John Doe I, et al., v. Jeremiah Mazo, et al.,

Filing 37

ORDER Granting 34 Stipulation to File First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs may file a First Amended Complaint in the above-entitled action within five (5) days from entry of this Stipulation and Order. The caption for this action shall be amended to reflect the newly included parties, NSEA and CCEA. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 2/28/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34 Filed 02/22/17 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 3402
ARTEMUS W. HAM, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7001
RICHARD K. HY, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12406
EGLET PRINCE
400 S. 7th Street, 4th Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-Mail [e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiffs

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
12
13
14

JOHN and JANE DOE I, Guardians Ad Litem for
JOANN DOE I, a minor, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, and JOHN and JANE DOE
II, Guardians Ad Litem for JOANN DOE II, a minor,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated;

17
18
19

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
FILING OF FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,

15
16

CASE No.: 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL

vs.
JEREMIAH MAZO; CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT; DOES 1 though 20; DOE 1 through 20;
ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 20.
Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between undersigned counsel for
Plaintiffs and undersigned counsel for Clark County School District (hereinafter “CCSD”) that, pursuant
to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs may file a First Amended Complaint in
the above-entitled action within five (5) days from entry of this Stipulation and Order. Plaintiffs seek to
amend their original complaint to include the Nevada State Education Association (hereinafter “NSEA”)
and the Clark County Education Association (hereinafter “CCEA”) as named Defendants to this action.
The deadline to amend pleadings is February 24, 2017; therefore, this stipulation is being entered prior to
the due date for amended pleadings. Plaintiffs and existing Defendants agree to work with new

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34 Filed 02/22/17 Page 2 of 2

1

Defendants to allow for sufficient time for all discovery to be completed in an efficient and timely

2

manner. A proposed copy of the First Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit “1”.

3

IT IS FURTHER HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the caption for this action shall

4

be amended to reflect the newly included parties, NSEA and CCEA. The caption shall be amended

5

effective immediately upon approval of this stipulation.

6
DATED this 22nd day of February, 2017.

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2017.

8

EGLET PRINCE

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

9

/s/Artemus W. Ham
ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 3402
ARTEMUS W. HAM, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7001
RICHARD K. HY, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7704
400 S. 7th Street, 4th Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/s/ Kara B. Hendricks
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP.
MARK E. FERRARIO, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 1625
KARA B. HENDRICKS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7743
3773 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 400 North
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
-andHALL JAFFE & CLAYTON, LLP.
STEVEN T. JAFFE, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7035
7425 Peak Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89128
Attorneys for Defendant Clark County School
District

7

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2017.

20

/s/ John George
JOHN GEORGE, ESQ.
600 South Eighth Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Attorney for Defendant Jeremiah Mazo

21
22
23

ORDER

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated this 28

day of February, 2017.

27
28

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 1 of 21

EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 2 of 21

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 3402
ARTEMUS W. HAM, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7001
RICHARD K. HY, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12406
EGLET PRINCE
400 South Seventh St., Ste. 400
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Ph.
[phone]
Fax [phone]
E-Mail [e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiffs

9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11
12
13
14
15
16

JOHN and JANE DOE I, Guardians Ad Litem
for JOANN DOE I, a minor, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, and
JOHN and JANE DOE II, Guardians Ad Litem
for JOANN DOE II, a minor, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated;
Plaintiffs,

17
18
19
20
21
22

[PROPOSED] FIRST AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT
DEMAND FOR JURY

vs.
JEREMIAH MAZO; CLARK COUNTY
SCHOOL DISTRICT; NEVADA STATE
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; CLARK
COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION;
DOES 1 though 20; DOE 1 through 20; ROE
CORPORATIONS 1 through 20.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants.
Plaintiffs, JOHN and JANE DOE I, Guardians Ad Litem for JOANN DOE I, a minor,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, and JOHN and JANE DOE II,
Guardians Ad Litem for JOANN DOE II, a minor, individually and on behalf of all those

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 3 of 21

1

similarly situated, by and through their attorneys, the law firm EGLET PRINCE, and for their

2

causes of action against the Defendants, complain and allege as follows:

3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4
5

1.

This Court has federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331

6

because the matters in controversy arise under a federal statute, 20 U.S.C. section 1681(a). This

7

Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. section 1367.

8
9
10
11

2.

Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. section 1391(b) because a

substantial part of the events that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claims took place within the Southern
Division of the District of Nevada.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

12
13
14
15
16

3.

That all at all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs were residents of the County of

Clark, State of Nevada.
4.

That Plaintiffs JOHN and JANE DOE I are residents of the County of Clark, State

17

of Nevada, and parents of the minor, JOANN DOE I, age ten (10) who, at all relevant times, was

18

a student at HAYDEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, which was located in the County of Clark,

19

State of Nevada, and was part of the Clark County School District.

20

5.

That Plaintiffs JOHN and JANE DOE II are residents of the County of Clark,

21
22

State of Nevada, and parents of the minor, JOANN DOE II, age nine (9) who, at all relevant

23

times, was a student at HAYDEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, which was located in the County

24

of Clark, State of Nevada, and was part of the Clark County School District.

25
26
27

6.

That Defendant, CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT (“District”) is a

government entity, which owns or operates HAYDEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

28

2

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 4 of 21

1
2
3
4
5

7.

That at all times relevant hereto, Defendant NEVADA STATE EDUCATION

ASSOCIATION (“NSEA”) is a Nevada non-profit cooperative operating in the County of Clark,
State of Nevada.
8.

That at all times relevant hereto, Defendant CLARK COUNTY EDUCATION

6

ASSOCIATION (“CCEA”) is a Nevada non-profit cooperative operating in the County of Clark,

7

State of Nevada.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

9.

Upon information and belief and at all times relevant hereto, NSEA represents

CCEA at the state level as well as Nevada teachers and education support professionals at the
local level, including but without limitation teachers in the County of Clark, State of Nevada.
10.

That on or around July 1, 2005 and effective at all times relevant to this

Complaint, the District and CCEA entered into a Professional Negotiation Agreement
(“Agreement”) recognizing and declaring that “providing the highest standards of education for
the children of the District is their mutual aim and that the character of such education depends

17

predominantly upon the quality and morale of the teaching staff.” The Agreement further

18

provides specific terms in achieving said goals that include without limitation the following:

19
20

a. That CCEA is authorized as the “exclusive representative of all licensed
personnel employed or to be employed” by the District;

21
22

b. That membership dues are automatically deducted from the salaries of employees,

23

including but not limited to teachers of the District, and are paid to CCEA; and

24

c. That in the event civil or criminal proceedings are instituted against a teacher and

25

the teacher is “cleared of said charge”, the District and CCEA negotiated and

26
27
28

agreed that “all written reports, comments, or reprimands concerning actions
which the courts found not to have occurred, shall be removed from the teacher’s
personnel file.”
3

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 5 of 21

1
2
3
4
5

11.

That Defendant JEREMIAH MAZO (“Mazo”) was, at all relevant times, a

resident of the County of Clark, State of Nevada, and was a teacher acting under the color of law
and employee of the District, working as a music teacher at HAYDEN ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL, and other District schools, until he was arrested on April 24, 2015 for sexual

6

misconduct involving elementary school students. Doe Defendants 1-10 are or were officials,

7

supervisors, administrators and/or in a supervisory or management position at the District who

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

had authority to address the discrimination, harassment, abuse and/or molestation alleged herein
and, moreover, had authority to institute corrective measures on the District’s behalf. At all
relevant times, Does 1-10 were residents of Clark County, State of Nevada, and acting under the
color of law and employees of the District.
12.

Doe Defendants 11-20 are or were District personnel subject to training by

officials, supervisors, administrators and/or in a supervisory or management position at the
District, including but not limited to Doe Defendants 1-10. Does 11-20 also had authority to

17

address the discrimination, harassment, abuse and/or molestation alleged herein and, moreover,

18

had authority to institute corrective measures on the District’s behalf. At all relevant times, Does

19

11-20 were residents of Clark County, State of Nevada, and acting under the color of law and

20

employees of the District.

21
22

13.

That on or about December 9, 2015, MAZO plead guilty in the Eighth Judicial

23

District Court to three felony counts of attempted lewdness with a child, and he has been

24

sentenced to five (5) to twenty (20) years per count, with the sentences to run consecutively.

25

The charges and conviction stemmed from the fact that between 2008 and April 2015, Mazo

26
27
28

sexually molested children who were students enrolled in the District, including, but not limited
to, JOANN DOE I and JOANN DOE II, who were students at HAYDEN ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL.
4

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 6 of 21

1
2
3
4
5

14.

