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 Options

Supervision of employee could have prevented sexual assault: teen

Amount:

$2,650,000

Type:

Verdict-Plaintiff

State:

California

Venue:

Los Angeles County

Court:

Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Van Nuys

Injury Type(s):

other-sexual assault; mental/psychological-depression; mental/psychological-emotional distress; mental/psychological-post-traumatic stress disorder

Case Type:

Intentional Torts – Battery, Sexual Assault; Worker/Workplace Negligence – Negligent Retention, Negligent Supervision

Case Name:

S.W. by her Guardian ad Litem Schnieta Johnson v. U.S. Metro Group, Luis Morales, and Does 1 to 100,
No. BC500058

Date:

March 20, 2015

Parties

Plaintiff(s):

S. W. (Female, 15 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Robert T. Simon;
The Simon Law Group, LLP;
Hermosa Beach,
CA,
for
S. W. ■ Ibiere N. Seck;
The Cochran Firm;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
S. W. ■ Thomas S. Feher;
The Simon Law Group, LLP;
Hermosa Beach,
CA,
for
S. W.

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Janice Carter-Lourensz; M.D.; Pediatrics; Los Angeles,
CA called by:
Robert T. Simon, Ibiere N. Seck, Thomas S. Feher

Defendant(s):

Luis Morales, 

U.S. Metro Group

Defense Attorney(s):

Thomas G. Wianecki;
Wesierski & Zurek;
Irvine,
CA,
for
U.S. Metro Group ■ Luis Morales;
pro se;
for
Luis Morales

Facts:

Between September 2010 and December 2010, the plaintiff, 15-year-old 10th grade student, was sexually assaulted by her neighbor and best friend’s father, Luis Morales. While Morales was a supervising janitor at U.S. Metro Group, a janitorial service company, he would take Whipple to job sites and engage in sex acts with her, whereby the teenager would perform oral sex on Morales. The 15-year-old student also claimed the sexual encounters took place at Morales’ home and behind her home. She also claimed that Morales would take her along on his jobs to help clean various facilities at night and that Morales told her that he would pay for her cheerleading outfit at school. In January 2011, the 15-year-old student was in high school when she tried to overdose on Ecstasy. It was at this time when she first reported the sexual abuse, causing the start of an investigation against Morales. Morales was ultimately arrested and he pleaded no contest to one lewd act upon a minor. He was sentenced to one year in jail, but served 30 days. Schnieta Johnson, acting as the 15-year-old student’s guardian ad litem, sued U.S. Metro Group and Morales. Johnson alleged that Morales’ actions constituted sexual assault and battery. She also alleged that U.S. Metro was negligent in the hiring, training and supervision of Morales and that U.S. Metro failed to prevent harassment in violation of Government Code § 12940 et seq. Johnson further alleged that both Morales and U.S. Metro were negligent and that their actions constituted harassment in violation of Government Code § 12940 et seq. and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court granted U.S. Metro’s motion for summary adjudication, ruling that U.S. Metro could not be liable as a matter of law for the plaintiff’s harassment claim in violation of Government Code § 12940 et seq. or the plaintiff’s claim alleging that U.S. Metro failed to prevent harassment in violation of Government Code § 12940 et seq. However, the remaining claims continued to trial. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that as Morales was the supervising janitor, he had his own vehicle and would drive from site to site, unsupervised, and argued that Morales should have been supervised. U.S. Metro denied knowing that the 15-year-old student was at its work sites with Morales or that Morales had a sexual episode, or episodes, with the plaintiff. Counsel for U.S. Metro argued that there was nothing in Morales’ background or made known to U.S. Metro during Morales’ 24 years of employment that could be deemed a specific warning that Morales posed an unreasonable risk to minors in light of his job duties. Counsel also argued that there was no evidence whatsoever of anything negative in Morales’ background at the time he was hired more than 20 years ago to support a negligent hiring claim against U.S. Metro. In addition, counsel argued that after Morales was hired, there was no substantial evidence that U.S. Metro knew, or should have known, that Morales would molest a minor at any U.S. Metro job site, as required by California law. In response, plaintiff’s counsel revealed that Morales had two prior allegations of sexual misconduct against two female janitorial employees of U.S. Metro two years before the abuse against the plaintiff. Counsel further contended that those two female employees had also complained and even filed a lawsuit against the company. Accordingly, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Morales should have been watched by the company. U.S. Metro’s counsel responded that the plaintiff’s entire case was based on one prior lawsuit against Morales and U.S. Metro, brought by two adult female janitors. Thus, at trial, it was established that U.S. Metro had thoroughly investigated the allegations from that case by interviewing over 40 employees who had worked with and supervised the two women and that U.S. Metro found the women’s allegations to be wholly without merit and unsubstantiated. Thus, counsel contended that U.S. Metro felt that no action needed to be taken, as the company disbelieved the prior allegations in their entirety. In addition, counsel contended that the unsubstantiated, dissimilar claim against Morales by his co-employees did not put U.S. Metro on notice that Morales would sexually molest a non-employee minor.

Injury:

The 15-year-old student claimed that she was sexually assaulted by Morales while at U.S. Metro job sites. After reporting the abuse, the plaintiff was in and out of psychiatric care and counseling for a few years. She was then in and out of high school, and in and out of drug addiction facilities. The plaintiff is now under the care of her treating psychiatrist, who has been treating the plaintiff and placed her into the care of one of her foster parents. The plaintiff was ultimately able to move to Hayward and is out of the toxic environment she was in. She has also been able to finish high school and is in cosmetology school. The plaintiff, who was 19 years old at the time of trial, now has her life back on track. However, her treating psychiatrist diagnosed the plaintiff with severe post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, and subsequently recommended ongoing psychiatric visits. U.S. Metro’s counsel argued that U.S. Metro could not be held responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries when Morales intentionally committed criminal, sexual acts with his daughter’s best friend, a 15-year-old teenager. Counsel also argued that U.S. Metro could not be held responsible for the plaintiff’s pre-existing emotional injuries that had nothing to do with the subject lawsuit, including the fact that the plaintiff was taken away from her mother’s home due to abuse; that the plaintiff was in and out of foster care; that the plaintiff had pre-existing substance abuse issues; and that the plaintiff had been previously molested by others in her life.

Result:

The jury found that Morales’ actions constituted sexual assault and battery; that U.S. Metro was negligent in the hiring, training and supervision of Morales; that the actions of both Morales and U.S. Metro constituted negligent infliction of emotional distress. Thus, the jury determined that the plaintiff’s damages totaled $2.65 million, and that U.S. Metro was 60 percent liable for the plaintiff’s damages and that Morales was 40 percent liable.

S. W.: $150,000 Personal Injury: Future Medical Cost; $2,500,000 Personal Injury: past and future pain and suffering

Trial Information:

Judge:

James A. Kaddo

Demand:

$1,000,000 (C.C.P. § 998)

Offer:

$15,000

Trial Length:

4
 days

Jury Vote:

12-0

Post Trial:

U.S. Metro’s counsel is moving for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial on a number of grounds. Post-trial motions are pending.

Editor’s Comment:

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s counsel and counsel for U.S. Metro Group. Morales was not asked to contribute.