The Awareness Center, Inc. (International Jewish Coaltion Against Sexual Assault): Case of Blake Sinrod

Case of Blake Sinrod
(AKA: Blake F. Sinrod, Blake Farrell Sinrod)

Account Manager - Modcomp Systems & Solutions, Deerfield Beach, FL
Lake Worth, FL
Palm Beach, FL
Delray Beach, FL
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Boynton Beach, FL

Teacher - Coral Sunset Elementary School, Boca Raton, FL

Teacher - Whispering Pines Elementary School, Boca Raton, FL
Camp Counselor - Adolph and Rose Levis Jewish Community Center, Boca Raton
Student Teacher - Calusa Elementary School, Miami, FL
Student Teacher - Indian Pines Seventh-Day Adventist School, Old Westbury, NY

Sales Associate - Sinrod Marketing & Associates, Boca Raton, FL

Former Student - Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL
Former Student - Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL
Former Student - Dean College, Franklin, MA
Former Student - Hicksville High School, HIcksville, NY

Arrested and charged with molesting two students in his elementary classroom. It has been reported that there might be eight other victims as well. Sinrod faces five felony counts on charges.

It appears that Sinrod targeted children of non-English-speaking parents so they would have a hard time reporting it.

Sinrod has worked at Coral Sunset since 1999. Before that, he was a student teacher at Whispering Pines Elementary west of Boca Raton during the spring 1999 semester. He received a teaching degree from Florida Atlantic University in April 1999 and a liberal arts degree from Lynn University in Boca Raton in 1993.

Before becoming a teacher, he served as a camp counselor in 1998 at the Adolph and Rose Levis Jewish Community Center, west of Boca Raton. He also worked in sales at a Town Center mall shoe store and at Sinrod Marketing & Associates, according to his school district application.

Blake Sinrod was born in 1971. He currently lives in Boca Raton. Before that, he lived in Lake worth, FL.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: Inclusion in this website does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement. Individuals must decide for themselves if the resources meet their own personal needs.

Table of Contents:

2005

Coral Sunset teacher accused of molesting students (09/15/2005)
Teacher Arrested for Touching Students (09/15/2005)
Parents in abuse case hire lawyer (09/16/2005)
Boca Teacher Charged With Molesting Girls In Class (09/16/2005)
Teacher charged in abuse of girls (09/16/2005)
Lawyer alleges more abuse by teacher (09/17/2005)
Teacher Accused Of Molesting Girls (09/17/2005)
West Boca teacher investigated in 4 cases of possible molestation (09/20/2005)
Teacher Faces Ongoing Inquiry (09/20/2005)

2012

Doe Doe Mother v. Sinrod (05/30/2012)

2013

District Court of Appeals Of The State of Florida (05/08/2013)

2014

Blake Sinrod on Facebook (01/31/2014)

_______________________________________________________________________________

Coral Sunset teacher accused of molesting students

By Dani Davies

Palm Beach Post - Thursday, September 15, 2005

A teacher charged with molesting two of his third-grade Coral Sunset Elementary students during classes this spring turned himself in to authorities Wednesday night.

The five charges of lewd and lascivious molestaton allege that Blake Sinrod touched the then 9-year-old girls under their clothing "between January 1, 2005 and May 9, 2005."

Sinrod, 34, was taken out of the classroom after the allegations surfaced in May. Since then, he's been working at one of the district's bus compounds handling paperwork, according to district spokesman Nat Harrington.

He graduated from Florida Atlantic University in 1999 and taught at Whispering Pines, Indian Pines and Calusa elementary schools before coming to Coral Sunset Elementary.

On May 9, one of the students told her mother that Sinrod had touched her between her legs, according to an arrest report released Thursday.

School district police began questioning other students in the class, as well as Sinrod.

"Sinrod denied ever touching the victim. He was appalled at the accusation and said he will cooperate," the detective wrote.

Sinod's attorney, Mark Wilensky, declined to respond to specific allegations Thursday but said that his client would enter a plea of not guilty.

He added that many of Sinrod's supporters, "including numerous people with school-age children" appeared in Judge William Bollinger's courtroom Thursday morning for Sinrod's hearing.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Teacher Arrested for Touching Students

By : Elizabeth Turner

WPEC News 12 - September 15, 2005

Two nine year old girls say their third grade teacher inappropriately touched them.

Until the accusations surfaced Blake Sinrod taught third grade at Coral Sunset Elementary in West Boca. Now he faces five first degree felony charges of molestation.

After the first girl came forward cops talked to other students.

The police report stated "{The student} has also seen other girls in his class rub Sinrod's back and neck. Sinrod does not ask any of the boys to rub his neck and back." The report also says Sinrod denied the claims.

