is ignorant as to the true names and capacities of these DOE Defendants, whether individual,
26 corporate, associate, or other, and therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. When
27 their true names and capacities are ascertained, Plaintiff will request leave of Court to amend this
28 Complaint to state their true names and capacities herein.
-4-
1 19. At all times mentioned herein, each Defendant was responsible in some manner or
2 capacity for the occurrences herein alleged. Plaintiff’s damages, as herein alleged, were
3 proximately caused by all said Defendants.
4 20. At all times mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among
5 Defendants BUSD, HASSELL, and DOES 1 through 100, such that any individuality and
6 separateness between them ceased to exist. These particular Defendants were the
7 successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of one another, in that they purchased, controlled,
8 dominated and operated one another without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or
9 other manner of division. To continue maintaining the facade of a separate and individual
10 existence among these Defendants would serve to perpetrate a fraud and an injustice.
21. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were the agents, representatives and
11
employees of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, Defendants
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
13 were acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality, capacity, identity, agency,
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
14 representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their authority, whether actual or
15 apparent.
16 22. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were the trustees, partners, servants, joint
17 venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other Defendant, and the
18 acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, through such capacities
19 and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and consent of each and every
20 other Defendant and said conduct was thereafter ratified by each and every other Defendant, and
21 each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff.
22 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS
23 THE LAW APPLICABLE TO BUSD’S NOTICE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

AMONGST ITS EMPLOYEES
24
23. School districts have a well-established duty to supervise students and employees and
25
may be liable for failure to exercise reasonable care in that supervision. See John R. v. Oakland
26
Unified School Dist. (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 438, 453; Leger v. Stockton Unified School Dist. (1988)
27
202 Cal. App. 3d 1448, 1458-62 (stating that individual school employees are responsible for
28
-5-
1 supervising a student had a special relationship with that stuudent on which a duty of care may be
2 founded.
3 24. Upon information and belief, BUSD, through its Administrators and staff, knew or
4 should have known of HASSELL’s risk to minor students at BHS and BSA. See M.W. v. Panama
5 Buena Vista Union School Dist. (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 508, 520 (Holding that it is well-
6 established that, in the context of school supervision cases wherein minors are injured, the correct
7 notice standard is “knew or should have known,” (also known as inquiry notice.)).
8 25. BUSD is liable in both direct negligence and in vicarious liability for its administrative
9 staff's failure to reasonably supervise staff that abuse students. See C.A. v. William S. Hart Union
10 High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 868.
26. It is undisputed that a special relationship and heightened duty extended to the Plaintiff
11
herein. See M.W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School Dist., (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 508, 520.
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
13 Moreover, as analogous M.W., the fact that Plaintiff fit within a risk category.
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
14 27. Pursuant to the inquiry notice standard, “[i]t is not necessary to prove that the very
15 injury which occurred must have been foreseeable by the school authorities in order to establish
16 that their failure to provide additional safeguards constituted negligence. Their negligence is
17 established if a reasonably prudent person would foresee that injuries of the same general type
18 would be likely to happen in the absence of such safeguards.” J.H. v. Los Angeles Unified School
19 Dist. (2010) 183 Cal. App.4th 123,146 (emphasis added).
20 28. “It is for the trier of fact to determine whether an unreasonable risk of harm was
21 foreseeable under the facts of a case.” M.W., 110 Cal. App. 4th at 516. “Foreseeability is
22 determined in light of all the circumstances and does not require prior identical events or
23 injuries.” Id. (emphasis added).
24 29. Upon information and belief, the foreseeability component of inquiry notice includes the
25 the risk foreseen by grooming behavior within BUSD of sexually assaultive staff members. M.W.,
26 110 Cal. App. 4th at 516.
27 30. The act of grooming, in and of itself, is a sexual crime under the following California
28 Statutes:
-6-
1 a. Penal Code section 288.3 (contacting a minor to commit a sexual offense - a
2 felony);
3 b. Penal Code section 647.6 (criminal annoyance of a child) - a misdemeanor.
4 31. BUSD had inquiry notice of the risks presented by HASSELL, as alleged herein, and
5 had a special relationship with Plaintiff to cease such behavior and protect Plaintiff from the
6 abuse by HASSELL.
7 32. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes that Defendants will rely upon an
8 assertion that they had to have “actual notice” of HASSELL's propensity to sexually abuse, rather
9 than the inquiry notice standard promulgated by all cases involving school site sexual abuse.
10 33. Upon information and belief, Defendants assertions arise from an intentional
misinterpretation of the law, as cited the Chaney/Romero/Margaret W./L.A. County Dept. line of
11
cases: Chaney v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal. App. 4th 152; Romero v. Superior Court (2001)
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
13 89 Cal. App. 4th 1068; Margaret W. v. Kelley R. (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 141; Doe v. L.A.
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
14 County Dep't of Children & Family Servs. (2019) 37 Cal. App. 5th 675 (the "Chaney Line").
15 34. Defendants' reliance on the Chaney Line and an actual notice standard has been rejected,
16 as a matter of law, in M.W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School Dist., (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th
17 508. Citing the fact that the Chaney Line of cases are inapplicable to a school site, the M.W.
18 Court recognized the immense public policy factors within an educational environment that
19 mandated an inquiry notice standard: specifically the public policy requirements in a mandatory
20 education, which create statutory duties and inherent reliance in the safety of school
21 environments.
22 35. The M.W. Court specifically held:
23 The public policy reasons surrounding the Romero/ Chaney rule do not exist in the
context of a school district's supervisory responsibilities. Simply put, the school grounds
24 provide a different setting than an adult's home. And there are differing public policy
concerns related to the responsibilities of school districts that provide mandatory education as
25 compared to adults who invite children into their home on a voluntary basis.
26 School districts are subject to well-established statutory duties mandating adequate

supervision for the protection of the students. These affirmative duties arise from the
27 compulsory nature of school attendance, the expectation and reliance of parents and students
on schools for safe buildings and grounds, and the importance to society of the learning
28 activity that takes place in schools. (See Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School Dist., supra,
186 Cal.App.3d at p. 714, 230 Cal.Rptr. 823.) These duties are not charged to private
-7-
1 homeowners who invite minors into their homes. We therefore conclude that the District
owed the minor a duty of care to protect him from the sexual assault.
2
36. BUSD's position, if any, is predicated on arguments that have already been rejected by
3
the Court of Appeal, and the proper standard is inquiry notice standard as stated in M.W. and its
4
progeny, namely that you need not have specific actual notice. See also Dailey v. Los Angeles
5
Unified Sch. Dist. (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 741; Jennifer C. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2008) 168
6
Cal. App. 4th 1320, 1329; Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Ass'n., Inc. (2017) 8 Cal. App. 5th
7
1118. As established by the facts herein, BUSD is alleged to not only have had inquiry notice,
8
but in fact actual notice of HASSELL's crimes.
9
37. BUSD violations are predicated both on their direct liability as well as the vicarious
10
liability of their supervisory personnel, pursuant to section 815.2 for the negligence of
11
administrators or supervisors in hiring, supervising and retaining a school employee who sexually
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
harasses and abuses a student.

13
Irvine, CA 92612
38. As evidenced below, BUSD's failed in its duties to protect Plaintiff from the foreseeable
Lawyers
14
risk of harm presented by HASSELL.
15
BUSD WAS PLACED ON NOTICE OF THE RISK OF SEXUAL OFFENDERS IN ITS’
16 DISTRICT, AND CONSEQUENTLY HAD A DUTY TO PREVENT THE SEXUAL
ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF BY HASSELL
17
39. As is instructive in the case of Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York,
18
Inc. (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 566, a history of abusers in a specific entity are relevant to its
19
liability. The Lopez Court elaborated on this correlation, asserting:
20
An entity's actions and the intent with which the party engaged in such actions "may
21 be inferred from evidence of [its] subsequent conduct," including that the conduct was not
merely a mistake or an accident. (Tranchina v. Arcinas (1947) 78 Cal.App.2d 522, 524, 178
22 P.2d 65; see Foley v. Lowell (1st Cir. 1991) 948 F.2d 10, 14; see also In re Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Portland (Bankr.D.Or.2005) 335 B.R. 815, 823 ["Although the relevant time
23 frame for these [clergy sexual abuse] claims is the time of the alleged misconduct, evidence
of [the Roman Catholic Archbishop's] later policies could possibly lead to evidence that
24 would be relevant to the claims of negligence...."].) The postincident evidence may also be
relevant to test the validity of Watchtower's defenses regarding its knowledge of child sexual
25 abuse at the time of the incident and the effectiveness of its claimed steps to protect Jehovah's
Witnesses children in the 1980's.
26
40. The fact that sexual pedophiles may be drawn to an organization, premised on prior
27
knowledge of the existence of pedophiles, creates a “reasonable foreseeability” that there may be
28
-8-
1 the risk of sexual abuse within an organization. See Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Ass'n.,
2 Inc. (2017) 8 Cal. App. 5th 1118.
3 41. BUSD's historically significant failures to address sexual offenders in its ranks of
4 employees evidence that BUSD had an obligation of inquiry notice in the handling and addressing
5 of sexual misconduct at its school sites.
6 42. During the approximate time period from 2004 to the present, BUSD has had no less
7 than 14 alleged sexual perpetrators that have existed and area alleged to have abused students
8 within the BUSD school district.
9 43. Upon information and belief, BUSD knew or should have known that based on this
10 significant historical history of sexual abuses within its' school sites by staff members, that it had
an obligation to protect students from sexual misconduct by teachers, coaches and other staff
11
members and to undertake a duty of care to protect against staff, including the risks presented by
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
13 HASSELL.
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
14 44. The following instances of alleged perpetrators in the BUSD District, as asserted in
15 testimony, evidence that BUSD knew of risks to minors on their school campuses, however failed
16 to institute controls that would protect those students. BUSD has asserted that at all times it acted
17 responsibly, however, these assertions substantiate the opposite.
18 45. BUSD has had notice of the following employees, employed within the school district
19 that evidence that their failures are endemic to this District, and it cannot claim that it had a lack
20 of notice on how to prevent sexual and/or inappropriate misconduct directed at minors:
21 a. Valentine Rodriguez, approximately 2005, Central High School - Mr. Rodriguez
22 had sex repeatedly with a female student, while he was a math teacher at Central High School.
23 Mr. Rodriguez groomed his student by having her in his classroom before school, sharing his
24 personal contact information, and would bring lunch and food to his victim. A relative of the
25 victim allegedly reported the sexual abuse to Michael Scott Godfrey, who told the victim to just
26 ignore the report.
27
28
-9-
1 b. John Michael Chiarella, 1999, Teacher, Cameron Elementary School - Mr.
2 Chiarella, first allegedly reported to BUSD in 1984, was allowed to remain in the District for
3 upwards of 15 years, allegedly abusing dozens of girls over that time frame.
4 c. Bruce Bowe, 2005, Substitute Teacher, Barstow Junior High School - Mr. Bowe,
5 a now registered sex offender, repeatedly left campus with a minor female student for sexual
6 contact, despite the fact that his actions were open and obvious to other teachers and
7 administrators. Mr. Bowe pled guilty to the crimes he committed;
8 d. James McKinley, approximately 2006, Cameron Elementary - McKinley, an
9 elementary school teacher, allegedly was caught with his hand down a female minors' shirt.
10 Allegedly, Mr. McKinley insisted that his classroom contain mostly females, and he intentionally
shielded his desk from view and covered the windows, in clear indications that he was a risk to
11
minor students;
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
13 e. Female ROP Teacher, approximately 2009, Barstow High School - In or about

Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
14 2009, a student reported a suspected relationship between an ROP teacher and a male student.
15 This was reported to the Principal at the time, Mr. Ed Cheek, who allegedly failed to investigate
16 the allegations. After months went by, it was subsequently investigated by Oron Jackson, who
17 was concerned with Mr. Cheek's lack of investigation.
18 f. Mark Hassell, approximately 2015, Barstow Stem Academy - Mr. Hassell, a
19 Principa;, pled guilty to sexual contact with a seventeen year old minor student during his time as
20 an administrator.
21 g. Ramon Ramos, approximately 2016, Barstow High School - Mr. Ramos was
22 allegedly investigated by the administration of Barstow High School for sexual misconduct with
23 students. Prior to that investigation, it was allegedly known amongst the school staff that Mr.
24 Ramos would have female students present in his class in violation of school policy during
25 non-instructional hours. Mr. Ramos openly exchanged inappropriate letters with students at
26 campus.
27 h. Robert Cruz, approximately 2016, Barstow High School - Mr. Cruz was alleged
28 to have openly engaged a male student in sexual discussions in an effort to engage him in sexual
-10-
contact. Mr. Cruz was allegedly discovered by administration after multiple red flags of his
1
behavior. He was reportedly terminated and investigated.
2
i. Unknown Female Secretary, approximately 2016, Barstow High School -
3
Allegedly in 2016, BUSD administrators investigated a female secretary for sexual misconduct
4
with a male student. It was alleged that BUSD had several red flags of open behavior with this
5
student, including leaving campus with the male student.
6
j. William Ramirez, 2020, Barstow High School - Reportedly Mr. Ramirez was
7
physically violent with a student, years before he was caught soliciting sexual favors of minors.
8
With students at Barstow High School, Mr. Ramirez extensively sought to engage minors in
9
sexual discussions, which was openly known and allegedly repeatedly reported to administrators
10
who failed to act at the High School.
11
k. James Rudolf, Unknown dates, Barstow High School - Received a conference
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
summary from Barstow High School Administration for inappropriate sexual behaviors and
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
conversations with female students. Despite the risk to students, BUSD allegedly retained Mr.
14
Rudolf as an employee.
15
l. Jesse Griego, Approximately 2017, Barstow High School - Mr. Griego was
16
reported for inappropriate grooming behavior at Barstow High School directed towards a female
17
minor. Allegedly Mr. Griego had multiple other victims, prior to the reported victim. He would
18
openly bring food to minor female students, drive with them on and off campus, and was
19
reported, but no further action was taken against him.
20
m. Amador Padilla, Unknown timeframe, Barstow High School - Mr. Padilla was
21
reported to administration for allegedly sexually harassing and attempting to take minor students
22
on dates at Barstow High School. Despite such reporting, BUSD continued to employ Mr.
23
Padilla.
24
n. Gerard Schrader, Approximately 2011, Barstow Junior High School, Mr.
25
Schrader was found to have cameras in his classroom filming students within the class. This was
26
reported to administration by a parent, and ultimately Mr. Schrader was moved to another school
27
28
-11-
in an alleged attempt to cover up the existence of filming students without their knowledge and consent.
1
o. Katherine O’Neill, 2003-2018, Barstow High School – Ms. O’Neill preyed upon
2
multiple victims over a multi-year span, operating with a specific pattern and practice. BUSD,
3
upon information and belief, received multiple notices of improper behavior by O’Neill, but failed
4
to undertake steps to report and cease such behavior.
5
46. The foregoing instances of misconduct within BUSD by staff members are, upon
6
information and belief, only a small portion of the allegations of misconduct that are alleged
7
against employees of BUSD. Each of the foregoing allegations have arisen in sworn testimony.
8
47. As testified to by BUSD employee Jacqueline Rindeau when asked if BUSD looked the
9
other way when allegations of misconduct were reported indicated: "Mr. Malan doesn't want to be
10
you know, he's the superintendent; so therefore, he wants to look good, you know. With these
11
allegations, it makes him look bad. So. . . ."
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
48. BUSD employee Cori Brogan equally testified to the following with respect to
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
reporting:
14
Q So going back, you said that you feel like nobody takes it seriously. Would the
15
"it," you meaning inappropriate contact between staff and students or something different?
16
A Correct.
17
49. In sworn testimony, BUSD employees and former employees, have testified to a culture
18
of intimidation, silence, cover-ups and looking the other way while minors in BUSD are sexually
19
abused by BUSD employees.
20
50. BUSD's defenses are predicated, in part, on an assertion that it appropriately reports
21
indications of sexual misconduct amongst its staff. Mr. Malan, the Superintendent, asserted such
22
in a sworn declaration.
23
BUSD, ON INQUIRY NOTICE, HAD AN OBLIGATION TO INSTITUTE
24 PROTECTIONS AGAINST ABUSIVE STAFF MEMBERS
25 51. Knowing the risks presented by employees that presented sexual risks to minor students
26 on campus, BUSD had an obligation to undertake and institute safeguards against risks of
27 sexually abusive employees.
28
-12-
52. Upon information and belief, BUSD failed to institute safeguards against HASSELL at
1
the time of his hiring, by failing to undertake proper, complete and thorough background checks
2
on HASSELL at the time of his hire.
3
53. Upon information and belief, BUSD cannot produce any evidence that it conducted a
4
background check on HASSELL, and/or the results of any background check on HASSELL prior
5
to the date of his hire.
6
54. Upon information and belief, BUSD failed to institute safeguards against HASSELL at
7
the time of his hiring, by failing to undertake proper, complete and thorough professional
8
reference checks on HASSELL at the time of his hire.
9
55. Upon information and belief, BUSD cannot produce any evidence that it conducted a
10
professional reference check on HASSELL, and/or the results of any professional reference check
11
on HASSELL prior to the date of his hire.
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
56. Once hired, and as HASSELL undertook to openly and obviously groom Plaintiff, upon
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
information and belief, Administrators, staff and employees were not able to recognize the signs
14
of grooming by HASSELL, which included:
15
a. Being around Plaintiff frequently, so as to be close to her;
16
b. Treating Plaintiff special, and treating her special in front of other staff members
17
and Administrators;
18
c. Having Plaintiff alone in classrooms on campus at both BHS and BSA;
19
d. Showing Plaintiff favoritism and giving her gifts;
20
e. Driving with Plaintiff on and off campus;
21
f. Openly flirting with Plaintiff and other students on social media.
22
57. Upon information and belief, had staff members been trained to recognize the signs of
23
grooming, they would have undertaken to cease, report and stop the behavior of HASSELL as it
24
was directed at Plaintiff.
25
58. As confirmed by Superintendent Jeffrey Malan in sworn testimony on January 22, 2021,
26
BUSD has not undertaken to perform “specific formal training” on how to prevent or how to
27
recognize the signs of grooming.
28
-13-
59. Derrick Delton, the current Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Services for BUSD,
1
testified (on January 5, 2021) similarly, that BUSD employees did not begin to receive formalized
2
training on grooming until at least 2019, as part of the adoption of adult/student boundaries.
3
60. BUSD’s failures to recognize the signs and signals of grooming are grounded in their
4
failures to provide training on the topics of when and how to recognize grooming as sexual abuse.
5
61. Upon information and belief, after a minimum of 14 sexual predators in a 16 year time
6
frame in the District, BUSD has never undertaken to train its employees on formally reporting
7
grooming.
8
62. Upon information and belief, BUSD’s failures to conduct training on grooming are a
9
direct consequence on their failures to report sexual predators at school sites at the earliest inquiry
10
notice.
11
63. At all relevant times, BUSD Administrators, knew or should have known of the abuse
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
of Plaintiff, but due to their lack of training failed to recognize those signs and/or they
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
intentionally covered up those signs.

