Torres et al v. Pittsburg Unified School District et al

Filing 49

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2016)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiffs,

9
10

No. CV 16-3314 CRB

K.T., et al.,

v.
PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.

12

/

13

A girl just shy of her tenth birthday brings claims against her former special-education

14
15

aide, teacher, principal, and school district for abuse she allegedly suffered at their hands or

16

on their watch. So do her parents. The latter three defendants now move to dismiss.

17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

A.

Factual Background

19

Plaintiff K.T. suffers from autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and an

20

intellectual disability. Compl. (dkt. 1) ¶ 16. Although she understands when spoken to, K.T.

21

has a limited vocabulary and has trouble speaking in complete sentences. Id. ¶ 18. She also

22

often puts inedible objects in her mouth. Id. ¶ 16.

23

During the 2014-15 academic year, K.T. attended Parkside Elementary in Pittsburg,

24

California as a special-education student. Id. ¶ 17. Her assigned teacher was Defendant Tara

25

Brinkerhoff. Id. Defendant Gloria Joseph served as a special-education aide in

26

Brinkerhoff’s class. Id. K.T. and her parents, Plaintiffs Rachel Torres and David Cope,

27

allege “ongoing verbal and physical abuse” at the hands of one or both women – including

28

being verbally and physically “aggressive,” “forcibly grabbing K.T.’s hands,” “grabbing
K.T.’s hands and jerking them away from her body,” “grabbing and pulling K.T.,” “holding

1

K.T. really hard and pulling her,” “forcibly turning K.T.’s body around,” “pushing K.T.,”

2

“slapping K.T.’s face,” and kicking K.T.’s buttocks. Id. ¶ 21.

3

Maria Aldave, a parent of another Parkside student, saw Joseph “and/or” Brinkerhoff

4

commit “similar abuse” multiple times. Id. ¶ 21(d). Caterina Ferrante, a Parkside staff

5

member, saw other staff – including Joseph “and/or” Brinkerhoff – pull up K.T.’s shirt and

6

exhibit “very abrupt and jumpy” behavior towards her on a “daily or near-daily basis.” Id.

7

¶ 22(c). Occupational therapist Cynthia Chaires discovered strange bruises K.T.’s hips,

8

stomach, and underarms. Id. ¶ 21(a). The bruises ranged in size and color, from big to small,

9

red to green. Id. An unnamed bus driver saw Joseph scream at a student and complained to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Parkside’s principal, Defendant Jeffrey Varner, about what he saw. Id. ¶ 22(a). And

11

Brinkerhoff herself reported problems with how Joseph interacted with students to Varner.

12

Id. ¶ 22(b). She had seen Joseph being rough with students, pulling students, being

13

“physically loud” with students, raising her voice to students, getting “in the kids’ faces,” and

14

generally being “rough around the edges with them.” Id. ¶ 22(c). All of this happened

15

before May 28, 2015. See id. ¶¶ 21-22.

16

On May 28, Aldave and another parent, Bertha Canales, saw Joseph “and/or”

17

Brinkerhoff grab K.T. roughly by the hands, pull her back and forth, and scream at her. Id.

18

¶ 21(b). On June 1, those two parents again saw Joseph “and/or” Brinkerhoff grab K.T.

19

roughly, pull on her arms, push her – and then slap her across the face and kick her buttocks.

20

Id. ¶21(c). The parents told Varner what they saw. Id. ¶ 24.

21

On June 3, yet another parent, Maria Hernandez, saw Joseph “and/or” Brinkerhoff

22

grab K.T.’s hands roughly and pull them away from her mouth “in an aggressive and strong

23

manner.” Id. ¶ 21(e). That same day, K.T.’s parents found out about the alleged abuse. Id.

24

¶ 25. Joseph was placed on administrative leave. Id. ¶ 26. On June 4, a district staff

25

member called the police. Id. ¶ 27. Parkside staff, including Joseph “and/or” Brinkerhoff,

26

said K.T.’s disability justified their behavior.1 Id. ¶ 23.

27
28
1

The complaint does not mention when or to whom they said this.
2

Because of the abuse, K.T. has regressed verbally and behaviorally. Id. ¶ 31. She

1
2

now fears going to school. Id. K.T. picks at her skin and hits herself in the face hard enough

3

to leave bruises. Id. She turns ten years old on November 14, 2016. Id.