Previously, in 2008, while Mazo was a teacher with the District, teaching at

SIMMONS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, he was arrested and charged with sexually molesting
students. Upon information and belief, NSEA and CCEA provided assistance to Mazo which
ultimately facilitated dismissal of the criminal charges.

After the criminal charges were

6

dismissed, Defendants, acting in concert, not only abandoned the administrative proceedings

7

against Mazo, but agreed to allow for his immediate reinstatement to unsupervised and

8
9
10
11

unmonitored teaching duties at a different school within the District while at the same time
ensuring that any and all reference to the 2008 allegations would be kept highly confidential and
removed from Mazo’s personnel file. In so doing, Defendants sought to provide “the highest

12

standards of education for the children of the District” and to preserve “the quality and morale of

13

the teaching staff.” Instead of terminating his employment or, at a minimum, establishing

14
15
16

policies, procedures or parameters to ensure that Mazo would not molest students, the District
transferred Mazo to another school and continued to employ him, allowing him to teach young

17

school children at other District schools, including but not limited to, HAYDEN

18

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

19
20

15.

Upon information and belief and at all times relevant thereto, information relating

to Mazo’s arrest and sexual molestation charges in 2008 while at SIMMONS ELEMENTARY

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

SCHOOL were removed from his personnel file consistent with the terms of the Agreement
negotiated by and between the District and CCEA.
16.

That while a teacher at HAYDEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, from August 2012

through April, 2015, MAZO would ask JOANN DOE I to sit with him behind his desk, and,
after the other students had been dismissed from his music class, he would touch her buttocks,
and he would rub her private parts, both under her trousers as well as over her clothing.

5

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 7 of 21

1
2
3
4
5

17.

I objected to going to school, threw temper tantrums in the mornings to avoid going to school,
and currently she says that she does not want to have any children because she fears someone
will do the same thing to her children that Defendant Mazo did to her.
18.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

That as a result of the conduct of the Defendants and each of them, JOANN DOE

That while a teacher at HAYDEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, between August

2014 and April 2015, after music class had concluded, and the other students had left the
classroom, MAZO would ask JOANN DOE II to stay with him and to sit on his lap, whereupon,
he would touch her buttocks, and on eight (8) to ten (10) occasions, he would rub her private
parts.
19.

That during the period of time she was being sexually abused by MAZO, JOANN

DOE II did not want to go to school, refused to do her household chores, fought with her parents
and her brother, and could not fall asleep at night. If her mother patted her on the bottom,
JOANN DOE II would become very angry, and JOANN DOE II was always upset on

17

Wednesdays, which were the days she had music class with MAZO. Defendant MAZO told

18

JOANN DOE II she would be transferred to a different school if she told anyone about what he

19

was doing to her.

20

20.

That as a result of Mazo’s statements, JOANN DOE II was afraid to tell anyone

21
22

about the abuse she suffered at his hands, and after MAZO was arrested on April 24, 2015, she

23

was afraid to go to school because she thought other students would blame her for having

24

MAZO arrested.

25
26
27
28

21.

That Jurisdiction is conferred upon this court in accordance with Title IX of the

Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 (a).
22.

That the District’s policies, and implementation thereof, have failed to discourage

teachers from engaging in sexual relations and/or improper sexual contact with students.
6

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 8 of 21

1

Additionally, the District has intentionally and/or negligently failed to establish, facilitate and

2

inform students about, or train them how to use, a confidential complaint program that would

3
4
5

give students a venue for action.
23.

That as a result of the Agreement negotiated by and between the District and

6

CCEA, it was foreseeable that incidents of sexual relations with minors and/or improper sexual

7

contact with students could have been prevented, including but not limited to incidents that

8
9
10
11

occurred at HAYDEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL involving Plaintiffs JOANN DOE I, JOANN
DOE II, and other putative class members.
24.

That Doe Defendants 1-20 failed to effectively and sufficiently exercise their

12

authority and/or training to address the discrimination, harassment, abuse and/or molestation

13

alleged herein and institute corrective measures on the District’s behalf, even though it was

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

reasonably foreseeable under the facts and circumstances of this case that Mazo would
discriminate, harass, abuse and/or molest Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, in light of the
nature and scope of his employment.
25.

