Daniel M. Gilleon (SBN 195200)
Marlea F. Dell'Anno, of Counsel (SBN 183669)
The Gilleon Law Firm
1320 Columbia Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: 619.702.8623
Fax: 6'19.702.6337

Attorneys for Plaintiff Jamil Alai

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
(Hall of Justice)
10
11

JAMILALAI,by and through his
guardian ad litem, Alai Alai,

CASE NO.:

COMPLAINT FOR:

12

Petitioner,
1.

13

vs.

2.

Warn;

14
15

Negligence;
Negligent Supervision/Failure to

Negligent Failure to Warn, Train or
Educate;
Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act
[Civ. Code Section 51]
Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act
[Civ. Code Section 51.5]
Breach of Mandatory Duty
(Cal. Ed. Code Q 44807);
Negligence

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT; CITY OF SAN DIEGO;
and DOES 1-20

16

Respondents.
17
18

19

20

Plaintiff Jamil Alai, by and through his guardian

21

1.

ad litem,

Alai Alai, alleges:

PlaintiffJamil Alai ("Plaintiff', is aminor residing in San Diego County, who brings

22

this action by and through his father and guardian ad litem, Alai Alai ("Guardian" ). At the time of

23

the incident giving rise to this lawsuit, Jamil was a minor with severe developmental disabilities and

24

a

25

victim of childhood sexual abuse.
2.

Defendant San Diego Unified School District ("SDUSD" or "Defendant" ) is a

26

government entity providing educational services in San Diego County. Defendant SDUSD is

27

responsible for operating Lincoln High School ("LHS"), where the sexual battery

28

occurred.

At all material times, LHS was

of Plaintiff

an educational institutionthat received and benefitted from

Complaint for Damages
i

 state and/or federal financial assistance,

and enrolled students who received state and/or federal

financial aid.
The person who committed the sexual abuse at issue in this action, Elijah Washington

3.

("E.W."), was, at all times relevant, a moderately disabled minor and a student within SDUSD.
E.W. gained access to Plaintiffas a student at LHS, and was under the direct supeivision of SDUSD
and Does

10

1

through 20. E.W. is significantly higher functioning than Plaintiff.

4.

Plaintiff does not know the names of Does

5.

The tme names and capacities, whether individual or otherwise,

1

through 20.

of defendants

Does

1

through 20 are unknown to Plaintiffwho, therefore, sues them by such fictitious names under CCP

I't

474. Plaintiffis informed and believes that each

of the

defendants is responsible in some manner

for the acts of omissions alleged in this complaint or caused him damages.
12

6.

Each

of the defendants

was the agent or employee

of the other

defendants and in

13

doing the acts alleged in this complaint was acting within the course of scope of such agency and

14

employment. Each of the defendants engaged in, joined in, conspired, and aided and abetted with

15

the

16

ratified and authorized the wrongful acts of the other defendants.

of defendants in carrying out the

7.

17

acts

of wrongdoing in this Complaint

and each defendant

On or about August 4, 2016, Plaintiffwas sexually assaulted by fellow student E.W.

at LHS while both were allowed to use th restroom unsupeivised. When

Plaintiffneeded to use the

19

restroom, E.W. stated that he would go also. Calvin Smith (aSmitha) at all relevant times was an

20

employee

21

Smith did not accompany Plaintiff and E.W. to the restroom, therefore leaving both to go to the

22

restroom together and unsupervised. E.W. is able to use the restroom without assistance, however

23

Plaintiff needs assistance when he

24

8.

of SDUSD

and the liaison responsible for taking the boys to the restroom. On this date,

goes to the uses the restroom.

Sometime later, Smith went to the restroom to check on Plaintiff and E.W. When

25

Smith entered the restroom, he witnessed Plaintiff standing at the urinal with his pants down. E.W.

26

was standing behind Plaintiff with his pants down moving up against Plaintiff, touching him skin

27

to skin.

28

9.

