Between 2009 and 2017, the plaintiffs, consisting of four minor, female students at Dartmouth Middle School, in San Jose, regularly spent time alone with the school’s music teacher/band director, Samuel Neipp, in his classroom. The students claimed that Neipp began grooming them on separate occasions by sending them text messages and emails, and spending time alone with each of them in his classroom and office. One of the students claimed that Neipp abused her from 2009 until 2011 and that the abuse consisted of oral copulation and digital penetration. Another student claimed that between 2010 and 2011, Neipp sent her inappropriate text messages and inappropriately hugged her while they were alone in his office. A third student claimed that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted in Mr. Neipp’s office during the 2015-2016 school year. In addition, a fourth student claimed that Neipp abused her from 2014 to 2017, and that the abuse consisted of sexual intercourse, oral copulation and digital penetration. In 2017, Neipp was arrested and charged with several felonies related to the alleged sexual abuse of the students. He ultimately pleaded no contest and he was sentenced to 52 years in prison. The student who was abused between 2014 and 2017, acting by and through her guardian ad litem, sued Neipp; the operator of Dartmouth Middle School, the Union School District; the school district’s former superintendent, Jacqueline Horejs; the district’s former assistant superintendent and human resources operator, Mary Berkey; and the middle school’s former principal, Carole Carlson. The student alleged that Neipp’s actions constituted sexual assault and that the remaining defendants were negligent in the supervision and retention of Neipp. The student who was abused between 2009 and 2011 brought a separate lawsuit against Neipp and the school district. She also alleged that Neipp’s actions constituted sexual assault and that the district was negligent in its supervision and retention of Neipp. The student who was subjected to inappropriate behavior in 2010 and 2011, and the student who sexually assaulted during the 2015-2016 school year, by and through her guardian ad litem, brought their own separate lawsuit against Neipp, Horejs, Berkey, Carlson and the school district. They also alleged that Neipp’s actions constituted sexual assault and that the remaining defendants were negligent in their supervision and retention of Neipp. The three matters were consolidated. Several of the school district’s staff were dismissed from the case, and Neipp did not respond to complaints, as he was in prison. In addition, the claims brought by the student who was subjected to inappropriate behavior in 2010 and 2011, and the student who sexually assaulted during the 2015-2016 school year were resolved separately prior to trial. Thus, the matter only proceeded to trial against the Union School District with the claims of the student who was abused between 2014 and 2017, and the student who was abused between 2009 and 2011. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the school district failed to properly supervise Neipp and failed to terminate his employment after receiving complaints about him. Specifically, counsel contended that in 2010, the district’s administrators received concerns from a parent about Neipp sending inappropriate text messages to her 13-year-old daughter. Counsel also contended that in 2013, the middle school’s principal (Carlson) and other school district administrators received concerns from another parent about Neipp sending inappropriate text messages to her 13-year-old daughter (a different student). Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that despite the reported concerns about Neipp over the years, the school district did not increase its supervision of Neipp or the students and that, instead, the school district granted Neipp tenure and recognized him as "Teacher of the Year." The school district’s counsel denied that the school district was liable, and argued that the school district properly supervised the perpetrator of the abuse, Neipp, as well as the students., The plaintiffs each claimed that they suffered emotional distress as a result of their respective sexual assaults. The plaintiffs each sought recovery of damages for their respective past and future emotional pain and suffering. The school district’s counsel disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiffs’ alleged emotional .