That as a result of the Defendants’ and each of their acts, JOANN DOE I and

JOANN DOE II were placed in great apprehension of offensive contact, assault, battery, sexual
seduction, sexual assault, sexual harassment, rape and emotional distress.

21
22

26.

That Plaintiffs have been forced to retain the services of an attorney to prosecute

23

this action, and are, therefore, entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys fees, costs of suit

24

incurred, and punitive damages.

25
26
27
28

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
27.

That Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of the Class hereinafter

referred to as “Plaintiffs’ Class,” consisting of all students enrolled in the District who were
battered, assaulted, sexually assaulted, harassed, sexually harassed, molested, and/or improperly
7

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 9 of 21

1

touched by Defendant MAZO. Plaintiffs’ Class seeks a judgment that Defendants are responsible

2

to each member of the class for the various negligent, intentional, malicious, reckless and

3
4
5

wrongful acts as alleged herein.
28.

That the members of Plaintiffs’ Class are so numerous as to render joinder

6

impracticable. Upon information and belief, there were/are over 30 students who attended

7

HAYDEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL during the six years Defendant MAZO was a teacher

8
9
10
11

there, and who may have been harmed/victimized by the Defendants and each of them. The
questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiffs’ Class include that each class member has
suffered similar injuries and damages (e.g., improper sexual contact which resulted in physical

12

and mental pain, emotional distress, anxiety, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment due to

13

Defendant MAZO’s improper/criminal conduct), and the failure of the Defendants to warn

14
15
16

students and their parents about MAZO’s history; the failure of Defendants to protect students
from MAZO; the failure of Defendants to provide a safe premises for children attending the

17

District schools; and the failure of Defendants to create and educate on an effective confidential

18

complaint avenue by which students could inform the District employees, NSEA members,

19

and/or CCEA members of their fears, suspicions, and injuries concerning Defendant MAZO.

20

29.

That the named Representatives of Plaintiffs’ Class are adequate representatives

21
22

of the class and possible respective subclass. The violations alleged by Plaintiffs’ Class stem

23

from the same course of conduct by Defendants on which Plaintiffs’ Class will rely. In addition,

24

the harm suffered by the Representatives of Plaintiffs’ Class is typical of the harm suffered by

25

the proposed Plaintiffs’ Class.

26
27
28

30.

The named Plaintiffs’ Class Representatives, have the requisite personal interest

in the outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the putative
class. The law firm of Eglet Prince represents Plaintiffs’ Class Representatives. This law firm
8

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 10 of 21

1

has the resources, expertise and experience to prosecute this action. Eglet Prince’s members do

2

not have knowledge of any conflicts among the members of Plaintiffs’ Class, or any conflicts

3
4
5

between the class and Eglet Prince.
31.

That the class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and

6

efficient adjudication of this controversy because: (a) the prosecution of a multitude of separate

7

actions would be inefficient and wasteful of judicial resources; (b) the members of the class may

8
9
10
11

be scattered throughout Nevada and are not likely to be able to vindicate and enforce their rights
unless this actions is maintained as a class action; (c) the issues raised can be more fairly and
efficiently resolved in the context of a single action rather than piece-meal litigation in the

12

context of separate actions; (d) the resolution of litigation in a single forum will avoid the danger

13

and resultant confusion of possible inconsistent determinations; (e) the prosecution of separate

14
15
16

actions would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individuals
pursuing claims against Defendants, which would establish incompatible standards of conducts

17

for Defendants; (f) Defendants have acted and will act on grounds applicable to all class

18

members, making final declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of all members necessary and

19

appropriate; and (g) questions of law and/or fact common to members of the class, especially on

20

issues of liability, predominate over any question, such as that of individuals damages that will

21
22
23

affect individual class members.
32.

That upon knowledge and belief, nearly every one of the proposed Plaintiffs’

24

Class members are residents of Nevada, the principal injuries alleged in this action occurred in

25

Nevada and the Defendants are all residents of the County of Clark, State of Nevada, or are

26
27

doing business in the County of Clark, State of Nevada.

28

9

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 11 of 21

1
2

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

3

(Violation of 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et. seq. against Clark County School District, Nevada
State Education Association, and Clark County Education Association)

4

33.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

That Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference each and every allegation previously

made in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
34.

That in committing the acts alleged above, Defendants, each of them, violated

Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, which denied Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated the benefits of, and subjected them to discrimination, harassment and abuse under, an
educational program or activity that received federal financial assistance.
35.