E.W. initiallywas not aware of Smith's presence, however when the restroom door
Complaint for Damages
2

 closed behind Smith, E.W. quicldy jumped away from Plaintiff, pulled up his pants and moved to
the urinal next to where Plaintiffwas standing and pretended to urinate according to Smith. Before

E.W. was able to get his pants up, Smith noticed E.W. had an erection.
10.

Smith sent Plaintiff back to class, briefly questioned E.W. then advised SDUSD

employee Anne Marie ICiln ("Kiln") who was then the Acting Principal

of the Disabled

Students

Summer School Program, what he had witnessed in the restroom.
12.

After the incident, Smith brought E.W. to Kiln's conference room. When Kilnasked

what had happened, E.W. lied and said he went to the restroom and a boy followed him in there.
E.W. then stated he went to pee then went back to class. When Kiln asked E.W. to be honest, E.W.
10

finally admitted that he had gone to the restroom with Jamil and had "accidentally put it in." When
ICiln asked what he meant, E.W. stated he "accidentally put his thing in Jamil."

12

13.

Officer Gobbi ("Gobbi") of the San Diego City School Police, (SDCSP) contacted

13

E.W. with the consent of E.W.'s mother. Gobbi asked questions of E.W. to establish whether E. W.

14

knew the difference between right and wrong. After E.W.'s answers demonstrated his understanding

15

of the difference between right and wrong, Gobbi questioned E.W. about what had happened in the

16

restroom with Plaintiff. E.W. said

17

before.

18

advised that E.W. had confessed twice, both to Kiln and to Gobbi, nor were they advised

19

nature

20

information given to them by SDUSD and Gobbi, Plaintiffs parents declined to have Plaintiff

21

medically evaluated or even refened for a forensic intetview. Plaintiff's parents relied on the

22

information given to them by SDUSD and Gobbi to their detriment and the detriment of Plaintiff.

23

Deprived

24

regarding their son's medical and emotional well-being.

25

"I put my thing in his

butt.

I think it lasted for two minutes. Mr. CT walked in and

of what Smith

14.

had witnessed between E.W. and

of the truth, Plaintiff's

I have never

done anything like this

saw us." Plaintiff's parents were not

of the true

Plaintiff in the bathroom. Relying on the

parents were prevented

fiom making

a

meaningful decision

Officer Gobbi referred the case to the San Diego Police Department ("SDPD") Sex

26

Crimes Unit. On August 5, 2016, SDPD officer Michael Weaver ("Weaver" ) was assigned the case

27

for follow up investigation and cancelled the

28

conducting any apparent follow-up investigation. In the narrative poition of the case cancellation

case as

"unfounded" the very same day without

Complaint for Damages
3

 document, Weaver states that he read Gobbi's police report

of the incident. Curiously,

he goes on

to give reasons for cancelling the case that are directly contradictory to the information in the reports
he puipoited to have reviewed. For example, Weaver writes that "neither the victim or the suspect

was able to articulate a crime in their preliminmy statements," yet Gobbi's report makes detailed

reference to not one, but two confessions by the suspect E W. and a statement by Plaintiffthat E W.

"touched my butt with his ouwee, Elijah touched it down there." Weaver writes that both victim and
suspect have a "severe mental disability," yet Gobbi's report clearly indicates that Plaintiff, not E.W.,

was severely disabled and that E.W. had not only a moderate mental disability, but was able to

aiticulate the difference between right and wrong before confessing to Gobbi. Gobbi's report clearly
10

articulates a crime had occurred, yet inexplicably Weaver sums up his decision to cancel the case

writing "[tjhis case is being Cancelled because no crime has been articulated at this point." One can
to why Weaver cancelled the case based on the reasons he cited. Given Plaintiff's

12

only speculate

13

lunited ability to speak and perhaps relying on Smith and Kiln's statement that "Jamil is so severely

14

disabled that he most likely didn't even have a clue what had just happened to him,"

15

Weaver unilaterally determined that this was a "no harm, no foul situation" and thus was justified

16

in cancelling the

17

anyone who might inquire further.

as

case, even

it meant misrepresenting

15. Inexplicably, SDPD

18

it appems

and effectively concealing the truth

officer D. Ganen ("Garren") accompanied by Detective

fiom

J. Conde

19

("Conde") contacted Plaintiffs mother more than one year later on October 23, 2017 in order to see

20

ifshe

21

conversation, Plaintiff's mother was asked what she remembered about the incident from August

22

2016.

