R.A. v. W. Essex Reg'l Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 30 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | A-1846-19,A-0329-19 |
| Parties | R.A. (a fictitious designation), Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WEST ESSEX REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUSSEX COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COOPERATIVE, and WEST ESSEX REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants-Appellants, and G.L., JR., G.L., SR., and C.L., Defendants-Respondents. G.T. (a fictitious designation), Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WEST ESSEX REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUSSEX COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COOPERATIVE, and WEST ESSEX REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants-Appellants, and G.L., JR., G.L., SR., and C.L., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued (A-0329-19) and Submitted (A-1846-19) October 1, 2020
On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket Nos. L-8607-18 and L-4811-19.
Jeffrey L. Shanaberger argued the cause for appellants (Hill Wallack, LLP, attorneys; Cherylee O. Melcher and Jeffrey L Shanaberger, on the briefs).
Craig J. Hubert argued the cause for respondents (Szaferman Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, PC, attorneys; Craig J Hubert and Thomas J. Manzo, on the briefs).
Before Judges Ostrer, Vernoia, and Enright.
In these two cases, which we scheduled back-to-back and consolidate for purposes of this opinion, by leave granted defendants West Essex Regional School District Board of Education (Board of Education), Sussex County Regional Transportation Cooperative (Cooperative), and West Essex Regional School District (District) (collectively "defendants") appeal from orders denying their motions to dismiss the respective complaints of plaintiffs R.A. and G.T. pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e).[1] In denying defendants' motions, the court rejected defendants' contention that plaintiffs' causes of action should be dismissed based on their failure to timely serve notices of tort claim in accordance with the requirements of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3. In denying defendants' motion in R.A.'s case, A-0329-19, the court did not address their argument that an asserted cause of action alleging a violation of the New Jersey Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Anti- Bullying Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 to -37, should be dismissed because the statute does not authorize a private cause of action for tort liability or damages.
Based on our review of the record in light of the applicable legal principles, we reverse that portion of the court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss the Anti-Bullying Act claim in R.A.'s case. We remand for entry of an amended order in G.T.'s case, A-1846-19, dismissing the Anti-Bullying claim because the court found the claim should be dismissed but did not provide for the dismissal in its order. We otherwise affirm the orders in both cases.
R.A.'s and G.T.'s complaints assert identical causes of action arising out of similar but separately alleged facts. The complaints allege that R.A. and G.T. were sexually assaulted at different times by an older student, defendant G.L., Jr. (Glen), while on the school bus that transported them to and from West Essex Middle School during the 2012-2013 school year. The gravamen of plaintiffs' tort claims against defendants is that defendants knew or had reason to know Glen had a history of sexually assaultive and abusive behavior, and defendants negligently failed to protect them from Glen's alleged sexually assaultive actions while on bus rides to and from school.
We review de novo a trial court's order to grant or deny a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e), Dimitrakopoulos v. Borrus, Goldin, Foley, Vignuolo, Hyman & Stahl, P.C., 237 N.J. 91, 108 (2019), and apply the same standard as the trial court to determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint "set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted," Sickles v. Cabot Corp., 379 N.J.Super. 100, 106 (App. Div. 2005). We do not owe any deference to the legal conclusions of the trial court. Dimitrakopoulos, 237 N.J. at 108.
Our review of a dismissal motion under Rule 4:6-2(e) "is limited to examining the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on the face of the complaint," Wreden v. Twp. of Lafayette, 436 N.J.Super. 117, 124 (App. Div. 2014) (quoting Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989)), and we do "not concern [ourselves] with [a] plaintiff['s] ability to prove the[] allegations," id. at 124-25. We "afford[] to [the] plaintiff[] 'every reasonable inference of fact[, ]' . . . [and] 'search[] the complaint in depth and with liberality to ascertain whether the fundament of a cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim.'" Major v. Maguire, 224 N.J. 1, 26 (2016) (quoting Printing Mart-Morristown, 116 N.J. at 746). If we can glean the basis for a cause of action, "then the complaint should survive this preliminary stage." Wreden, 436 N.J.Super. at 125. With these principles in mind, we first summarize the factual allegations that are common to R.A.'s and G.T.'s complaints, and then detail the factual allegations unique to each plaintiff.
