CIV534203 JONATHAN MCDOUGALL VS. MANUEL SEDILLO-MESSER, ET AL.

JANE DOE #1 MANUEL SEDILLO-MESSER
DEK KETCHUM PRO/PER

MOTION FOR SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Defendant St. Andrews Residential Programs for Youth, Inc. aka STAR Programs, Inc. (“Defendant”) for Summary Judgment or alternatively, for Summary Adjudication, to the Third Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 (“Plaintiff”), is ruled on as follows:

(1) Defendant’s motion to the Seventh Cause of Action for Negligence Per Se and Eighth Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress is DENIED. Both the Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action allege that Defendant breached its mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse of Plaintiff when it had knowledge and information sufficient to create a reasonable suspicion of child sexual abuse. (Third Amended Comp., ¶¶ 74, 81.) Defendant meets its burden of presenting evidence to establish that it did not breach its duty under Penal Code section 11166 because Defendant’s employee immediately reported Defendant Manuel Sedillo-Messer (“Messer”) once the employee learned of a sexual relationship between Messer and Plaintiff. (See Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts no. 18.) In opposition though, Plaintiff presents evidence to raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether Defendant breached its duty of care because Defendant should have reasonably suspected the abuse at an earlier time. (See Fact no. 33; see also Penal Code § 11166(a)(1).)

(2) Defendant’s motion to the Ninth Cause of Action for Negligent Hiring, Retention, Supervision and Training is DENIED. A triable issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendant’s employees were negligently trained to identify potential signs of child abuse and their obligations under the mandatory reporter statute. (See Fact Nos. 39, 52-68, 71-75.)

(3) Based on the above, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or alternatively, Summary Adjudication, is DENIED.

(4) Plaintiff’s proposed order on the evidentiary objections once again fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.1354(c). (See court’s December 27, 2017 order.) The proposed order is supposed to include places for the court to rule on the objections, not simply indicate that the objection is sustained. (CRC Rule 3.1354(c).) In the future, Plaintiff should comply with this requirement. Nevertheless, the court has reviewed the objections, and nos. 1-3 are OVERRULED