R.N. v. Travis Unified Sch. Dist.

R.N., a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, NICOLE NEFF, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRAVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-00562-KJM-JDP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

December 8, 2020

ORDER

Two separate motions to dismiss are before the court in this case involving the alleged physical and psychological abuse of a minor by a paraeducator at her school. Defendants Travis Unified School District ("TUSD"), Solano County Office of Education ("SCOE") and Special Education Teacher Christopher Mears ("Mr. Mears") (collectively "District defendants") move to dismiss ten of plaintiffs' claims. District Mot. to Dismiss ("District MTD") at 2, ECF No. 12-1. Plaintiffs minor R.N. and her parents Nicole Neff and Chris Neff ("Mr. and Mrs. Neff") oppose the motion to dismiss. Pls.' Opp'n to District MTD ("District Opp'n"), ECF No. 18. District defendants have replied. District Reply, ECF No. 19. District defendants also request the court take judicial notice of both TUSD and SCOE's complaint procedures. Req. for Jud. Not., ECF No. 12-3.

///// Defendant Lilia Gumapas ("Ms. Gumapas") also moves to dismiss five of plaintiffs' claims. Gumapas Mot. to Dismiss ("Gumapas MTD") at 5, ECF No. 13-1. Plaintiffs oppose this motion as well. Pls.' Opp'n to Gumapas MTD ("Gumapas Opp'n), ECF No. 17. Ms. Gumapas has replied. Gumapas Reply, ECF No. 20.

On June 26, 2020, the court heard oral argument, by videoconference, on both motions to dismiss. Hr'g Minutes, ECF No. 21. Valerie Rose appeared for plaintiffs, Megan Symons appeared for District defendants, and Lynn Garcia appeared for Ms. Gumapas. Id. On July 22, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation regarding a City of Fairfield Police report plaintiffs' counsel received on July 7, 2020. Stip., ECF No. 24; see also Rose Decl., ECF No. 23. Though the parties disagree over whether the police report contains new facts, they stipulate that if the court grants either defendants' motions to dismiss in full or in part, the court give plaintiffs leave to amend to file a second amended complaint. Id. at 2-3.

For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS District defendants' motion to dismiss and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Ms. Gumapas' motion to dismiss. The court GRANTS the parties' stipulation and gives plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. The court also GRANTS District defendants' request for judicial notice. Req. for Jud. Not., ECF No. 14-3.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ALLEGATIONS

During the 2018-2019 school year, plaintiff R.N., a minor diagnosed with autism, Smith Lemli Optiz Syndrome ("SLO"), dyspraxia and intellectual disabilities, attended the Center Elementary School ("CES") in Solano County. First Am. Compl. ("FAC") ¶¶ 4, 23, ECF No. 9. R.N.'s disabilities entitled her to receive special education services and support under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). Id. ¶ 23. Mr. Mears and Ms. Gumapas served as R.N.'s teacher and paraeducator, respectively. Id. ¶ 24.

Plaintiffs allege R.N. witnessed and experienced "ongoing physical and psychological abuse" from Ms. Gumapas. Id. ¶ 25. This alleged abuse includes, but is not limited to, events that took place on November 14, 2018, when several witnesses observed and reported "multiple incidents" in which Ms. Gumapas allegedly:

kicked R.N. while forcing R.N. out of a sensory area, yelled at R.N. while physically forcing her to stand, forced R.N. into her desk, grabbed R.N. by both of her ankles and pulled her by her legs dragging R.N. across the ground approximately a foot before dropping R.N.'s legs onto the floor, grabbed R.N. by her shoulders, pushing her down by her shoulders to force R.N. into a chair, grabbed R.N. by her jacket, pushed her to the ground, dragged R.N. while yelling at her and physically held R.N. down while forcing R.N. to pick up grapes from the ground.

Id. ¶ 26 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff alleges the SCOE Principal of Special Education, Ilah Feeney, only reported Ms. Gumapas' abuse of R.N. to the police after the November 14 events, despite numerous prior instances of physical and psychological abuse of which Mr. Mears and other administrators were aware. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. On the evening of November 14, Principal Feeney informed the Neffs of Ms. Gumapas' abuse of their daughter earlier that day. Id. ¶ 35. The Neffs claim the abuse began months before November 14 and the delay between the beginning of this behavior and when the Neffs became aware of it allegedly caused them emotional distress and deprived them "of the ability to contemporaneously comfort their daughter and to provide appropriate counseling, medical or psychological care and support at the time of her abuse." Id. ¶¶ 33-35. When he spoke to them, Principal Feeney also informed the Neffs that school officials removed Ms. Gumapas from CES after the events on November 14. Id. ¶ 35.