That Defendants’ conduct constituted deliberate indifference to actual knowledge

of a substantial risk of abuse and harassment to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated. Such

14

abuse and harassment was pervasive, severe and objectively offensive and created a hostile

15

climate based on sex.

16
17

36.

That as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ foregoing wrongful conduct,

Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have suffered damages, extreme physical and emotional

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

distress and harm. Further, Defendants’ conduct deprived Plaintiffs and those similarly situated
of access to the educational opportunities and benefits of the District, in violation of Title IX.
37.

That the aforementioned acts were conducted in a wanton, willful, malicious

manner, with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of those similarly situated.
The acts of Defendants and each of them should be assessed punitive or exemplary damages.
38.

That Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have been forced to retain the services

26

of an attorney to represent them in this action, and as such are entitled to reasonable attorneys

27

fees and litigation costs.

28

10

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 12 of 21

1

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

(Assault/Battery Against Defendant Mazo)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

39.

That Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference each and every allegation previously

made in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
40.

That in committing the acts alleged above, Defendant MAZO acted with the

intent to make unwanted contact with Plaintiffs’ persons and the persons of those similarly
situated.
41.

That as a result of the foregoing wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and those similarly

situated have suffered damages, great physical and mental harm, mental anxiety, embarrassment,
humiliation, grief, sorrow, and depression.
42.

That the acts of Defendant MAZO were willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive

and should be assessed punitive or exemplary damages.
43.

That Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have been forced to retain the services

17

of an attorney and to represent them in this action, and as such are entitled to reasonable

18

attorneys fees and litigation costs.

19

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

(Sexual Assault Against Defendant Mazo)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

44.

That Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference each and every allegation previously

made in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
45.

That in committing the acts alleged above, Defendant JEREMIAH MAZO acted

with intent to commit sexual assault on Plaintiffs’ persons and the persons of those similarly
situated.

28

11

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 13 of 21

1
2
3
4
5

46.

That Defendant MAZO knew, or should have known that JOANN DOE I and

JOANN DOE II, and those similarly situated, were mentally or physically incapable of resisting
or understanding the nature of Defendant MAZO’s conduct.
47.

That as a result of the foregoing wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and those similarly

6

situated have suffered damages, great physical and mental harm, mental anxiety, embarrassment,

7

humiliation, grief, sorrow and depression.

8
9
10
11

48.

That the acts of Defendant MAZO were willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive

and Defendants should be assessed punitive or exemplary damages.
49.

That Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have been forced to retain the services

12

of an attorney and to represent them in this action, and as such are entitled to reasonable

13

attorneys fees and litigation costs.

14
15
16
17

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Negligence Against Defendant Mazo, the Clark County School District, Nevada State
Education Association, Clark County Education Association, and Doe Defendants)
50.

That Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference each and every allegation previously

18
19
20

made in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
51.

That at all times herein mentioned, Defendants knew, or in the exercise of

21

reasonable care, should have known that Defendant MAZO’s sexual conduct/relations with his

22

students were egregious, constituting a danger and a hazard to Plaintiffs and those similarly

23
24
25
26
27

situated, but Defendants carelessly and negligently failed to take reasonable precautions to
prevent the above described assault, battery and sexual assault upon Plaintiffs.
52.

Based on Defendant Mazo’s history, and considering the nature and scope of his

employment, it was reasonably foreseeable to the District, NSEA, CCEA, and/or Doe

28

12

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 14 of 21

1

Defendants 1-20, under the facts and circumstances of this case, that Mazo would sexually

2

abuse, harass and/or molest Plaintiffs.

3
4
5

53.

That Defendants negligently and or carelessly operated, managed, and controlled

the District schools, including but not limited to, HAYDEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, which

6

resulted in Defendant MAZO’s access to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, enabling him to

7

attack, sexually assault, and batter Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, thereby proximately

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

causing injuries and damages to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, as alleged hereinabove.
54.

That the aforementioned acts were conducted in a wanton, willful, malicious

manner, with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of those similarly situated.
The acts of Defendants and each of them should be assessed punitive or exemplary damages.
55.

That Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have been forced to retain the services

of an attorney to represent them in this action, and as such are entitled to reasonable attorneys
fees and litigation costs.

