Joseph M.

Goethals (SBN 242889)

12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
14
15 MANUEL REYNAGA and MONIQUE K. Case No.
16 VALLIE
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES;
Plaintiffs,
17
vs. 1) NEGLIGENCE;
18 2) WRONGFUL DEATH
19
STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL
20 DISTRICT; BRETT TOLIVER; JOHN DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
21 RAMIREZ JR.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive

22 Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28

-1-
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 COMES NOW, Plaintiffs MANUEL REYNAGA and MONIQUE K. VALLIE (“Plaintiffs”)
2 who complain and allege as follows:
3 //
4 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5 1. This action arises out of the wrongful death of Decedent ALYCIA REYNAGA (“hereinafter
6 “ALYCIA”) who was 15 years-old at the time she killed as the result of being stabbed multiple times
7 at Amos Alonzo Stagg High School in Stockton, San Joaquin County, California on April 18, 2022
8 and who has no surviving issue. Plaintiffs allege that ALYCIA’S death was directly and proximately
9 caused by the negligent, reckless, and/or willful acts and/or omissions of Defendant STOCKTON
10 UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’s employees and/or agents acting within the course and scope of their
11 employment/agency including, but not limited to, Alonzo Stagg High School Principal BRETT
12 TOLIVER and Superintendent JOHN RAMIREZ, JR.
13 //
14 THE PARTIES
15 2. Plaintiff MANUEL REYNAGA (herein after “MANUEL”) is the father of Alycia
16 Reynaga and is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of the city of Stockton, San Joaquin
17 County, California and is entitled to ALYCIA’S property by intestate succession. MANUEL is
18 bringing this action in his capacity as a) the successor in interest of ALYCIA pursuant to Code of
19 Civil Procedure § 377.30, et seq. and b) in his individual capacity for the wrongful death of
20 DECDENT.
21 3. Plaintiff MONIQUE K. VALLIE (hereinafter “MONIQUE”) is the mother of ALYCIA
22 and is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of the city of Stockton, San Joaquin County,
23 California and is entitled to ALYCIA’S property by intestate succession. MONIQUE is bringing this
24 action in her capacity as a) the successor in interest of ALYCIA pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §
25 377.30, et seq. and b) in her individual capacity for the wrongful death of DECDENT.
26 4. Defendant STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“SUSD”) is, and at all times
27 herein mentioned was, a school district located in and having its principal place of business in the City
28 of Stockton, San Joaquin County, and was organized and exists as a public entity under the laws of the

-2-
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 State of California. SUSD operates, manages, and controls Amos Alonzo Stagg High School, located
2 at 1621 Brookside Road, Stockton CA 95207.
3 5. Defendant BRETT TOLIVER (“TOLIVER”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was,
4 a resident of San Joaquin County, California. TOLIVER was an employee of SUSD and Principal of
5 Stagg High School at the time of the events giving rise to this action and was acting in the course and
6 scope of his employment and/or agency for SUSD at all pertinent times referred to herein. TOLIVER
7 was responsible for overseeing the fulfillment of safety protocols in his capacity as Principal of Stagg
8 High School. Plaintiffs allege that, in doing the acts and/or omissions described herein, TOLIVER
9 was acting within the course and scope of his employment with SUSD. Defendant SUSD is liable in
10 respondeat superior for the injuries caused by the acts and omissions of TOLIVER pursuant California
11 Government Code § 815.2.
12 6. Defendant JOHN RAMIREZ, JR. (“RAMIREZ”) is, and at all times herein mentioned
13 was, a resident of San Joaquin County, California. RAMIREZ was and employee of SUSD and
14 Superintendent of Stockton Unified School District at the time of the events giving rise to this action
15 and was acting in the course and scope of his employment and/or agency for SUSD at all pertinent
16 times herein. RAMIREZ was responsible for the enforcement of safety protocol in his capacity as
17 superintendent of Stock Unified School District. Plaintiffs allege that, in doing the acts and/or
18 omissions described herein, RAMIREZ was acting within the course and scope of his employment
19 with SUSD. Defendant DISTRICT is liable in respondeat superior for the injuries caused by the acts
20 and omissions of RAMIREZ pursuant California Government Code § 815.2
21 7. Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, were superintendents, principals, assistant
22 principals, administrators, teachers, staff, associations, security personnel, outside security vendors, or
23 other authority figures acting as employees and/or agents for Defendant SUSD which is liable under
24 respondeat superior pursuant to Government Code §§ 815.2 and 820 Said Defendants are sued
25 individually and in their capacity as herein and above defined employees and/or agents of Defendant
26 SUSD.
27 8. The true names of Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are presently unknown
28 to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names Plaintiffs will further amend