4

B.

Procedural History

5

As required by California law, K.T. and her parents each filed claims with Defendant

6

Pittsburg Unified School District (“the District”) on November 12, 2015. See Dist. Claims

7

(dkt. 25-1 Exs. A, B & C); Cal. Gov’t Code § 945.4. Those claims named Gloria Joseph and

8

“other unidentified employees” of Pittsburg Unified School District as those “causing the

9

accident or loss.” See Dist. Claim at 1. They also listed “Tara Brinkerhoff” as a witness. Id.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The allegations there are nearly identical to those here, with one exception: they allege that

11

Joseph alone – not Joseph “and/or” Brinkerhoff – abused K.T. See id. The District denied

12

the claims on December 16, 2015. Compl. ¶ 1.
K.T. and her parents sued Joseph, Brinkerhoff, Varner, and the District on June 15,

13
14

2016. See id. at 15. They alleged federal constitutional and statutory claims, as well as

15

claims under California law. See id. at 1. Brinkerhoff, Varner, and the District now move to

16

dismiss all claims against them, except those for negligence. See MTD at 2.

17

II.

18

LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court should dismiss a complaint

19

if it does not plead facts that entitle the plaintiff to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A

20

Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal “can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence

21

of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

22

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A complaint “must contain either direct or

23

inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery

24

under some viable legal theory.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562 (2007).

25

Under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all material allegations as true and

26

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins.

27

Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). But the Court is “not bound to

28

accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478
3

1

U.S. 265, 286 (1986) (citation omitted); see Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752,

2

754-55 (9th Cir. 1994). A “pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic

3

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice if it

4

tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

5

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). Rather, it must plead

6

“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

7

face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
A complaint should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless there is strong

9

evidence that an amendment will result in “undue delay, bad faith, . . . repeated failure to

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed . . . [or] futility of amendment . . . .”

11

Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013)

12

(quotation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. The Court should examine whether the

13

complaint can be amended to cure the defect “without contradicting any of [the] original

14

complaint.” Reddy v. Litton Indus., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990). Courts should

15

liberally grant leave to amend, but an amended complaint must allege facts consistent with

16

the challenged pleading. Id. at 296-97.

17

III.

18

DISCUSSION
K.T. and her parents bring an array of federal and state law claims against

19

Brinkerhoff, Varner, and the District. But before reaching the substance of those claims, the

20

Court will address an issue left mostly unaddressed by the parties: immunity.

21

A.

22

Because this case involves a suit for money damages against state officials and a state

23
24

Immunity

entity, there are two immunity issues lurking in the shadows.
First, Brinkerhoff and Varner could have invoked qualified immunity at this stage but

25

did not. See MTD at 2-3, 6-15; Reply at 4-16. So, for now, they have waived the defense.

26

See Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062, 1076 (9th Cir. 2009); Isom v. Town of Warren, 360

27

F.3d 7, 9 (1st Cir. 2004) (“[D]efendants did not raise immunity . . . and so they have waived

28

that defense as grounds for the motion.”); see also Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231
4

1

(1991) (“Qualified immunity is a defense that must be pleaded.”). Still, they may invoke

2

qualified immunity at summary judgment so long as it does not cause unfair prejudice. See

3

Norwood, 591 F.3d at 1076.

4

Second, although California school districts are state agencies, Belanger v. Madera
Unified School. Dist., 963 F.2d 248, 254 (9th Cir. 1992), the District has not invoked

6

sovereign immunity.2 See MTD at 2-3, 6-15; Reply at 4-16; ITSI T.V. Prod. v. Agric. Ass’n,

7

3 F.3d 1289, 1291 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Blatchford v. Native Vill. of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775,

8

785 n.3 (1991)) (noting that sovereign immunity must be affirmatively invoked). That said,

9

sovereign immunity – unlike qualified immunity – “partakes of the nature of jurisdictional

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

bar” and may be raised for the first time, well, anytime. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S.