Parents whose students attend the school are shocked.

"It's really scary. Really. I have three children that went to that school. I'm just thanking God they didn't have him.

The school district had moved Sinrod to a job away from kids. After Sinrod turned himself in, he bonded out. We were unable to reach Sinrod or his lawyers.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Parents in abuse case hire lawyer

Coral Sunset teacher faces five felony counts

By Scott Travis, Education Writer

Sun-Sentinel.com, FL - September 17, 2005

Parents of two Coral Sunset Elementary students have hired a lawyer to represent their children, who police say were molested by their third-grade teacher.

The attorney, Charles Bechert of Pompano Beach, said he also represents the parents of two other children. These parents say the teacher, Blake Sinrod, also touched their children inappropriately at Coral Sunset, west of Boca Raton.

Bechert said he is baffled as to why school police have only charged Sinrod with molesting two children. School police referred questions to district spokesman Nat Harrington, who said he didn't know whether police were investigating allegations of abuse involving other children.

Sinrod, 34, of Delray Beach, faces five felony counts on charges that he molested the girls between Jan. 1 and May 9. He surrendered to police early Thursday morning and was released that day. Neither Sinrod, nor his lawyer, Mark Wilensky, could be reached Friday, although Wilensky said Thursday that his client will plead not guilty. Sinrod has worked a job with no student contact since May, Harrington said.

Parents of three of the girls met with the news media at Bechert's law office Friday night. Bechert and the parents said they think Sinrod targeted the children because they are immigrants. The parents have limited English skills and might not know how to report crimes to authorities, the lawyer said. Bechert would not allow the parents to identify themselves to the media.

The mother of one of the girls said she noticed her daughter was upset earlier this year.

"She was crying all the time for no reason," the mother said.

The investigation started May 9, when one of the girls told her mother that Sinrod had been touching her inappropriately in a reading group since January. The next day, district officials reassigned Sinrod.

On May 11, the girl conducted an interview with a caseworker at a shelter for abused children. The next day, investigators went to the school to begin talking to children in the reading group. The investigation continued over the next week.

Bechert accused a school police investigator of "dragging his feet," essentially taking a summer break. Harrington denied that, saying the investigation continued through the summer.

Bechert said parents have not been properly informed about what's happening in the case. They've requested a meeting with Principal Gary Hagermann, but were turned down.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Boca Teacher Charged With Molesting Girls In Class

WPBF Channel.com, FL - September 16, 2005

BOCA RATON, Fla. -- A third-grade teacher is accused of molesting two 9-year-old girls in his Boca Raton classroom.

Blake Sinrod faces five felony counts of lewd and lascivious molestation for inappropriately touching the girls between January and May. District spokesman Nat Harrington said Sinrod was reassigned out of the classroom when the allegations surfaced four months ago.

Police said they have questioned the teacher and other students in the class at Coral Sunset Elementary School. A detective said that Sinrod was appalled at the accusation and said that he will cooperate with authorities.

The teacher is out of jail on $50,000 bond. His attorney said Sinrod will plead not guilty.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Teacher charged in abuse of girls

The third-grade teacher in suburban Boca Raton is free on $50,000 bond.

By Dani Davies, Christina DeNardo Palm Beach Post Staff Writers

Palm Beach Post, FL - Friday, September 16, 2005

A teacher charged with molesting two of his third-grade Coral Sunset Elementary students during classes last spring turned himself in to authorities late Wednesday.

The five charges of lewd and lascivious molestation allege that Blake Sinrod touched the then 9-year-old girls under their clothing between Jan. 1 and May 9.

Sinrod, 34, was taken out of the classroom after the allegations surfaced in May. Since then, he has been working at one of the district's bus compounds handling paperwork, district spokesman Nat Harrington said.

On May 9, one of his students told her mother that Sinrod had been touching her between her legs and on her chest, according to an arrest report released Thursday. School district police questioned the teacher and other students in the class at the suburban Boca Raton school.

"Sinrod denied ever touching the victim. He was appalled at the accusation and said he will cooperate," the detective wrote.

The charges indicate Sinrod put one girl's hand on his groin over his clothing and touched her inappropriately under her clothing. He allegedly touched the other girl under her clothing, as well.

Other students told investigators that Sinrod sometimes told girls to massage his back and neck. One student said he saw Sinrod rub the victim's arm while she sat at the reading table. Another said he saw the teacher rub a girl on her stomach under her shirt while she was sitting on his lap or on one of his legs.

Parents, who have hired an attorney, say they are frustrated that the teacher wasn't jailed sooner, that the principal hasn't met with them and that Sinrod hasn't been fired.

Harrington said the district cannot discipline or withhold pay from employees who are arrested until after the courts decide the case.

