Beecham v. Roseville City Sch. Dist.

DUANE BEECHAM, KIMBERLY BEECHAM, and S.Y.B.,a minor by and through her co-guardians ad litem DUANE BEECHAM and KIMBERLY BEECHAM;OLIVER VERGARA, JENNIFER VERGARA, and E.V., a minor byand through her co-guardians ad litem OLIVER VERGARA and JENNIFER VERGARA;and M.B., a minor by and through his guardian ad litem MANOJ THOTTASSERI, Plaintiffs, v. ROSEVILLE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, THERESA VANWAGNER,GEORGE ROOKS, JERROLD JORGENSEN, and DOES 1-30, Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-CV-01022-KJM-EFB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

April 25, 2018

ORDER

Plaintiffs claim a public school teacher slapped, pinched, pushed and kicked three racially diverse children with autism. The three children and their parents sue the teacher, the school district, the principal and the superintendent for civil rights violations. Two defense summary judgment motions are now before the court, ECF Nos. 143, 144, both of which

//// plaintiffs oppose, ECF Nos. 153, 154. The court held a hearing on October 20, 2017. As explained below, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defendants' motions.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The parties have filed multiple statements of undisputed facts. See ECF Nos. 143-1, 147, 153-2, 154-2. The court derives the undisputed facts here primarily from the statement attached to the District's motion and from plaintiffs' statement of facts in opposition to that same motion. District Facts ("DF"), ECF No. 147; Pls.' Facts ("PF"), ECF No. 154-2. These facts are undisputed unless otherwise stated. Although parties may object to evidence cited to establish undisputed facts, see In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 385-86 (9th Cir. 2010), the evidentiary admission standard at this stage is lenient: A court may evaluate evidence in an inadmissible form if the evidentiary objections could be overcome at trial, Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119-20 (E.D. Cal. 2006). Admissibility at trial depends not on the evidence's form, but on its content. Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410, 418-19 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986)). The court addresses objections, if relevant, as they arise.

A. The Parties

Plaintiffs S.Y.B., M.B. and E.V. (collectively, "Minors") were preschoolers assigned to Ms. Van Wagner's special education class, which began in August or September of 2013. PF 2. The Minors share four relevant traits. First, at all times relevant to this motion, the Minors were aged three to four years old. PF 1. Second, they all have autism and display behavioral problems and speech delays common to their disability. PF 31, 33, 35. Third, they are racial minorities: E.V. is Filipino, M.B. is Indian and S.Y.B. is biracial. PF 38, 119. Fourth, they bore the brunt of Ms. Van Wagner's corporal punishment. PF 29, 37.

Each Minor is represented in this action by guardians ad litem, and the remaining plaintiffs are S.Y.B's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Beecham, and E.V.'s parents, Mr. and Mrs. Vergara (collectively, "Parents"). First Am. Compl. ("FAC"), ECF No. 30, ¶¶ 3-4, 6-7. The defendants are Ms. Theresa Van Wagner, Principal George Rooks, Superintendent Jerrold Jorgensen and the Roseville City School District ("District"). Id. ¶¶ 12-15.

B. Ms. Van Wagner's Physicality

The first time Principal Rooks heard Ms. Van Wagner had disciplined the Minors physically was on October 1, 2013. DF 2. A classroom coordinator, Ms. Mercer, relayed to Rooks that a substitute classroom aide had seen Ms. Van Wagner hit plaintiff M.B. DF 2-4. Rooks confronted Ms. Van Wagner the next day and Ms. Van Wagner explained she had merely signed the word "stop," which, from behind, must have looked like a slap. DF 5. Rooks did not investigate further. DF 5.

The next month, two more things happened. In the beginning of November, Rooks heard Ms. Van Wagner yelling at students generally in her classroom and he immediately chastised her for it. DF 6, 9. Then on November 14, 2013, the school's speech therapist reported Ms. Van Wagner had pinched S.Y.B. on the arm. DF 7. Within two days, Rooks confronted Ms. Van Wagner about it, and she explained she was not pinching S.Y.B. but rather was holding S.Y.B.'s arm to prevent her running away. DF 8. Dissatisfied with this response, Rooks gave Ms. Van Wagner a letter of reprimand on November 18, 2013, and met with S.Y.B.'s father to discuss the pinching incident. DF 10. Rooks also told his supervisor and Superintendent Jorgensen about both the yelling he had overheard and the pinching incident. DF 9.

