Roe

Roe v. Hesperia Unified School Dist.

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 4, 2022E075092California7,344 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

“This case comes to us at the demurrer stage, so for present purposes we assume

the truth of the allegations in the” operative pleading. (Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021)

11 Cal.5th 204, 209 (Brown).)

From August 2018 through January 2019, plaintiffs were six-year-old first grade

students who attended Maple Elementary School (Maple) within the District. The

District receives financial assistance from the federal government.

Pedro Martinez worked at Maple as a janitor and had worked there since 2005.

Martinez’s position as a janitor did not require him to have any one-on-one contact with

the students.

Martinez engaged in a variety of activities with the students that plaintiffs

characterize as “‘grooming’ activities” that were “designed to lure minor students,

including [p]laintiffs, into a false sense of security around him.” Martinez befriended

young boys, gave plaintiffs sweet treats, showed plaintiffs video games on YouTube,

showed plaintiffs videos of Mickey Mouse, referred to his penis to plaintiffs as “‘Mickey

In the opening brief, appellants mistakenly refer to the minor plaintiff David Roe as Luke Roe. According to the allegations in the third…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.