In the operative complaint, plaintiffs claim they do not yet know "the full extent of all the abuse suffered by Plaintiff R.N. [. . .]." Id. ¶ 31. "On information and belief," plaintiffs allege administrators and employees of TUSD and SCOE, including Mr. Mears, knew of Ms. Gumapas' abuse, but "failed to take action to intervene to stop the abuse, failed to document or report the abuse, and failed to retrain and/or discipline" Ms. Gumapas. Id. ¶¶ 29-30. "[T]he full extent of all the abuse suffered by Plaintiff R.N.," id. ¶ 31, and other students as well becomes more evident in light of the City of Fairfield Police report, which plaintiffs' counsel provided to the court after she received it through a subpoena. Rose Decl., ECF No. 23; Rose Decl. Ex. A (transcript from body camera footage in City of Fairfield Police report), ECF No. 23. The report is based in part on videos of interviews on November 15, 2018, with Principal Feeneyand Mr. Mears, as well as of three classroom aides, Mariah Garrick, Sabrina True and Teresa Koon. Rose Decl. ¶¶ 2-4. Transcripts of those interviews revealed all five school staff members were aware of prior incidents with Ms. Gumapas.

Each person reported that Ms. Gumapas has, on other occasions, used some form of inappropriate discipline, even if it was not as serious as the events plaintiffs allege occurred on November 14, 2018. See Rose Decl. Ex. A at 62-63 ("Ms. Garrick: Like when a kid's like yelling and being auditory and just-just being a child with autism, she starts like tapping their mouth—like not slapping them or hitting them, just like 'hey, hey, be quiet' to their own mouth."); id. at 90 ("Ms. True: As a coworker, she's too rough with the kids. And there's been a lot of incidents with her that she-she's too hands on."); id. at 108 ("Ms. Koon: But, uh, it just looked funny because I've seen her do other things—on other days—that are kind of questionable."). Additionally, two staff members, Ms. True and Ms. Koon, claimed school leadership knew about Ms. Gumapas' prior behavior and had even taken steps to discipline her or at the very least prevent her from continuing to use these abusive methods. Id. at 91-93 ("Ms. True: Uh, I believe she's been told multiple times you can't be that hands on with the students." And stating "yes" to "Have you ever made any complaints or reports to your supervisors about previous behavior?"); id. at 113 (Ms. Koon: "She doesn't take direction very well—even from the teacher of the classroom.").

In his interview, Mr. Mears, a named defendant in this action, even acknowledged he "wouldn't say [laughs] that she's a good employee," while also stating "[Ms. Gumapas] hasn't been like physically aggressive towards the students until yesterday." Id. at 40-41. The police report does not, however, reflect unanimity among all of Ms. Gumapas' coworkers about how to characterize the events of November 14. Some coworkers indicate they believe her actions that day violated the law, while Mr. Mears does not. Compare Mr. Mears' answers, id. at 46 ("I don't believe she was willfully trying to harm [R.N.]") with Ms. Garrick's answers, id. at 73 ("My answer would be yes" to whether Ms. Gumapas willfully broke law), Ms. True's answers, id., at 101 ("my answer is yes" to whether Ms. Gumapas crossed line) and Ms. Koon's answers at id. at 121 ("the dragging and pushing her down did seem a little willful on Lily's part").

On January 25, 2018, SCOE issued its report, which found multiple individuals complained Ms. Gumapas raised her voice and physically forced R.N. to comply with her directions in "four different incidents" on November 14. FAC ¶ 36. In May 2019, plaintiffs presented written government claims to TUSD for their alleged "injuries, losses, and damages" resulting from the events of November 14; in June 2019, TUSD and SCOE notified plaintiffs they were rejecting their claims. Id. ¶¶ 19-22. On March 12, 2020, plaintiffs filed this suit against defendants. Compl., ECF No. 1. On April 20, 2020, the court granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. Order, ECF No. 6. On April 23, 2020, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. See generally FAC. On May 5, 2020, the court granted plaintiffs' petition appointing Nicole Neff as guardian ad litem for minor plaintiff R.N. Order, ECF No. 10.

Plaintiffs put forward twelve causes of action in their first amended complaint: (1) violation of Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); (3) violation of the Rehabilitation Act; (4) negligence; (5) negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of an employee; (6) battery; (7) discrimination in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act; (8) discrimination in violation of the California Education Code; (9) violation of the mandatory reporting duty; (10) discrimination in violation of the Bane Act; (11) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); and (12) negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). Id. ¶¶ 52-190. All claims, except for battery, are at...