.

Dmcri.ption
I

I,IICHAELJERNES |(. Clerkof the Superior Cou Dy Bortlett, fiuth Dputv Dte m/$A0Hlinel6:Xl:24

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9

Krnscn-GooDwtN & KrRsclr, PLLC 8900E. Pr,r'rRcle PEAK RoAD. SurE 250 gS2Ss ScotrsoauE, ARtzot\A (480)s85-0600 (480) Fru( 585-0622 HopeN. Kirsch, #018822 hope@koklaw.com ffiwin,#010233 lko@koklaw.com Attorneys Plaintiffs for

LAW OFFICES OF

8ffiE$ C1j20U{S689 SIUIL fl}FLAINI ffiU TOIflfiHIJI{T Receipt[ 445U45

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTOF THE STATEOF ARIZONA IN AND FORTHE COUNTY MARICOPA OF ERICNOYES and LESLIE NOYES, husband and wife,as Parents and Next Friend theirMinorChild, of T.N., Plaintiffs, vs. DEERVALLEYUNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 97; DESERT NO. SAGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; JOHNAND JANEDOESl-X;ABC BUSTNESS ENTITIES A-C;WHITE CORPORATIONS and BLACK l-V; PARTNERSHIPS I-V, Defendants.

2-055589 No. cv201

COMPLAINT (Tort, Non-Motor Vehicle: Assault and Batterv: False lmprisonment:

!X?S,i1fl5['5i'iff m]ff li{"ii"",ia, Distress)

Plaintiffs, ERICNOYES LESLIE and NOYES, husband wife,as Parents and 20 andNextFriend theirMinor of "the Chald, (collectively T.N. hereafter, Plaintiffs'), by
2l

andthrough undersigned counsel, andfor theirComplaint as against abovethe 22 named Defendants (collectively "the hereafter, Defendants'),.herein and state
23 24 25 26 1.

allege uponinformation belief foilows: and as NATURE THE.CASE OF.

This case arises injur,irEFrit3,?g$rorasa resurt beins from T.N. of

F\

RUN15

I 2 3 4
)

restrained secluded and whilea student Desert at SageElementary School within the DeerValley Unified School District, fromthefailures schoof district and of and staff/personnel administration intervene to report abuse. and to and the THEPART|ES, JUR|SD|CTION VENUE AND 2. Plaintiffs Noyes Leslie Eric and Noyes a married are couple the and parents guardians T.N.,a minor and of child.Theyareall,andat all relevant times were, residents anddomiciled theState Arizona, of in of Maricopa County. parents T.N.'s bring claim theirson'snextfriend, this as pursuant to Arizona Rules civil Procedure, 17(g), in theirownright. of Rule and 3. Defendant DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIOT 97 No. ('DVUSD") a public is school district located Maricopa in Coungand,as such, a public entity legally constituted within State Arizona. the of 5. Defendant DESERT SAGEELEMENTARY SCHOOL an elementary is school within DVUSD the and,as such, public a entity legally constituted within the Stateof Arizona. 6. On or about July16,2012, Plaintiffs timely served DVUSD Desert and SageElementary School pursuant A.R.S. witha Notice Claim of to Section 12821.01, whichno response received. to was 7. 4.

6 7 8 9 t0 il

t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9

DEfendants JOHN ANDJANE DOES ABCBUSINESS I.X, ENTITIES CORPORATIONS andBLACK 20 l-X,WHITE l-V, PARTNERSHIPS are,andat all l-V refevant times were,students andlor employees, agents, independent or alleging be acting 22 contractors to within scope. theiremployment the of andlor
2l

and/or concert the named in 23 agency with Defendants or whichmayhave who or 24 caused contributed theevents to alleged thisComplaint, anyamended in and or complaint, 25 supplemental and/or maybe liable Plaintiffs. to Plaintiffs amend will this
26 2

Complaint reflect truenames identities suchindividuals, to the and of partnerships andcorporations suchnames as become known. 8. All actsandomissions alleged herein occurred Maricopa in County, Arizona, of whichPlaintiffs' out claims arise. 9. Theamount controversy thismatter in in exceeds Court's the minimal jurisdictional limit. jurisdiction, 10. Personal jurisdiction venue proper subject matter and are in thisCourt.
11. T.N. is an eightyear old boy who was,at all relevant times,a student All incidents relevant this Complaint to took placeduringthe 2011to While T.N.wasa student Desert at SageElementary School, was he

2
a J

4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll l2 13 t4 l5 l6

enrolled DVUSDand attending in Desertsage Elementary school. 12, 2a'12 schoolyear when T.N.was in secondgradeand sevenyearsold. 13. provided various foodilemswhichhe wasnotallowed eatdueto severe to foodallergies. personnel knowledge hisfoodallergies. DVUSD had of Parents informed had DVUSD personnel T,N.foodallergies, example, of for ingesting foodscontaining sugar caused behavioral issues.Parents informed personnelthat wason a verystrict, DVUSD T.N. controlled andmustavoid diet allfoods cause allergic that an reaction. personnel School T.N.'s behavior could be impacted food. not by 14. 15' T.N.hada 504Plan thatsetforthT.N.,s allergies. parents T.N.'s informed personnel T.N.'s school of foodallergies and

t7
l8 l9

that foodallergies T.N.'s 20 stated T.N.'s and behavior weretwoseparate issues that and 2l 22 23 24

provided T.N.'s lunch a dailybasis ensure T.N.ateonlythefoodthathe was on to that School Program. personnel notinform DVUSD did Desert SageElementary School

personnel notprovide copyof T.N.'sfoodallergies theAfter DVUSD 25 provided. did a to 26

I 2
J

personnel thecafeteria T,N.'s in of foodallergies sometime January, until in 2012.T.N. was provided fooditemsin the Desert SageElementary School cafeteria cafeteria by staff which foods caused allergic reactions;this occurred a dailybasis, on 16. During 2010-2011and 1-2012 the 201 schoolyears,DesertSage Elementary Schoolhad a roomwith dimensions approximately feet by six feet, five and sevenfeet high,whichwas located the lowestfloorof the schoblbuilding. on The interior was paddedwith vinylcovered tack material.The roomhad no window. Therewas a ohe way visionpeep hold approximately feet abovethe five ground. A childinsidethe roomcouldnot see out of the roomoncethe doorwas closed. The room had no furniture. The said roomwill hereinafter referredto as be the "seclusion room." DVUSDhas referred the'seclusion to roomas the "cooldown room"and "CDR." 17. Defendants wouldpunish T.N.by grabbing and dragging down him him

4 5 6 7

8 9 l0 ll l2 13 t4

the hallway,forcinghis head down towardthe floor with two teacherson eitherside SarahGarner, on top of T.N. whilewalkinghim in this mannerand droppedT.N. fell on his head. Schoolpersonnelwould threaten T.N.with removing him to the cool downroom.. Schoolpersonnel punished T.N. by placinghim in the seclusion room. T.N.was put in the seclusion roomno lessthan eleven(11)timesby one account, (17)timesby anotheraccount, seventeen whileattending DesertSage Elementary removed from his classroom and placedin the seclusion room. Defendants placed the seclusion in room: the December 12,2011incident the January and 10, 2012incident.

1 5 of T.N. whichT.N. to fall on morethanone occasion, causinginjuries.One staff, l6 t7 l8 l9 20

2 1 School. Defendants investigated threeoccasions only whenT.N. was forcibly 22 to 23 reported T.N,'sparents only threeof the occasions that T.N. was restrained and 24 25 26

I 2
J

18. T.N.hadno human contact during placement theseclusion his in room andshowed signsof respiratory distress panicattacks. and 19. Defendants since have admitted failed notify it to parents T.N.'s about severaf the incidents incident January of an on 27,2012 thatDVUSD investigated. 20. provided DVUSD response a publicrecords Documents by in to / Freedom Inforrnation request of Act revealthat wasputin seclusion least T.N. at (11) eleven times.DVUSD revealed frequency closer seventeen has the was to (17),times. There mayin facthavebeenmanymoretimes. T.N.reports wasin he the seclusion roomfour(4)dayseveryweekbetween October oI2011and February 2012. 21. T.N.suffered multiple bruises scratches Defendants and from restraining andremoving to theseclusion him him room. Despite parents, T.N.'s repeated complaints Defendants to regarding T.N.'s foodandchemical aflergies andthe necessi$ refrain to fromgiving products him which contained sugar, food dyes,artificial sugar, otheritems whichhewasseverely and to allergic, Defendants disregarded parents' the instructions, ignored 504which the wasin place, and

4 5 6 7 8 9

l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6

to t 7 failed communicate T.N.'sparents with whenT.N.waspunished perceived for I E behavioral issues whenthe issues werea result T.N.'s of allergic response to unauthorized itemsconsumed food while school exposure chemical at and to usedto clean carpeting, 20 agents the bathrooms, tables other and areas of.the
l9 2l 22

school.

