Doe v. City of Los Angeles

169 P.3d 559 (2007)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Doe v. City of Los Angeles

Supreme Court of California
169 P.3d 559 (2007)

Facts

John Doe and John Doe 2 (plaintiffs) sued the City of Los Angeles (City) and the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) (defendants), alleging that the defendants’ negligence caused Doe and Doe 2 to be sexually abused by David Kalish, an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), while the plaintiffs and Kalish participated in a joint BSA-LAPD “Explorer Scout” program. The alleged abuse took place when the plaintiffs were teenagers. The men were in their forties when they filed suit. The applicable statute of limitations barred suits brought by persons 26 or older, but the limitations period was extended, under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.1(b)(2), if the defendant “knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual contact by an employee . . . or agent,” and failed to institute reasonable measures to prevent “unlawful sexual conduct in the future by that person.” In their pleadings, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had negligently failed to protect them from Kalish, because they knew or should have known that (1) the Explorer Scout program was poorly supervised; (2) officers other than Kalish had engaged in sexual misconduct with program participants; (3) there were many incidents of BSA scout leaders sexually abusing kids; and (4) Kalish had inappropriate tendencies demonstrated by his interest in certain young boys, his trips to Thailand, and his friendship with a pornographer. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiffs had not adequately established knowledge so as to extend the statute of limitations. The trial court dismissed the lawsuits. The appeals court affirmed, concluding that the plaintiffs had failed to allege evidentiary facts as to the defendants’ knowledge. The plaintiffs appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Moreno, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 743,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership