Anaheim School District Settles Abuse Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
Krystal Slocum attended Savanna High School in Anaheim during the early 2000s. At the time, David Sepe served as a history teacher under the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD). Plaintiff alleged that Sepe exploited his role to groom and abuse her while she was a minor. AUHSD employed Sepe, supervised his work, and controlled his access to students. Slocum later filed this action under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.1, as amended by Assembly Bill 218, which extended the statute of limitations for survivors of childhood sexual assault.
Cause
Plaintiff claimed Sepe used his authority as a teacher to initiate grooming behaviors that were visible to other staff and students. She alleged he spent excessive time with her during lunch and after school, invited her to his apartment, and sexually assaulted her repeatedly. Teachers observed warning signs, including favoritism and flirtation, but AUHSD failed to act. Even after another student reported abuse and Sepe was arrested, AUHSD allowed him to remain employed within the district. Plaintiff argued AUHSD ignored red flags, suppressed concerns, and shielded Sepe, creating unsafe conditions for minors.
Injury
Slocum stated the abuse caused long-lasting harm. She described severe emotional distress, shame, and humiliation from the assaults. She reported physical manifestations of anxiety, loss of trust, and difficulty carrying out daily activities. According to the complaint, these injuries diminished her quality of life and prevented her from enjoying normal activities.
Damages
The complaint sought general, special, and consequential damages. Plaintiff requested compensation for emotional suffering, physical impacts of distress, and loss of daily function. She also demanded statutory damages, litigation expenses, court costs, and interest. The total damages were to be determined at trial but alleged to exceed the Superior Court’s jurisdictional minimum.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Krystal Slocum
Counsel for Plaintiff: Brian L. Williams | Jemma E. Dunn | Bailee B. Pelham | Michael Reck | Hagerey Mengistu
Defendant(s): Anaheim Union High School District
Counsel for Defendant: Randall L. Winet
Claims
Slocum raised two causes of action. First, she alleged negligence, asserting AUHSD failed to supervise Sepe, ignored warning signs, and neglected its duty of care to students. Second, she alleged negligent supervision and retention, claiming AUHSD knowingly retained Sepe despite red flags, failed to monitor his conduct, and placed students at risk. Both claims sought to hold AUHSD directly and vicariously liable for Sepe’s misconduct.
Defense
The Defendant, Anaheim Union High School District, filed a general denial of all allegations in the Complaint and raised multiple affirmative defenses. The District asserted that the Complaint failed to state a valid cause of action and lacked a statutory basis under the California Government Code. It argued that Plaintiff did not present a required government tort claim, failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and that any claims were barred by applicable statutes of limitation. The District also claimed immunity under various provisions of the Government Code, including discretionary immunity, and denied legal causation for Plaintiff’s injuries.
Further, the District contended that Plaintiff’s claims should be reduced or offset under California law, and that liability, if any, must be apportioned among all responsible parties. It emphasized that the alleged perpetrator’s actions were unforeseeable, outside the scope of employment, and constituted a superseding cause. The District also raised defenses based on failure to mitigate damages, constitutional violations, improper retroactive application of law, laches, and estoppel. Finally, it argued that school district liability required proof of negligent hiring, supervision, or retention, not assumptions, and denied any entitlement to attorney’s fees.
Settlement
On February 14, 2025, the parties reached a settlement, as confirmed in the Notice of Settlement of Entire Case filed on March 20, 2025. Plaintiff’s counsel, Jemma E. Dunn of Greenberg Gross LLP, filed the notice, with Michael Reck of Jeff Anderson & Associates also representing the Plaintiff. Defense counsel was Randall L. Winet of Winet Patrick Gayer Creighton & Hanes.
The settlement resolved all claims, and the Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case. The total settlement amount was $198,700.
Court Documents
Court documents are available for purchase upon request at Jurimatic@exlitem.com