22:,. WhenT.N.hadbehavioral issues, would he suffer multiple scratches, 23 bruises, bruises hisankles thehands Defendants personally and to at of who and 24 physically restrained facedownon the floorforcing to inhale him him residue from
25 25 26

carpet cleaning chemicals whichhe is severely to allergic putting pressure and on hisback, andplaced in theseclusion him room.In oneincident, teachers

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

restrained T.N.'s armsandforced to walkto the isolation him roomwithhishead pointed theground. a result, to As T.N.tripped, hisheadandsuffered hit injuries, in partdueas wellto Sarah Garner falling topof T.N.. on 23. Defendants viotated T.N.'s 504,whichstated required he freshair. By forcing intotheseclusion him room, T.N.wasdenied freshair. Hewasatsodenied the useof a bathroom during seclusion hadtwiceurinated himself his and on when denied access a bathroom, whichhe wasreprimanded. 'behaviorist" to for The claimed wasurinating himself "getattention," T.N. on to apparently ignoring how humiliating actof urinating oneself for a littleboy. T.N.wasfurther the on is in frontof themafterhe wet himself.

and 1 0 humiliated embarrassed whenDefendants ordered T.N.to change clothes his

ll

24. During otherincidents, teachers threatened withseclusion. T.N. T.N. afraid the seclusion of 1 3 became room, difficulties had sleeping homeandwasin a at
T2 l4 l5 I6

constant stateof anxiety fearwhileattending and Desert SageElementary School. Defendants wouldthreaten T.N.withrestraint he did notgo withthemto the if

seclusion room.There weretimes whenthreeadults tookturnsholding T.N.down. wereotherincidents whenDefendants T 7 There would holdT.N.facedownon the
l8 t9

floor, causing to inhale him allergens chemicals. at least occasions, and On two T.N.wasforced eathislunch thefilthy to on floorin theseclusion roomandserved content.

chicken which wason hislistof "donoteat' because the highsugar 20 orange of

2l 22

25. Defendants violated DVUSD restraint seclusion policies and and For 23 procedures. instance, Defendants overused restraint seclusion the policy, and
24

parents the incidents. andfailed notify to T.N.'s of Defendants did notuse also

as 25 seclusion a "lastresort." Defendants threatened withseclusion. T.N. Other

26
6

l
7

students involved the sameor similar in incidents werenotsubjected threats to of seclusion, to restraint seclusion. wassingled for hisspecial or and T.N. out needs. 26. Defendants actions wereintended humiliate embarrass as to and T.N. evidenced refusal allowhimto usethe bathroom, by to forcing to change him in frontof a staffmember, on oneoccasion paraprofessional and a threatened to restrain outon thefieldin viewof everyone, proceeded do so,then T.N. then to dragged fromthefieldafteran incident another T.N. with boy. Theotherboywas nottreated thesamemanner. in 27. As a directand proximate resultof Defendants' repeated overly punitive actions falseimprisonment, missed on school, and T.N. out suffered nightmares, disturbance, stomach sleep and aches; hasbeenfrightened, he and hassuffered personal emotional serious and injuries.As a directresult the of

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll

t2

and t 3 emotional physical abuse suffered the hands Defendants, at of T.N.'s condition t 4 worsened.
l5 l6

parents 28. T.N.'s haveincurred, continue incur, areexpected to and to incur thefuture, in costs andexpenses, including educationaf medical and expense to a school outside area. his COUNT I ASSUALT ANDBATTERY

of harmas wellas transportation related sending t 7 fortreatment T.N.'s costs to him

l8 l9 20 2l

29. Plaintiffs incorporate reference foregoing by paragraphs all and as 22 allegations if fullysetforthherein. 30. Defendants' actions exceeded scope reasonable the of discipline and and 24 authority therefore amount an unauthorized to touching r.N. of
23 25 26

I
)

31. thatintent. 32. withT.N. 33.

Defendants' actions wereintended instill andapprehension to fear in

T.N.andto cause harmful offensive and contact T.N., with andT.N.wasaware of Defendants'actions in factcauseharmful offensive did and contact Defendants'actions amount common assault offensive to law and

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2

touching battery. 34. As a direct proximate and cause Defendants' of actions, suffered T.N. damages whicharelikely continue thefuture. to in COUNT II FALSE IMPRISONMENT

35. Plaintiffs incorporate reference foregoing by paragraphs all and as t 3 allegations if fullysetforthherein.
l4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20

36.

Defendants actedintentionallyplacing in T.N.in theseclusion room

andforcing to remain him permission leave. there without to 37. Defendants acted without lawful authority without and T.N.or his parents' consent placing there in him Defendants' resulted the directrestraint liberty freedom acts in of or of movement, actualandfearof force. by 38.

39. Defendants'failure to prevent frombeing T.N. placed keptin that and roomandtakingawayhisliberty freedom movement 2 l seclusion and of was in 22 participationfalseimprisonment.
23 24 25 26

40.