-3-
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 this complaint to state the true names and capacities of said defendant when they have been
2 ascertained.
3 9. At all times mentioned herein, each Defendant was responsible in some manner or
4 capacity for the occurrences herein alleged. Plaintiffs’ damages, as herein alleged, were proximately
5 caused by the Defendants, and each of them.
6 10. At all times mentioned herein Defendants were the agents, representatives and
7 employees of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things herein alleged, Defendants were
8 acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality, capacity, identity, agency,
9 representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their authority, whether actual or
10 apparent.
11 11. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were the trustees, partners, servants, joint
12 venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other Defendant, and the acts
13 and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, through such capacities and
14 within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and consent of each and every other
15 Defendant and said conduct was thereafter ratified by each and every other Defendant, and each of
16 them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff.
17 12. In compliance with Govt. Code § 911.6, Plaintiffs presented a late claim to Defendant
18 SUSD on November 8, 2022. The late claim was accepted for consideration by Defendant SUSD. On
19 November 14, 2022, Defendant SUSD rejected the claim. The Notice of Rejection was sent to
20 Plaintiff’s counsel November 18, 2022. In accordance with Government Code § 945.6, this
21 Complaint is being filed within six (6) months of the Notice of Rejection.
22
23 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
24 13. Venue is proper in this court as the killing forming the basis for this action took place
25 in San Joaquin County and where Defendant SUSD is headquartered and conducts its business as a
26 school district. This court has jurisdiction over the present matter because, as detailed infra, the nature
27 of the claims and amounts in controversy exceed the requirements for unlimited damages jurisdiction
28 in Superior Court.

-4-
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
2 10. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation
3 contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.
4 11. At all times relevant herein, ALYCIA was a minor student at AASHS under the care,
5 control, and/or supervision of Defendants SUSD, TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100,
6 inclusive. As a result, Defendant SUSD and its employees and/or agents were in a special relationship
7 with ALYCIA which imposed an affirmative duty to take all reasonable steps to protect ALYCIA and
8 other minor students attending AASHS. Defendant SUSD, TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1
9 through 100 stood in loco parentis – in place of parents – to students at AASHS with similar powers
10 and responsibilities with regard to the protection and supervision of the children, such as ALYCIA.
11 12. On the morning of April 18, 2022, ALYCIA was on campus as a student at Amos
12 Alonzo Stagg High School (AASHS.)
13 13. At approximately 11:00 a.m., ANTHONY GRAY (“GRAY,”) who was not a student
14 or employee at AASHS, drove his car into the south parking lot of the high school. GRAY parked his
15 car and exited with a knife in his possession.
16 14. School was in session at AASHS as GRAY exited his car and walked toward the
17 secure area of the campus.
18 15. The gate to campus was unlocked and the entrance was unsupervised.
19 16. GRAY was able to enter through the unlocked gate, chase students, and try to get into
20 locked doors for several minutes before stabbing ALYCIA multiple times, resulting in her death.
21 17. Prior to ALYCIA’s death on April 18, 2022, Defendant SUSD, by and through its
22 employees and/or agents, and Defendants TOLIVER, RAMIREZ and DOES 1 through 100 had prior
23 notice of multiple acts of violence committed against SUSD students by unauthorized individuals on
24 SUSD school campuses.
25 18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendant SUSD’s senior
26 officials including, but not limited to, Defendants TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100,
27 inclusive are responsible for hiring practices, promulgation and implementation of school policies and
28 regulations, enforcement of school policies and regulations, training of school employees in policies