23

SDUSD one year prior. Neither SDPD officer made an effoit to inform Plaintiff's mother that her

24

understanding

25

incident. Rather, they seem to imply to Plaintiff's mother how physically and mentally intrusive

wanted to "reopen" the investigation. The conversation was recorded by SDPD. During the

IIer response was to regurgitate the false infoimation

of

she had been given by SDPD and

ofthe incident was entirely contrary to what was in the police report documenting the

reopening the investigation would be and although they mention that they would reopen the

ifshe

27

investigation

28

letter for you to sign

so requested, they were

quick to offer her another option stating

ifyou don't want to move

"I do

have a

forward with this case, and the police department

Complaint for Damages

 won't come to you about this again." Still unaware and unadvised ofthe true facts, Plaintiff's mother
agreed to sign the document. Garten ends his follow up report with the following conclusion,

recommending this investigation be inactivated

as

"I am

the victim (guardian/conservator) is uncooperative

and does not wish to continue the investigation at this time.
16.

Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs mother was contacted by an individual who told her of

of Gobbi's August 2016 repoit. Immediately, Plaintiff's mother contacted SDPD

the true contents

on more than one occasion to get a copy

of the police repoit. Each time she

asked, SDPD denied her

request.
17.

10

to Gov. Code

On November 16, 2017, Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, filed a claim pursuant
I'l

910.4(a) to the SDUSD arising out

of injuries he suffered

due to the sexual assault

by E.W. and SDUSD's negligent supervision and failure to perform mandatory duties in failing to
12

prevent and remedy the battery, intimidation, and harassment.

13

rejected the underlying toit claim.

14

requirements and fully complied with Gov. Code

15

18.

On December 20, 2017, SDUSD

Plaintiff has timely exhausted all of his administrative
I'1

910, et seq.

On November 16, 2017, Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, filed a claim pursuant
910.4(a) to Risk Management for the City of San Diego arising out

of injuries

he

16

to Gov. Code

17

suffered due to San Diego Police Department's negligence in failure to perform mandatory duties

18

including but not limited to: failure as a mandated reporter to report the matter to DOJ and/or Child

19

Welfare Services

20

developmentally

21

developmentally disabled minor's guardian and inducement to sign a non-prosecution by knowingly

22

misrepresenting and concealing material infoimation to minor's guardian. On December 20, 2017,

23

Risk Management for the City of San Diego rejected the underlying tort claim. Plaintiffhas timely

24

exhausted all

I'l

as

required by law; failure to investigate sexual assault

disabled

minor; denial and concealment

of his administrative requirements

25

(Negligence, Government Code

and

a severely

of material information to

fully complied with Gov. Code

$

910, et seq.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
eI('t 815.2, 820 Against San Diego Unified School District and
Does 1-20)

26
27
19.

of

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs

1

through 18,

28
Complaint for Damages
5

 20.

Defendant, acting through managing agents and school administrators, had a duty to

protect the minor Plaintiffwhen he was entrusted to their care by Plaintiffs parents. Plaintiffs care,
welfare, and/or physical custody was temporarily entrusted to Defendants and Defendants voluntarily
accepted the entrusted care

of Plaintiff. As such, Defendant

owed Plaintiff, a minor child, a special

duty of care, in addition to a duty of ordinary care, and owed Plaintiff the higher duty

of care that

adults dealing with children owe to protect them from harm.
21.

Upon information and belief, E.W. had a history of behavioral problems at school,

and SDUSD Ioiew or should have known

of such propensities prior August 2016 incident.

