V.C. v. Los Angeles Unif. School Dist
Filed 4/18/06 V.C. v. Los Angeles Unif. School Dist. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| V. C., a Minor, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. | B184022 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC326006) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Malcolm H. Mackey, Judge. Affirmed.
The Cifarelli Law Firm, Thomas A. Cifarelli and Dawn M. Smith for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Gutierrez, Preciado & House, Arthur Preciado and Calvin House for Defendant and Respondent.
* * * * * *
Plaintiff and appellant V. C., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Maria O., appeals from an order dismissing her complaint with prejudice following the trial court's order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend filed by defendant and respondent Los Angeles Unified School District (District). The trial court found that V. C.'s complaint was barred by her failure to present a claim or seek to present a late claim within the time limits specified by Government Code sections 911.2 and 911.4, respectively. Though we are dismayed by the result that V. C. has no immediate recourse against the District for its own and its employee's abhorrent conduct, we must affirm the judgment. V. C. neither presented a claim within six months of the accrual of her cause of action, nor sought leave to present a late claim within one year of accrual. Moreover, there is no basis for her to amend her complaint to allege that her cause of action did not accrue by reason of either delayed discovery or equitable estoppel.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On appeal from a judgment of dismissal following a demurrer sustained without leave to amend, we assume the truth of all well-pleaded facts, as well as those that are judicially noticeable.[1] (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of La Habra (2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 814; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)
According to the complaint, middle school teacher Ignacio Castro repeatedly sexually molested V. C. between 2001 and 2003, when she was ages 11 to 13. Judicially-noticed documents showed that for much of that period V. C.'s mother was aware that V. C. had been ditching her classes and spending the time in Castro's classroom. She had V. C. and Castro sign a form stating that they would not have contact with each other. She also discussed the matter with an assistant school principal, telling him that â€