11

651, 678 (1974). But even if the District eventually invokes sovereign immunity, it will not

12

do it any good. K.T.’s only federal claims against the District come under the Americans

13

with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act.3 See Compl. ¶¶ 32-52. The Ninth

14

Circuit has squarely held that Title II of the ADA validly abrogates sovereign immunity. See

15

Miranda B. v. Kitzhaber, 328 F.3d 1181, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003). As for the Rehabilitation Act

16

claims, the District waived sovereign immunity by accepting federal funds. Id. at 1186.

17

B.

Section 1983 Claims Under the Fourth Amendment

18

K.T. asserts two theories of liability under the Fourth Amendment. First, she

19

maintains that Joseph “and/or” Brinkerhoff used excessive force. See Compl. ¶ 33; Opp’n

20
21
2

22
23
24

The complaint says that the District “agreed to waive” its sovereign immunity with respect to
all state law claims, Compl. ¶ 10, but that waiver appears to be a creature of statute, see Cal. Gov’t
Code. § 815.2 (“A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an
employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would . . . have
given rise to a cause of action against that employee . . . .”).
3

25
26
27
28

K.T. does not bring a claim under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) against
the District. See Compl. ¶¶ 32-52. That makes sense because, again, the District is a state entity not
a municipal one. See Belanger, 963 F.2d at 254. This is an important point. The District repeatedly
maintains that it may only be held liable under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act for the actions of
someone “high enough up the administrative hierarchy.” See, e.g., MTD at 14. That argument mistakes
the bar for municipal liability under City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988) – a species of
Monell liability requiring a policymaker to ratify unconstitutional acts of underlings – with the bar for
liability under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act: respondeat superior. See Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260
F.3d 1124, 1141 (9th Cir. 2001).
5

1

(dkt. 35) at 7-9. Second, she maintains that Brinkerhoff and Varner knew about the alleged

2

abuse but failed to act, resulting in supervisory liability. See Compl. ¶ 35.
1.

3
4

Excessive Force

Contrary to Defendants’ suggestions, it is abundantly clear that K.T.’s excessive force
claim should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, not substantive due process.

6

Compare Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. School Bd., 479 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2007);

7

(“The consequences of a teacher’s force against a student at school are generally analyzed

8

under . . . the Fourth Amendment.”); Doe v. Hawaii Dep’t of Ed., 334 F.3d 906, 909 (9th Cir.

9

2003) (“We hold that Doe’s claim is appropriately brought under the Fourth Amendment, not

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

the Due Process Clause.”), with MTD at 7 (“It is not clear whether Plaintiff’s excessive force

11

claim should be analyzed under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment.”). It is equally clear

12

that K.T. has stated a claim for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.

13

Like the plaintiff in Preschooler II, K.T. is young, non-verbal, and suffers from

14

autism. See Preschooler II, 479 F.3d at 1180-81; Compl. ¶¶ 16, 18. She too alleges that her

15

teacher – among other things – grabbed and slapped her. See 479 F.3d at 1178; Compl.

16

¶¶ 21(a)-(d).4 And here, as there, “the full extent of the abuse is not known,” since neither

17

child could “be counted on to report it.” See 479 F.3d at 1180-81; Compl. ¶¶ 20-22. So

18

although Defendants suggest that K.T. needs a shoehorn to analogize her case to Preschooler

19

II, at this stage they need a magic wand to distinguish it.
2.

20
21
22

Supervisory Liability

K.T. also alleges that Brinkerhoff and Varner failed “to act in response to allegations
of serious child abuse” and exhibited “deliberate indifference to the risk of harm to K.T. from

23
24
25
26
27
28

4

To the extent it matters, the allegations in both cases also “allegedly occurred over a period
of months.” See Preschooler II, 479 F.3d at 1180; Compl. ¶¶ 21-22. In any event, a seizure occurs
when a state official makes “an intentional acquisition of physical control” over a person. Brower v.
Cnty. of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596 (1989). So restraining someone’s bodily movements by grabbing a
hand, squeezing, and then pulling on the arm is a seizure, W. v. Davis, 767 F.3d 1063, 1073 (11th Cir.
2014), which suggests that any particular use of similar force here was a seizure. K.T. has plausibly
alleged that at least some of those instances bore no “reasonable relation to the need,” P.B. v. Koch, 96
F.3d 1298, 1304 (9th Cir. 1996), and has therefore stated a claim for excessive force.
6

1

Joseph and/or Brinkerhoff or Joseph, respectively.” Compl. ¶ 35. This is a claim for

2

supervisory liability.