Defendants, by and through their agents, servants and employees, knew or reasonably should have
10

known of E.W,'s behaviorally problematic propensities. It was foreseeable that

ifDefendants

did

not adequately exercise or provide the duty of care owed to children in their care, including but not
12

limited to Plaintiff, the children entrusted to Defendants'are

13

victimized by E.W.'s misconduct.
22.

14

would be vulnerable to being

Defendants, acting through managing agents and school administrators, breached their

15

duty of care to the minor Plaintiff: 1) by allowing E.W. to come into contact with the minor Plaintiff

16

without adequate supervision; 2) by failing to adequately hire, supervise, or retain SDUSD

17

personnel; 3) by failing to investigate or otherwise confiim facts in their prior Irnowledge about E.W.

18

and facts

19

enforcement officials the fact that both E.W. and Plaintiffwere left alone for a period

20

adult supervision. Because SDUSD fell below the standard of care in supervising E.W. before and

21

during the sexual assaults, Plaintiff's continuing and inalienable constitutional and statutory rights

22

to be free from violence or threat of violence and to have

of the

assault; 4) by failing to tell or conceal from Plaintiffs parents, guardians, or law

fic access

oftime without

to education were violated.

As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiffhas suffered, and continues to

23

23.

24

suffer pain

25

distress, embarrassment, loss

26

suffered and continues to suffer spiritually; was prevented and

27

performing Plaintiffs daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; and/or has inctured

28

and

of mind

and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations

will continue to incur

of self-esteem,

expenses

disgrace, humiliation, and loss

of emotional

of enjoyment of life; has

will continue to be prevented from

for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and
Complaint for Damages
6

 counseling.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
815.2, 820 against San Diego
(Negligent Supervision/Failure to Warn, Government Code
Unified School District and Does 1-20)

g

24.

Plaintiffrealleges paragraphs

25.

Defendants, acting tluough managing agents and school administrators, had a duty

1

through 19.

to provide reasonable supervision, to use reasonable care in investigating E.W., and to provide
adequate watuing to Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's family, and minor students

of E.W.'ehaviorally

problematic and assaultive propensities.
26.

Defendants have a duty to protect students, including Plaintiff. Defendants failed to

provide adequate campus and lunch duty supervision, and failed to properly enforce sufficient
supervision to ensure the safety
12

27.

of Plaintiff and other

students.

Defendants have a duty and failed to provide reasonable supervision and control over

13

students, including Plaintiff, to protect their health and safety and to maintain proper conditions

14

suitable for their learning environment.

15

28.

As a result

of the

above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to

16

suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional

17

distress, embarrassment, loss

of self-esteem,

disgrace, humiliation, and loss

of enjoyment

of

life; has

suffered and continues to suffer spiritually; was prevented and will continue to be prevented from
19

performing Plaintiffs daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; has sustained and will

20

continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and/or has incuned and

21

incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

22

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Failure to Warn, Train or Educate Plaintiff, Government Code
against San Diego Unified School District and Does 1-20)

23

will continue to

Q 815.2,

820

24

29.

Plaintiffrealleges paragraphs

25

30.

Defendants, acting through managing agents and school administrators, breached

1

through 28.

26

their duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect Plaintiff and other minor students from

27

the risk of sexual abuse by E.W., such as the failure to properly watu, train, or educate Plaintiff and

28

other minor students about how to avoid such a risl<.
Complaint for Damages
7

 31.

As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to

suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional
distress, embarrassment, loss

of self esteem,

disgrace, humiliation, and loss

suffered and continues to suffer spiritually; was prevented and

of enjoyment

of

life; has

will continue to be prevented from

performing Plaintiff s daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; has sustained and will
continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and/or has incurred and

will continue to

incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

FOURTII CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Civil Code II51 against San Diego Unified School District and Does
10

32.

Plaintiffrealleges paragraphs I through 31.

33.