-5-
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 and safety regulation, and district compliance with applicable laws. These school policies, regulations,
2 and applicable laws included those enacted to protect students from on-campus violence.
3 19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at the time of the events
4 giving rise to this action, SUSD had in place an Employee Code of Ethics. The Employee Code of
5 Ethics required each SUSD employee to abide by the law and follow the school district’s rules,
6 regulations, bulletins, policies and procedures.
7 20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at the time of the events
8 giving rise to this action, SUSD had in place School Safety Protocols. The School Safety Protocols
9 require each SUSD employee to follow the District’s safety, security and emergency preparedness
10 rules, regulations, policies, procedures, plans and guidelines.
11 21. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that SUSD had a policy of
12 having multiple security guards on duty at schools including Stagg High School.
13 22. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that prior to March of 2019
14 SUSD had revised security policies to keep campuses closed to all visitors, including parents, unless
15 visitors checked in to confirm their identity and had previously submitted fingerprints to verify their
16 lack of criminal background.
17 23. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that after a 14-year-old girl was
18 stabbed during an incident occurring in March of 2019 on the campus of an SUSD school. SUSD
19 chose not to increase or revise security protocols. In fact, over approximately the last 10 years, there
20 were over 30,000 calls to the Stockton Police Department (“SPD) regarding SUSD. Of those, 133
21 were related to trespassers, 69 were related to vagrants, 45 were related to indecent exposures, 7 were
22 related to kidnappings or attempts to kidnap, 122 were related to shots fired, 82 were related to
23 terrorist threats, 9 were related to bomb threats, 158 were related to fights in progress, 23 were related
24 to brandishing a weapon, and 389 were related to batteries and/or assaults. During that same
25 approximately ten year period of time, there were also many calls to SPD relating specifically to
26 AASHS; to wit: there were 23 suspicious suspects or vehicles, 18 assaults and batteries, 1 brandishing
27 a weapon, 16 fights in progress, 6 terrorist and bomb threats, 5 shots fired, 4 rapes, 3 trespassers, 3
28 vagrants, 2 indecent exposures, and 2 armed robberies.

-6-
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 24. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that as of March 2019 SUSD
2 did not have an on-site police school resource officer assigned to every campus in the district.
3 Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that in April of 2021, position of Emergency
4 Services/School Safety Program Coordinator was eliminated. That position was responsible for
5 conducting safety drills, education, and overseeing the district’s school safety plans to be in
6 compliance with the law. As of April 18, 2022 when ALYCIA was stabbed to death by GRAY on
7 AASHS’ campus, Defendant SUSD had not brought back the position of Emergency Services/School
8 Safety Program Coordinator.
9 25. It is a matter of common knowledge among California school safety officials that acts
10 of violence against students are likely to be carried out by persons not authorized to be on school
11 grounds. In 1982, the California Legislature found that “Many serious crimes out violence are
12 committed on school grounds by persons who are neither students nor school employees and who are
13 not otherwise authorized to be present on school grounds” and “a disproportionate share of crimes
14 committed on school campuses are committed by persons who are neither students, school officials, or
15 staff and who have no lawful business on school grounds.” California Penal Code §627(a)(2), (3)(c).
16 26. Plaintiffs are informed and believed that AASHS’ entire perimeter is surrounded by a
17 metal fence, leaving one gate in the north and one gate to the south as the only access points to
18 campus. These gates can be locked, and, pursuant to SUSD protocols, policies, and procedures are
19 supposed to be monitored at all times. On the day of the attack, the south gate through which the killer
20 entered was neither locked nor monitored. On April 18, 2022, the security booth at AASHS was not
21 staffed. The formerly regularly posted security employee had retired – after giving advanced notice –
22 and the position had been vacant for several months and AASHS had not replaced him or attempted to
23 replace him. GRAY was able to enter Stagg High School’s south parking lot through an unlocked
24 gate, park his car, exit his car with a knife, walk through an unlocked gate, approach ALYCIA and
25 another female student with the knife, grab both girls, and stab ALYCIA to death, without interaction
26 or interference by campus officials or any security mechanism.
27 27. Defendant SUSD, by and through its employees and/or agents and Defendants
28 TOLIVER, RAMRIZE, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, each had a special relationship with and

-7-
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 stood in loco parentis to the children attending AASHS, and accordingly, had an affirmative duty to
2 protect them from reasonably foreseeable risks of harm to students, such as violent acts by
3 unauthorized trespassers on school campuses. In advance of and at the time of GRAY’s intrusion onto
4 campus and stabbing of ALYCIA, each Defendant knew or should have known that students,
5 including ALYCIA, were subject to a foreseeable risk of harm from unauthorized trespassers, but
6 failed to take reasonable steps to adequately protect students, including ALYCIA, from that risk. That
7 failure was a substantial factor in causing and a proximate cause of ALYCIA’S untimely death by
8 blade.
9 28. As set forth herein, Defendant SUSD, by and through the acts and/or omissions of its
10 employees and/or agents and Defendants TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100 each
11 failed to uphold numerous duties imposed by state and federal law, as well as duties imposed by
12 Defendant SUSD’s written and unwritten protocols, procedures, and policies including, but not
13 limited to, the following:
14 a. Duty to use reasonable care to protect students from known or foreseeable dangers
15 (Government Code §§ 820, 815.2);
16 b. Duty to refrain from taking official action that contradicts the provisions of Article 1, §
17 28(c) of the California Constitution;
18 c. Duty to enact protocols and procedures that are not in contravention of the Federal
19 Civil Rights Act, § 1983, and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution;
20 d. Duty to protect students and staff, and provide adequate supervision;
21 e. Duty to properly train teachers, athletic directors, athletic coaches, youth counselors,
22 mentors, administrators, security personnel and/or agents, and staff so that they are
23 aware of their individual responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe
24 environment;
25 f. Duty to supervise faculty and students and enforce rules and regulations prescribed for
26 schools, exercise reasonable control over students as is reasonably necessary to
27 maintain order, protect property, or protect the health and safety of faculty and students
28 or to maintain proper and appropriate conditions conducive to learning;