14
64. BUSD staff members, while not formally trained on grooming, nonetheless have
15
confirmed that grooming must be mandatorily reported if it is observed. BUSD staff member
16
Sara McCombie, confirmed on March 5, 2021, that “signs of grooming need to be mandatorily
17
reported.”
18
65. Upon information and belief, despite BUSD’s inquiry notice on sexual misconduct by
19
staff members within the District, BUSD did not undertake to address appropriate student and
20
adult boundaries in its staff until March 2019.
21
66. In March 2019, BUSD for the first time adopted a policy to address adult-student
22
boundaries in its District, despite more than a decade of inquiry notice that would have mandated
23
appropriate training to prevent sexual misconduct by BUSD staff members.
24
67. Despite the failures in hiring, and failures in training, established by Superintendent
25
Malan, BUSD nonetheless had a reputation that even for those that sought to address sexual
26
misconduct and abusive behavior by staff members within the District, that the District either hid
27
the evidence of abuse, and/or was indifferent to students being sexuall abused within the District.
28
-14-
68. BUSD staff members and employees have testified to BUSD’s attempts to dissuade
1
staff from reporting sexual misconduct within the school district. On February 9, 2021, campus
2
safety assistant Cori Brogan testified that no one within the District took reporting seriously.
3
69. Former BUSD staff member, Joanna Herman understood that she was to report sexual
4
misconduct by staff to Administrators, and to not make a mandated report. And further that when
5
she raised sexual misconduct with Administrators, that the report would not be investigated or
6
reported further.
7
70. As evidenced in testimony involving another staff members, over close to a dozen years
8
reports of misconduct were made involving Katherine O’Neill, yet Administrators failed to
9
undertake any action to prevent the sexual abuse by her of minor students at Barstow High
10
School.
11
BUSD, ON INQUIRY NOTICE OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY EMPLOYEES, SHAMED AND
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
ATTEMPT TO DISSUADE SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS FROM COMING FORWARD

TO LIMIT THEIR LIABILITY
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
71. In addition to the failures in hiring, training and supervision of sexually predator staff
14
members, BUSD undertook to ensure that victims would not speak out about their abuses.
15
72. This abuse and shame tactics arose from the very top of the BUSD institution, namely
16
its Board of Trustees.
17
73. Despite the recognition that minor victims cannot consent, on March 4, 2021, Board
18
Member Kris Okamuro testified that a 16 year old minor who was sexually abused could be
19
considered at fault for the abuse, asserting that: “I guess it would depend upon how the child was
20
raised.”
21
74. Board of Trustees President Ben Rosenberg, equally testified that a student who was
22
abused at school would not fall to the responsibility of the District, but in the failure of a parent,
23
identifying himself.
24
75. The testimony of the Board of Trustees is indicative of the approach of the District in
25
cases in which involve failures at the school site levels. Namely to attack and shame the victims,
26
rather than confront the failures that permitted such abuse to occur.
27
76. Once a victim has the gall to speak out, BUSD undertakes to silence them. This
28
includes attempts to file motions preventing the minors from speaking out publicly and on social
-15-
media, asserting that minors cannot express the abuse to others in any public forum, because it
1
would “damage the District” publicly.
2
77. Upon information and belief, BUSD’s motions to silence victims are to save themselves
3
public harm and limit exposure to the District from other victims seeing the strength and coming
4
forward.
5
78. BUSD, upon information and belief, has attempted to silence anyone from speaking out
6
about their failures, asserting that anyone who does so is a “surrogate” and therefore must be
7
silenced.
8
79. Through public pleadings, BUSD has also asserted that victims of sexual abuse who are
9
bold enough to speak against the District, that minors are “responsible for their own sexual
10
abuse.” at the hands of adults.
11
80. Ben Rosenberg, the Board of Trustee President, refused to agree that such a contention
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
by the District was inappropriate and indicated that he would not provide any opinion on that
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
claim.
14
81. BUSD further asserted in pleadings that sexual abuse by staff within the District was an
15
“unavoidable accident.” Once again, School Board President Rosenberg refused to condone the
16
words of BUSD in asserting that sexual abuse was an accident.
17
82. Through public pleadings, BUSD has further taken the position that a minors sexual
18
abuse was done in self-defense. Once again, School Board President Rosenberg asserted that he
19
had no opinion on BUSD claiming sexual abuse was done in self defense.
20
83. In furtherance of the victim shaming and victim attacks, BUSD had undertaken to hide
21
and obfuscate evidence in which their liability would be established for sexual misconduct. This
22
includes providing investigations to their attorneys, who hold onto those investigations for more
23
than a year, without ever asserting that the documents exist.
24
84. BUSD’s victim shaming, victim attacks and dismissive behavior of abuse victims are all
25
part of a coordinated scheme to hide the extent, depth and nature of a school district that is a
26
present and daily risk to minors who attend schools and are at risk of sexual abuse.
27
BUSD, IT’S EMPLOYEES AND ADMINISTRATORS, HAD OVER SEVEN YEARS OF
28 ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF HASSELL’S SEXUALLY
-16-
INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR WITH MINOR STUDENTS, BEFORE THE DATE OF
1 HIS ARREST
2 85. Upon information and belief, HASSELL was suspected and alleged to have had
3 multiple instances of sexual misconduct with minor students of BUSD from the time period of
4 2007 to the date of his arrest.
5 86. In or about 2007, HASSELL was first suspected by his wife of sexual misconduct with a
6 minor student, JANE BWK DOE. In a statement to the Barstow Police Department, Maryann
7 Garrison, admitted that she suspected and believed HASSELL was having a relationship with a
8 student from BHS in or about 2007.
9 87. Upon information and belief, Maryann Garrison aka Maryann Hassell, contacted JANE
10 BWK DOE in approximately 2007 to warn her and ask her not to engage in any relationship with
11 HASSELL to preserve her family and her children.

(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
88. Maryann Garrison aka Maryann Hassell also informed BUSD employee and
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Administrator Derrick Delton in or about 2007 that she suspected HASSELL of having a
Lawyers
14 relationship with a minor student. Delton admitted this in discussions with Barstow Police
15 Department on January 19, 2015.
16 89. Despite being mandated reporters with “reasonable suspicion” of actual notice that
17 HASSELL was having a relationship with a minor student in 2015, neither Maryann Garrison nor
18 Derrick Delton reported HASSELL to law enforcement of CPS in 2007. Rather, they hid the
19 existence of their knowledge and threatened those with knowledge of his behavior.
20 90. In or about Spring of 2014, approximately one year prior to any mandated report of
21 HASSELL, Daron Banks received information that HASSELL was seen kissing Plaintiff JANE
22 RAB DOE after a track practice. At the time of this reporting, Banks knew that HASSELL was
23 spending time with JANE RAB DOE, providing extra coaching and time, and that reportedly the
24 kiss had occurred and was witnessed by another student.
25 91. Banks in turn reported the conduct to Principal Derrick Delton.
26 92. Upon the reporting by Banks to Delton, Delton, in his statements to Barstow Police
27 Department confirmed this reporting and noted that he did not make a mandated report to the
28 police. Rather, Delton admitted to warning HASSELL of rumors and to “become an adult and
-17-
take care of your stuff.” Delton admitted that he “warn[ed]” HASSELL to watch himself with
1
the rumors going around.
2
93. In Spring of 2014, both Banks and Delton were mandated reporters charged with
3
reporting the reasonable suspicion that the had regarding the sexual misconduct of HASSELL, but
4
chose not to make any mandated report on HASSELL, instead helping him cover up abuse by
5
warning him.
6
95. In the Fall/Winter of 2014, six months later, Banks received information via his wife
7
Reanna Banks, that HASSELL had gone away with Plaintiff JANE RAB DOE staying hin a guest
8
house alone with her.
9
96. In a taped police interview, Banks admitted that this was clear conduct that required
10
reporting to law enforcement. Instead Banks reported the sexual misconduct of HASSELL to
11
Delton, James Davis and Jeffrey Malan, all Administrators within BUSD.
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
97. In November, 2015, after reporting the conduct to Delton, Davis and Malan, Banks
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
hears nothing further, and HASSELL continues to abuse JANE RAB DOE.
14
98. After two months pass, Daron Banks, recognizing that HASSELL’s sexual behavior is
15
continuing to go unchecked, finally reports the conduct to the Barstow Police Department.
16
99. Based on the unequivocal audio recorded statements in the records of the Barstow
17
Police Department, BUSD Administrators Banks, Delton, Malan, and Davis were aware of
18
HASSELL’s conduct and failed to make a mandated report on HASSELL.
19
100. Other employees, noted HASSELL’s inappropriate behavior with minors, including
20
Rebekah Michelson, BSA Office Assistant, who knew that HASSELL was spending a significant
21
amount of time alone with Plaintiff. Nancy Wilcox also knew, and had warned HASSELL of the
22
impropriety of spending a significant time with a minor and the potential that it was inappropriate.
23
101. BUSD had 7 years of actual notice on HASSELL, yet failed to report him even one time
24
as was their legal duties and obligations.
25
BUSD’s FAILURES AS INDICATED HEREIN PERMITTED THE SEXUAL
26 MISCONDUCT OF HASSELL AGAINST PLAINTIFF HEREIN
27 102. Upon information and belief, BUSD hired and retained HASSELL without an
28 appropriate background check and professional reference check.
-18-
1 103. Once employed, HASSELL openly and obviously groomed Plaintiff on the campus of
2 BHS, including by and without limitation of the following actions:
3 a. Being around Plaintiff daily, to be close to her;
4 b. Treating Plaintiff special, and treating her special in front of other staff members
5 and Administrators;
6 c. Having Plaintiff alone in classrooms on campus;
7 d. Showing Plaintiff favoritism and giving her gifts;
8 e. Driving with Plaintiff on and off campus.
9 104. In addition, there were multiple “red flags” regarding HASSELL’s behavior that alerted
10 or should have alerted BUSD, BHS and BSA to HASSELLS' inappropriate behavior and sexual
abuse of children, including:

11
a. HASSELL being given the opportunity to seclude students in private areas, such
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
as classrooms on-campus;
13
Irvine, CA 92612
b. HASSELL locking the classroom door while having minor children with her in
Lawyers
14 the classroom;
15 c. HASSELL turning the lights out in classrooms with minor students without
supervision;
16
d. HASSELL spending an inordinate amount of time with students and particularly
17 Plaintiff, on-campus;
18 e. HASSELL favoring the female students;
19 f. HASSELL sitting and placing himself physically close to Plaintiff in order to

touch her;
20
g. HASSELL placing his hands on female students, including by openly hugging
21 students;
22 h. HASSELL leaving campus with Plaintiff;
23 i. HASSELL openly commenting on female students’ looks on social media.
24 105. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a student at BHS, a public High School within
25 BUSD. As a result thereof, and at all materials times hereto, the Plaintiff was under BUSD’s,
26 HASSELL, and BHS’s supervisory personnel’s, care, control and supervision.
27 106. BUSD, among others, hired HASSELL to work at BHS and BSA and/or failed at all
28 facets of their obligations, including in the hiring, retention, training and supervision of
-19-
1 HASSELL as outlined herein. Among these failures, as detailed in greater specificity herein,
2 HASSELL was:
3 a. Hired and retained without a background check that met the applicable standard
4 of care;
5 b. Hired and retained without conducting personal and professional background
6 references;
7 c. Allowed to be alone with students in violation of BUSD and State policy,
8 without supervision;
9 d. Allowed to show favortism to students;
10 e. Allowed to touch students in observation of other BUSD personnel;
f. Allowed to be alone behind closed doors with students;

11
g. Allowed to buy students food;
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
13 h. Allowed to give students candy.

Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
14 107. By hiring HASSELL to serve as an employee, aide, mentor, and counselor to minor
15 students, BUSD held HASSELL out to the public, Plaintiff and her family to be of high ethical
16 and moral repute, and to be in good standing with BUSD, the City of Barstow, the County of San
17 Bernardino, the State of California, and the public. BUSD represented to the public, Plaintiff and
18 her family that HASSELL was a highly qualified aide, teacher, mentor, and counselor who would
19 assist Plaintiff with working through academic, athletic, and personal issues they faced and
20 oversee their needs during school and after-school hours. Inherent in these representations was
21 the understanding that HASSELL was selected to educate, aide, lead, guide, teach, support,
22 mentor and counsel the Plaintiff. Plaintiff and her family reasonably assumed that HASSELL was
23 worthy of their trust. BUSD represented that HASSELL was worthy of that trust as well. As a
24 result, HASSELL was put into a position to teach, counsel and advise minor students at BHS and
25 BSA, including Plaintiff, regarding academics, classes and general educational issues.
26 108. At all times material hereto, HASSELL was employed, retained, and/or allowed to be
27 on-campus to supervise, mentor, aide and/or coach children at BHS and BSA, and the BUSD. In
28 such capacity, HASSELL was under the direct supervision, employ, agency, and control of the
-20-
1 BUSD, BSA, and DOES 1-100. His employment duties and responsibilities with the named
2 Defendants included, in part, providing for the supervision, counseling, advisory, educational, and
3 emotional needs and well-being of students at BHS and BSA and other children, including the
4 Plaintiff.
5 109. Through his position with BUSD, BHS and BSA, HASSELL was put into direct
6 contact with Plaintiff, students at BHS and BSA, and children of the parents of the Plaintiff.
7 HASSELL was assigned to teach, coach, aide, counsel, advise and mentor Plaintiff. It is under
8 these circumstances that Plaintiff came to be under the direction and control of HASSELL, who
9 used his position of authority and trust over Plaintiff to sexually harass, molest and abuse her.
10 110. HASSELL did sexually harass, molest and abuse Plaintiff who was a minor at the time.
Such conduct was done for HASSELL's sexual gratification, and was performed on Plaintiff
11
without her free consent, as Plaintiff was a mere minor and thus unable to give valid, legal
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
13 consent to such sexual acts. These actions upon Plaintiff constituted conduct in violation of
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
14 California Penal Code §§ 647.6, 288(a), and others.
15 111. As a student at BHS and BUSD, where HASSELL was retained and at BSA where
16 HASSELL worked, Plaintiff was under HASSELL’s direct supervision, care and control, thus
17 creating a special relationship, fiduciary relationship, and confidential relationship with
18 Defendants. Additionally, as a minor child under the custody, care and control of Defendants,
19 Defendants stood in loco parentis with respect to Plaintiff while they were attending school and
20 school-related functions at BHS and at BUSD. As the responsible parties and employers
21 controlling HASSELL, Defendants were also in a special relationship with Plaintiff, and owed
22 special duties to Plaintiff.
23 112. Before Plaintiff was sexually assaulted by HASSELL, Defendants knew or should have
24 known that HASSELL had engaged in unlawful sexually-related conduct with minors in the past,
25 and/or was continuing to engage in such conduct, including two other students before Plaintiff.
26 Specifically, upon information and belief, HASSELL had a reported prior criminal sexual history
27 of abuse, was mandatorily reported, and/or was accused and investigated by BUSD for abuse, but
28 failed to conduct any proper investigation to substantiate such abuse allegations, and instead left
-21-
1 HASSELL in the public educational system to eventually abuse Plaintiff. Defendants had a duty
2 to disclose to these facts to Plaintiff, her parents and others, but suppressed, concealed or failed to
3 disclose this information. The duty to disclose this information arose by the special, trusting,
4 confidential, fiduciary, and in loco parentis relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff.
5 113. Defendants failed to take reasonable steps and implement reasonable safeguards to
6 avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by HASSELL, including preventing abuse of Plaintiff by
7 HASSELL, avoiding placement of HASSELL in a function or environment in which contact with
8 children is an inherent part of that function or environment. Instead, Defendants ignored and
9 concealed the sexual abuse of Plaintiff and others by HASSELL that had already occurred.
10 Defendants failed to properly supervise HASSELL at BHS and at BSA, which led to many
students, including Plaintiff, being repeatedly sexually abused by HASSELL.

11
114. Defendants failed to take reasonable steps and implement reasonable safeguards to
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
13 avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by HASSELL, including preventing abuse of minor
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
14 children by HASSELL, avoiding placement of HASSELL in functions or environments in which
15 contact with children is an inherent part of that function or environment. Defendants similarly
16 failed to notify Plaintiff, government authorities or the State Department of Teacher
17 Credentialing. Had Defendants timely made such disclosures/notifications Plaintiff’s parents
18 would have been in a position to prevent the abuse to their minor children or, at least, prevent the
19 continued abuse of their minor child. Instead, Defendants ignored and concealed the sexual abuse
20 of Plaintiff’s parents’ minor child and others by HASSELL that had already occurred and had
21 previously been known or suspected by the Defendants.
22 115. Prior to and during the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of the Plaintiff,
23 Defendants knew or should have known that HASSELL had violated his role as a mentor, aide,
24 counselor, advisor and faculty member, and used this position of authority and trust acting on
25 behalf of Defendants to gain access to children, including Plaintiff, on and off the school facilities
26 and grounds, in which he caused Plaintiff to touch her, to allow him to touch Plaintiff in a sexual
27 manner, and engaged in sexual conduct and abuse, including harassment and molestation, with
28 such children including Plaintiff.
-22-
1 116. With knowledge that HASSELL had previously engaged in dangerous and inappropriate
2 conduct with children, Defendants conspired to and did knowingly fail to take reasonable steps,
3 and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the
4 future by HASSELL, including preventing or avoiding placement of HASSELL in a function or
5 environment in which contact with children is an inherent aspect of that function or environment.
6 117. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants failed to report and did hide and conceal from
7 students, parents, teachers, law enforcement authorities, civil authorities and others, the true facts
8 and relevant information necessary to bring HASSELL to justice for the sexual misconduct he
9 committed with minors, as well as protect minors under their care, including Plaintiff.
10 118. Defendants also implemented various measures designed to, or which effectively, made
HASSELL's conduct harder to detect including:

11
a. Permitting HASSELL to remain in a position of authority and trust after
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
Defendants knew or should have known that she was a molester of children;
13
Irvine, CA 92612
b. Placing HASSELL in a separate and secluded environment, including placing

Lawyers
14 him in charge of children, afterschool programs, advising programs, and youth

programs where she purported to supervise children, which allowed him to
15 sexually and physically interact with and abuse the children, including Plaintiff;
16 c. Allowing HASSELL to come into contact with minors, including Plaintiff,

without adequate supervision;
17
d. Failing to inform, or concealing from Plaintiff and her parents and law
18 enforcement officials the fact that Plaintiff and others were or may have been
sexually abused after Defendants knew or should have known that HASSELL
19 may have sexually abused Plaintiff or others, thereby enabling Plaintiff to
continue to be endangered and sexually abused, and creating the circumstance
20 where Plaintiff and others were less likely to receive medical/mental health care
and treatment, thus exacerbating the harm to Plaintiff;
21
e. Holding out HASSELL to Plaintiff and her parents, students, and to the school
22 community as being in good standing and trustworthy;
23 f. Failing to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards to

avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by HASSELL with students, who were
24 minor children; and
25 g. Failing to put in place a system or procedure to supervise or monitor employees,

volunteers, representatives or agents to insure that they did not molest or abuse
26 minors in Defendants' care, including Plaintiff.
27
28
-23-
1 119. By his position within the Defendants’ institutions, Defendants and HASSELL
2 demanded and required that the Plaintiff and her parents respect HASSELL in his position of aide,
3 advisor, youth counselor, teacher and mentor at BHS and BSA and the BUSD.
4 120. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that there had been reports of
5 sexual abuse and/or misconduct with children that involved or implicated HASSELL prior to
6 and/or during the time she was retained with Defendants BUSD, BHS, and BSA and that such
7 knowledge was easily discoverable by BUSD, and others, had a background check, proper
8 investigation and proper reporting been performed in accordance with the applicable standard of
9 care. Supervisory Personnel at BSA were aware of the allegations of sexual abuse of minors
10 against HASSELL and failed to report said allegations to law enforcement or child protective
services, as they are mandated to do by California law. As a direct result of defendants’ failures to
11
report these allegations of sexual abuse of minors against HASSELL, HASSELL was allowed to
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
13 remain as a administrator/teacher/student supervisor at BHS and BSA where he went on to

Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
14 sexually abuse numerous minor children, including Plaintiff.
15 121. BUSD intentionally ignored multiple complaints regarding HASSELL that allowed
16 HASSELL to abuse children for several years.
17 122. California law requires that allegations of child abuse be reported immediately by
18 calling a law enforcement entity and filing a report within 36 hours. State regulations also require
19 school districts to report to the Commission within 30 days cases of a certificated employee's
20 change of employment status, such as dismissal or other termination that results from allegations
21 of misconduct or while the allegation is pending.
22 123. The incidents of abuse outlined herein took place while Plaintiff was under the control
23 of HASSELL, in his capacity and position as aide, Administrator, counselor and mentor at BHS
24 and BSA, and BUSD, and while acting specifically on behalf of Defendants.
25 124. Defendant HASSELL was at all times relevant to this Complaint an aide, counselor,
26 advisor, youth counselor, Principal, Assistant Principal and mentor at BHS and BSA, an
27 institution wholly operated by BUSD.
28
-24-
1 125. Plaintiff was placed in the school environment with HASSELL, who with knowledge
2 that HASSELL had previously been accused of having inappropriate sexual relationships with a
3 student previous to Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that HASSELL
4 refused to conduct an investigation of HASSELL and instead hid and buried the information he
5 received as to BUSD to maintain any risk and liability for the District, despite direct knowledge of
6 inappropriate behavior.
7 126. HASSELL grasped the opportunity, with the allowance of BUSD to groom Plaintiff.
8 127. HASSELL’s steps to groom Plaintiff were open, obvious and transparent and detailed
9 herein and followed the pattern and practice set out in this Complaint.
10 128. While HASSELL sexually harassed, molested and abused Plaintiff, Defendants were
well aware that HASSELL took an unusual interest, and spent an inordinate amount of time with
11
Plaintiff as patently observable from the conduct of staff and students at BHS and BSA that
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
13 questioned the relationship, but never once reported their concerns as required as mandatory
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
14 reporters.
15 129. Facts Regarding the Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Plaintiff JANE RAB DOE:
16 a. In or around 2015, while Plaintiff was approximately 16-17 years old,
17 HASSELL sexually harassed, abused and molested JANE RAB DOE, who was
18 a minor at the time. HASSELL engaged in such activities with Plaintiff while
19 acting in the course and scope of his employment, agency, duties and
20 responsibilities with Defendants, in such locations as classrooms on the campus
21 of BSA, and at his residence. JANE RAB DOE, a minor at the time of the abuse
22 and currently, was born in April, 1997, was a minor student at BHS. Plaintiff
23 came into contact with HASSELL, who was her Assistant Principal and then the
24 Principal at BSA. During school hours, after school hours, and other days,
25 HASSELL engaged in sexual misconduct with the Plaintiff that included, but
26 was not limited to: (a) HASSELL rubbing and touching Plaintiff JANE RAB
27 DOE’s genitals over and under her clothes, including placing his hand on her
28 breasts and inside and outside of her vagina, (b) HASSELL forcing himself upon
-25-
Plaintiff; (c) HASSELL engaging in sexual intercourse with Plaintiff; (d)
1
HASSELL engaging in oral copulation with HASSELL; (e) HASSELL engaging
2
in sodomy with Plaintiff. This was all done for HASSELL's sexual gratification.
3
b. As a result of the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse by HASSELL,
4
JANE RAB DOE has suffered extensive physical, psychological and emotional
5
damages. JANE RAB DOE's sexual harassment, molestation and abuse occurred
6
as a result not only of HASSELL's actions, but because of the action and
7
inactions of BHS, BSA, and BUSD and their employees, administrators and
8
agents, in failing to properly hire, train and supervise HASSELL and in failing to
9
prevent her from harming JANE RAB DOE. At no time did Defendants or any
10
of them take any action to restrict HASSELL's access and interaction with
11
minors, including JANE RAB DOE. In fact, Defendants' conduct made it a
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
virtual certainty that JANE RAB DOE and other minors would be victimized,
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
via permissive and approval of such sexual abuse and conduct.

14
c. Subsequent to JANE RAB DOE's sexual abuse at the hands of HASSELL, she
15
began to experience multiple mental, emotional and psychological problems, due
16
to the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse, including, but not limited to:
17
embarrassment, anxiety, depression, PTSD, lack of sleep, feelings of
18
helplessness, moodiness, and significant trust and control issues.
19
130. As set forth more fully herein above, HASSELL did sexually harass, molest and abuse
20
Plaintiff, who was a minor at the time. Such conduct by HASSELL was based upon Plaintiff’s
21
gender, and was done for HASSELL’s sexual gratification. These actions upon Plaintiff was
22
performed by HASSELL without the free consent of Plaintiff, who was a minor at all times of the
23
abuse. These actions upon Plaintiff constitute conduct in violation of California Penal Code §
24
647.6 and others.
25
131. As a direct result of the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of Plaintiff by
26
HASSELL, Plaintiff has difficulty in reasonably or meaningfully interacting with others,
27
including those in positions of authority over Plaintiff, and in intimate, confidential and familial
28
-26-
relationships, due to the trauma of childhood sexual harassment, molestation and abuse inflicted
1
upon them by Defendants. This inability to interact creates conflict with Plaintiff’s values of trust
2
and confidence in others, and has caused Plaintiff substantial emotional distress, anxiety,
3
nervousness and fear. As a direct result of Plaintiff’s molestation by HASSELL, Plaintiff
4
experienced severe issues with their personal life, including issues with trust and difficulties in
5
maintaining meaningful familial relationships and friendships. These feelings have caused
6
Plaintiff substantial emotional distress, anxiety, nervousness and fear.
7
132. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ tortious acts, omissions, wrongful
8
conduct and/or breaches of their duties, whether willful or negligent, Plaintiff’s future
9
employment and personal development has been adversely affected. Plaintiff will lose wages as a
10
result of the abuse she suffered at the hands of Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial.
11
Plaintiff has suffered economic injury, all to Plaintiff’s general, special and consequential damage
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than the minimum jurisdictional amount of
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
this Court.
14
133. Defendants should have been aware of HASSELL’s wrongful conduct at or about the
15
time it was occurring, and thereafter, but took no action to obstruct, inhibit or stop such
16
continuing conduct, or to help prevent Plaintiff (as well as her parents) from enduring the trauma
17
from such conduct. Despite the authority and ability to do so, Defendants refused to, and did not
18
act effectively to stop the sexual assaults on Plaintiff, to inhibit or obstruct such abuse, or to
19
protect Plaintiff from the results of that trauma.
20
134. During the period of abuse of Plaintiff at the hands of HASSELL, Defendants had the
21
authority and ability to obstruct or stop HASSELL’s sexual assaults on Plaintiff, but failed to do
22
so, thereby allowing the abuse to occur and to continue unabated. This failure was a part of
23
Defendants’ plan and arrangement to conceal wrongful acts, to avoid and inhibit detection, to
24
block public disclosure, to avoid scandal, to avoid the disclosure of their tolerance of child sexual
25
molestation and abuse, to preserve a false appearance of propriety, and to avoid investigation and
26
action by public authority including law enforcement. Such actions were motivated by a desire to
27
28
-27-
protect the reputation of Defendants, and to protect the monetary support of Defendants while
1
fostering an environment where such abuse could continue to occur.
2
135. As is set forth herein, Defendants and each of them have failed to uphold numerous
3
mandatory duties imposed upon them by state and federal law, and by written policies and
4
procedures applicable to Defendants, including but not limited to the following:
5
* Duty to use reasonable care to protect students from known or foreseeable
6 dangers (Government Code §§ 820, 815.2);
7 * Duty to refrain from taking official action that contradicts the provisions of
Article 1, § 28(c) of the California Constitution;
8
* Duty to enact policies and procedures that are not in contravention of the Federal
9 Civil Rights Act, § 1983, and the 14th Amendment of the United States
Constitution;
10
* Duty to protect students and staff, and provide adequate supervision;
11
* Duty to ensure that any direction given to faculty and students is lawful, and that
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
adults act fairly, responsibly and respectfully towards faculty and students;
13
Irvine, CA 92612
* Duty to properly train teachers, athletic directors, athletic coaches, youth

Lawyers
counselors, mentors, administrators, and staff so that they are aware of their
14 individual responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe environment;
15 * Duty to supervise faculty and students and enforce rules and regulations
prescribed for schools, exercise reasonable control over students as is reasonably
16 necessary to maintain order, protect property, or protect the health and safety of
faculty and students or to maintain proper and appropriate conditions conducive
17 to learning;
18 * Duty to exercise careful supervision of the moral conditions in the school;
19 * Duty to hold pupils to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from
school, on the playgrounds or during recess;
20
* Duty to properly monitor students, prevent or correct harmful situations or call
21 for help when a situation is beyond their control;
22 * Duty to ensure that personnel are actually on hand and supervising students;
23 * Duty to provide enough supervision to students;
24 * Duty to supervise diligently;
25 * Duty to act promptly and diligently and not ignore or minimize problems;
26 * Duty to refrain from violating Plaintiff’s right to protection from bodily restraint
or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to her personal
27 relations (Civil Code § 43);
28
-28-
* Duty to abstain from injuring the person or property of Plaintiff, or infringing
1 upon any of her rights (Civil Code § 1708);
2 * Duty to report suspected incidents of child abuse and more specifically
childhood sexual abuse (Penal Code §§ 11166, 11167); and
3
* Duty to establish various school safety and violence prevention programs
4 (Education Code §§ 32228, 32228.5, 35294.10-35294.15).
5 136. Compulsory education laws create a special relationship between students and
6 Defendants, and students have a constitutional guarantee to a safe, secure and peaceful school
7 environment. Defendants and each of them failed to acknowledge unsafe conditions, and
8 therefore failed to guarantee safe surroundings in an environment in which Plaintiff was not free
9 to leave, specifically including but not limited to allowing HASSELL to take children for
10 purposes of sexual activity and allowing HASSELL to operate isolated environments, incapable
11 of monitoring from the outside, wherein Defendants sexually harassed, molested and abused
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
Plaintiff and others.