3

Although there is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983, supervisors may

4

still be liable for their own misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77 (2009)

5

(emphasis added). And even after Iqbal,5 actionable misconduct includes “action or inaction

6

in the training, supervision, or control” of subordinates, “acquiescence in the constitutional

7

deprivation,” or “reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others.” Starr v. Baca, 652

8

F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). The question here, then, hinges on

9

whether any of those three things can be said about Brinkerhoff6 or Varner.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Brinkerhoff had a first-hand view of Joseph’s behavior because Joseph worked in her

11

classroom. See Compl. ¶ 17; 21. And at some point, she reported “problems” with her

12

special education aide to Varner – but not to police as required by California’s mandatory

13

reporter law. See id. ¶¶ 21; 22(b)-(c); Cal. Penal Code §§ 11165.7 & .9. But even if the

14

constitutional minimum for “acquiescence” falls below state law reporting requirements,

15

K.T. has – at the very least – plausibly alleged that Brinkerhoff failed to “control” Joseph.

16

See Compl. ¶¶ 21; 22(b)-(c). That is enough. See Starr, 652 F.3d at 1208.

17

Varner presents a closer question, but not by much. Both Brinkerhoff and a bus driver

18

told him about “screaming” and other “problems” with Joseph. See Compl. ¶¶ 22(a)-(b).

19

That is all the complaint alleges until June 1,7 when Aldave and Canales reported K.T. being

20

slapped, pushed, and kicked. See id. ¶¶ 21(a)-22(c), 28. But even after the report on June 1

21
22
23
24
25
26

5

It is important to remember that the plaintiff in Iqbal sued for invidious discrimination under
the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Component of the Fifth
Amendment. See 556 U.S. at 676. Those intentional tort claims required the plaintiff to “plead and
prove that the defendant acted with a discriminatory purpose.” Id. But here the defendant’s state of
mind plays “no role” in deciding the Fourth Amendment claims at issue here. See Whren v. United
States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996).
6

27
28

K.T’s supervisory claim against Brinkerhoff only makes sense if Joseph committed the abuse
– or at least most of it – so for this claim the Court assumes that to be true.
7

Chaires and Ferrante, for example, apparently reported nothing to Varner or anyone else. See
Compl. ¶¶ 21(a), 22(c).
7

1

– a Monday – Varner did not remove Joseph from class until two days later. See id. ¶¶ 24-

2

27. It is also unclear whether he ever called the police. See id. ¶ 27.

3

In any event, K.T. has alleged more than enough. As principal of Parkside, Varner

4

may be held liable for failing to control teachers and aides at his school. See Preschooler II,

5

479 F.3d at 1182-83 (affirming denial of motion to dismiss supervisory claims against school

6

principal, district superintendent, and other administrative personnel). And, if Parkside’s

7

training about mandatory reporter laws was as “woefully inadequate ” as alleged, Compl.

8

¶ 30, he bears much of the blame.8 That qualifies as “inaction in the training” of

9

subordinates. See Starr, 652 F.3d at 1208.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

C.

Section 1983 Claim Under Substantive Due Process

11

K.T.’s parents bring a substantive due process claim against Joseph, Brinkerhoff, and

12

Varner for “intentionally interfering” with their “liberty to direct the upbringing, education,

13

and care of K.T.,” as well as with the parent-child relationship itself. See Compl. ¶ 37. The

14

complaint appears to assert substantive due process claims against Joseph “and/or”

15

Brinkerhoff as alleged perpetrators, as well as against Brinkerhoff and Varner as supervisors.
1.

16
17

Perpetrator Liability

Although an alleged victim of excessive force herself may not bring a substantive due

18

process claim, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989), the Ninth Circuit allows parents

19

to bring one for a deprivation of “companionship and society” with their child, Curnow v.

20

Ridgecrest Police, 952 F.2d 321, 325 (9th Cir. 1991). But to recover, a parent-plaintiff must

21

demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct “shocked the conscience.” Porter v. Osborn, 546

22

F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Brittan v. Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 992, 996 (9th Cir.

23

2006) (holding that, to state a substantive due process claim, parents must allege (1) a

24

protected liberty interest, (2) a deprivation of that interest, and (3) conduct that shocks the

25

conscience). This is a high bar, which “only the most egregious official conduct” meets.