-8-
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 g. Duty to properly monitor campuses, prevent or correct harmful situations or call for
2 help when a situation is beyond their control;
3 h. Duty to ensure that security personnel are actually on hand and monitoring campuses;
4 i. Duty to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable risks of harm such as violent acts
5 by unauthorized trespassers on campus;
6 j. Duty to supervise diligently;
7 k. Duty to properly monitor campus access points;
8 l. Duty to secure campus access points during school hours;
9 m. Duty to act promptly and diligently and not ignore or minimize problems; and
10 n. Duty to establish and implement various school safety and violence prevention
11 programs (Education Code § 234-234.4, Education Code Sections §§ 32280-32282,
12 32286, 32288; Education Code §§ 35294.1; 35294.10-35294.15; Education Code
13 §44276.1; Education Code §§44259, 44266, 44270, 44277, 44372).
14 29. School supervisory personnel including, but not limited to Defendants TOLIVER,
15 RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, had a duty to train SUSD employees and/or agents at
16 AASHS as to their duties and responsibilities to protect students from outside harm and to be alert for
17 dangers and risks to students posed by trespassers who enter school grounds and failed to carry out
18 that duty.
19 30. Defendants TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and other
20 employees and/or agents of Defendant SUSD were acting within the course and scope of their
21 employment for Defendant SUSD when they committed the acts and omission alleged herein and,
22 accordingly, Defendant SUSD is liable in respondeat superior for their acts and failures to act as
23 alleged herein.
24 //
25 //
26 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
27 NEGLIGENCE
28 (Against Defendants SUSD, TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive)

-9-
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 31. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations contained in
2 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully alleged in this Cause of Action.
3 32. In compliance with Govt. Code § 911.6, Plaintiffs presented a late claim to Defendant
4 SUSD on November 8, 2022. The late claim was accepted for consideration by Defendant SUSD. On
5 November 14, 2022, Defendant SUSD rejected the claim. The Notice of Rejection was sent to
6 Plaintiff’s counsel November 18, 2022. In accordance with Government Code § 945.6, this
7 Complaint is being filed within six (6) months of the Notice of Rejection.
8 33. Pursuant to Government Code §815.2, Defendant SUSD is liable for any injury caused
9 by an act or omission of its employee. Plaintiffs allege the acts and/or omissions of TOLIVER,
10 RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, as alleged herein were committed in the course and
11 scope of their employment at SUSD.
12 34. At all pertinent times alleged herein, Defendant SUSD was in a special relationship
13 with students, including ALYCIA, which gave rise to an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to
14 protect students, including ALYCIA, from reasonably foreseeable harm. The duty of care owed by the
15 District and school personnel included the duty to employ reasonable measures to protect students
16 from known threats of harm and reasonably foreseeable acts of violence.
17 35. Furthermore, California public school teachers and principals have a statutory duty to
18 supervise students on school grounds pursuant to Education Code § 44807. This duty to supervise
19 includes enforcing the rules and regulations necessary for the protection of students. Dailey v. Los
20 Angeles Unified School Dist., 2 Cal. 3d 741 (1970).
21 36. Additionally, high school students, who are statutorily mandated to attend school, have
22 a right to a safe campus as a matter of law. California Constitution Article 1, Section 28, subd.
23 (f)(1)(“All students… of public… schools have the inalienable right to attend campuses which are
24 safe, secure and peaceful.”). Under this principle, school districts have an affirmative duty to devise
25 and implement plans to address the threat of school crime. To help schools achieve this vital goal of
26 providing school children a campus free from psychological or physical harm, the State of California
27 has mandated that all K-12 school develop and implement a School Safety Plan. Education Code §§
28