"They are innocent until proven guilty," Harrington said.

The parents' attorney, Charles Bechert III, said he represents 10 students who claim Sinrod inappropriately touched them, though none has filed suit. All have received counseling from therapists and still attend the school.

One girl's mother who learned about the abuse when the detective contacted her said she was surprised her daughter didn't tell her. Looking back, she says she wishes she had noticed changes in her child's behavior.

"My daughter was crying all the time. She said, 'Mom, I don't want to get married. I don't want to have kids. I just want to have my cats,' " she said.

Her daughter told her Sinrod sometimes touched girls in front of other students.

The parents say they believe the abuse happened every day in class, sometimes during reading time in Sinrod's portable classroom. They ask that other parents who suspect abuse report it.

Sinrod graduated from Florida Atlantic University in 1999 and was a student-teacher at Whispering Pines, Indian Pines and Calusa elementary schools before joining the Coral Sunset faculty.

Bechert said he believes Sinrod targeted children of non-English-speaking parents so they would have a hard time reporting it.

One father said his daughter seems different since Sinrod's class.

"She doesn't sleep well," he said. "She is quiet. She's scared, you know?"

Harrington acknowledged parental frustration but said officials cannot discuss open cases.

"This investigation is a very sensitive thing and no one would want to jeopardize it by talking about it publicly," he said.

The district plans to conduct a review following Sinrod's arrest and could place him in a different position in the district away from children. In rare cases, the district may ask an employee to stay home on paid leave.

A new system that flags employees under investigation for misconduct with students will ensure that Sinrod won't work with students, Harrington said. The system, which allows schools to check the status of employees, was developed after a high school teacher accused of molesting students got a job coaching at one of the county's high schools.

Sinrod went into teaching after a career in sales and marketing. At Coral Sunset, he received satisfactory marks from his supervisor, according to his most recent evaluations.

He had been a member of the Just Say No club and helped with the school's soccer team.

Sinrod's lawyer, Mark Wilensky, declined to respond to specific allegations Thursday but said that his client would enter a plea of not guilty. He added that many of Sinrod's supporters, "including numerous people with school-age children," appeared in Judge William Bollinger's courtroom Thursday morning for Sinrod's bond hearing.

Sinrod was released on $50,000 bond.

Staff researcher Krista Pegnetter contributed to this story.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Lawyer alleges more abuse by teacher

By Scott Travis, Education Writer

Sentinel Sun - September 17, 2005

Parents of two Coral Sunset Elementary students have hired a lawyer to represent their children, who police say were molested by their third-grade teacher.

Parents of three of the girls met with the news media at Bechert's law office Friday night. Bechert and the parents said they believe Sinrod targeted the children because they are immigrants. The parents have limited English skills and may not know how to report crimes to authorities, the lawyer said. Bechert would not allow the parents to identify themselves to the media.

The mother of one of the girls said she noticed her daughter was upset earlier this year.

"She was crying all the time for no reason," the mother said.

On May 11, the girl had an interview with a caseworker at a shelter for abused children. The next day, investigators began talking to children in the reading group. The investigation continued over the next week.

Bechert accused a school police investigator of "dragging his feet," essentially taking a summer break. Harrington denied that, saying the investigation continued through the summer.

Bechert said parents have not been properly informed about what's happening in the case. They've requested a meeting with Principal Gary Hagermann, but were turned down.

Hagermann couldn't be reached.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Teacher Accused Of Molesting Girls

The Ledger - September 17, 2005

A third-grade teacher has been accused of molesting two 9-year-old girls in his classroom.

Blake F. Sinrod, 34, faces five felony counts of lewd and lascivious molestation for inappropriately touching the girls between January and May. He was reassigned out of the classroom when the allegations surfaced four months ago, an official said.

On May 9, one of Sinrod's students told her mother that Sinrod had been touching her between her legs and on her chest, according to an arrest report.

Other students told investigators that Sinrod sometimes told girls to massage his back and neck. One student said he saw the teacher rub a girl on her stomach under her shirt while she was sitting on his lap, according to reports.

Sinrod, who was released from jail on $50,000 bail after his Wednesday arrest, will plead not guilty, said his lawyer, Mark Wilensky.

_______________________________________________________________________________

West Boca teacher investigated in 4 cases of possible molestation

By Scott Travis, Education Writer

Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel, FL - September 20, 2005

Teacher Blake Sinrod has been charged with molesting two students in his elementary classroom, but school police think there might be two other victims as well.

Palm Beach County School police spoke to four third-grade girls at Coral Sunset Elementary, west of Boca Raton, who reported that Sinrod, 34, touched them inappropriately, according to a police report.