26

Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846 (1998); see also, e.g., Breithaupt v. Abram,

27
28

8

Because no one at Parkside called the police until June 4, see Compl. ¶ 27, this allegation is
plenty plausible.
8

1

352 U.S. 432, 435 (1957) (holding that conduct shocks the conscience when it so “brutal”

2

and “offensive” as to not “comport with traditional ideas of fair play and decency”).

3

Substantive due process, therefore, is not a “font of tort law to be superimposed upon

4

whatever systems may already be administered by the States.” Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693,

5

701 (1976).

6

The parties focus on whether K.T.’s parents must allege a “total deprivation” of the

7

parent-child relationship for their substantive due process claim to survive. See MTD at 11-

8

12; Opp’n at 11-13. But that glosses over the dispositive point that the abuse – as plausibly

9

alleged9 – does not shock the conscience, at least in the constitutional sense. See id.; but see

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Reply at 13 (referencing the severity of alleged conduct). This is not a case where the

11

defendants shot someone in the head and killed him, see Porter, 546 F.3d at 1135, shot

12

someone in the head and permanently impaired his mental faculties, see Ovando v. City of

13

Los Angeles, 92 F. Supp. 1011, 1015 (C.D. Cal. 2000), or sexually molested a child, see Doe

14

v. Dickenson, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1002, 1004 (D. Ariz. 2009). Grabbing, slapping, and kicking

15

a child with special needs is deplorable. But – without more – it is not so depraved as to be

16

among the “most egregious” of official conduct.
2.

17
18
19

Supervisory Liability

Because the perpetrator’s alleged conduct does not shock the conscience, it follows a
fortiori that her supervisor’s did not either.

20

D.

Federal Statutory Claims

21

K.T. asserts claims against the District under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of

22

the Rehabilitation Act. See Compl. ¶¶ 39-52. Congress modeled the former on the latter, so

23

the elements for both claims are nearly identical. Under the ADA, K.T. must plausibly allege

24

that she is a “qualified individual with a disability” and that the District denied her benefits

25

or services “by reason of” her disability. See Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135

26

(9th Cir. 2001); 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Under the Rehabilitation Act, she must do the same,

27
28

9

The Court does not credit the conclusory assertion that defendants “intentionally” interfered
with the relationship between K.T. and her parents. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680-81.
9

1

except that the denial must have been “solely by reason” of her disability. See id.

2

Furthermore, to state a claim for money damages under either statute, K.T. must allege that

3

the District intentionally discriminated against her. See Duvall, 260 F.3d at 1138. In the

4

Ninth Circuit, deliberate indifference meets this intent requirement. Id. So if K.T. has

5

plausibly alleged that the District knew that harm to her federally protected rights was

6

“substantially likely” but failed to act, she has stated claims for relief. See id.

7

K.T. is clearly a “qualified individual with a disability” under both statutes – and the

8

District does not suggest otherwise, see MTD at 12-15; Reply at 14-16. K.T. also alleges

9

that the abuse came in response to “various symptoms” of her disability, like putting inedible

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

objects in her mouth. See Compl. ¶ 44. Someone even had the gall to tell someone that

11

K.T.’s disability justified the alleged abuse. See Compl. ¶ 23. The defendants seem to

12

reiterate the point here. See MTD at 9. That is enough to satisfy even the Rehabilitation

13

Act’s heightened causation standard. See, e.g., E.H. v. Brentwood Union School Dist., 2013

14

WL 5978008 at *5, (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2013) (holding that allegations of school officials

15

“grabbing” and “dragging” plaintiff in “direct response to manifestations of his disability”

16

met the Rehabilitation Act’s causation standard).