- 10 -
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 32280-32289. The School Safety Plan must address the following key areas, among others:
2 preparedness, prevention, and mitigation of threats of harm.
3 37. Defendants TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, as well as
4 other SUSD employees and/or agents not named as Defendants herein knew that unauthorized
5 trespassers posed a potential threat to students on campus. The threat of harm posed by a trespasser
6 with a weapon was reasonably foreseeable in the absence of any measures to prevent their access onto
7 campus. Despite knowing that students could be harmed by unauthorized trespassers, defendants
8 failed to take reasonable steps and deploy, install, and utilize safety measures which would have
9 prevented unauthorized trespassers, including GRAY, from accessing the school campus to commit
10 acts of violence on students. School authorities who know that schools and the students who attend
11 them are often the targets of violence may not refrain from taking preventive measures to protect
12 students. The unlocked gate to the parking lot and unsupervised entrance created a reasonably
13 foreseeable risk of harm which allowed the known threat of a violent intruder to enter campus and
14 were direct and proximate causes of ALYCIA’S stabbing and subsequent death.
15 38. Defendants TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, as well as
16 other SUSD employees and/or agents not named as Defendants herein had a duty to deploy, install,
17 and utilize sufficient security measures that would have prevented GRAY from accessing the area of
18 AASHS’ campus where GRAY stabbed ALYCIA multiple times.
19 39. Defendants TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, as well as
20 other SUSD employees and/or agents not named as Defendants herein assumed the security obligation
21 of monitoring and/or securing entrances to the school to ensure a secure campus. Making sure that
22 entrances are monitored and/or secured in circumstances where security personnel may be indisposed
23 for a time was a relatively simple and minimally burdensome, yet Defendants TOLIVER, RAMIREZ,
24 and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, as well as other SUSD employees and/or agents not named as
25 Defendants herein did not do so.
26 40. Defendants TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, as well as
27 other SUSD employees and/or agents not named as Defendants herein knew or should have known of
28 the risk of violence carried out by unauthorized trespassers on school grounds and had a duty to adopt

- 11 -
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 and implement a School Safety Plan that included adequate monitoring of school campus access
2 points for potential danger.
3 41. Defendants TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, as well as
4 other SUSD employees and/or agents not named as Defendants herein knew or should have known
5 that schools are frequent targets for mass shootings and other acts of violence committed with
6 weapons and had a duty to adopt and implement security protocols, policies, and procedures intended
7 to prevent the entry of weapons into the campus.
8 42. Defendants TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, as well as
9 other SUSD employees and/or agents not named as Defendants herein knew or should have known tat
10 in March of 2019, over a year prior to GRAY’S stabbing of ALYCIA, a 14 year-old student was
11 stabbed while on campus at Rio Calaveras Elementary School, another SUSD school. This incident
12 put Defendants on constructive notice that the district’s security policies were not sufficient or not
13 sufficiently enforced to prevent weapons from being brought onto campus and used to commit acts of
14 violence. Nevertheless, after the Rio Calaveras stabbing, Defendants did not modify their security
15 policies or the enforcement thereof in order to improve the safety of students.
16 43. Defendants SUSD, TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, who
17 knew or should have known that acts of violence against schoolchildren are often carried out by
18 unauthorized visitors, had a duty to adopt and implement a School Safety Plan that included adequate
19 threat assessment procedures, including training staff to recognize the danger of leaving entrances to
20 campus unmonitored.
21 44. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, had among others, the following duties of care:
22 a. A duty to train staff to recognize and report potential threats to student safety;
23 b. A duty to recognize when an entrance to campus is left unmonitored;
24 c. A duty to prevent trespassers with no legitimate business on campus from entering;
25 d. A duty to supervise students such that they are not placed in harm’s way
26 e. A duty to ensure deadly weapons are not brought onto campus;
27 f. A duty to keep campus access points secure.
28 Duty to use reasonable care to protect students from known or foreseeable dangers

