Helen Barrera, et al. vs. Los Angeles Unified School District, et al.

Case Background

On November 7, 2018, Helen Barrera, a Los Angeles resident, filed a lawsuit on behalf of her minor child, RL, filed a sexual assault lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), Richard Da Sylveira the principal of Cowan Avenue Elementary School, and Arlan Harrell, an agent of LAUSD.

The LAUSD sexual assault lawsuit was tried before the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. Judges Alan B. Honeycutt, James A. Kaddo, Gary Y. Tanaka, Ramona G. See, and Georgina T. Rizk presided over this case. [Case number: 18STCV04159]

Cause

Helen Barrera, a Los Angeles resident, filed a lawsuit on behalf of her minor child, RL, who also lived in Los Angeles. Anthony Loupe, another Plaintiff, joined the case. At the time of the incidents, RL was a kindergarten student at Cowan Avenue Elementary School, operated by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).

In 2016, federal agencies, including the FBI, investigated dark web forums sharing child pornography. A user, later identified as Defendant Harrell, posted explicit material, including images of his niece and other children. Law enforcement tracked Harrell through his online gaming profile, which led to his arrest in mid-2017 for child pornography-related crimes.

After Harrell’s arrest, law enforcement reportedly informed LAUSD and Cowan Elementary about his activities. However, the school and district failed to notify RL’s family or implement measures to protect students. Exploiting LAUSD’s volunteer program, Harrell became a chaperone for kindergarten field trips, even though he was not a parent. Without undergoing any background checks, Harrell gained unsupervised access to children, including RL. During these trips, Harrell sexually abused RL and created explicit images of the minor.

RL’s family did not learn about the abuse until federal investigators contacted them in 2018, over a year after Harrell’s arrest. By that time, RL displayed emotional and behavioral issues, including public outbursts and inappropriate interactions with peers. The delayed notification prevented RL from receiving timely care and exacerbated the family’s distress.

Although LAUSD had policies requiring background checks for volunteers and prohibiting unsupervised access to students, these protocols were ignored. Harrell’s actions and LAUSD’s negligence forced RL’s family to relocate to Sacramento, incurring significant financial and emotional burdens.

Damages

Helen Barrera, acting individually and on behalf of the minor “RL”, and Anthony Loupe filed a comprehensive legal claim. Their action sought extensive compensation for the harm suffered. The Plaintiffs demanded damages addressing both emotional and economic impacts.

The claims included compensation for emotional distress, physical pain, and mental suffering. They pursued special damages covering lost earning capacity and medical expenses. The request encompassed past, present, and future psychological care costs.

The legal action sought pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the legal rate. Plaintiffs demanded reimbursement for court-related expenses and punitive damages. The causes of action covered multiple legal grounds, including negligent supervision, sexual harassment, and assault.

Each claim detailed specific monetary compensation for the alleged misconduct. They requested the court grant relief deemed just and appropriate, addressing both immediate and long-term consequences of the incident.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Helen Barrera, acting individually and on behalf of the minor “RL” | Anthony Loupe
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): y Dustin J. Dyer | Zachary Z. Hardister
  • Defendant(s): Los Angeles Unified School District | Richard Da Sylveira
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Thomas Hurrell | Jordan Stern

Claims

Negligent Supervision and Failure to Protect
The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and associated Defendants failed to fulfill their duty to supervise and protect students, including RL, during school activities. This duty was intended to prevent foreseeable harm, such as sexual abuse. Despite this, they allowed Anthony Harrell, a volunteer, unsupervised access to students, including RL.

On multiple occasions during school field trips, Harrell sexually abused RL. His actions included taking explicit photographs, inappropriate touching, and distributing the images on child pornography websites. Defendants failed to enforce background checks and policies that could have prevented Harrell’s repeated abuse.

Failure to Act Despite Knowledge
Defendants were aware of prior complaints regarding insufficient supervision of volunteers. Even after being notified of Harrell’s behavior, they did not investigate, discipline, or restrict his access to students. They also failed to inform RL’s parents or law enforcement, allowing the abuse to continue.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
By ignoring warning signs and allowing Harrell to remain in a position of trust, Defendants acted recklessly, knowing RL’s vulnerability as a minor. This negligence caused severe emotional trauma and psychological harm to RL.

Sexual Battery and Assault
Harrell intentionally forced RL into sexual acts and created a hostile environment. RL, unable to consent as a minor, endured repeated violations. Harrell’s actions left RL in constant fear of further harm.

Negligence and Breach of Duty
Defendants failed to vet, supervise, or monitor Harrell adequately, disregarding their responsibility to protect students. Their negligence directly resulted in RL’s prolonged abuse and suffering.

Defense

Defendant Richard Da Sylveira denied all allegations in the First Amended Complaint and raised several affirmative defenses. He argued that Plaintiffs failed to show a connection between their alleged damages and his actions. He claimed third parties’ negligence or intervening acts caused the injuries and denied responsibility.

The Defendant cited statutes of limitations, lack of substantial causation, and immunity under various government codes. He argued that Plaintiffs’ negligence contributed to their damages and invoked doctrines like waiver, estoppel, laches, and unclean hands to bar recovery. Additionally, he opposed punitive damages as unconstitutional.

Jury Verdict

The jury’s deliberations concluded on March 27, 2024. After careful consideration, the panel determined that Richard Da Sylveira was not negligent. However, they found the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) negligent in the matter. The jury concluded that LAUSD’s negligence substantially contributed to the harm suffered by R.L.

In assessing damages, the panel awarded a comprehensive compensation package totaling $1,000,000. This amount included:

  • Future economic loss: $200,000
  • Past non-economic loss: $300,000
  • Future non-economic loss: $500,000

Furthermore, the jury allocated fault among the parties involved. They attributed 0% responsibility to Richard Da Sylveira, 20% to LAUSD, and 80% to Arlan Wesley Harrell. Notably, the jury found that neither LAUSD nor Richard Da Sylveira delayed informing Helen Barrera and Anthony Loupe about the incident at Kidspace Children’s Museum on May 19, 2017.

On September 04, 2024, Hon. James A. Kaddo entered a judgment consistent with the verdict. The Los Angeles Unified School District was ordered to pay $160,000 in general damages. This amount included additional costs and post-judgment interest. The interest would accrue at seven percent annually until fully satisfied.

Arlan Wesley Harrell was required to pay $640,000 in general damages. Similar to the previous award, this included additional costs and post-judgment interest. The interest would continue to accumulate at seven percent per year.

Furthermore, the defendants were jointly and severally liable for an additional $200,000 in special damages. This amount would also accrue interest at seven percent annually.

The judgment recognized both Helen Barrera and Richard Da Sylveira as prevailing parties. They were granted the right to seek cost reimbursement. The exact amount of costs would be determined through subsequent court filings.

Court Documents:

Available for purchase upon request