Knapp v. Palisades Charter High School

Decision Date10 January 2007
Docket NumberNo. B185996.,B185996.
Citation53 Cal.Rptr.3d 182
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesCourtney KNAPP, a Minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PALISADES CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Edwin Carney, for plaintiff and appellant.

Foley & Lardner and Gregory V. Moser, San Diego, for California Charter Schools Association and California Charter Schools Association Joint Powers Authority as Amici Curiae on behalf of plaintiff and appellant.

Soltman, Levitt & Flaherty, John S. Levitt, and Philip J. Bonoli, Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents.

ZELON, J.

In this sexual harassment action, a visiting student appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of an incorporated charter high school, its teacher and the chartering school district on the ground that she failed to comply with and was not excused from meeting the claim presentation requirements of the Government Tort Claims Act (Gov.Code,1 § 900 et seq.) (the TCA). Following Wells v One2One Learning Foundation (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1164, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 108, 141 P.3d 225 (Wells), we conclude that, as an alleged nonprofit public benefit corporation, the charter school is not a "public entity" under the TCA. It is further not required to file identifying information on the Roster of Public Agencies under section 53051. Thus, claims against the incorporated charter need not satisfy the TCA. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. FACTS

The following facts are undisputed. Plaintiff and appellant Courtney Knapp lives with her parents in Pacific Palisades. Defendant and respondent Palisades Charter High School (PCHS), a California corporation2 whose charter was granted by defendant and respondent Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), is the public high school that serves the area. In February 2004, then 13-year-old Knapp was in the eighth grade at Calvary Christian School (Calvary), a private school. Knapp's parents planned to send her to PCHS for high school upon graduation from Calvary.

On February 6, 2004, PCHS sponsored a "Shadow Day," which provided prospective students the opportunity to attend two classes with a PCHS student. Knapp shadowed PCHS student Kaylie McAllister, her friend and neighbor. They attended an advanced placement European history class taught by defendant and respondent Ronald Cummings, who allegedly made and/or allowed other students to make sexual statements or innuendos toward Knapp.

Specifically, upon learning that Knapp attended Calvary, Cumming made the sign of the cross and said, "May God bless you." He then asked Knapp to make his tea. During class, Cumming allegedly slapped, hugged and kissed two male students. In the middle of his lecture, Cummings brought up the topic of Janet Jackson exposing her breast on the 2004 Super Bowl half-time show, whereupon a student commented that Knapp probably did not know the meaning of the word "boob." A student was surprised to learn that Knapp was in the eighth grade, exclaiming that she was "huge." The remark drew laughter from the class in light of the Janet Jackson discussion. When the embarrassed student explained that he meant Knapp was tall, Cummings looked at Knapp's breasts and commented that she had a "nice pair of knockers." Later, the word "boob" was again injected into the class discussion. Another student remarked, "Maybe we should show the 8th grader what they look like." For the rest of the class period, Cummings interspersed his lecture with profanity and discussed the "shuttlecock" loom, which he called the "cock."

The experience in Cummings's class made Knapp feel embarrassed, humiliated, exposed, and afraid that Cummings and his students would single her out again for sexual banter. Fearful of running into Cummings again and of being teased by students from the class, she stopped attending athletic events to support her friends at PCHS. Knapp ultimately decided against going to PCHS for high school. Instead, she elected to enroll at the private Oaks Christian High School in Westlake Village, a 50-minute one-way bus ride from Pacific Palisades.

II. PROCEDURE
A The Demand

On the night of Shadow Day, Knapp's father, Thomas Knapp, M.D., directed an e-mail to PCHS's then Principal and Executive Director Linda Hosford about Cummings's conduct with his daughter, and demanded a call within one business day and a meeting within two business days. However, the e-mail he sent to Hosford was apparently directed to the wrong address. Knapp then forwarded Hosford a written account of the events. McAllister and her mother also complained orally and in writing to Hosford and the PCHS Board of Directors about Cummings. Hosford declined to meet with the Knapps until she completed an investigation of the incident. Hosford enlisted the help of Assistant Principal Ann Davenport with the investigation,3 and advised her that the school was "being sued."

On February 9, 2004, Knapp retained counsel and demanded that PCHS either terminate Cummings or pay for four years of Knapp's private education. In a letter dated February 17 by its counsel, PCHS declined to negotiate with Knapp on her demands and gave the following notice: "Should you wish to file a claim for such alleged damages with the School, you will need to first file a claim which meets the requirements of the Government Tort Claims Act under California law."