The District, Board of Education, and Cooperative are public entities within the meaning of the TCA. See N.J.S.A. 59:1-3. The District includes West Essex Middle School and West Essex High School.
During the 2012-2013 school year, R.A. and G.T. attended West Essex Middle School, and Glen was a tenth-grade student at West Essex High School. R.A., G.T., and Glen were transported to and from school each day on the same school bus, which was operated by Cooperative. Defendants G.L., Sr., and C.L. are Glen's parents.
R.A. filed her complaint on June 28, 2019. It alleges that during the 2012-2013 school year, R.A. was thirteen years of age and an eighth-grade student at West Essex Middle School. In October 2012, Glen sat next to R.A. on the school bus, rubbed R.A.'s leg, and pulled her hand towards his leg. When R.A. pulled her hand away, Glen took his penis out of his pants and moved R.A.'s hand toward his exposed penis. R.A. shook her hand loose from Glen's grip and elbowed him in the chest. Glen then stopped touching plaintiff and moved away from her.
According to the complaint, at some undisclosed time, R.A. told her friend, who is identified as Jane Roe 1, about the assault. Jane Roe 1 told R.A. she had also been subject to a non-consensual touching by Glen. The complaint does not indicate when Jane Roe 1 had been allegedly subject to the touching by Glen.
R.A. turned eighteen years of age in July 2017. In May 2018, R.A. learned that another individual, who R.A. identifies as Jane Roe 2, had been sexually assaulted by Glen. R.A.'s complaint alleges Jane Roe 2 had also been a student at West Essex Middle School, but the complaint does not indicate whether the alleged assault of Jane Roe 2 occurred while she attended the school or while Glen attended school in the District. The complaint also does not state whether the alleged assault on Jane Roe 2 occurred before or after Glen's alleged assault on R.A. Jane Roe 2 reported Glen's alleged sexual assault to the Essex County Prosecutor's Office in May 2018.
The complaint also asserts that at some undisclosed time R.A.'s mother asked her about Jane Roe 2's allegations, "which had recently come to light," and R.A. told her mother about Glen's 2012 assault on her and Jane Roe 1's allegation that Glen assaulted her. The complaint further alleges R.A. "[e]ventually . . . learned of two other victims," identified as Jane Roe 3 and Jane Roe 4, "who were sexually assaulted by" Glen during the 2012-2013 school year while they were students at West Essex Middle School. The complaint does not assert whether those alleged assaults were committed on a school bus, on school property, during the school day, or before or after Glen's alleged assault on R.A.[2]
Based on those factual assertions, R.A. alleged defendants "had actual and/or constructive notice of [Glen's] sexually violent behavior, the risk thereof, and propensity for committing acts of sexual violence." R.A. asserted causes of action against defendants for: negligence in failing to take reasonable care to monitor Glen, hire and train appropriate staff to supervise Glen and prevent his sexually assaultive and abusive conduct, and to provide adequate security for R.A. (Count Two); gross negligence and recklessness (Count Three); hostile environment sexual harassment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -50 (Count Four); and violating the Anti-Bullying Act (Count Five).[3] R.A. also sought a declaratory judgment that her cause of action against defendants accrued no earlier than May 30, 2018, "[p]ursuant to the reasoning in Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267 (1973)," (Count Six), and that a tort claims notice she served on defendants "on or about June 22, 2018" was timely under the TCA (Count Seven).
G.T filed an initial complaint on December 6, 2018, and a first amended complaint on July 26, 2019. Represented by the same counsel as R.A., G.T.'s first amended complaint asserts identical causes of action against the identical parties based on facts that parallel R.A.'s, but are unique to G.T.[4] The complaint alleges G.T. was an eighth-grade student at West Essex Middle School during the 2012-2013 school year. G.T. was born in 1998 and turned fourteen years of age in December 2012.
G.T alleged she rode the bus to school each day, and Glen rode the bus as well. According to the complaint, on multiple occasions during the 2012-2013 school year, Glen sat next to G.T. on the bus and touched her buttocks and vaginal area "both over [her]...
To continue reading
Request your trial