17

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

18

(Negligent Hiring, Retention, Supervision Against
the Clark County School District, Nevada State Education Association, Clark County
Education Association, and Doe Defendants)

19
20

56.

That Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference each and every allegation previously

21
22
23

made in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
57.

That the District, NSEA, CCEA, and/or Defendants 1-10 were responsible for the

24

hiring, training, retaining, supervision, and control of employee(s), including Defendant MAZO

25

and other Doe Defendant 11-20, and as a direct and proximate result of aforementioned

26
27
28

Defendants’ negligence in hiring, training, supervising, and controlling employee(s), including
Defendant MAZO and Doe Defendants 11-20, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated suffered
injuries and damages as herein alleged.
13

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 15 of 21

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

58.

Based on Defendant Mazo’s history, and considering the nature and scope of his

employment, it was reasonably foreseeable to the District, NSEA, CCEA, and/or and Doe
Defendants 1-20 under the facts and circumstances of this case, that Mazo would sexually abuse,
harass and/or molest Plaintiffs.
59.

That the District, NSEA, CCEA, and/or Doe Defendants 1-10 have failed to adopt

and administer adequate procedures to protect students from sexual abuse. The District and Doe
Defendants 1-20 failed to adequately evaluate, investigate and remedy factual indications and
reports, which suggested Defendant MAZO would abuse Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.
60.

That the District, NSEA, CCEA, and/or Defendants 1-10 failed to adequately

12

train District personnel, including but limited to Doe Defendants 11-20, in recognizing and

13

evaluating potential or actual child harassers and abusers.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

61.

That the District, NSEA, CCEA, and/or Defendants 1-20 failed to use reasonable

care to protect students from sexual abuse by District personnel, by retaining Defendant Mazo as
an employee and/or by allowing him to come into contact with students.
62.

That as a result of the foregoing wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and those similarly

situated have suffered damages, great physical and mental harm, mental anxiety, embarrassment,
humiliation, grief, sorrow, and depression.

21
22

63.

That as a direct and proximate result of the actions of the District, NSEA, CCEA,

23

and/or Doe Defendants 1-10 and their failure to exercise reasonable care in the hiring, training,

24

retention and supervision of employee(s), Plaintiffs and those similarly situated suffered the

25

damages and injuries as alleged herein.

26
27
28

64.

That the aforementioned acts were conducted in a wanton, willful, malicious

manner, with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of those similarly situated.
The acts of Defendants and each of them should be assessed punitive or exemplary damages.
14

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 16 of 21

1
2

65.

That Plaintiffs have been forced to retain the services of an attorney to represent

them in this action, and as such are entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and litigation costs.

3

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

(Duty to Warn Against Defendant Mazo, the Clark County School District, Nevada State
Education Association, Clark County Education Association, and Doe Defendants)
66.

That Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference each and every allegation previously

made in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
67.

That Defendants and each of them, had a duty to exercise care in keeping the

premises and approaches safe, and had a duty to warn of past and present risks on or upon the
premises, reasonably likely to inflict harm on Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.
68.

That Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated by

failing to warn of prior actions of Defendant MAZO.
69.

That Defendants’ failure to warn Plaintiffs and those similarly situated of the risk

of attending HAYDEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL and each of their breaches of duty to warn,
directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs.

18
19

70.

That the aforementioned acts were conducted in a wanton, willful, malicious

20

manner, with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of those similarly situated.

21

The acts of Defendants and each of them should be assessed punitive or exemplary damages.

22
23
24
25

71.

That Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have been forced to retain the services

of an attorney to represent them in this action, and as such are entitled to reasonable attorneys
fees and litigation costs.

26
27
28

15

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 17 of 21

1

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Against Defendant Mazo, Clark County School District, Nevada State Education Association,
Clark County Education Association, and Doe Defendants)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

72.

That Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference each and every allegation previously

made in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
73.

That the actions of Defendants as described herein, constitute negligent infliction

of emotional distress and the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have suffered emotional
distress as a direct and proximate result of the actions described hereinabove.
74.

Based on Defendant Mazo’s history, and considering the nature and scope of his

12

employment, it was reasonably foreseeable to the District, NSEA, CCEA, and/or Doe

13

Defendants 1-20, under the facts and circumstances of this case, that Mazo would sexually

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

abuse, harass and/or molest Plaintiffs.
75.