B. The Claim for Damages

On March 3, 2004, Knapp filed a claim for damages with the County of Los Angeles. The claim demanded that LAUSD pay $125,000 for four years of private high school education for her. The enumerated claims included: violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ.Code, §§ 51, 51.5 and 52, subd. (a)); violation of Title DC of the 1972 Education Amendments (20 U.S.C. § 1681) (Title LX); violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; emotional distress; and negligent failure to train, supervise and discipline Cummings.

On March 12, the County of Los Angeles rejected Knapp's claim on the ground that it did not involve the County, its officers, agents or employees. The letter additionally stated: "STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU BE GIVEN THE FOLLOWING WARNING': [¶] Subject to certain exceptions, you have only [six] (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code section 945.6. [¶] This time limitation applies only to causes of action for which Government Code Sections 900-915.4 required you to present a claim. Other causes of action, including those arising under federal law, may have different time limitations. [¶] You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately."

Knapp never filed a claim for damages with PCHS or LAUSD. On January 11, 2005, the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk issued a Certificate of Fact of Non-Filing, which verified that the Public Agency Roster had no record of a filing by PCHS during the relevant period.

C. The Lawsuit and Summary Judgment

On June 11, 2004, Knapp, by and through her father as guardian ad litem, sued PCHS, LAUSD and Cummings (collectively defendants) for sexual harassment under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ.Code, § 51.9), and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The defendants moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on the grounds that Knapp failed to properly present claims under the TCA and sustained no damages. Following argument, the court granted the motion on the ground that Knapp failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether she properly filed a claim in accordance with section 945.4. The court explained that "[n]o claim was ever filed with the LAUSD, but rather with the County of Los Angeles, the wrong entity." It held that Knapp's correspondence with Hosford did not substantially fulfill the requirements of the TCA, because Knapp "never clearly indicated that legal action was a certainty." Further, because "PCHS is not a school district for purposes of the Government Claims [Act]," it was "not required to register its information on the Roster of Public Agencies," and Knapp "was not excused in serving the proper public entity."

DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review

The Supreme Court established the standard of review for an order granting summary judgment. "A trial court properly grants summary judgment where no triable issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] We review the trial court's decision de novo, considering all of the evidence the parties offered in connection with the motion (except that which the court properly excluded) and the uncontradicted inferences the evidence reasonably supports. [Citation.] In the trial court, once a moving defendant has `shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established,' the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show the existence of a triable issue; to meet that burden, the plaintiff `may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings ... but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action....' [Citations.]" (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476-477, 110 Cal. Rptr.2d 370, 28 P.3d 116; see also Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493; Katz v. Chevron Corp. (1994) 22 Cal. App.4th 1352, 1363-1364, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 681.)

II. THE CHARTER SCHOOLS ACT

The Charter Schools Act of 1992 (Ed. Code, § 47600 et seq.) (CSA) provides for the establishment and operation of charter schools that operate independently of existing school districts, county boards of education or the State Board of Education. (§§...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 11 Julio 2013
    ...of the traditional system.” ( Wells, at pp. 1203–1204, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 108, 141 P.3d 225; see Knapp v. Palisades Charter High School (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 708, 717, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 182.) Section 47607 specifies the grounds upon and manner in which a school's charter may be revoked. (§ 47607,......
  • Gateway Cmty. Charters v. Spiess
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 8 Marzo 2017
    ...(Gov. Code, § 12650 et seq. ) and the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq. )), Knapp v. Palisades Charter High School (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 708, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 182 (nonprofit public benefit corporation is not a public entity for purposes of the Government Tort Claims ......
  • Californians Helping to Alleviate Med. Problems, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 15 Mayo 2007
    ...they are not operated for the mutual benefit of their members but for a broader good. See Knapp v. Palisades Charter High School, 146 Cal.App.4th 708, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 182, 186 n. 5 (Ct.App.2007). 4. In other words, respondent concedes that the disallowance of sec. 280E does not apply to cost......
  • Foreman v. Chester-Upland School Dist.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • 18 Enero 2008
    ...define a charter as a contract or a performance-based contract as have other legislatures, but in Knapp v. Palisades Charter High School, 146 Cal. App.4th 708, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 182, 186 (2007), the court explained that under the Charter Schools Act of 1992, Cal. Educ. Code §§ 47600-47664, "Ct......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT