Jane Doe vs. Los Angeles Unified School District et al

Parties Involved

  • Plaintiff: Jane Doe
    • Counsel for Plaintiff:  David M. Ring, Esq.
  • Defendant: Danie Garcia | Los Angeles Unified School District A Public Entity
    • Counsel for Defendant: Baratta James Mark | Carelli Paul Vincent

Verdict Information

  • Verdict date: February 22, 2024
  • Total damages awarded to the Plaintiff: $13,000,000
    • Past non-economic damages: $10,000,000
    • Future non-economic damages: $3,000,000

About the Case


Jane Doe, a 19-year-old resident of Los Angeles County and an ex-student of Daniel Pearl Magnet High School, filed a lawsuit against Daniel Garcia and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). She alleged that Garcia, a former school employee, sexually abused her during the 2014-2015 school year when she was 14 years old. Garcia, who worked as an assistant at the school, allegedly groomed Doe by showing inappropriate affection, sending explicit messages, and targeting other female students. Despite complaints, LAUSD took no action against Garcia, allowing the abuse to continue until March 2016 when Doe disclosed the abuse to her parents, who reported it to the police.

LAUSD covered up Daniel Garcia’s prior sexual abuse of a female LAUSD student in February 2014 to protect itself. Despite knowing about Garcia’s inappropriate relationship with Hazel M., a female minor student, LAUSD did not terminate him but instead transferred him to Daniel Pearl Magnet High School. There, Garcia met and abused the Plaintiff starting in September 2014. LAUSD falsified an iStar Incident Report to mislead about the timeline of Garcia’s relationship with Hazel M., falsely claiming it predated his employment. This cover-up allowed Garcia to continue his misconduct, resulting in the Plaintiff’s sexual abuse. A lawsuit alleging abuse of minors, intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual harassment, negligent hiring and retention of an unfit employee, breach of the mandatory duty to report suspected child abuse, and negligence of various counts.


Garcia’s actions were intentional, willful, oppressive, and malicious, aiming to cause Plaintiff severe emotional harm, humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress. He acted with reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing such distress. As a direct result, Plaintiff suffered physical injuries, mental pain and suffering, emotional distress, past and future medical costs, loss of earnings and earning capacity, and other economic and non-economic damages exceeding the court’s minimum jurisdictional limits.

In committing these despicable acts, Garcia acted with willfulness, malice, and oppression, warranting punitive damages. Under Section 52 of the California Civil Code, Plaintiff sought exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, to be determined by the jury, against Garcia. Additionally, due to the negligence of LAUSD and Does 1 through 10, Plaintiff was groomed, manipulated, assaulted, and abused by Garcia.


Plaintiff demanded a trial by jury for her case. Therefore, Plaintiff Jane Doe sought judgment against the Defendants with several requests. First, she asked for special (economic) and general (non-economic) damages according to proof against all defendants. Additionally, she requested punitive and exemplary damages against Defendant Garcia. She also sought reasonable attorney’s fees as provided in California Civil Code section 52(6)(3). Moreover, she asked for an award of up to treble damages based on Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 against Los Angeles Unified School District. Furthermore, she requested the costs of the suit incurred. Finally, she sought any other relief the Court deemed just and proper.

Jury Verdict

On February 22, 2024, a California jury found that LAUSD had been negligent and such negligence had been a substantial cause in the harm caused to Plaintiff. The jury awarded $13,000,000 to Plaintiff in non-economic damages. Out of that amount, $10,000,000 had been awarded as past non-economic loss and $3,000,000 for future non-economic loss.

The jury assigned 80% of the responsibility for the harm caused to LAUSD and 20% to the perpetrator Daniel Garcia. therefore, LAUSD was liable to pay $10,400,000 to Plaintiff.

On March 11, 2024, Hon Shirley K. Watkins entered a judgment against upholding the verdict and stating that the Plaintiff was entitled to recover $10,400,000 with interest not exceeding 7% from the date of judgment till the date of payment along with other costs and disbursements.

Court Documents:

Available upon request