T. A. v. Petaluma Schools

Background

The plaintiffs brought state-law claims against four teammates on their high-school football team, alleging that the teammates verbally and physically assaulted them over several months while the players waited for practice to begin. The plaintiffs also asserted federal constitutional and Title IX claims against Petaluma City Schools, alleging that the school failed to prevent harassment and failed to provide a safe and equal learning environment.

J.J. and K.G. moved to dismiss the claims against them. Their parents were also defendants and joined the motion. The opinion addressed the motions at Docket Nos. 103, 105, and 106.

Sexual-battery and gender-violence claims

The opinion identified one specific allegation against J.J. and K.G.: during an altercation, they repeatedly kicked and slapped one plaintiff while calling him a “bitch.” The court concluded that this allegation was enough to support ordinary assault-and-battery claims, but not a sexual-battery claim under California Civil Code section 1708.5(a). The alleged conduct did not involve sexually offensive contact with an intimate part of the plaintiff’s body or the use of an intimate part of either defendant’s body.

The court also rejected the gender-violence claims under California Civil Code section 52.4. The allegations did not describe a physical invasion of a sexual nature, and calling the plaintiff a “bitch” was not enough, by itself, to plausibly show that the physical force was based on the plaintiff’s gender.

Aiding-and-abetting claim

The plaintiffs alleged that all four teammates acted “in concert” and knew about one another’s conduct because the altercations occurred on the football field shortly before practice. The court held that being in the same place and knowing that another person was committing a tort was not enough to state an aiding-and-abetting claim. The plaintiffs also did not provide specific allegations explaining how J.J. and K.G. acted in concert with the other two teammates.

Supplemental jurisdiction and disposition

Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims along with federal claims. The court recognized that discovery about J.J. and K.G.’s alleged assault and battery could overlap with discovery about the other defendants. But it concluded that the connection between those state claims and the federal claims against Petaluma City Schools was more attenuated because the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded sexual-battery or gender-violence claims against J.J. and K.G. The court also questioned the fairness of requiring these defendants to litigate the assault-and-battery claim alongside the more serious and factually complicated claims against the school and other teammates.

The court noted that the plaintiffs had received multiple opportunities to plead the sexual-battery, gender-violence, and aiding-and-abetting claims. It therefore declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims against J.J., K.G., and their parents. Judge Chhabria granted the motions to dismiss. The claims against those defendants were dismissed without leave to amend in federal court, but without prejudice to refiling in state court.