On November 22, 2013, the Friday before Thanksgiving, misconduct reports against Ms. Van Wagner proliferated. Several classroom aides simultaneously reported to Rooks that Ms. Van Wagner was verbally and physically abusing the Minors. PF 16-17, 40-41. They relayed incidents of yelling, whacking, slapping, pushing, kicking, pinching, hair pulling and racial disparagement. PF 5-7, 12, 18. Examples included Ms. Van Wagner's hitting S.Y.B. in the head with a box, saying "[t]hat's what happens when you don't get out of the way"; hitting M.B. with a shoe as he yelled "no, no, no"; trapping E.V. against a table as he sobbed; and slapping E.V. in the mouth for spitting out food. PF 9, 19-24, 28, 136. Two classroom aides also reported that Ms. Van Wagner used racially charged language when describing the Minors, saying M.B. looked like a refugee or someone from a third-world country; E.V.'s parents dressed him in fancy clothes to make him look smarter; and S.Y.B. was very "street smart" and she "knows who she can play." PF 39, 114-16.

C. Responses to Van Wagner's Actions

In response to these November 22, 2013 reports, Rooks immediately called his supervisor and the police. DF 16. The police advised Rooks to call back after Thanksgiving with a detailed report. DF 16. That same day, the school dismissed Ms. Van Wagner from her teaching position. DF 16. On December 2, 2013, immediately after the Thanksgiving break, Rooks filed a detailed police report. DF 16. Rooks and his supervisor devised a plan regarding what information to share with the parents. DF 17.

On December 2 and 3, 2013, Rooks met with one parent of each Minor and relayed that he had received complaints about Ms. Van Wagner's mistreatment of the Minors and that he had immediately filed a police report against her. DF 18-19. He also explained Ms. Van Wagner would no longer teach the Minors, and he described generally the nature of the abuse as including pinching, slapping and hair pulling. DF 18. Although Rooks advised the parents he could not tell them details based on legal personnel protections, he explained the school was investigating Ms. Van Wagner and cooperating with the police. DF 17-19; see also Rooks Dep. (Ex. A, Fralick Decl., ECF 145-1) at 132-35.

As a result of Van Wagner's conduct described above, and the failure of Rooks, Jorgensen and the District to prevent that conduct or inform the Parents about it, plaintiffs allege they have suffered considerable harm. The Minors cite damage to their behavioral and social capabilities as well as their relationships with their families; the Parents cite anxiety, depression and sleeplessness caused by being under-informed about the abuse their children endured and by seeing their children suffer. PF 66-75, 141-49.

D. Procedural History

Plaintiffs sued Ms. Van Wagner, Principal Rooks, Superintendent Jorgenson and the District in May 2015. ECF No. 1. The operative, amended complaint makes the following eleven claims: 42 U.S.C. §1983 Excessive Force, Equal Protection, and Substantive Due Process claims against Ms. Van Wagner, Rooks and Jorgensen (Claim 1); California Civil Code § 52.1 ("Bane Act") claims against all defendants (Claim 2); Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") discrimination claim against the District (Claim 3); Rehabilitation Act Section 504 disabilitydiscrimination claim against the District (Claim 4); Battery claim against Ms. Van Wagner (Claim 5); Intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") claim against all defendants (Claim 6); Negligence claim against all defendants (Claim 7); Negligent supervision claim against the District, Rooks and Jorgensen (Claim 8); Violation of mandatory duties claim against the District, Rooks and Jorgensen (Claim 9)¹; Unruh Act claim against all defendants (Claim 10);

Education Code section 220 claim against the District (Claim 11); and a Title VI Civil Rights Act claim against the District (Claim 12).² See generally FAC.

Ms. Van Wagner moves for summary judgment on Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10. Van Wagner Mot., ECF No. 143. The District, Rooks and Jorgensen jointly move for summary judgment on Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9. District Mot., ECF No. 144. Plaintiffs oppose both motions. Pls.' Van Wagner Opp'n, ECF No. 153; Pls.' District Opp'n, ECF No. 154.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A court will grant summary judgment "if . . . there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The "threshold inquiry" is whether "there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).

The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the district court "there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Then the burden shifts to the non-movant to show "there is a genuine issue of material fact . . . ." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585 (1986). In carrying their burdens, both parties must "cit[e] to particular parts of materials in the record . . .; or show [] that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(...