Defendants'actions cause reasonably would prudent a person the in

samesituation T.N.to believe he wasrestrained. as that 41. T.N.wasaware therestraint. of

I 2
a

42, All the Defendants participatedtheactof falseimprisonment in by aiding another failing prevent stopthefalseimprisonmentT.N. one and to or of 43. As a direct proximate and cause Defendants'actions, suffered of T.N. damages which likely continue thefuture. are to in couNT ill NEGLIGENCE 44. Plaintitfs incorporate reference paragraphs by allforegoing and allegations if fullysetforthherein. as 45. Defendants owedT.N.a dutyof carenotonlyas theirstudent as a but person legally theirpremises. on . 46. As a result the incidents occurred the saidDefendants' of that on premises during school hours saidDefendants'actions inactions, and and including

4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l1 t2 l3

ignoring directives regarding allergies, suffered T.N. allergic reactions, T.N. and and t 4 wasattacked seriously injured continues suffer and to fromproblems direcfly 1 5 proximately related the attack occurred Desert to that at SageElementary School
l6 t7 l8 l9 20

andon its property. 47. SaidDefendants breached dutyof careto T.N.andhisparents their by allowing theseactsto occur, failing takeaction prevent to to suchactsfrom occurring failing timely and parents. to notiffT.N.'s 48. SaidDefendants breached dutyof careby failing have their to

and 2 1 adequate proper superuision students, of failing abideby directives avoid to to to 22 exposure chemical foodallergens, allowing attacks occur. and and the to
23 24 25 t t t 26 l t t
9

49. As a direct proximate and cause Defendants' of breaches, T.N. suffered damages which likely continue thefuture. are to in

I 2
J

COUNTIV GROSSNEGLIGENCE 50. Plaintiffs incorporate reference foregoingparagraphs by all and

4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11

allegations if fully forth as set herein.

Defendants, locoparenfrrs, professionals tn are charged caring with for andprotecting health, the welfare safety the youngstudents. and of 52. Defendants grossly were negligent allowing to be exposed in T.N. to chemical foodallergens. and 53. Defendants grossly were negligent allowing to be repeatedly in T.N. restrained forcibly placed seclusion. and in 54. Defendants grossly were negligent failing contact in to parents T.N.'s to problems. behavior 55. Defendants' conduct allowing in exposure foodandchernical to 51.

about themof eachincident failing address causes T.N.'s 1 2 notifo and to the of
l3 14

was 1 5 allergens willful, wanton donewithreckless and disregard the result, the to or
t6 17 l8 l9 20 2l 22

rightor safety thisyoung of gross boy,constituting negligence. 56. Defendantsr actions restraint seclusion theiractions of and and subsequent willful, were wanton donewithreckless and disregard the result, to or the rightor safety thisyoungboy,constituting of grossnegligence. 57. Defendants' actions wereintentionally malicious theirwillful and

miscondu" T::::J,I#l:i:':[::.

nesrisence, r N suffered damages

y couNT

are 23 which likely continue thefuture. to in

24 25 26 59. pISTRESS TNTENTTONAL tNFLtCTtON FMOT|ONAL OF Plaintiffs incorporate reference foregoingparagraphs by atl and
l0

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

allegations if fullysetforthherein. as Defendants knewor should haveknown T.N.is a special that needs student problems sociat with with skills and,among otherproblems, sensory issues. Defendants knewtheirconduct involved unreasonable of an risk causing emotional T.N. distress. 62. Defendants' conduct extreme, was intentional, outrageous, was and performed reckless in disregard thenearcertainty suchdistress of that wouldresult fromits conduct. 63. T.N.andhisparents in factsustain did severe emotional distress a as 64. As a direct proximate and result Defendants'actions omissions, of and T.N.andhisparents havesuffered continue suffer and to substantial and COUNT VI LOSSOF CONSORTIUM 65. Plaintiffs incorporate reference paragraphs by allforegoing and allegations if fullysetforthherein. as 66. As a direct proximate and result Defendants' of actions inactions, and Plaintiffs Noyes Eric andLeslie Noyes havesuffered continue suffera lossof and to consortium. pray WHEREFORE Plaintiffs forjudgment against Defendants, eachof and A. B. C. Forcompensatory, special general and damages; Forcosts, expenses experts and feesandcosts; Forattorneys' fees,if allowed under statutory common any or law authority; 61. 60.

of wrongful t 0 result Defendants' conduct.

ll t2

damages which likely continue thefuture. are 1 3 irreparable to in

T4 l5 l6 t7 18 t9 20 2l

as 22 them, follows:
23 24 25 26

D. E.

Forpre-andpost-judgment interest the highest at legalrateavailable on allamounts possible untilpaid; fromtheearliest date and Forsuchandfurther relief theCourt as deems appropriate. t17 DATED this l2 tnd.y of September, 2012. KIRSCH.GOODWIN & KIRSCH. PLLC

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 l3 l4 15 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26

8900 E. Pinnacle PeakRoad,Suite250 Scottsdale, Arizona85255 Attorneysfor Plai ntifts