United States District Court, E.D. California
S.G., a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem DANIELLE MORGAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
EL DORADO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.
move to dismiss plaintiffs' state-law claims. Mot., ECF
No. 13. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion,
Opp'n, ECF No. 15, and defendants replied, Reply, ECF No.
16. At the February 8, 2019 motion hearing, however,
plaintiffs conceded the motion in its entirety. Noting the
concession, the court GRANTS defendants' motion in full
on the merits as explained below.
bring this action for various state and federal violations,
including intentional discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
§ 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, failure to
perform supervisory duties under California Government Code
section 815.6, negligent hiring, supervision and training
under Government Code section 815.2, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional
distress, negligence, assault, battery and violation of
California Civil Code section 1714. Compl., ECF No. 1.
plaintiff, S.G., suffers from Elhers-Danlos Syndrome III, a
group of disorders affecting the connective tissues that
support the skin, bones, blood vessels and other organs and
tissues. Id. ¶¶ 16-17. S.G. also suffers
from a Marfan trait called Pectus Excavatum and Dysautonomia,
and other conditions as well. Id. ¶ 16. S.G.
was, at all relevant times, a student at El Dorado High
School (“EDHS”). Id. ¶ 16. EDHS was
aware of S.G.'s condition, and initially made all
necessary accommodations based on her needs. Id.
September 2016, S.G. became friends with a fellow classmate,
D.C. Id. ¶ 18. This friendship upset S.G.'s
other classmates, E.O. and L.C., and their ire began a nearly
eight-month campaign of harassment directed at S.G. Id.
¶¶ 19-27. After fits and starts, the
harassment came to a head on May 15, 2017, when E.O. and L.C.
allegedly attacked S.G. during the lunch hour at school.
Id. ¶¶ 26-27. S.G. was taken to the
emergency room after the attack where she was treated for a
concussion, rib contusions, a right hip contusion, and
various bumps and bruises over her head and eye. Id.
¶ 29. Plaintiffs allege that defendants were informed of
the continual harassment, yet took inadequate measures to
prevent S.G.'s inevitable harm on May 15, 2017.
Id. ¶¶ 15-28.
initiated this action on March 29, 2018. Compl. The complaint
states, “This action is commenced less than six months
after the denial of plaintiff s California Tort Claim for
damages, that was timely filed with Defendant [EDHS].”
Id. ¶ 33. Nonetheless, on January 3, 2019,
defendants filed the pending motion to dismiss on two bases:
(1) S.G. failed to comply with the California Tort Claims
Act, and (2) plaintiff Danielle Morgan's individual
claims are also barred for failure to comply with the Tort
Claims Act. Mot. At 3-6. \
court may judicially notice a fact so long as it is not
subject to reasonable dispute because it “(1) is
generally known within the trial court's territorial
jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined
from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). In the context of a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must
ordinarily confine its review to the four corners of the
complaint. Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th
Cir. 2006). However, the “court may properly look
beyond the complaint to matters of public record [when] doing
so does not convert a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to one for summary
judgment.” D.K. ex rel. G.M. v. Solano Cty. Office
of Educ., 667 F.Supp.2d 1184, 1188 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
(citation omitted). Additionally, “[a] court may
consider evidence on which the complaint necessarily relies
if: (1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the
document is central to the plaintiff's claim; and (3) no
party questions the authenticity of the copy attached to the
12(b)(6) motion.” Marder, 450 F.3d at 448.
Motion to Dismiss
may move to dismiss a complaint against it for “failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The motion may be granted only if the
movant can show the complaint lacks a “cognizable legal
theory” or if its factual allegations do not support a
cognizable legal theory. Hartmann v. Cal. Dep't of
Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2013).
Determining whether a complaint will survive a motion to
dismiss is a “context-specific task that requires the
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
(2009). The court must construe the complaint in a light most
favorable to a plaintiff and accept as true its factual
allegations. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94
ask the court to take judicial notice of the July 12, 2017
government tort claim filed by S.G., and the August 29, 2017
notice of rejection by EDHS, both of which defendants attach
to their request. Judicial Notice, ECF No. 13-2. Defendants
point to paragraph 33 of the operative complaint, in which
plaintiffs reference their claim and the denial. Id.
at 2; Compl. ¶ 33 (“This action is commenced less
than six months after the denial of plaintiff's
California Tort Claim for damages, that was timely filed with
Defendant [EDHS].”). Defendants also argue judicial
notice is necessary because plaintiffs' timeliness in
filing the claim and then initiating this action after its
denial is a prerequisite to initiating any state claims in
this action. Id. Plaintiffs do not object to