- 12 -
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 (Government Code §§ 820, 815.2);
2 g. Duty to refrain from taking official action that contradicts the provisions of Article
3 1, §28(c) of the California Constitution;
4 h. Duty to enact protocols and procedures that are not in contravention of the Federal
5 Civil Rights Act, § 1983, and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution;
6 i. Duty to protect students and staff, and provide adequate supervision;
7 j. Duty to properly train teachers, athletic directors, athletic coaches, youth counselors,
8 mentors, administrators, security personnel and/or agents, and staff so that they are
9 aware of their individual responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe
10 environment;
11 k. Duty to supervise faculty and students and enforce rules and regulations prescribed
12 for schools, exercise reasonable control over students as is reasonably necessary to
13 maintain order, protect property, or protect the health and safety of faculty and students
14 or to maintain proper and appropriate conditions conducive to learning;
15 l. Duty to properly monitor campuses, prevent or correct harmful situations or call for
16 help when a situation is beyond their control;
17 m. Duty to ensure that security personnel are actually on hand and monitoring
18 campuses;
19 n. Duty to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable risks of harm such as violent
20 acts by unauthorized trespassers on campus;
21 o. Duty to supervise diligently;
22 p. Duty to properly monitor campus access points;
23 q. Duty to secure campus access points during school hours;
24 r. Duty to act promptly and diligently and not ignore or minimize problems; and
25 s. Duty to establish and implement various school safety and violence prevention
26 programs (Education Code § 234-234.4, Education Code Sections §§ 32280-32282,
27 32286, 32288; Education Code §§ 35294.1; 35294.10-35294.15; Education Code
28 §44276.1; Education Code §§44259, 44266, 44270, 44277, 44372).

- 13 -
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 45. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants TOLIVER,
2 RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, as well as other SUSD employees and/or agents not
3 named as Defendants herein, each of whom was acting in the course and scope of their employment
4 and/or agency for Defendant SUSD at the time they committed those acts or failed to act, ALYCIA is
5 deceased and her parents, Plaintiffs, have suffered non-economic damages for the loss of love their
6 daughter and the loss of companionship, care, comfort, assistance, protection, affection , society, and
7 moral support of their daughter, ALYCIA, herein; all to Plaintiffs’ damages according to proof.
8 46. Plaintiffs are the legal heirs and successor in interest of DECEDENT RAMOS, and the
9 present action is brought by Plaintiffs as the legal heirs and successors in interests of ALYCIA
10 as permitted by California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.30 et seq. Pursuant to California Code of
11 Civil Procedure §377.30, a cause of action that survives the death of a person passes to the decedent's
12 successor in interest and is enforceable by the decedent's personal representative or, if none, by the
13 decedent's successors in interest; and the successors in interest, Plaintiffs, are expressly allowed to
14 recover damages for ALYCIA’S pain and suffering in a survival action as well as predeath pain and
15 suffering suffered by ALYCIA.
16 47. On April 18, 2022, ALYCIA died as the result of wounds received when GRAY
17 stabbed her multiple times in an act of torturous pain and agony while ALYCIA was still alive.
18 Despite the knowledge and awareness of the disturbing incidence of violence perpetrated with
19 weapons by trespassers on school grounds -- both nationally and within SUSD -- Defendants failed to
20 take reasonable safety and security steps to keep trespassers off school grounds and ALYCIA endured
21 the pain and suffering of being stabbed multiple times.
22 48. The conduct of Defendants SUSD, TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100,
23 inclusive, as well as other employees and/or agents of SUSD who are not named as Defendants herein,
24 and each of them, was tortious and the direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by
25 ALYCIA, as alleged above. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) Section 377.34
26 permits damages for ALYCIA’S pain, suffering, or disfigurement to be recovered in an action brought
27 by the DECEDENT’S personal representatives or successors in interest, such as Plaintiffs, which were
28

- 14 -
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 sustained and incurred for a measurable period of time by ALYCIA before her death. Plaintiffs bring
2 this survival action pursuant to CCP § 377.34 for ALYCIA’S pre-death pain and suffering.
3 //
4 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
5 WRONGFUL DEATH
6 (Against Defendants SUSD, TOLIVER, RAMREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive)
7 49. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation
8 contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action.
9 50. The present action is brought under section 377.60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for
10 the wrongful death of ALYCIA, which was caused by the willful, reckless, and negligent acts and
11 omissions of Defendants TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, as well as other
12 SUSD employees and/or agents not named as Defendants herein, each of whom was acting in the
13 course and scope of their employment and/or agency for Defendant SUSD at the time they committed
14 those acts or failed to act as alleged herein.
15 51. Sometime before and on April 18, 2022, Defendant SUSD and Defendants TOLIVER,
16 RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, as well as other SUSD employees and/or agents not
17 named as Defendants herein, each of whom was acting in the course and scope of their employment
18 and/or agency for Defendant SUSD at the time they committed those acts or failed to act, breached
19 various duties owed to Plaintiffs and ALYCIA. The breach of these various duties were a direct and
20 proximate cause of ALYCIA’s death by stabbing.
21 52. Defendant SUSD, by and through its employees and/or agents, and Defendants
22 TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, as well as other SUSD employees and/or
23 agents not named as Defendants herein, each of whom was acting in the course and scope of their
24 employment and/or agency for Defendant SUSD at the time they committed those acts or failed to act,
25 negligently failed to take reasonable steps to monitor and/or secure the access point that GRAY used
26 to enter the AASHS campus on April 18, 2022, negligently failed to supervise and train SUSD
27 employees and/or agents as to their duties and responsibilities with regard to safety and security,
28 negligently failed to formulate and/pr implement reasonable safety and security protocols, procedures,