13
Irvine, CA 92612
137. Defendants had and have a duty to protect students, including Plaintiff. Defendants
Lawyers
14 were required to, and failed to provide adequate campus and site school event supervision, and
15 failed to be properly vigilant in seeing that supervision was sufficient to ensure the safety of
16 Plaintiff and others.
17 138. Defendants lodged with HASSELL the color of authority, by which he was able to
18 influence, direct and abuse Plaintiff and others, and to act illegally, unreasonably and without
19 respect for the person and safety of Plaintiff.
20 139. Defendants had a duty to and failed to adequately train and supervise all counselors,
21 advisors, teachers, aides, coaches, mentors and staff to create a positive, safe, spiritual and
22 educational environment, specifically including training to perceive, report and stop inappropriate
23 conduct by other members of the staff, specifically including HASSELL, with children.
24 140. Defendants had a duty to and failed to enact and enforce rules and regulations
25 prescribed for schools, and execute reasonable control over students necessary to protect the
26 health and safety of the student and maintain proper and appropriate conditions conducive to
27 learning.
28
-29-
141. Defendants were required to and failed to exercise careful supervision of the moral
1
conditions in their school, and provide supervision before and after school. This duty extended
2
beyond the classroom.
3
142. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, HASSELL acted
4
willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of
5
Plaintiff’s rights, so as to constitute malice and oppression under California Civil Code §3294.
6
Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the recovery of punitive damages, in an amount to be determined
7
by the court, against HASSELL, in a sum to be shown according to proof.
8
143. Under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (“CANRA”), Defendants were child
9
care custodians and were under a statutory duty to report known or suspected incidents of sexual
10
molestation or abuse of minors to a child protective agency, pursuant to California Penal Code
11
§11166, and/or not to impede the filing of any such report.
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
144. Defendants knew or should have known that their agent, employee, counselor, advisor,
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
aide, and mentor, HASSELL, and other teachers and staff of Defendants had sexually molested,
14
abused or caused touching, battery, harm, and other injuries to minors, giving rise to a duty to
15
report such conduct under California Penal Code § 11166, et seq. had Defendants simply
16
complied with this legal duty much of the abuse could have been prevented or lessened.
17
145. Defendants knew, or should have known in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that an
18
undue risk to minors, including Plaintiff, existed because Defendants did not comply with
19
California’s mandatory reporting requirements.
20
146. By failing to report the continuing molestations and abuse, which Defendants new of or
21
should have known of, and by ignoring the fulfillment of the mandated compliance with the
22
reporting requirements provided under California Penal Code § 11166, Defendants created the
23
risk and danger contemplated by CANRA, and as a result, unreasonably and wrongfully exposed
24
Plaintiff and other minors to sexual molestation and abuse and effectively prevented Plaintiff’s
25
parents from taking steps to protect their child.
26
27
28
-30-
147. Had Defendants adequately reported the molestation of Plaintiff and other minors as
1
required by California Penal Code §11166, further harm to Plaintiff and other minors would have
2
been avoided.
3
148. As a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to follow the mandatory reporting
4
requirements of California Penal Code § 11166, Defendants wrongfully denied Plaintiff and other
5
minors the intervention of child protection services. Such public agencies would have changed the
6
then-existing arrangements and conditions that provided the access and opportunities for the
7
molestation of minor children by HASSELL.
8
149. The physical, mental, and emotional damages and injuries resulting from the sexual
9
molestation of Plaintiff by HASSELL, were the type of occurrence and injuries that CANRA was
10
designed to prevent.
11
150. As a result, Defendants’ failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements of
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
California Penal Code § 11166 also constituted a per se breach of Defendants’ duties.
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
151. Under the Education Code (Education Code §§32228,32228.5,35294.10-35294.15),

14
Defendants had a duty to establish various school safety and violence prevention programs
15
designed to protect minor students such as Plaintiff from the sexually exploitive acts of serial
16
predators such as HASSELL.
17
152. Defendants knew, or should have known in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that an
18
19
California’s Education Code school safety and protection requirements.
20
153. By failing to adhere to the Education Code’s school safety and protection requirements,
21
Defendants created the risk and danger contemplated by the Education Code and as a result,
22
unreasonably and wrongfully exposed Plaintiff and other minors to sexual molestation and abuse.
23
154. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendant
24
HASSELL acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious
25
disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, so as to constitute malice and oppression under California Civil
26
Code §3294. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the recovery of punitive damages, in an amount to be
27
determined by the court, against HASSELL, in a sum to be shown according to proof.
28
-31-
155. HASSELL acted in a concerted manner to cover up the sexual abuse of Plaintiff and
1
others and therefore Plaintiff is entitled to an award of treble damages as against HASSELL.
2
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
3 NEGLIGENCE
4 (Plaintiff Against all Defendants)
5 156. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation
6 contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.
7 157. Prior to and after the first incident of HASSELL’s sexual harassment, molestation and
8 abuse of Plaintiff, through the present, Defendants, knew or should have known that HASSELL
9 had or was capable of sexually, physically, and mentally abusing the Plaintiff or other victims.
10 158. Defendants had special duties to protect the Plaintiff and the other students within BHS,
11 BSA and BUSD, when such students were entrusted to their care by their parents. Plaintiff’s care,
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
welfare and physical custody were entrusted to Defendants. Defendants voluntarily accepted the
13
Irvine, CA 92612
entrusted care of Plaintiff. As such, Defendants owed Plaintiff, a minor child, a special duty of
Lawyers
14 care, in addition to a duty of ordinary care, and owed Plaintiff the higher duty of care that adults
15 dealing with children owe to protect them from harm. The duty to protect and warn arose from the
16 special, trusting, confidential, and fiduciary relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff.
17 Plaintiff instilled great trust, faith and confidence in Defendants, and in HASSELL as her teacher,
18 counselor, adviser and mentor.
19 159. Defendants breached their duties of care to the minor Plaintiff by allowing HASSELL to
20 come into contact with the minor Plaintiff and other students, without supervision; by failing to
21 adequately hire, supervise and retain HASSELL who they permitted and enabled to have access to
22 Plaintiff; by failing to investigate or otherwise confirm or deny such facts about HASSELL; by
23 failing to tell or concealing from Plaintiff, her parents, guardians and law enforcement officials
24 that HASSELL was or may have been sexually harassing, molesting and abusing minors; by
25 failing to tell or concealing from Plaintiff’s parents, guardians or law enforcement officials that
26 Plaintiff was or may have been sexually harassed, molested and abused after Defendants knew or
27 should have known that HASSELL may have sexually harassed, molested and abused Plaintiff or
28 others, thereby enabling Plaintiff to continue to be endangered and sexually harassed, molested
-32-
and abused, and creating the circumstance where Plaintiff was less likely to receive
1
medical/mental health care or treatment, thus exacerbating the harm done to Plaintiff; and by
2
holding out HASSELL to Plaintiff and to her parents as being in good standing and trustworthy.
3
Defendants cloaked within the facade of normalcy Defendants’ conduct, contact and actions with
4
Plaintiff and disguised the nature of the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse and contact.
5
160. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by, inter alia, failing to investigate or
6
otherwise confirm or deny such facts, failing to reveal such facts to Plaintiff, the community of
7
the school, students, minors, and law enforcement agencies, placing and continuing to place
8
HASSELL in positions of trust and authority within BUSD, and holding out, and continuing to
9
hold out HASSELL to Plaintiff, the public, the community of the school, students, minors, and
10
law enforcement agencies as being in good standing and trustworthy.
11
161. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by, inter alia, failing to adequately monitor
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
and supervise HASSELL and stopping HASSELL from committing wrongful sexual acts with
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
minors including Plaintiff. This belief is founded on the fact that Plaintiff was informed and
14
believed that the employees and staff of BHS, BSA and BUSD had suspected the abuse was
15
occurring at the time, and failed to investigate into the matter further. Based on these facts,
16
Defendants knew and or should have known of HASSELL’s incapacity to stop from committing
17
wrongful sexual acts with minors.
18
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
19 NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION
23 163. As an educational institution for minors, where all of the students are entrusted to the
24 teachers, counselors, advisors, mentors, coaches, faculty members and administrators, BHS, BSA
25 and BUSD expressly and implicitly represented that these individuals, including HASSELL, was
26 not a sexual threat to children and others who would fall under HASSELL’s influence, control,
27 direction, and guidance.
28
-33-
164. Defendants negligently failed to supervise HASSELL in her positions of trust and
1
authority as teachers, teacher’s assistants, counselors and mentors, and/or other authority figure,
2
where they were able to commit wrongful acts against the Plaintiff. Defendants failed to provide
3
reasonable supervision of HASSELL. Defendants further failed to take reasonable measures to
4
prevent sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of minors, including Plaintiff.
5
165. At no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in place a system or
6
procedure to reasonably investigate, supervise and monitor coaches and child supervisors,
7
including HASSELL, to prevent pre-sexual grooming and sexual harassment, molestation and
8
abuse of children, nor did they implement a system or procedure to oversee or monitor conduct
9
toward minors, students and others in Defendants’ care.
10
166. Defendants were or should have known to be aware and understand how vulnerable
11
children were to sexual harassment, molestation and abuse by counselors, advisors, mentors,
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
coaches, teachers and other persons of authority within Defendants.

13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
167. Defendants’ conduct was a breach of their duties to Plaintiff.

14
168. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by, inter alia, failing to adequately monitor
15
and supervise HASSELL and stopping HASSELL from committing wrongful sexual acts with
16
minors including Plaintiff. This belief is founded on the fact that employees and staff of BHS,
17
BSA and BUSD had suspected the abuse was occurring at the time, and failed to investigate into
18
the matter further. Based on these facts, Defendants knew or should have known of HASSELL’s
19
incapacity to supervise and stop employees of Defendants from committing wrongful sexual acts
20
with minors.
21
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
22 NEGLIGENT HIRING and/or RETENTION
26 170. By virtue of Plaintiff’s special relationship with Defendants and Defendants’ relation to
27 HASSELL, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to not hire and retain HASSELL, given his
28
-34-
dangerous and exploitive propensities, which Defendants knew or should have known of had they
1
engaged in a meaningful and adequate investigation of his background prior to his hiring.
2
171. As an educational institution and operator of a school, where all of the students are
3
minors entrusted to the schools and its employees and agents, Defendants expressly and implicitly
4
represented that the counselors, advisors, mentors, coaches, teachers and others, including
5
HASSELL, was not a sexual threat to children and others who would fall under HASSELL’s
6
influence, control, direction, and guidance.
7
172. At no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in place a system or
8
procedure to reasonably investigate, supervise and monitor teachers, including HASSELL, to
9
prevent pre-sexual grooming and sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of children, nor did
10
they implement a system or procedure to oversee or monitor conduct toward minors, students and
11
others in Defendants’ care.
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
173. Defendants were or should have known to be aware of and understand how vulnerable
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
children were to sexual harassment, molestation and abuse by teachers and other persons of
14
authority within the control of Defendants.
15
174. Defendants were put on notice, and should have known that HASSELL had previously
16
engaged in dangerous and inappropriate conduct, and that it was, or should have been foreseeable
17
that they were engaging, or would engage in illicit sexual activities with Plaintiff, and others,
18
under the cloak of their authority, confidence, and trust, bestowed upon them through Defendants.
19
175. Defendants were placed on notice that HASSELL had engaged in dangerous and
20
inappropriate conduct, both before his employment within Defendants, and during that
21
employment. Plaintiff is informed, and thereon alleges, that other third parties, minors, students,
22
law enforcement officials and parents informed Defendants of inappropriate conduct committed
23
by HASSELL.
24
176. Even though Defendants knew or should have known of these activities by HASSELL,
25
Defendants failed to use reasonable care in investigating HASSELL and did nothing to reasonably
26
investigate, supervise or monitor HASSELL to ensure the safety of the minor students.
27
28
-35-
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
1 NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN TRAIN OR EDUCATE
5 179. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect
6 Plaintiff and other minor students from the risk of childhood sexual harassment, molestation and
7 abuse by HASSELL by properly warning, training or educating Plaintiff and other students about
8 how to avoid such a risk.
9 180. Defendants breached their duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect
11 abuse by HASSELL, such as the failure to properly warn, train or educate Plaintiff and other
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
students about how to avoid such a risk.