Upon information and belief, E.W. had a history

of behavioral problems

1

to 20)

at school,

12

and SDUSD knew or should have Itnown of such propensities prior to the July 25, 2017 and July 27,

13

2017 incidents.

14

reasonably should have known

15

that

16

care, including but not limited to Plaintiff, the children entrusted to Defendants'are

17

vulnerable to being victimized by E.W.'s misconduct.

Defendants, by and through their agents, servants and employees, knew or

ifDefendants

34.

of E.W.'ehaviorally problematic

propensities.

It was foreseeable

did not adequately exercise or provide the duty of care owed to children in their

would be

Defendants, acting through managing agents and school administrators, breached their

19

duty of care to the minor Plaintiff: I) by allowing E.W. to come into contact with the minor Plaintiff

20

without adequate supervision; 2) by failing to adequately hire, supervise, or retain SDUSD

21

personnel; 3) by failing to investigate or othenvise confirm facts in their prior knowledge about E.W.

22

and facts

23

enforcement officials the fact that both E W. and Plaintiffwere left alone for a period

24

adult supervision on two separate occasions prior to and during the incidents in question. Because

25

SDUSD fell below the standard of care in supervising E.W. before and during the sexual assaults,

26

Plaintiff's continuing and inalienable constitutional and statutory rights to be

27

threat

28

from the school at his parents'equest.

of the

assault; 4) by failing to tell or conceal from Plaintiffs parents, guardians, or law

of violence

oftime without

fic from violence or

and to have free access to education were violated until Plaintiff was transferred

Complaint for Damages
s

 35.

LHS is a "business establishment" within the meaning ofthe Umuh CivilRights Act.

SDUSD, and its administrators, employees, and agents intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff
by denying him full and equal advantages, facilities, and privileges of an education because they

failed and refused to investigate, supervise, or monitor E,W. once they

of his

dangerous

actual knowledge

or should have known

emotional issues, and behaviorally problematic

or exploitive tendencies,

propensities, as alleged above, because

i@new

of Plaintiffs disability. At all relevant times, SDUSD

of E.W.'ropensity for

had

sexual aggression and SDUSD acted with deliberate

indifference in the face of that knowledge.
36.
10

As a legal result of this deliberate indifference, discrimination, and denial of equal

advantages, facilities, and privileges

of an education, Plaintiffsuffered economic

and non-economic

damages, including general damages for emotional distress.
12

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13

(Violation of Civil Code

3151.5

against San Diego Unified School District and Does 1-20)

14

37.

Plaintiffrealleges paragraphs

15

38.

Upon information and belief, E.W. had a histoiy of behavioral problems at school,

1

through 36.

of such propensities prior August

4, 2016 incident.

16

and SDUSD knew or should have lmown

17

Defendants, by and through their agents, servants and employees, knew or reasonably should have

18

lenown

19

did not adequately exercise or provide the duty of care owed to children in their care, including but

20

not limited to Plaintiff, the children entrusted to Defendants'are would be vulnerable to being

21

victimized by E.W.'s misconduct.

22

of E.W.'s behaviorally problematic sexual propensities. It was

39.

foreseeable that

ifDefendants

Defendants, acting through managing agents and school administrators, breached their

23

duty of care to the minor Plaintiff: 1) by allowing E.W. to come into contact with the minor Plaintiff

24

without adequate supervision; 2) by failing to adequately hire, supervise, or retain SDUSD

25

personnel; 3) by failing to investigate or otherwise confirm facts in their prior knowledge about E.W.

26

and facts

27

enforcement officials the fact that both E W. and Plaintiffwere left alone for a period

28

adult supervision. Because SDUSD fell below the standard of care in supervising E W. before and

of the

assault; 4) by failing to tell or conceal from Plaintiffs parents, guardians, or law

Complaint for Damages
9

oftime without

 during the sexual assaults, Plaintiff's continuing and inalienable constitutional and statutoiy rights
to be free from violence or threat

of violence

and to have free access to education were violated

.