Although school police found probable cause to recommend charges against Sinrod in all four cases, the State Attorney's Office filed charges involving just two of the girls, School District spokesman Nat Harrington said. He said he didn't know why. An attorney for the girls' families said it might have been because there were no direct witnesses.

The case is "an ongoing investigation" said State Attorney's spokesman Michael Edmondson, who would not discuss details of the other allegations.

"There were allegedly a number of potential victims. Law enforcement was able to make cases on a few," Edmondson said. "If there are any additional victims, they should report to law enforcement."

Harrington said the district's investigation is not expanding beyond the four girls.

"No additional students have come forward," he said.

Sinrod, of Delray Beach, faces five felony charges accusing him of molesting two 9-year-old girls between Jan. 1 and May 9. He surrendered to police early Thursday morning and was released that day. His attorney, Mark Wilensky, declined to comment Monday evening. Sinrod has worked a job with no student contact since May.

The four girls all paint similar pictures of what happened with Sinrod, according to police reports. They described the teacher touching their private parts during a reading group or classroom movie. Some of the girls said they gave him neck rubs, and some said Sinrod instructed them to place their hand on his genital area outside his clothes, according to the report. Three of the girls reported that the alleged activity began in January 2005. A police report did not give a time frame for the fourth girl, whose allegations did not result in charges.

Attorney Charles Bechert of Pompano Beach, who represents parents of the four children, said he is disappointed that more charges haven't been filed. He said he was not aware of any witnesses who could back up the stories of the two latest children.

"Having dealt with sex crimes in the past, from the State Attorney's office perspective, they are one of the most difficult cases to prosecute," he said. "Palm Beach County is not as rigorous as some other counties about filing. They only take the ones that they think they have a lock with."

He received a rating of acceptable, the highest attainable, on all of his evaluations. No areas of concern were listed.

Staff Writer John Cote contributed to this report.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Teacher Faces Ongoing Inquiry
By Scott Travis and John Cote
Sun Sentinel - September 20, 2005

Teacher Blake Sinrod has been charged with molesting two students in his elementary classroom, but school police think there might be two other victims as well.

The case is "an ongoing investigation" said State Attorney's spokesman Michael Edmondson, who would not discuss details of the other allegations.

"There were allegedly a number of potential victims. Law enforcement was able to make cases on a few," Edmondson said. "If there are any additional victims, they should report to law enforcement."

Harrington said the district's investigation is not expanding beyond the four girls.

"No additional students have come forward," he said.

He received a rating of acceptable, the highest attainable, on all of his evaluations. No areas of concern were listed.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Doe Doe Mother v. Sinrod
FindLaw - May 30, 2012

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fourth District.

Jane DOE, a minor child, by and through Jane DOE'S MOTHER and Jane Doe's Father, as her Parents and Natural Guardians, and Jane Doe's Mother and Jane Doe's Father, individually, Appellants, v. Blake F. SINROD and Palm Beach County School Board a/k/a School District of Palm Beach County, Appellees.

No. 4D11–557.

-- May 30, 2012

Marc A. Wites of Wites & Kapetan, P.A., Lighthouse Point, for appellants. Shannon P. McKenna of Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer, P.A., Hollywood, for appellees.

Appellant, Jane Doe, appeals the trial court's final order of dismissal with prejudice granting appellee's, Palm Beach County School Board (“School Board”), motion to dismiss her amended complaint. We hold that the trial court did not err in dismissing with prejudice Doe's claims against the School Board because she failed to comply with the time limitations placed on her asserted claims and did not satisfy the pre-suit notice requirements. We affirm.

On September 13, 2010, appellant filed a complaint against the Palm Beach County School Board and School Board employee, Blake Sinrod. On October 25, 2010, an amended complaint against the same was filed. The amended complaint alleged that Sinrod, a second-grade teacher in Palm Beach County, sexually assaulted and molested his student, seven-year-old Jane Doe, while in his role as a School Board employee. The incident occurred in May of 2003. Doe's father reported the incident to the school's vice principal the next day and the administrator allegedly did not believe Doe and refused to investigate the allegations. The vice principal also would not transfer Doe to another class and threatened to call the truancy officer if Doe did not attend the class.