- 15 -
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 and policies, and negligently failed to protect ALYCIA from a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm.
2 The unlocked gate to the parking lot and unsupervised entrance created a reasonably foreseeable risk
3 of harm which allowed the known threat of a violent intruder to enter campus and were direct and
4 proximate causes of ALYCIA’S stabbing and subsequent death.
5 53. Defendants SUSD, TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, each
6 had and breached the following duties:
7 a. A duty to train staff to recognize and report potential threats to student safety;
8 b. A duty to recognize when an entrance to campus is left unmonitored;
9 c. A duty to prevent trespassers with no legitimate business on campus from entering;
10 d. A duty to supervise students such that they are not placed in harm’s way
11 e. A duty to ensure deadly weapons are not brought onto campus;
12 f. A duty to keep campus access points secure.
13 Duty to use reasonable care to protect students from known or foreseeable dangers
14 (Government Code §§ 820, 815.2);
15 g. Duty to refrain from taking official action that contradicts the provisions of Article
16 1, §28(c) of the California Constitution;
17 h. Duty to enact protocols and procedures that are not in contravention of the Federal
18 Civil Rights Act, § 1983, and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution;
19 i. Duty to protect students and staff, and provide adequate supervision;
20 j. Duty to properly train teachers, athletic directors, athletic coaches, youth counselors,
21 mentors, administrators, security personnel and/or agents, and staff so that they are
22 aware of their individual responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe
23 environment;
24 k. Duty to supervise faculty and students and enforce rules and regulations prescribed
25 for schools, exercise reasonable control over students as is reasonably necessary to
26 maintain order, protect property, or protect the health and safety of faculty and students
27 or to maintain proper and appropriate conditions conducive to learning;
28

- 16 -
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 l. Duty to properly monitor campuses, prevent or correct harmful situations or call for
2 help when a situation is beyond their control;
3 m. Duty to ensure that security personnel are actually on hand and monitoring
4 campuses;
5 n. Duty to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable risks of harm such as violent
6 acts by unauthorized trespassers on campus;
7 o. Duty to supervise diligently;
8 p. Duty to properly monitor campus access points;
9 q. Duty to secure campus access points during school hours;
10 r. Duty to act promptly and diligently and not ignore or minimize problems; and
11 s. Duty to establish and implement various school safety and violence prevention
12 programs (Education Code § 234-234.4, Education Code Sections §§ 32280-32282,
13 32286, 32288; Education Code §§ 35294.1; 35294.10-35294.15; Education Code
14 §44276.1; Education Code §§44259, 44266, 44270, 44277, 44372).
15 53. The negligent and reckless acts and omissions of Defendant SUSD and Defendants
16 TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, as well as other SUSD employees and/or
17 agents not named as Defendants herein, carried out in the course and scope of their employment
18 and/or agency for Defendant SUSD were the direct and proximate cause of ALYCIA’S death. At the
19 time she was stabbed, ALYCIA was a vulnerable minor dependent on each and every Defendant for
20 her safety on the AASHS campus. Such acts and omissions have caused Plaintiffs to suffer the
21 permanent loss of their daughter's society, love, comfort, companionship, and other non-economic
22 damages for the loss of love of her daughter, and the loss of the companionship, care, comfort,
23 assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support.
24 54. Defendant SUSD is vicariously liable for the negligent and reckless acts and omissions
25 of its employees and/or agents Defendants TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100,
26 inclusive, as well as other employees and/or agents not named as Defendants herein.
27 55. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and recklessness, of
28 the Defendant SUSD and Defendants TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, as