LHS is a "business establishment" withinthe meaning ofthe Unruh CivilRights Act.

40.

SDUSD, and its administrators, employees, and agents intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff.

by denying him full and equal advantages, facilities, and privileges of an education because they

failed and refused to investigate, supervise, or monitor E.W. once they knew or should have known

of his

dangerous

propensities,

knowledge
10

as

emotional issues,

or exploitive tendencies,

alleged above, because

of E.W.'s misconduct

of his

sex.

had actual

and SDUSD acted with deliberate indifference in the face

of that

As a legal result of this deliberate indifference, discrimination, and denial of equal

of an education, Plaintiffsuffered economic

12

advantages, facilities, and privileges

13

damages, and general damages for emotional distress.

15

At all relevant times, SDUSD

knowledge.
41.

14

and behaviorally problematic

and non-economic

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Failure to Perform Mandatory Duty Against San Diego Unified School District and Does
1-20)

16

42.

Plaintiffrealleges paragraphs

43.

Defendant, acting through managing agents and school administrators, had a duty to

1

through 42.

17
18

protect the minor Plaintiffwhen he was entrusted to their care by Plaintiffs parents. Plaintiffs care,

19

welfare, and/or physical custody was temporarily entmsted to Defendants and Defendants voluntarily
20

accepted the entrusted care
21

of Plaintiff. As such, Defendant owed Plaintiff, a minor child, a special

duty of care, in addition to a duty of ordinary care, and owed Plaintiff the higher duty of care that

22

adults dealing with children owe to protect them from harm.
23

44.

Upon information and belief, E.W. had a history of behavioral problems at school,

24
and SDUSD knew or should have known

of such

propensities prior to the August 4, 2016 assault.

25

Defendants, by and through their agents, servants and employees, loiew or reasonably should have
26

Itnown of E.W.' behaviorally problematic propensities. It was foreseeable that

ifDefendants

did

27

not adequately exercise or provide the duty of care owed to children in their care, including but not
28
Complaint for Damages
10

 limited to Plaintiff, the children entmsted to Defendants'are would be vulnerable to the behavioral
problems of E.W..
45.

Defendant violated Ed. Code

I'l

44807 which states in its relevant part, " Every teacher

in the public schools shall hold pupils to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and fi'om
school, on the playgrounds, or during recess," by 1) by allowing E.W. to come into contact with the

minor Plaintiffwithout adequate supervision; 2) by failing to adequately hire, supervise, or retain
SDUSD personnel; 3) by failing to investigate or otherwise confirm facts in their prior knowledge
about E.W. and facts

of the

assault; and 4) by failing to tell or conceal

fiom Plaintiff's parents,

guardians, or law enforcement officials the fact that both E.W. and Plaintiff were left alone for a
10

period of time without adult supervision on at least two occasions prior to and during the incidents

in question. Because SDUSD fell below the standard of care in supervising E W. before and during
12

the sexual assaults, Plaintiff's continuing and inalienable constitutional and statutory rights to be fice

13

from violence or threat of violence and to have free access to education were violated until Plaintiff

14

was transferred fiom the school at his parents'equest.
46.

15

As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiffhas suffered, and continues to

16

suffer great pain of mind and body, shocl<, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional

17

distress, embarrassment, loss

18

suffered and continues to suffer spiritually; was prevented and

19

performing Plaintiffs daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; and/or has incurred

20

and

21

counseling.

of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and

will continue to incur

expenses

loss

of enjoyment

of

life; has

will continue to be prevented from

for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

22

(Negligence Against City of San Diego)
23

47.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-18.

48.