In her amended complaint, Doe claimed that the vice principal of the school acted with deliberate indifference in failing and refusing to investigate the complaint and that her parents were left with no alternative other than to remove her from the school and relocate to another school district. As a result, Doe alleged emotional injury. Doe argued that she complied with the notice requirements of section 768.28, Florida Statutes, by noticing the School Board and the Florida Department of Financial Services of their claims on January 29, 2010. The claims against Sinrod were assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claims against appellee, the School Board were a violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq., negligent supervision, negligent retention, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Both the School Board and Sinrod filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Relevant to this appeal is the School Board's motion to dismiss. The School Board moved to dismiss based on the statute of limitations time-barring the claims. Specifically, the School Board claimed that Doe failed to comply with the notice requirements of section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes. According to the School Board's motion to dismiss, a four-year statute of limitations existed for the action. Therefore, Doe must have filed her complaint by May of 2007. However, Doe did not file her complaint until September of 2010, over three years after the four-year period expired. Additionally, the School Board alleged that Doe's claims were barred for failure to comply with notice requirements under section 768.28(6)(a). The statute requires those bringing claims against the state or a state agency to provide notice in writing to the agency and Florida Department of Financial Services within three years after the claim accrued. Doe did not place the School Board on notice until January 2010. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court entered an order granting the School Board's motion to dismiss Doe's amended complaint with prejudice. This appeal followed.

Appellate courts review a trial court order granting a motion to dismiss with prejudice using the de novo standard of review. Garnac Grain Co. v. Mejia, 962 So.2d 408, 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Doe argues that her claims are not time-barred, pursuant to section 95.11(7), Florida Statutes, because her claims are based on the abuse of a minor. The School Board contends that section 768.28(14), Florida Statutes, governs whether Doe's claims are time-barred, not section 95.11(7). Doe relies on section 95.11(7), limitations for intentional torts based on abuse, to support her argument that she had seven years from the time she reached the age of majority, rather than four years from the accrual of the cause of action, to file her complaint.

Section 95.11(7), titled “For Intentional Torts Based on Abuse,” provides that:

An action founded on alleged abuse ․ may be commenced at any time within 7 years after the age of majority, or within 4 years after the injured person leaves the dependency of the abuser, or within 4 years from the time of discovery by the injured party of both the injury and the causal relationship between the injury and the abuse, whichever occurs later.

§ 95.11(7), Fla. Stat. (2011).

Section 768.28(14)1 provides that:

Every claim against the state or one of its agencies or subdivisions for damages for a negligent or wrongful act or omission pursuant to this section shall be forever barred unless the civil action is commenced by filing a complaint in the court of appropriate jurisdiction within 4 years after such claim accrues․

§ 768.28(14), Fla. Stat. (2011).

The two statutes argued are applied to two different types of torts. Section 95.11(7) applies to intentional torts committed by an individual, while section 768.28 applies to negligent torts committed by the state or one of its agencies. Here, the causes of action against appellee, the School Board, were all in negligence—supervision, retention, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The causes of action against Sinrod, who is not a party to this appeal, were intentional torts. Doe argues that because she was abused under the definition provided by section 39.01(2), Florida Statutes,2 section 95.11(7) governs her claims. The School Board contends that a state agency can only be sued to the extent that sovereign immunity is waived, as noted in section 768.28. We agree with the position of the School Board.

In Rodriguez v. Favalora, 11 So.3d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), the court held that a minor child who has been abused should be protected from having his or her claim dismissed due to failure to bring the cause of action within a four-year period. Id. at 397. Our supreme court has explained that a child may suffer from shock or experience emotions which may cause him or her to suppress the abuse from his or her mind. Hearndon v. Graham, 767 So.2d 1179, 1186 (Fla.2000). While this is not the case here, as Doe immediately reported the abuse to her parents and the school, Hearndon provides that a child should not, as a result of this reaction to abuse, be denied the opportunity to bring a claim against his or her attacker. See id. These cases are distinguished from the instant case because the former victims did not seek to bring claims against state agencies and, instead, sought to bring claims against private individuals.

Section 768.28(14) sets forth limitations for negligent tort claims involving state agencies, while section 95.011 provides that a civil action is barred unless it is brought within the time provided in chapter 95, unless a different time is stated elsewhere in the Florida Statutes. § 768.28(14); § 95.011, Fla. Stat. (2011). Section 768.28 provides a four-year statute of limitations, whereas section 95.11 gives the minor victim of intentional abuse a longer period to bring a claim. According to the language in section 95.011, time limitations set forth under chapter 95 are secondary to those listed under other chapters. As such, the time limitation under chapter 768 should control. Additionally, section 768.28(14) bars negligence claims against state agencies, unless the action is filed within four years from the accrual of the claim. § 768.28(14). Section 768.28(14) makes two exceptions, neither of which have any effect on relevant sections of chapter 95.

Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Menendez, 584 So.2d 567 (Fla.1991), further explains that when “a governmental entity subject to the waiver of sovereign immunity” is involved, chapter 768, rather than chapter 95, governs for purposes of that entity. Id. at 569. The Supreme Court of Florida held in Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. State ex rel. Allen, 219 So.2d 430 (Fla.1969), that “[a] county school board is part of the state system of public education ․ and has been held to be a state agency for the purpose of immunity from suit.” Id. at 432. Therefore, the School Board is a governmental entity, subject to the waiver of sovereign immunity. As such, the time limitations in section 768.28 are applicable, rather than those set forth under section 95.11.

