Between 2009 and 2010, the plaintiff, a 14-year-old freshman student named Emily who attended Chino Hills High School, engaged in sexual activities with her 40-year-old science teacher, John Hirsch. Hirsch was arrested and convicted of unlawful sex with a minor. He subsequently served one year in jail. Emily sued Hirsch; his employer, the Chino Valley Unified School District; and the school’s principal, Carl Hampton. However, Hampton was dismissed from the case prior to trial and Hirsch had a default judgment entered against him. Thus, Emily alleged that trial that the school district was negligent in its retention and supervision of Hirsch. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the Chino Valley Unified School District learned of inappropriate emails sent by Hirsch to Emily in October 2009. Counsel contended that as a result, Hirsch was reprimanded and ordered to stay away from Emily, but within weeks, Hirsch ignored the order and continued to spend frequent time with Emily in his classroom for lunch. Counsel also contended that in February 2010, the school district informed Hirsch that he would not be rehired for the following school year. However, plaintiff’s counsel contended that before the school year was over, Hirsch began engaging in illegal sexual acts with Emily, both in the classroom and off school campus. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that despite knowing of the inappropriate emails the school district failed to take the proper steps to insure that Hirsch was staying away from Emily and even wrote Hirsch a complimentary recommendation in May 2010 so that he could obtain a position in another school district. In addition, counsel argued that due to the district’s failure to take appropriate action, in June 2010, Hirsch was caught using a ladder to try to climb into Emily’s bedroom at her home, which ultimately led to Hirsch’s arrest the next day. The school district counsel contended that both Hirsch and Emily were directed to stay away from each other when the emails were discovered, but that Emily ignored the directive and re-established contact with Hirsch. The district claimed that it appropriately reprimanded Hirsch, that its supervision of Hirsch was reasonable, and that it received no other complaints about him for the rest of the year. The district’s counsel noted that the letter of recommendation was written on May 27, 2010, by a vice principal who offered a personal opinion about Hirsch’s teaching skills. In addition, the district’s counsel argued that many of the acts of misconduct took place when Emily’s parents were charged with her supervision. However, the court would not permit a comparative fault argument with respect to Emily. The district’s counsel asserted that the court’s ruling appeared contrary to California law, in that comparative fault of a minor over the age of 5 is always a jury issue in a negligence action., Emily was 17 years old at the time of trial. She recently graduated from high school with very good grades and she will be going to college in August 2013. However, Emily claimed she suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Hirsch’s actions. As a result, she underwent therapy one to two times per week, on average, for the past three years. She also claimed that she will continue to require therapy. Thus, Emily claimed past medical damages of $5,000 and future medical damages of $80,000 for her additional therapy. She also sought recovery of an unspecified amount of damages for her past and future emotional distress. The district’s counsel disputed the nature and extent of the Emily’s alleged and damages.