That as a result of the negligent infliction of emotional distress identified

hereinabove, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have been directly and proximately damaged.
76.

That the aforementioned acts were conducted in a wanton, willful, malicious

manner, with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of those similarly situated.
The acts of Defendants and each of them should be assessed punitive or exemplary damages.

21
22

77.

That Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have been forced to retain the services

23

of an attorney and to represent them in this action, and as such are entitled to reasonable

24

attorneys fees and litigation costs.

25
26
27
28

16

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 18 of 21

1

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Against Defendant Mazo, the Clark County School District, Nevada State Education
Association, Clark County Education Association, and Doe Defendants)

3
4

78.

5
6

made in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

7
8
9
10
11

That Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference each and every allegation previously

79.

That the acts of, and/or failure to act by, all Defendants, as described herein, were

outrageous, and intended to, or were in conscience disregard of the likelihood that the acts
would,

traumatize

Plaintiffs

and

those

similarly

situated.

Plaintiffs’

sexual

assault/molestation/battery, and the sexual assault/molestation/battery of those similarly situated,

12

and the resulting physical and mental pain and suffering, humiliation and embarrassment caused

13

them emotional distress.

14
15
16

80.

Based on Defendant Mazo’s history, and considering the nature and scope of his

employment, it was reasonably foreseeable to the District, NSEA, CCEA and/or Doe Defendants

17

1-20, under the facts and circumstances of this case, that Mazo would sexually abuse, harass

18

and/or molest Plaintiffs.

19
20

81.

That as a result of the acts of intentional emotional distress identified

hereinabove, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have been directly and proximately damaged.

21
22

82.

That the aforementioned acts were conducted in a wanton, willful, malicious

23

manner, with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of those similarly situated.

24

The acts of Defendants and each of them should be assessed punitive or exemplary damages.

25
26
27
28

83.

That Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have been forced to retain the services

of an attorney to represent them in this action, and as such are entitled to reasonable attorneys
fees and litigation costs.

17

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 19 of 21

1

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

(Vicarious Liability against the Clark County School District, Nevada State Education
Association, and Clark County Education Association)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

84.

That Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference each and every allegation previously

made in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
85.

That employers, masters and principals are vicariously liable for the torts

committed by their employees, servants and agents if the tort occurs while the employee, servant
or agent was acting in the course and scope of employment.
86.

That the Defendants were the employers, masters and principals of each other, the

remaining Defendants, and other employees, agents, independent contractors and/or
representatives who negligently failed to maintain a safe and hazard-free school for children,
including the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated.
87.

Based on Defendant Mazo’s history, and considering the nature and scope of his

employment, it was reasonably foreseeable to the District, NSEA, CCEA, and/or Doe
Defendants 1-20, under the facts and circumstances of this case, that Mazo would sexually

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

abuse, harass and/or molest Plaintiffs.
88.

That as a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have

been damaged, as stated hereinabove, all to Plaintiffs’ general damages.
89.

That as a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence,

recklessness, deliberate indifference, and failure to use due care, Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated suffered intense physical, mental, and emotional pain, shock, humiliation, and
embarrassment, all to their damage.

27
28

18

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 20 of 21

1
2
3
4

90.

That the aforementioned acts were conducted in a wanton, willful, malicious

manner, with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of those similarly situated.
The acts of Defendants and each of them should be assessed punitive or exemplary damages.
91.

5

That Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have been forced to retain the services

6

of an attorney and to represent them in this action, and as such are entitled to reasonable

7

attorneys fees and litigation costs.

8

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated pray for relief and damages as

10

follows:

11

A.

16

F.

18

20
21
22
23

That Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ Class be awarded delay damages and/or
Prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

17

19

That Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ Class be awarded their costs of court;

E.

15

That Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ Class be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees;

D.

14

That Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ Class be awarded punitive damages;

C.

13

That Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ Class be awarded general and special damages;

B.

12

Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ Class be awarded any other relief as the Court may
deem proper.

///
///
///
///

24
25
26
27
28

19

Case 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL Document 34-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 21 of 21

1
2
3

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs’ Class hereby demand a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
DATED this 17th day of February, 2017.

4
5

Respectfully submitted,

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

EGLET PRINCE
/s/ Robert T. Eglet
By:
ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ.
ARTEMUS W. HAM, ESQ.
RICHARD K. HY, ESQ.
400 South Seventh Street, Box 1, Suite 400
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

20