13
Irvine, CA 92612
181. Defendants breached their duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect
Lawyers
15 abuse by HASSELL, by failing to supervising and stop employees of Defendants, including
16 HASSELL, from committing wrongful sexual acts with minors, including Plaintiff.
17 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE PER SE
18
(Plaintiff Against all Defendants)
19
PENAL CODE: RE MANDATORY CHILD ABUSE REPORTING
20
182. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation
21
contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.
22
183. Under CANRA, Defendants were child care custodians and were under a statutory duty
23
to report known or suspected incidents of sexual molestation or abuse of minors to a child
24
protective agency, pursuant to California Penal Code § 11166, and/or not to impede the filing of
25
any such report.
26
184. Defendants knew or should have known that their agent, employee, counselor, advisor
27
and mentor, HASSELL, and other teachers and staff of Defendants had sexually molested,
28
-36-
abused or caused touching, battery, harm, and other injuries to minors, including Plaintiff, giving
1
rise to a duty to report such conduct under California Penal Code § 11166.
2
185. Defendants knew, or should have known, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that an
3
4
California’s mandatory reporting requirements.
5
186. By failing to report the continuing molestations and abuse, which Defendants knew of
6
or should have known of, and by ignoring the fulfillment of the mandated compliance with the
7
reporting requirements provided under California Penal Code §11166, Defendants created the risk
8
and danger contemplated by the CANRA, and as a result, unreasonably and wrongfully exposed
9
Plaintiff and other minors to sexual molestation and abuse.
10
187. Plaintiff was members of the class of persons for whose protection California Penal
11
Code § 11166 was specifically adopted to protect.
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
188. Had Defendants adequately reported the molestation of Plaintiff and other minors as
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
required by California Penal Code § 11166, further harm to Plaintiff and other minors would have
14
been avoided.
15
189. As a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to follow the mandatory reporting
16
requirements of California Penal Code § 11166, Defendants wrongfully denied Plaintiff and other
17
minors the intervention of child protection services. Such public agencies would have changed the
18
then-existing arrangements and conditions that provided the access and opportunities for the
19
molestation of Plaintiff by HASSELL.
20
190. The physical, mental, and emotional damages and injuries resulting from the sexual
21
molestation of Plaintiff by HASSELL, were the type of occurrence and injuries that the CANRA
22
were designed to prevent.
23
191. As a result, Defendants’ failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements of
24
California Penal Code § 11166 also constituted a per se breach of Defendants’ duties to Plaintiff.
25
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
26 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
27 (Plaintiff Against All Defendants)
28
-37-
1
2
193. Defendants’ conduct toward Plaintiff, as described herein, was outrageous and extreme.
3
194. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate Defendants putting HASSELL
4
positions of authority at BHS, BSA and BUSD, which enabled HASSELL to have access to minor
5
students, including Plaintiff, so that she could commit wrongful sexual acts with them, including
6
the conduct described herein above. Plaintiff held great trust, faith and confidence in Defendants,
7
which, by virtue of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, turned to fear.
8
195. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate Defendants to be incapable of
9
supervising and preventing employees of Defendants, including HASSELL, from committing
10
wrongful sexual acts with minor students, including Plaintiff, or to properly supervise HASSELL
11
to prevent such abuse from occurring, or to promptly notify parents or authorities.
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
196. The acts of Administrators and employees of BUSD were extreme and outrageous by
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
the following individuals engaging in the following actions:

14
a. Derrick Delton, Principal of BHS:
15
1. Admitted to knowing of reasonable suspicion of HASSELL in 2007, yet
16
failing to report HASSELL, and engaging in a cover up of his duties
17
towards being a mandated reporter;
18
2. Admitted to receiving a reporting in Spring of 2014 for HASSELL, and
19
informing HASSELL to behave and “warn” him that there were rumors
20
he was engaging in sexual misconduct with Plaintiff, despite his
21
obligation to report HASSELL;
22
3. Admitted to receiving a report in Fall of 2014 on HASSELL going away
23
and staying in a house with a minor student, yet failing to report such
24
conduct and knowledge as is the obligation of a mandated reporter;
25
b. Daron Banks, Assistant Principal of BHS:
26
27
28
-38-
1. Admitted to receiving a reporting in Spring of 2014 for HASSELL, and
1
failing to report that conduct as is his obligation as a mandated reporter,
2
and therefore covering up that behavior;
3
2. Admitted to receiving a report in Fall of 2014 on HASSELL going away
4
and staying in a house with a minor student, yet failing to report such
5
conduct and knowledge as is the obligation of a mandated reporter.
6
197. Daron Banks, Derrick Delton, James Davis, Jeffrey Malan, Maryann Garrison, and
7
others from BUSD knew of HASSELL’s conduct with minors, and are therefore independently
8
liable for their failures as Administrators in failing to investigate, report and cease HASSELL due
9
to their intentional desires to insulate and cover for HASSELL and protect BUSD from liability.
10
198. Defendants’ conduct described herein was intentional and malicious and done for the
11
purpose of causing, or with the substantial certainty that it would cause Plaintiff to suffer
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
humiliation, mental anguish and emotional and physical distress.

13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
199. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continue to suffer
14
great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional
15
distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life;
16
have suffered and continue to suffer and were prevented and will continue to be prevented from
17
performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings
18
and earning capacity, and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and
19
psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.
20
200. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendant HASSELL
21
acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of
22
Plaintiff’s rights, so as to constitute malice and oppression under California Civil Code section
23
3294. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the recovery of punitive damages, in an amount to be
24
25
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
26 SEXUAL HARASSMENT: CIVIL CODE § 51.9
27 (Plaintiff Against Defendants)
28
-39-
1
2
202. During Plaintiff’s time as student BHS and BUSD, HASSELL intentionally, recklessly
3
and wantonly made sexual advances, solicitations, requests, demands for sexual compliance of a
4
hostile nature based on Plaintiff’s gender that were unwelcome, pervasive and severe. HASSELL
5
intentionally, recklessly and wantonly did acts which resulted in harmful and offensive contact
6
with intimate parts of Plaintiff’s person, including but not limited to HASSELL using the
7
authority and trust inherent in his position as a schoolteacher and counselor to exploit them
8
physically, psychologically and emotionally. These acts were done for HASSELL’s sexual
9
gratification; all while HASSELL was acting in the course and scope of his agency/employment
10
with BHS, BSA and BUSD.
11
203. The incidents of abuse outlined herein above took place while Plaintiff was under the
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
care of HASSELL, in his capacity and position as teacher, and counselor, while acting specifically
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
on behalf of BHS, BSA and BUSD.

14
204. Because of Plaintiff’s young age and relationship with HASSELL as students at BHS
15
and BUSD, Plaintiff was unable to easily terminate her student-teacher and student-counselor
16
relationships with HASSELL. Moreover, compulsory education laws required the Plaintiff to
17
attend school at BHS, BSA and within BUSD.
18
205. Because of HASSELL’s position of authority over Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s mental and
19
emotional state, and her young age under the age of consent, Plaintiff was unable to, and did not
20
give meaningful consent to such acts.
21
206. Even though Defendants knew or should have known of these activities by HASSELL,
22
Defendants did nothing to investigate, supervise or monitor HASSELL to ensure the safety of the
23
Plaintiff. Defendants ratified the sexual misconduct of HASSELL by retaining him in
24
employment after discovering his misconduct.
25
26
27
28
-40-
1
2
3
4
5
209. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendant HASSELL
6
acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of
7
Plaintiff’s rights, so as to constitute malice and oppression under California Civil Code section
8
3294. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the recovery of punitive damages, in an amount to be
9
10
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ABUSE IN EDUCATIONAL SETTING:

EDUCATION CODE §220.
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
(Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
14
15
211. Plaintiff was harmed by being subjected to harassment at BHS, BSA and within BUSD
16
because of her gender and Defendants are responsible for that harm.
17
212. Plaintiff suffered harassment that was so severe, pervasive, and offensive that it
18
effectively deprived Plaintiff of the right of equal access to educational benefits and opportunities.
19
213. Defendants had actual knowledge that this sexual harassment, abuse, and molestation
20
was occurring.
21
214. In the face of this knowledge of sexual abuse, harassment, and molestation that was
22
being perpetrated upon Plaintiff by HASSELL (described above), Defendants acted with
23
deliberate indifference towards responding to these alarms and preventing further abuse.
24
Defendants allowed HASSELL to remain in the classroom and part of after school programs, to
25
sexually harass and abuse minor students, including Plaintiff.
26
27
28
-41-
1
2
3
4
5
216. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendant
6
HASSELL acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious
7
disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, so as to constitute malice and oppression under California Civil
8
Code section 3294. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the recovery of punitive damages, in an
9
amount to be determined by the court, against HASSELL, in a sum to be shown according to
10
proof.
11
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
PUBLIC ENTITY LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM MANDATORY DUTY

(EDUCATION CODE §§200, 201; CIVIL CODE §51.9; Title IX: 20 U.S.C. §1681)
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
(Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