17

The District counters that no one “high enough up in the chain of command” knew

18

about the alleged abuse and failed to act, and so the District was not deliberately indifferent

19

to K.T.’s rights. MTD at 13-15 (relying on Garedakis v. Brentwood Union School Dist., WL

20

1718270 at *6, (N.D. Cal. April 29, 2016)). This is, again, beside the point. Duvall makes

21

abundantly clear that, when a plaintiff brings a direct suit under the ADA or the

22

Rehabilitation Act, a public entity is liable in respondeat superior for the acts of its

23

employees. See 260 F.3d at 1141; see also Sheehan v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 743

24

F.3d 1211, 1232 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that a city may be held liable under the ADA for

25

acts of beat-level officers). K.T. need only allege that the perpetrator of the alleged abuse

26

was deliberately indifferent to her rights.10 That bar is clearly met here: both Joseph and

27
28

10

The complaint, then, undersells its case by focusing on what Brinkerhoff and Varner knew
about the alleged abuse in their role as supervisors. See Compl. ¶¶ 45, 51.
10

1

Brinkerhoff knew about K.T.’s disability but at least one of them still went forward with the

2

alleged abuse.

3

E.

State Law Claims

4

K.T. brings a number of claims against Joseph, Brinkerhoff, Varner, and the District

5

under California law.11 The latter three have moved to dismiss K.T.’s claims for battery,

6

intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Bane Act and Unruh Civil

7

Rights Act. See MTD at 2. They have not moved to dismiss K.T.’s negligence claims. See

8

id. But before reaching the merits, the Court must deal with a threshold issue for some of the

9

claims against Brinkerhoff.
1.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

California Tort Claims Act Bar

The California Tort Claims Act requires anyone suing a public entity to first file a

12

claim with the entity that includes a “general description” of the alleged injury “so far as it

13

may be known at the time of presentation of the claim.” See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 910, 945.4.

14

If a plaintiff does not comply with the statute, California courts will dismiss any claims not

15

already properly brought to the entity’s attention.

16

Still, the statute is designed “to give the government entity notice sufficient for it to

17

investigate and evaluate the claim, not to eliminate meritorious actions.” Stockett v. Ass’n of

18

Cal. Water Agencies, 34 Cal. 4th 441, 446 (2004) (citation omitted) (allowing plaintiff to

19

proceed on wrongful termination claim based on his support for a coworker’s complaint of

20

sexual harassment, objections to self-dealing, and protected speech about company bidding

21

practices – even though his initial claim listed only the first basis for wrongful termination).

22

The statutory bar therefore applies only to a “complete shift in allegations, usually involving

23

an effort to premise civil liability on acts or omissions committed at different times or by

24

different persons.” Id. (quoting Blair v. Superior Court, 218 Cal. App. 3d 221, 226 (1990)).

25
26

Although K.T.’s district claim makes nearly identical allegations as her complaint, the
former alleged that Joseph alone – rather than Joseph “and/or” Brinkerhoff – committed the

27
28

11

Because some federal claims have survived the motion to dismiss, the Court retains
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367.
11

1

abuse. Compare Dist. Claim at 2-4 with Compl. ¶¶ 21-23, 30. For this reason, Brinkerhoff

2

asserts that K.T.’s state law claims against her (namely battery, intentional infliction of

3

emotional distress, and Bane Act violations) must be dismissed to the extent they rely on her

4

being a perpetrator. See MTD at 5-6. And indeed, plaintiff’s counsel should have

5

recognized that an email referencing “Tara” was referring to “Tara Brinkerhoff.” See Opp’n

6

at 20; Williams v. Braslow, 179 Cal. App. 3d 762, 772-73 (observing that a plaintiff without

7

reason to know a defendant’s identity when filing a Torts Act claim may still sue that

8

person). That being so, Brinkerhoff would have the Court seize on the “different persons”

9

language in Stockett and throw these claims out without a second thought.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The Court refuses the invitation. The district claims named Joseph and “other

11

unidentified employees” as alleged perpetrators. See Dist. Claims at 1. They also told the

12

District what happened, when it happened, and who saw it happen. It is therefore not clear

13

how counsel’s oversight deprived the District of the chance to investigate; it had everything

14

else – including all witnesses and school personnel named here – at its fingertips. And,

15

under Stockett,12 that is what matters.
2.

16
17
18

Battery

Brinkerhoff gives no reason to dismiss K.T.’s battery claim other than the California
Tort Claims Act, see MTD 5-6, so that claim falls away based on the above analysis.
3.

