California Verdicts
Find out about the most important recent California cases, selected by VerdictSearch editors. Coverage includes Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange, San Francisco and San Diego counties. Subscribe to VerdictSearch for access to all California verdictsPricing OptionsType:
Verdict-Defendant
State:
California
Venue:
Los Angeles County
Court:
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles
Injury Type(s):
mental/psychological-emotional distress
Case Type:
School – Negligent Supervision; Worker/Workplace Negligence – Negligent Hiring
Case Name:
M. Sinai by her guardian Veronica Perez v. Los Angeles Unified School District, Elkis Lazaro Hermida, and Does 1 to 100,
No. BC477194
Date:
November 21, 2013
Plaintiff(s):
M. Sinai (Female, 14 Years)
Plaintiff Attorney(s):
Frank J. Perez;
Perez & Caballero, APC;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
M. Sinai ■ Miguel G. Caballero;
Perez & Caballero, APC;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
M. Sinai
Plaintiff Expert(s):
Dave Cowles;
Ed.D.;
Schools;
Vista,
CA called by
Frank J. Perez, Miguel G. Caballero ■ Lilli Friedland;
Ph.D.;
Psychology/Counseling;
Beverly Hills,
CA called by
Frank J. Perez, Miguel G. Caballero
Defendant(s):
Elkis Lazaro Hermida,
Los Angeles Unified School District
Defense Attorney(s):
W. Keith Wyatt;
Ivie, McNeill & Wyatt;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
Los Angeles Unified School District ■ None reported;
for
Elkis Lazaro Hermida ■ Antonio K. Kizzie;
Ivie, McNeill & Wyatt;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
Los Angeles Unified School District
In October 2010, the plaintiff, a 13-year-old student, became engaged in an inappropriate relationship with her math teacher, Elkis Hermida. She claimed that some of the conduct occurred on her school’s campus. The student, who turned 14 during the 2010/2011 school year, ultimately had one sexual encounter with Hermida at school and two or three sexual encounters at motels on Saturdays. Hermida eventually admitted to the relationship, was arrested on May 20, 2011, and was convicted of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor. Veronica Perez, acting as the teenager’s guardian, sued the Los Angeles Unified School District. Perez alleged that the school district was negligent in the supervision and hiring of Hermida, as well as was negligent in the supervision of the teenage student. Hermida was a named defendant, but was never served and was later dismissed from the case. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the student was manipulated into becoming romantically involved with her math teacher, which eventually resulted in her being sexually abused. Counsel noted that Hermida admitted to the sexual abuse of the underage student. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Hermida’s manipulation of the student began with communications via the Internet and telephone, and then proceeded to hugging and kissing on the school campus. Counsel further contended that Hermida’s conduct eventually led to sexual relations on and off campus. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that school district officials failed to adequately supervise Hermida based on his he openly inappropriate conduct, such as hugging female students on campus, caressing their hands, allowing them to sit on his lap in class, flirting with them, and otherwise acting inappropriately and unprofessionally as a teacher. Counsel further argued that when a teacher complained to the school’s principal about Hermida’s conduct, the principal did nothing about it. Over the objection of plaintiff’s counsel, the trial court allowed counsel for the Los Angeles Unified School District to present evidence regarding the sexual history of the teenage student and allowed defense counsel to argue that the plaintiff consented to the sexual abuse. Thus, the school district’s counsel argued that the teenage student was comparatively negligent for being sexually abused by her teacher because she was not forced to have sexual relations with him. Counsel for the Los Angeles Unified School District contended that the student and Hermida communicated via the Internet and Myspace.com, as well as through text messages that included videos and photos of a sexual nature. Counsel also contended that the student would ask to leave class to go to the bathroom, but then go to Hermida’s classroom to engage in kissing. Counsel further contended that Hermida and the student engaged in sexual intercourse and oral sex during Hermida’s conference period, when Hermida was not supposed to be with students. In addition, the school district’s counsel contended that the student and Hermida kept their relationship and contacts secret and that their sexual encounters and contact occurred mainly during the weekends, on Saturdays, and not on school grounds, including them having at least two motel visits together. The school district’s counsel argued that Hermida had no prior history of misconduct and no prior history of sexual misconduct. Thus, the school district’s counsel argued that due to the secretive nature of Hermida’s and the student’s relationship, and the inappropriate behavior occurring on weekends, no one knew about their conduct until the only friend at school that the student told about the relationship reported it to a teacher, who then reported the relationship in compliance with Child Abuse reporting laws.
The teenage student claimed emotional distress as a result of the sexual abuse. She subsequently underwent about 30 visits with a counselor, which was paid by the California Victims of Crime Compensation Program. The plaintiff’s expert psychologist opined that the student would require 400 to 500 therapy sessions over her lifetime, at $125 to $250 per session. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the student’s future economic damages would total $100,000. The school district’s counsel argued that the student was not emotionally damaged and that all of the alleged sexual relations were consensual. The defense’s expert psychologist evaluated the student and determined that she did not suffer from emotional distress.
The jury returned a defense verdict. It found that the Los Angeles Unified School District was not negligent.
Judge:
Lawrence Cho
Trial Length:
16
days
Trial Deliberations:
1
days
Jury Vote:
10-2 on negligence
Jury Composition:
4 male/ 8 female
Post Trial:
The plaintiff filed notice of appeal.
This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s and defense counsel.