Ramos v. Los Rios Community College District

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/29/2018: IT IS ORDERED that 4 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's state law claims under the California Equity in Higher Education Act, Cal. Educ. Code § 66270; California Civil Code § 51.9; negligence; and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims (Docket No. 4) be, and the same hereby is GRANTED. Plaintiff has twenty days from the date this Order is signed to file a First Amended Complaint, if she can do so consistent with this Order. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANGELA RAMOS, an individual,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

CIV. NO. 2:17-1458 WBS KJN

Plaintiff,
v.
LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT, a public entity,
THOMAS KLOSTER dba METRO-MATH
TUTORING SERVICES, a company,
THOMAS KLOSTER, an
individual, DOES 1-50,
inclusive,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION
TO DISMISS STATE LAW CLAIMS

Defendants.

19
20

This court’s Order of October 17, 2017, denying

21

defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s federal claim for

22

violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), did not address plaintiff’s

23

supplemental state law claims for violation of Cal. Educ. Code §

24

66270, violation of California Civil Code § 51.9, negligence, and

25

intentional infliction of emotional distress.

26

so in this Order.

27
28

The court now does

“[A] school district may be liable if its own direct
negligence is established, [but] it cannot be held vicariously
1

1

liable for its employee’s torts.”

2

Sch. Dist., 48 Cal. 3d 438, 441 (1989).

3

she is not attempting to hold the district vicariously liable,

4

but argues that her state claims are premised on ratification.

5

John R. v. Oakland Unified
Plaintiff argues that

As an alternate theory to respondeat superior, an

6

employer may be liable for an employee’s act where the employer

7

either authorized the tortious act or subsequently ratified an

8

originally unauthorized tort.”

9

An employee may ratify an employee’s action by the “voluntary

C.R., 169 Cal. App. 4th at 1110.

10

election to adopt the employee’s conduct by, in essence, treating

11

the conduct as its own.”

12

Cal. App. 4th 790, 810 (6th Dist. 2006).

13

ratification is generally applied where an employer fails to

14

investigate or respond to charges that an employee committed an

15

intentional tort, such as assault or battery.”

16

Healthcare Corp., 169 Cal. App. 4th 1094, 1110 (2d Dist. 2009).

Delfino v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 145
“The theory of

C.R. v. Tenet

17

The failure to discharge an employee after knowledge of

18

his or her wrongful acts may be evidence supporting ratification,

19

Delfino, 145 Cal. App. 4th at 810 (citation omitted), “but the

20

omission to dispense with the services of the offender, standing

21

by itself and unsupported by any other circumstances indicating

22

the employer’s approval of his course, is never sufficient to

23

establish ratification.”

24

174 Cal. 246, 249 (1917).

25

Edmunds v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co.,

Here, there are no facts alleged that show that

26

defendant voluntarily elected to treat Kloster’s conduct as its

27

own.

28

F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1199 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (Ishii, J.) (stating

See Garcia ex rel. Marin v. Clovis Unified Sch. Dist., 627

2

1

plaintiff had not pled adequate facts to establish ratification

2

where district took steps to effectuate change and punish the

3

teacher).

4

spoke to plaintiff the day after the District had actual notice

5

of the harassment, and interviewed Kloster a week later.

6

in response to learning about the harassment, the District

7

investigated and responded to plaintiff’s complaints.

In fact, plaintiff concedes that the District police

Thus,

8

Moreover, California courts have hesitated to apply a

9

theory of ratification to hold a school district liable for the

10

sexual harassment of its teachers.

11

unclear if ratification may be applied when the sexual misconduct

12

of a teacher is involved.”).1

13

negligence claim, “[t]he only way a school district may be held

14

liable must be premised on its own direct negligence in hiring

15

and supervising the teacher.”

16

Sch. Dist., 112 Cal. App. 4th 904, 909 (4th Dist. 2003) (citing

17

John R., 48 Cal. 3d at 453).

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

See id. at 1203.

(“[I]t is

With regard to plaintiff’s

Steven F. v. Anaheim Union High

Plaintiff argues that her negligence claim is based on
the District’s own negligent conduct, including the failure to
1

Plaintiff argues that § 51.9 can be brought under a
ratification theory.
See C.R., 169 Cal. App. 4th at 1111
(“Principles of ratification apply to a section 51.9 cause of
action.”) Defendant argues that any § 51.9 claim against the
District “must be rooted in a theory of conspiracy or aider and
abettor liability.” E.F. v. Delano Joint Union High Sch. Dist.,
Civ. No. 1:16-1166 LJO JLT, 2016 WL 5846998, at *6 (E.D. Cal.
Oct. 6, 2016) (O’Neill, J.); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 52(b)
(“Whoever denies the right provided by Section 51.7 or 51.9, or
aids, incites, or conspires in that denial, is liable for each
and every offense for the actual damages suffered by any person
denied that right.”) The court need not decide which standard
applies. Under either standard, plaintiff has not sufficiently
pled enough facts to establish ratification, conspiracy, or
aiding and abetting.
3

1

adequately investigate the teacher’s background and the failure

2

to adequately supervise the teacher.

3

Dismiss at 11.)

4

appears to be based exclusively on vicarious liability.

5

Specifically, plaintiff alleges only that the district owed a

6

duty of reasonable care, breached that duty of care, and that

7

breach caused plaintiff harm.

8

regarding the District’s supervision or investigation of Kloster.

9

A Complaint “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

(Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. to

However, as pled, plaintiff’s negligence claim

There are no facts alleged

10

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will

11

not do.”

12

Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007).

13

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to

14

dismiss plaintiff’s state law claims under the California Equity

15

in Higher Education Act, Cal. Educ. Code § 66270; California

16

Civil Code § 51.9; negligence; and intentional infliction of

17

emotional distress claims (Docket No. 4) be, and the same hereby

18

is GRANTED.

19

Plaintiff has twenty days from the date this Order is

20

signed to file a First Amended Complaint, if she can do so

21

consistent with this Order.

22

Dated:

January 29, 2018

23
24
25
26
27
28
4