19

Bane Act

20

The Bane Act provides for liability when someone, “by threat, intimidation, or

21

coercion,” interferes with “rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States” or

22

those of California. See Cal. Civ. Code. § 52.1. Courts deciding whether the “threat,

23

intimidation or coercion” must be distinct from the alleged underlying constitutional or

24

statutory violation have come out all over the map. Compare Cameron v. Craig, 713 F.3d

25

1012, 1022 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that the elements for an excessive force claim under the

26

Bane Act are “the same” as under Section 1983), with Shoyoye v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 203

27
28

12

That case, moreover, comes from the California Supreme Court and post-dates Williams,
which is a lower court decision.
12

1

Cal.App.4th 957, 959 (2012) (holding that the Bane Act “requires a showing of coercion

2

independent from the coercion inherent in the wrongful detention itself”).

3

Despite that confusion, the Bane Act claims survive. For a start, K.T. has stated such

4

a claim under Cameron – controlling authority from the Ninth Circuit – simply by having

5

stated a claim for excessive force under Section 1983. See 713 F. 3d at 1022; Part III.B.1.

6

What is more, K.T. has plausibly alleged that physical abuse denied her equal access to

7

education in violation of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. See

8

Parts I.A, III.D, III.F.5. That is coercion enough. And because California law permits

9

respondeat superior liability for Bane Act violations, Gant v. Los Angeles Cnty., 772 F.3d

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

608, 623 (9th Cir. 2014); Cal. Gov’t Code § 815.2(a), no defendant gets off the hook.
4.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

To prevail on her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, K.T. must

13

prove, among other things, that the defendants’ conduct was “outrageous.” See Hughes v.

14

Pair, 46 Cal. 4th 1035, 1050-51 (2009) (citations omitted); CACI Model Civ. Jury Instr.

15

1600. Conduct is outrageous only if it is “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually

16

tolerated in a civilized community.” Hughes, 46 Cal. 4th at 1051; CACI Model Civ. Jury

17

Instr. 1602. These claims, then, fail for the same reasons as the substantive due process

18

claims. See Stoot v. City of Everett, 582 F.3d 910, 930 (9th Cir. 2009) (equating standard for

19

substantive due process with that for intentional infliction of emotional distress).

20
21

5.

Unruh Civil Rights Act

The District moves to dismiss K.T.’s claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act because

22

a public school is not a “business establishment” within the meaning of the statute. See

23

MTD at 17-18. The District is mistaken.

24

The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides that all people in California “are entitled to the

25

full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business

26

establishments of every kind whatsoever.” See Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b) (emphasis added).

27

The statute’s plain language leaves no doubt that courts should read “business

28

establishments” in the “broadest sense possible.” Isbister v. Boys Club of Santa Cruz, Inc.,
13

1

40 Cal. 3d 72, 78 (1985). And if that were not enough, the Ninth Circuit has held that “[a]ny

2

violation of the ADA necessarily constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act.” See Molski v.

3

M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 731 (9th Cir. 2007).
The Court will not take the bold step of suggesting that the ADA does not apply to

4
5

public schools. Accordingly, it holds that public schools are “business establishments” under

6

the Unruh Act, which accords with the weight of lower court authority. See, e.g., Walsh v.

7

Tehachapi Unified School Dist., 827 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1123 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Y.G. v.

8

Riverside Unified School Dist., 774 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1065 (C.D. Cal. 2011); Davison v.

9

Santa Barbara Unified School Dist., 48 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1232-33 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Nicole

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

M. v. Martinez Unified School Dist., 964 F. Supp. 1369, 1388 (N.D. Cal. 1997).

11

IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court:

12

•

DENIES the motion to dismiss K.T.’s Fourth Amendment claims against both
Brinkerhoff and Varner.

•

GRANTS, with LEAVE TO AMEND, the motion to dismiss Torres’s and Cope’s
substantive due process claims against both Brinkerhoff and Varner.

•

DENIES the motion to dismiss K.T.’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the
District.

•

DENIES the motion to dismiss K.T.’s battery claim against Brinkerhoff.

•

DENIES the motion to dismiss K.T.’s Bane Act claims against both Brinkerhoff and
the District.

•

GRANTS, with LEAVE TO AMEND, the motion to dismiss K.T.’s intentional
infliction of emotional distress claims against Brinkerhoff, Varner, and the District.

•

13

DENIES the motion to dismiss K.T.’s Unruh Civil Rights Act claim against the
District.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
24

Dated: November 7, 2016
25

________________________________

26

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
14