I.R. a minor v. Petaluma City Schools

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 I.R. A MINOR, 10 Case No. 21-cv-00726-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT 12 JUDGMENT N.C. A MINOR, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Plaintiff I.R. is a minor, who brings this action through her guardian ad litem, Sherri 18 Rodriguez. Plaintiff alleges that in February of 2019, numerous students at Petaluma Junior High 19 School were discussing that defendant K.L. intended to fight plaintiff. During a break between 20 classes, K.L. allegedly pushed plaintiff causing her to hit her head on a wall. Plaintiff further 21 alleges that several other classmates videotaped the incident, posted it to social media, and then 22 harassed or mocked her when she returned to school. 23 All defendants have now been dismissed through settlement or otherwise, except for two 24 minors alleged to have been involved in the incident and their respective parents, against whom 25 defaults have been taken. Recognizing that default judgments are not available against the minors, 26 plaintiff now seeks entry against the adult defendants, Raymond Matthew Conte, Jennifer Jeane 27 Conte (parents of N.C.) and Amanda M. Lorenzen, (parent of A.H.). 1 and then posted that video showing the attack on social media. The complaint further alleges N.C. 2 and A.H. both participated in the subsequent harassment of plaintiff. Liability against N.C and 3 A.H.’s parents is premised on allegations that they negligently failed to take reasonable care to 4 prevent their respective children’s conduct or to take reasonable precautions to prevent harm to 5 others. 6 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 Following entry of default, courts are authorized to grant default judgment in their 9 discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). In 10 exercising its discretion, the factors the court may consider include: (1) the possibility of prejudice 11 to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, 12 (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material 13 facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying 14 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 15 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). In considering these factors, all factual allegations in the plaintiff's 16 complaint are taken as true, except for those relating to damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. 17 Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). 18 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 In this case, the Eitel factors weigh in favor of granting plaintiff’s motion for default 21 judgment. The allegations in the complaint, taken as true, establish parental liability for injury 22 caused by their respective children. Defendants were given notice of this action, and knew or 23 should have known that they had an obligation to file responses. Under these circumstances, the 24 policy favoring decisions on the merits must yield to plaintiff’s right to a judicial determination of 25 her claims. The damages sought, $20,000 from each defendant, are consistent with the allegations 26 of harm and the amounts obtained through settlement with other defendants. 27 1 The motion is granted. A separate judgment will be entered. 2 3 || ITISSO ORDERED. 4 5 || Dated: April 11, 2022 6 RICHARD SEEBORG 7 Chief United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE No. 21-cv-00726-RS