14
15
16
218. Plaintiff was harmed because Defendants violated the following statutes, which state
17
(with relevant provisions cited below):
18
a. Education Code §200: “It is the policy of the State of California to afford all
19 persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, gender identity,
gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or
20 any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth
in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the
21 educational institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit
acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies therefor.”
22
b. Education Code §201(a): “All pupils have the right to participate fully in the
23 educational process, free from discrimination and harassment.”
24 c. Education Code §201(b): “California’s public schools have an affirmative
obligation to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of bias, and a
25 responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity.”
26 d. Education Code §201(c): “Harassment on school grounds directed at an
individual on the basis of personal characteristics or status creates a hostile
27 environment and jeopardizes equal educational opportunity as guaranteed by the
California Constitution and the United States Constitution.”
28
-42-
e. Education Code §201(d): “There is an urgent need to prevent and respond to acts
1 of hate violence and bias-related incidents that are occurring at an increasing rate
in California’s public schools.
2
f. Education Code §201(e): “There is an urgent need to teach and inform pupils in
3 the public schools about their rights, as guaranteed by the federal and state
constitutions, in order to increase pupils’ awareness and understanding of their
4 rights and the rights of others, with the intention of promoting tolerance and
sensitivity in public schools and in society as a means of responding to potential
5 harassment and hate violence.”
6 g. Education Code §201(f): “It is the intent of the Legislature that each public
school undertake educational activities to counter discriminatory incidents on
7 school grounds and, within constitutional bounds, to minimize and eliminate a
hostile environment on school grounds that impairs the access of pupils to equal
8 educational opportunity.”
9 h. Civil Code §51.9: “(a) A person is liable in a cause of action for sexual
harassment under this section when the plaintiff proves all of the following
10 elements:
11 (1) There is a business, service, or professional relationship between the

plaintiff and defendant. Such a relationship may exist between a plaintiff
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
and a person, including, but not limited to, any of the following persons:
13
Irvine, CA 92612
(A) Physician, psychotherapist, or dentist. For purposes of this section,

Lawyers
“psychotherapist” has the same meaning as set forth in paragraph

14 (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 728 of the Business and
Professions Code.
15
(B) Attorney, holder of a master’s degree in social work, real estate
16 agent, real estate appraiser, accountant, banker, trust officer,
financial planner loan officer, collection service, building
17 contractor, or escrow loan officer.
18 (C) Executor, trustee, or administrator.
19 (D) Landlord or property manager.
20 (E) Teacher.
21 (F) A relationship that is substantially similar to any of the above.
22 (2) The defendant has made sexual advances, solicitations, sexual requests,
demands for sexual compliance by the plaintiff, or engaged in other
23 verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature or of a hostile
nature based on gender, that were unwelcome and pervasive or severe.
24
(3) There is an inability by the plaintiff to easily terminate the relationship.
25
(4) The plaintiff has suffered or will suffer economic loss or disadvantage or
26 personal injury, including, but not limited to, emotional distress or the
violation of a statutory or constitutional right, as a result of the conduct
27 described in paragraph (2).”
28
-43-
i. Title IX of 20 U.S.C. §1681: …No person in the United States shall, on the basis
1 of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving
2 Federal financial assistance.”
3 219. As a result of allowing HASSELL to sexually abuse, molest, and harass minor students,
4 including the Plaintiff, Defendants violated Education Code §§200, 201, Civil Code §51.9, and
5 United States Code Article 20, §1681. Under these code sections Defendants had a mandatory
6 duty to prevent sexual harassment, which they failed to do, thus, violating these statutes.
7 220. As a result of Defendants failure to perform these mandatory duties, Plaintiff suffered
8 immense harm.
9 221. Defendants’ failure to perform these mandatory duties, was a substantial factor in
10 causing the harm suffered by Plaintiff.
11 222. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continue to suffer
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
14 have suffered and continue to suffer and were prevented and will continue to be prevented from
15 performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings
16 and earning capacity, and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and
17 psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.
18 223. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendant
19 HASSELL acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious
20 disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, so as to constitute malice and oppression under California Civil
21 Code section 3294. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the recovery of punitive damages, in an
22 amount to be determined by the court, against HASSELL, in a sum to be shown according to
23 proof.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
-44-
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray for a jury trial and for judgment against Defendants as follows:
1
FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
2
1. For past, present and future general damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
3
2. For past, present and future special damages, including but not limited to past, present
4
and future lost earnings, economic damages and others, in an amount to be determined at trial;
5
3. Any appropriate statutory damages;
6
4. For costs of suit;
7
5. For interest as allowed by law;
8
6. For attorney’s fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1021.4 (though
9
not against BUSD; only HASSELL), 1021.5, Civil Code §§52, or otherwise as allowable by law;
10
7. Any appropriate punitive or exemplary damages against Defendant HASSELL only (as
11
supported by the causes of action and facts);
(714) 252-9990• Fax: (949) 252-9991
12
8. For treble damages based in cover up as compensatory damages as to HASSELL only;

13
Irvine, CA 92612
Lawyers
and;
14
9. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
15
16
17
Dated: August 16, 2021 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
18
19 By: _______________________________
MORGAN A. STEWART
20 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
JANE RAB DOE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-45-
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Jane RAB Doe v. Barstow Unified School District, et al.

Case No. CIVSB2110771
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
4
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
5 employed in the County of Orange, State of California. My business address is 19100 Von
Karman Avenue, Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92612.
6
On August 17, 2021, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
7 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES on the interested parties in this action
as follows:
8
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
9
BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
10 persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and
mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of
11 Manly Stewart Finaldi for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of
12 business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I
am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope was placed in
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
13 the mail at Irvine, California.

Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612
14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
15
Executed on August 17, 2021, at Irvine, California.
16
17
18 Felicia Tifrea
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
PROOF OF SERVICE RE: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 SERVICE LIST
Jane RAB Doe v. Barstow Unified School District, et al.
2 Case No. CIVSB2110771
3 RYAN D. MILLER (SBN 256799) Attorneys for BARSTOW UNIFIED SCHOOL

JAMES A. HARRIS (SBN 312309) DISTRICT
4 CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS, ACHO
& ASSOCIATES, P.C. 3801 University
5 Avenue, Suite 560
Riverside, CA 92501
6 (951) 276-4420
(951) 276-4405 fax
7 Ryan D. Miller: [email protected]
Jimmy A. Harris: [email protected]
8 Lindsay Frazier-Krane: lkrane@cmda-
law.com
9 Sarah Quesada: [email protected]
Maricela Bobadilla: MBobadilla@cmda-
10 law.com
11 MARK L. HASSELL an individual Defendant In Pro Per

MANLY STEWART FINALDI
706 W 6th St
12 Ontario, CA 91762-1204
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
13 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI

Telephone (949) 252-9990
Attorneys for Plaintiff(s)

Irvine, California 92612

14 Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
15 Fax: (949) 252-9991
[email protected] – Morgan A.
16 Stewart, Esq.
[email protected] – Saul E. Wolf, Esq.
17 [email protected] – Cristina J. Nolan,
Esq.
18 [email protected] – Haley K.
Aanestad, Esq.
19 [email protected] -
Mercedes García-Rammer
20 [email protected] – Felicia Tifrea
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
PROOF OF SERVICE RE: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Barstow Unified Complaint 2021-08-17

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barstow Unified Complaint 2021-08-17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 COMES NOW, Plaintiff, JANE RAB DOE (“Plaintiff”), who complains and allege as follows:

5 (“BUSD”) Principal and Administrator, MARK L. HASSELL (“HASSELL”).

11 school campus in order to engage in sexual contact with Plaintiff.

14 misconduct with students:

15 a. Jeffrey Malan, Superintendent of BUSD;

16 b. Derrick Delton, Principal of BHS;

17 c. James Davis, Former Assistant Superintendent of BUSD;

18 d. Daron Banks, Assistant Principal of BHS;

19 e. Maryann Garrison aka Hassell, Teacher at BHS;

20 f. Rebekah Michelson, BSA Office Assistant;

21 g. Nancy Wilcox, BSA Executive Assistant.

25 alone with school aged children.

27 is currently a registered sexual offender.

2 significant and substantial damages caused to her by the abuse.

11 minor at the time of all incidents alleged herein.

17 section 1002 and Government Code section 905.

20 premised upon wrongful or negligent acts by those persons or entities.

21 11. As amended, Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1(q), further provides:

28 assault make a government tort claim prior to filing litigation.

3 now bring forward her legitimate claims against these Defendants.

7 15. Defendant BARSTOW UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter “BUSD”), at all

14 16. Defendant MARK L. HASSELL (hereinafter “HASSELL”), at all times mentioned

23 shall be referred to collectively as “Defendants.”

28 Complaint to state their true names and capacities herein.

3 proximately caused by all said Defendants.

21 each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff.

22 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS

23 THE LAW APPLICABLE TO BUSD’S NOTICE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

10 High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 868.

19 Dist. (2010) 183 Cal. App.4th 123,146 (emphasis added).

23 injuries.” Id. (emphasis added).

26 110 Cal. App. 4th at 516.

3 b. Penal Code section 647.6 (criminal annoyance of a child) - a misdemeanor.

22 35. The M.W. Court specifically held:

26 School districts are subject to well-established statutory duties mandating adequate

harasses and abuses a student.

2 Inc. (2017) 8 Cal. App. 5th 1118.

5 of sexual misconduct at its school sites.

8 within the BUSD school district.

17 responsibly, however, these assertions substantiate the opposite.

20 of notice on how to prevent sexual and/or inappropriate misconduct directed at minors:

21 a. Valentine Rodriguez, approximately 2005, Central High School - Mr. Rodriguez

26 ignore the report.

7 administrators. Mr. Bowe pled guilty to the crimes he committed;

8 d. James McKinley, approximately 2006, Cameron Elementary - McKinley, an

13 e. Female ROP Teacher, approximately 2009, Barstow High School - In or about

17 was concerned with Mr. Cheek's lack of investigation.

18 f. Mark Hassell, approximately 2015, Barstow Stem Academy - Mr. Hassell, a

intentionally covered up those signs.

ATTEMPT TO DISSUADE SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS FROM COMING FORWARD

11 HASSELL to preserve her family and her children.

2 BHS, including by and without limitation of the following actions:

3 a. Being around Plaintiff daily, to be close to her;

6 c. Having Plaintiff alone in classrooms on campus;

7 d. Showing Plaintiff favoritism and giving her gifts;

8 e. Driving with Plaintiff on and off campus.

abuse of children, including:

18 e. HASSELL favoring the female students;

19 f. HASSELL sitting and placing himself physically close to Plaintiff in order to

22 h. HASSELL leaving campus with Plaintiff;

23 i. HASSELL openly commenting on female students’ looks on social media.

26 HASSELL, and BHS’s supervisory personnel’s, care, control and supervision.

5 b. Hired and retained without conducting personal and professional background