The City

24

of San Diego

and the San Diego Police Department (SDPD) created a

25

special relationship with Plaintiff (and his parents) when they made explicit and implicit
26

representations to the parents regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the sexual assault
27

of their son by E.W. The false

and misleading information provided by Weaver to Plaintiff' parents

28
Complaint for Damages

ti

 that there was no evidence that a crime had been committed and that Plaintiff had been merely
"pantsed" by E.W. was information on which Plaintiff and his parents detrimentally relied. Based
on the false information from Weaver and others, Plaintiffwas not taken to a medical doctor to be

examined following being sodomized by E.W.; Plaintiffwas not taken to be evaluated by a Sexual

Assault Response Team (SART) nurse; Plaintiff was not taken for a forensic interview nor was he

provided with any counseling and finally Plaintiff was subjected to ongoing danger by E.W.
remaining in school with access to Plaintiff until Plaintiff's parents demanded E.W. be removed

from campus. Given Plaintiffs inability to communicate in any detailed or meaningful way and
SDPD's knowledge of Plaintiff's inability to communicate, the false and misleading information
10

SDPD provided to Plaintiffs parents is that much more egregious; SDPD knew that Plaintiff would

never be able to adequately describe to his parents or anyone else what Smith saw and what E.W.
12

confessed to TWICE - that Plaintiffwas SODOMIZED by E.W. SDPD Itnew or should have known

13

that their lack of truthfulness with Plaintiff's parents would increase the forseeable risk of harm by

14

not only preventing them from protecting Plaintiff, but also from reducing harm to Plaintiff by

15

responding appropriately to the mental and physical trauma their son suffered. SDPD knowingly

provided false information to Plaintiffs parents and then asked Plaintiff's parents to make a decision
17
18

regarding their son's welfare based on false information they provided.

49.Again on October 23, 2017, SDPD lrrtowingly provided false information to Plaintiff's

of the evidence relating

to Plaintiff's sexual assault by E.W. when

19

parents and concealed the truth

20

they asked Plaintiffs parents to again make a decision regarding whether or not to "terminate the

21

investigation"'f Plaintiff's case

22

which Plaintiff's parents detrimentally relied.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

23

24
25

based on false information they knowingly provided and upon

THEREFORE, PlaintiffJamil Alai requests judgment against defendants San Diego Unified
School District, City of San Diego and Does

1

to 20 as follows:

27
28

tNon-prosecution letter Plaintiff's mother was induced to sign by SDPD is attached as

Exhibit 1.
Complaint for Damages
12

 a.

Special and general damages according to proof;

b.

Civil penalties pursuant to Civil Code Section 52;

c.

Attorney's fees and expert witness fees allowable by law;

d.

Costs

e.

Any other proper relief.

Dated: June 6, 2018

10

of suit allowable by law; and

6dlleo Law Firm

Marlea F. De'll'Anno, Attorneys for
Plaintiff Jamil Alai by and through his guardian ad
litem Alai Alai.

12
13

14
15

16
17
18

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26
27
28
Complaint for Damages
13

 Police Depastnsent
cee 'mrded Ieeesogeiioes- ses crimes uet.

SDPD Case Slo:. 16-032281

Incident Date: 08/03/2016
Victim: Jamil Alai

Detective D. Ger ren 95945 has informed me via the attached letter that the San Diego PoIIM
Department is actively investigating my complairit, preparatoiyto making a formal presentation of facts
to the District Attorney. However, I do not wish to pursue this matter any further and request the San
Diega Police Department terminate this investigation. I understand that by closing this case, the
investigation will precede no further, potential evidence may be lost and/or the listed charges may no
longer fall within the required statute of limitations as, prescribed by law to prosecute.

siseee

4 Syd/,P ,D
'/essJ /tt'e

Relationship:

ie

f'steee%~eisoise:

iD/

g/yyr

Iorf ~leS

~Afdf"

Please mall or email this form ta the fogowing address:
San Diego Pagice Department
Sex Crimes Volt

Attention. Detective D. Gar ran 95945
Email: dgarrenarpd.sandiego.gov
14018roadway, MS 744
San Diego, CA 92101

slseo ses cdmes u sit Msyds
id)1 Broedeay
Se

i Diego. CX 92101

KXHlBITl