LA School District Assault Case: $675K Settlement

Case Background

A troubling lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, brought serious accusations against a major public entity, the Defendant Doe School District, later identified as the Los Angeles Unified School District. The Plaintiff, identified only by the initials LL John Doe MB to protect privacy, filed the initial complaint in December 2022. The Plaintiff alleged that the School District's negligence and systemic failures had allowed a minor student to suffer childhood sexual assault by an employee or agent of the district. The complaint declared that the district possessed an absolute duty to protect its students, yet it ultimately failed to supervise the campus and the individual who committed the assault, which led directly to the traumatic injuries. The case, which promised an emotionally difficult and complex trial concerning institutional accountability, proceeded before the Honorable Michelle C. Kim.

Cause

The lawsuit established that the direct cause of the harm was the sexual assault itself, which occurred while the Plaintiff was a minor student. The Complaint named the individual perpetrator as a “Doe Defendant” and formally accused a second Doe Defendant of failing to investigate, monitor, or supervise the perpetrator properly, which allowed the abuse to happen. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant School District, the larger institution, had knowingly or negligently created and maintained an environment that exposed students to risk. The core of the legal action focused on the district’s failure to establish and enforce adequate policies and procedures that could have prevented the tragedy.

Injury

The Plaintiff claimed to have endured and continued to suffer from profound and lasting injuries following the assault. These injuries primarily involved extensive emotional distress, including great pain of mind and body, severe shock, feelings of embarrassment, humiliation, and a significant loss of self-esteem and enjoyment of life. The complaint specifically detailed that the Plaintiff’s suffering had also manifested in physical ailments and spiritual pain. Additionally, the Plaintiff incurred, and continued to incur, substantial economic damages related to necessary medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling, alongside a loss of earnings and earning capacity.

Damages Sought

The Plaintiff demanded recovery for a wide spectrum of damages from the Defendants. This included an unspecified amount for past, present, and future general damages, compensating for the emotional and physical suffering endured. The Plaintiff also sought special damages to cover all economic losses, which included medical costs, therapy expenses, and the lost wages and earning capacity. Furthermore, the action requested statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and, notably, demanded punitive damages against the individual perpetrator (identified as Doe 2) to punish the wrongful conduct and prevent similar acts in the future.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The litigation moved through the discovery phase, where both sides gathered evidence on the district’s employee vetting, training, and supervision protocols, and the documented trauma the Plaintiff suffered.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): LL John Doe MB

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Jennifer R. Liakos | Kaelyn E. Urrea | Daniel L. Varon | Meghan E. McCormick

Defendant(s): Los Angeles Unified School District (sued as Doe School District) | Doe County | Doe Probation Department | Doe City | Doe Law Enforcement Agency | Max Young (in related case)

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Stephen Harber | Amy A. Evenstad | George D. Tourkow | Dennis K. Wheeler | Tracy L. Hughes | Zachary M. Schwartz | Baum Andrew | Mavian Susan

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

The legal arguments focused heavily on the institutional responsibility for the individual’s criminal act.

Claims

The Plaintiff's legal team mounted a broad attack on the School District’s procedures, asserting multiple legal theories. The main theory, a Claim for Childhood Sexual Assault under the Code of Civil Procedure, provided an extended statute of limitations for the action. They also pushed a strong case for Negligence and Negligent Supervision, arguing that the district knew or should have known the perpetrator posed a risk but failed to take steps to remove them or monitor their contact with students. Separately, the Plaintiff asserted the district had committed Sexual Harassment and violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, maintaining that the failure to act created a hostile and discriminatory educational environment. Finally, they included claims for Battery, False Imprisonment, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress stemming from the perpetrator's actions, holding the district accountable for the actions of its agent.

Defense

The Defense team, representing the School District, launched an aggressive counterargument by filing a thorough denial of all material allegations. The district maintained that the Plaintiff's complaint had failed to state facts constituting a cause of action, which meant the legal claims lacked merit. The defense consistently asserted the doctrine of governmental immunity, claiming that certain laws protected public entities from liability in this type of case. They further argued that the Plaintiff’s own conduct or actions by a third party caused the injury, not the district’s negligence. The district stated that it had implemented reasonable safety measures and that it had not possessed adequate notice of any potential danger posed by the perpetrator.

Settlement

Before the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, entered the final order, Plaintiff Ll John Doe Mb and Defendant Doe School District (Los Angeles Unified School District) concluded a full settlement of the lawsuit. The court rendered the negotiated terms official when it issued the Stipulated Judgment on January 10, 2025, establishing a binding and enforceable ruling against the Defendant.

Though the specific terms remain private, the outcome confirmed that the Defendants, including the School District and other defendants, agreed to pay the Plaintiff the sum of $675,000. This payment finalized the complex litigation, bringing the matter of institutional negligence and student trauma to a close before a jury ever heard the evidence. Subsequently, the Plaintiff attested to the fulfillment of the judgment's conditions in an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment on February 13, 2025, confirming the Defendant discharged the monetary obligation and fully satisfied the judgment, officially closing the case.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com