Doe also argues that the tolling provisions under section 95.11(7), Florida Statutes, should apply to the notice provisions set forth under section 768.28(6)(a). The School Board explains that the heading of section 95.11(7), For “Intentional Torts Based on Abuse,” proves the inapplicability of the statute because none of the claims against the School Board are intentional torts. Therefore, the School Board contends that failure to notify it of the claim within three years from the time of the act warranted dismissal of her claim with prejudice.

Section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires those bringing claims against the state or a state agency to provide notice in writing to the agency or Florida Department of Financial Services, depending on which agency the claim is brought against, within three years after the claim accrued. § 768.28(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). Doe did not place the School Board on notice until January 2010, almost seven years after the alleged act, and the Department of Financial Services was not notified at all before the claims were filed.

As previously discussed, the claims against the School Board are solely based on negligence, not intentional torts. Doe seeks to apply an intentional torts statute to toll the time for when she must have submitted the sexual assault claims. While the claims against Sinrod do fit under the category of intentional torts, those filed against the School Board are squarely within the category of negligence. As a result, section 95.11(7) is inapplicable as to Doe's claims against the School Board and, accordingly, cannot be used to toll the times in which she must have given notice to the School Board of her claims and in which she must have filed those claims.

Chapter 95 expressly states that its time limitations are secondary to other times prescribed in the Florida Statutes. Therefore, the time restraints set forth in chapter 768 take precedence. We hold that Doe did not comply with the requirements set forth under section 768.28(6)(a) when she did not notify the School Board or the Department of Financial Services of her claims within the statutory three-year period.

We note that if the legislature intended to extend chapters 95 and 768 as to both individuals and governmental entities under the theory of respondeat superior, it should have expressly provided as such. Instead, chapter 95 expressly bars civil actions against governmental entities which are not brought within the time period prescribed in the Florida Statutes, while chapter 768 expressly requires negligence claims against the state or one of its agencies to be commenced within four years of the time the action accrues. The interplay between the two statutes evidences a precedential effect of the time limitations in chapter 768, as noted by the language in section 95.011, which provides that civil actions are “barred unless begun within the time prescribed in this chapter or, if a different time is prescribed elsewhere in these statutes, within the time prescribed elsewhere.” § 95.011, Fla. Stat.

Additionally, Doe brought a Title IX claim against the School Board and argued that the claim was not time-barred, even if she could no longer bring her state claim. “[A] Title IX claim for damages is most closely analogous to a common law action for personal injury; therefore, the statute of limitations for personal injury actions controls.” M.D.H. v. Westminster Schools, 172 F .3d 797, 803 (11th Cir.1999). “[W]here state law provides multiple statutes of limitations for personal injury actions, courts ․ should borrow the general or residual statute for personal injury actions.” Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249–50 (1989). As Owens describes, several states have multiple statutes governing intentional torts, presenting the question of which statute is the proper one on which to rely for a time limitation. See id. at 243. Owens solves this confusion by providing that a general or residual statute is a better option because “each State would have no more than one.” Id. at 248. In an effort to eliminate the confusion discussed in Owens, we rely on 95.11(3), Florida Statutes, a general statute of limitations statute, rather than one of the several which govern intentional torts. Section 95.11(3) prescribes four-year time periods for negligence under subsection (a) and “assault, battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution, malicious interference, false imprisonment, or any other intentional tort,” unless expressly excluded, under subsection (o). § 95.11(3), Fla. Stat. (2011).

Based on this statute, Doe did not file her Title IX claim within the prescribed four-year statutory period and, therefore, her claim was properly dismissed.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order and hold that the trial court did not err in dismissing with prejudice Doe's claims against the School Board because she did not comply with the applicable time limitations, nor did she satisfy the pre-suit notice requirements. We take no position on the remaining claims against Sinrod, which were intentional torts against an individual person.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1. Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, governs negligent torts and, specifically, the waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions, recovery limits, limitation on attorney fees, statute of limitations, exclusions, indemnification, and risk management programs. § 768.28, Fla. Stat. (2011).

2. Under section 39.01, Florida Statutes,“Abuse” means any willful act or threatened act that results in any physical, mental, or sexual injury or harm that causes or is likely to cause the child's physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired. Abuse of a child includes acts or omissions. Corporal discipline of a child by a parent or legal custodian for disciplinary purposes does not in itself constitute abuse when it does not result in harm to the child.§ 39.01(2), Fla. Stat. (2011).

POLEN, J.

HAZOURI and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

_______________________________________________________________________________

District Court of Appeals Of The State of Florida

May 8, 2013

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

January Term 2013

JANIE DOE 1, a minor child, by and through SILVANIA MIRANDA, her Parent and Natural Guardian, and SILVANIA MIRANDA, Individually, JANIE DOE 2, a minor child, by and through ALEXANDER GUIMARAES, her Parent and Natural Guardian, and ALEXANDER GUIMARAES, Individually, JANIE DOE 3, a minor child, by and through ADALBERTO ANDINO, her Parent and Natural Guardian, and ADALBERTO ANDINO, Individually, JANIE DOE 4, a minor child, by and through GABRIELA OLSAK, her Parent and Natural Guardian, and GABRIELA OLSAK, Individually, Appellants,

BLAKE SINROD and PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, a/k/a SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, Appellees.

No. 4D11-3004

[May 8, 2013]

MAY, C.J.

Allegations of sexual abuse by a teacher lie at the heart of this dispute. The plaintiffs—a group of four children and their parents—appeal an order dismissing a newly-added claim for violation of Title IX as to the children and a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress as to the parents.1 The plaintiffs argue that the new Title IX claims relate back to the filing of the original Complaint. We agree and reverse the dismissal of the children’s Title IX claims. We affirm in all other respects.

The plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the children’s teacher and the Palm Beach County School Board in July 2006. The Complaint alleged 1 The parents set forth their claims for emotional distress within a negligence framework. We refer to them as claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress for a clearer understanding of the issue.2 that the teacher sexually molested the children. The children alleged negligence against the school board. The parents alleged that they suffered emotional distress as a result.

Nearly five years later, in 2011, the plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint, alleging specific causes of action for negligent supervision, negligent retention, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and added a claim for violation of Title IX.2 The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

The school board moved to dismiss the parents’ claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and the children’s Title IX claims. The school board argued that the parents’ claims failed to state a cause of action because they failed to demonstrate a loss of filial consortium and were barred by the impact rule. The school board argued that the statute of limitations barred the children’s new Title IX claims because they did not relate back to the filing of the original Complaint. It also argued that section 95.11(7), Florida Statutes (2006), does not toll the statute of limitations and that the plaintiffs failed to file a Notice of Claim, pursuant to section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), within three years of the teacher’s alleged wrongful conduct.

The trial court dismissed the parents’ claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the impact rule. The trial court dismissed the children’s Title IX claims, concluding that: (1) they did not relate back to the filing of the original Complaint; (2) section 95.11(7) did not toll the Title IX claims; and (3) the Title IX claims should be dismissed because they were subject to the pre-suit notice requirements of section

768.28(6)(a), and the plaintiffs did not file a Notice of Claim within three years of the alleged wrongful conduct. From this final partial judgment of dismissal, the plaintiffs now appeal.3 2 20 U.S.C. § 1681. “Title IX prohibits sex discrimination by recipients of federal education funding.” Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 173 (2005). 3

This case presents something of an anomaly. If the new Title IX claims relate back to the original Complaint, they must arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence. As such, they would be intertwined with the remaining negligence claims and present us with a piecemeal appeal of intertwined claims. See Mendez v. W. Flagler Family Ass’n, 315 So. 2d 7, 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). However, if the Title IX claims are truly independent, then their dismissal is appealable. Id. Because that is the precise issue presented, we

cannot rule on the Mendez issue before we ultimately dispose of the appeal. Although our holding that the Title IX claims should relate back to the original 3

The Parents’ Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims The parents argue the trial court erred in dismissing their claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress because the facts they alleged should fit within an exception to the impact rule. The school board responds that there is currently no exception that would permit recovery

under the facts alleged. We agree with the school board.

We have de novo review of dismissal orders for failure to state a cause of action. Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 732, 734 (Fla. 2002).

In Florida, the prerequisites for recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress differ depending on whether the plaintiff has or has not suffered a physical impact from an external force. If the plaintiff has suffered an impact, Florida courts permit recovery for emotional distress stemming from the incident during which the impact occurred, and not merely the impact itself. If, however, the plaintiff has not suffered an impact, the complained-of mental distress must be “manifested by physical injury,” the plaintiff must be “involved” in the incident by seeing, hearing, or arriving on the scene as the traumatizing event occurs, and the plaintiff must suffer the complained-of mental distress and accompanying physical impairment “within a short time” of the incident.

Willis v. Gami Golden Glades, LLC, 967 So. 2d 846, 850 (Fla. 2007) (quoting Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. Cox, 481 So. 2d 517, 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)). Our supreme court has created very narrow exceptions to this rule. Rowell v. Holt, 850 So. 2d 474, 478 (Fla. 2003).

Here, the parents do not, and cannot, allege that they suffered an impact from an external force. Nor do they allege that they saw the sexual abuse, heard the sexual abuse, or arrived on the scene as it was occurring. The parents’ negligent infliction of emotional distress claims do not survive the impact rule, nor can we create an exception to the Complaint will theoretically turn what was an appealable order into a piecemeal

appeal over which we lack jurisdiction, we may properly review this issue now in light of the sensitive nature of the case and in the interest of allowing the case to proceed as expeditiously as possible. See Fisher v. Tanglewood at Suntree Country Club Condo. Ass’n, 669 So. 2d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (permitting a piecemeal appeal where there are countervailing policy concerns). 4 impact rule which would permit recovery. We therefore affirm the trial court’s dismissal of these claims.

The Children’s Title IX Claims

The children argue that the trial court erred in dismissing their Title IX claims because the claims were not time-barred. They first argue the Title IX claims relate back to the filing of the original Complaint. The school board responds that the Title IX claims do not relate back because they state a new cause of action. On this argument, the law supports the children’s position.

We have de novo review of a trial court’s finding that a new claim does not relate back to the original complaint. See Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So. 3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). If a party amends a pleading, “the amendment shall relate back to the date of the original pleading” so long as the “claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(c). “Amendments generally do not relate back if they raise a new cause of action.” Dailey v. Leshin, 792 So. 2d 527, 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). However, a new cause of action—and even a new legal theory—can relate back to the original pleading so long as the new claim is not based on different facts, such that the defendant would not have “fair notice of the general factual situation.” Id.4

Recently, the Fifth District held that a subsequently-filed battery claim related back to the plaintiff’s original negligence claim. See Fabbiano v. Demings, 91 So. 3d 893, 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Because the battery claim “was based upon the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence[] as alleged in the original complaint,” it related back to the filing date of the original complaint even though it alleged a different cause of action. Id. at 894. In support of its holding, the Fifth District quoted our opinion in Associated Television & Communications, Inc. v. Dutch Village Mobile Homes of Melbourne, Ltd., 347 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977):

4 Furthermore, claims for federal law violations can relate back to pleadings which previously alleged only violations of the common law. See Donnelly v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 874 F.2d 402, 410 (7th Cir. 1989) (finding that Title VII claims related back to the original complaint filed in state court and alleging state law violations).5

If the amendment shows the same general factual situation as that alleged in the original pleading, then the amendment relates back even though there is a change in the precise legal description of the rights sought to be enforced, or a change in the legal theory upon which the action is brought. Fabbiano, 91 So. 3d at 895 (quoting Associated Television & Commc’ns, Inc., 347 So. 2d at 748).

Here, the trial court erred in finding that the children’s Title IX statutory claims did not relate back to the negligence claims alleged in the original pleading. Both claims arose from the same conduct and resulted in the same injury. This renders the children’s two remaining arguments moot. We therefore reverse the dismissal of the children’s Title IX claims.5

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jack S. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case No.

502006CA007503XXXXMB.

Marc A. Wites and Jonathan S. Burns of Wites & Kapetan, P.A., Lighthouse Point, for appellants.

Shannon P. McKenna of Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee, Palm Beach 5 Although unnecessary to our decision, we address the plaintiffs’ two remaining arguments. We reject the plaintiffs’ argument that section 95.11(7) tolls the statute of limitations under these facts. See Doe v. Sinrod, 90 So. 3d 852, 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (finding that section 95.11(7) is inapplicable in a nearly identical context). Further, because we find the Title IX claims relate back to the original Complaint, the pre-suit notice gave the school board sufficient notice of the newly-alleged claim. See Magee v. City of Jacksonville, 87 So. 2d 589, 591–92 (Fla. 1956) (explaining that pre-suit notice is designed to make the government entity aware of the claims alleged); see also City of Miami v. Cisneros, 662 So. 2d 1272, 1274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (using the relation back analysis to determine if the plaintiff complied with the pre-suit notice requirements). 6

County School Board.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Blake Sinrod on Facebook
Facebook - January 31, 2014

_______________________________________________________________________________

FAIR USE NOTICE

Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

_______________________________________________________________________________

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

_______________________________________________________________________________

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Case of Blake Sinrod

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fourth District.

Jane DOE, a minor child, by and through Jane DOE'S MOTHER and Jane Doe's Father, as her Parents and Natural Guardians, and Jane Doe's Mother and Jane Doe's Father, individually, Appellants, v. Blake F. SINROD and Palm Beach County School Board a/k/a School District of Palm Beach County, Appellees.

No. 4D11–557.

-- May 30, 2012

No comments: