Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Walther Medina sued former Montebello Unified School District superintendent Anthony Martinez and the District after their personal relationship deteriorated in August 2019. Medina alleged that Martinez sought a sexual relationship in exchange for money and educational services and sexually assaulted him. His operative claims included sexual battery, gender violence, civil-rights violations, emotional distress, negligence, and educational discrimination. Martinez remembered little of the first disputed encounter, while Medina described unwanted sexual contact; these remained allegations and competing accounts, not appellate findings of assault.
The trial court resolved most claims through demurrers and summary adjudication. It dismissed the gender-violence claim against the District, granted Martinez summary adjudication on Bane Act and negligence claims, and granted the District summary adjudication on five claims premised on vicarious liability. A jury then found for both defendants on the remaining claims, including sexual battery and gender violence against Martinez and Education Code section 220 against the District. The court denied Medina's new-trial motion, and he appealed.
Medina also challenged exclusion of his secret recording of a three-hour August 22 conversation with Martinez. The trial court denied Martinez's motion in limine in part, excluding the full recording under Evidence Code section 352 and Penal Code section 632, subdivision (d), while leaving open possible impeachment use. After Martinez testified, Medina identified eight excerpts; the trial court denied their use on three grounds: the excerpts did not impeach Martinez's trial testimony, they were excluded under Evidence Code section 352, and, citing Penal Code section 632 and Frio, Medina could not avoid section 632's evidentiary bar because he had testified about his recollection of the recorded conversation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It held that Medina forfeited his challenge to the gender-violence demurrer by offering no reasoned analysis supported by relevant authority. The argument also failed on the merits because Civil Code section 52.4, subdivision (e), does not impose employer liability unless the employer personally committed gender violence. Medina alleged conduct by Martinez, not the District, and identified no way to amend that defect.
The court likewise rejected the summary-adjudication challenges. Medina's Bane Act claim did not identify a constitutional or statutory right with which Martinez interfered, and his appellate argument was forfeited three ways: it was not raised below, lacked legal authority, and relied on an undifferentiated citation to 750 pages of depositions. His negligence argument was similarly undeveloped. For the District, the court held that the undisputed evidence showed a predominantly personal relationship and no misuse of law-enforcement authority. Thus, the alleged sexual misconduct fell outside Martinez's employment, and the narrow Mary M. police-authority exception did not apply.
On the recording, the court held that Penal Code section 632, subdivision (d), bars an illegally recorded confidential communication in noncriminal proceedings, including impeachment use. Section 633.5 permits specified recordings in criminal prosecutions, not this civil action. Frio did not help Medina because it concerned refreshing recollection with notes, not playing recordings to a jury, and Medina had testified fully about the conversation. The court expressly did not decide whether the recording contained evidence of a crime. The judgment was affirmed, with Martinez and the District awarded appellate costs.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must present reasoned legal analysis, supporting authority, and precise record citations rather than merely assert that the trial court reached the wrong result.
- California's gender-violence statute does not make an employer liable for an employee's conduct unless the employer personally committed an act of gender violence.
- A school district generally is not vicariously liable for an employee's sexual misconduct outside the scope of employment, and claimed police status alone does not establish the Mary M. exception.
- Penal Code section 632's civil evidentiary bar extends to impeachment, while section 633.5's exception is limited to prosecutions for specified crimes.
- The October 8, 2026 modification only corrected Daniel S. Modafferi's name on the caption page and expressly made no change to the appellate judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision connects appellate briefing requirements with substantive review: several of Medina's theories were both procedurally forfeited and unsupported on the merits. Its vicarious-liability analysis emphasizes evidence of how alleged misconduct occurred, rather than titles or assertions that an employee held law-enforcement power.
The evidentiary holding is especially consequential for civil litigants who secretly record conversations. Even a recording believed to document a crime cannot bypass section 632 through section 633.5 in a civil case, and Frio does not create a general impeachment exception. As an unpublished decision, the opinion is subject to California's restrictions on citation and reliance.