- 17 -
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 well as other SUSD employees and/or agents not named as Defendants herein, and each of them,
2 Plaintiffs also seek an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5
3 which codifies the private attorney general doctrine. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 reads in
4 relevant part: “Upon motion, a court may award attorneys' fees to a successful party against one or
5 more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right
6 affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been
7 conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of
8 private enforcement…are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the
9 interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any…” Here, such fees are warranted because, upon
10 information and belief, Defendant SUSD will not act to protect students in their care to prevent further
11 trespasser violence against students on SUSD campuses unless and until an action such as the instant
12 one forces the Defendant SUSD to remedy the situation. Upon information and belief, incidents
13 following ALYCIA’S tragic death, Defendant SUSD has not changed its policies and children will
14 continue to be left unprotected from being the victims of violence perpetrated by trespassers.
15 //
16
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
17 Dangerous Condition of Property
(Against Defendants SUSD, TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive)
18
19 56. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporates by reference each of the allegations contained in
20 the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully alleged in this Cause of Action.
21 57. Pursuant to Government Code § 835, Defendant SUSD is liable for injury proximately
22 caused by a dangerous condition of its property where the condition created a reasonably foreseeable
23 risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and a negligent act and/or omission of a school
24 employee created the dangerous condition or the District had actual or constructive notice of the
25 dangerous condition.
26 58. Trespasser violence perpetrated upon students was not a random unforeseeable risk.
27 Schools and students on school campuses have often become the target of violence by trespassers both
28

- 18 -
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 nationally and in SUSD, and it was reasonably foreseeable to Defendants that an intruder may attempt
2 to enter the campus and commit violence upon students.
3 59. AASHS’ entire perimeter is surrounded by a metal fence, leaving one gate in the north
4 and one gate to the south as the only access points to campus. These gates can be locked, and are
5 supposed to be monitored at all times during school hours pursuant to SUSD policies, protocols, and
6 procedures. On the day of the attack, the south gate through which the killer entered was neither
7 locked nor monitored.
8 60. The failure of Defendant SUSD and Defendants TOLIVER, RAMIREZ, and DOES 1
9 through 100, inclusive, as well as other employees and/or agents not named as Defendants herein
10 within the purpose, scope, or course of their employment to maintain locked gates and monitored
11 entrances which would have secured the campus from entry by unauthorized persons, despite the
12 requirement of these measures and having the capability and personnel to carry them out, created a
13 dangerous condition of public property.
14 61. The unlocked gate to the parking lot and unsupervised entrance created a reasonably
15 foreseeable risk of harm from trespassers.
16 62. Upon information and belief, the conditions described above existed for a period of
17 time and were of such a nature that Defendants SUSD and its employees, agents, independent
18 contractors, volunteers and aides in the exercise of due care, knew or should have discovered the
19 condition and its dangerous character in adequate time before GRAY’S intrusion into the campus to
20 have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition. Defendants were also on constructive
21 notice that unsecured and unmonitored campus access points would lead to entry onto campus by
22 unauthorized persons which posed a risk of harm to students, thus it was foreseeable that the might
23 result in such harm, even in the absence of prior similar occurrences in Stockton Unified School
24 District.
25 58. As a direct and proximate cause of the lack of a locked and/or supervised access point
26 leading from the parking lot and , GRAY was able to gain unsupervised direct access to campus and
27 stab ALYCIA multiple times resulting in her death.
28

- 19 -
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 59. As a direct and proximate results of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs have been
2 damaged irreparably by the loss of their daughter, causing damage to their psychological and physical
3 health, and have incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses, all to their damage in a sum to
4 be shown according to proof and within the jurisdiction of this court.
5 //
6 //
7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
8
9 PRAYER
10 1. For past, present and future general damages according to proof;
11 2. For past, present and future economic, and special damages, according to proof;
12 3. For past, present, and future non-economic damages for the loss of love of her daughter,
13 and the loss of the companionship, care, comfort, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral
14 support of her daughter, Decedent ALYCIA herein;
15 4. For pre-death pain and suffering pursuant to Cal Civil Code Section 377.34.
16 5. For pre-majority medical expense.
17 6. For attorney’s fees pursuant to Cal Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5.
18 7. For costs of suit necessarily incurred herein; and
19 8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
20
21 Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.
22
23 Dated: March 3, 2023 GOETHALS LEGAL, PC
24
25
By: ______________________________
26
Joseph M. Goethals, Esq.
27 Charles P. Stone, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
28 JANE DT DOE

- 20 -
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES