Hector Gutierrez began working as a school janitor and maintenance worker in August 2011 at Inglewood Middle School Academy. The school operated under the control of Inner City Education Foundation (ICEF).

On February 14, 2012, at the end of the school day, Gutierrez walked to the school’s front office, where school employees had gathered and were laughing. The principal angrily approached plaintiff and, “out of nowhere,” violently kicked him in the groin, causing plaintiff to bend over in “agony.” Several employees saw the incident and laughed. Plaintiff suffered severe pain and emotional distress and has been unable to work since the injury. His last day of work due to the injury was June 29, 2012.

Later, Gutierrez filed three separate worker’s compensation claims with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Two of those claims – one with an injury date of February 14, 2022, and another filed January 12, 2023 – related to injuries he allegedly sustained from the kick to the groin. As to the January 2023 claim, Gutierrez alleged, “In retrospect beginning 3 weeks or so later after the kick applicant believes depression and other factors caused by the assault unbeknownst to him has caused him to become morbidly obese.”

On January 10, 2023, Gutierrez (in pro. per.) sued ICEF for general negligence, intentional tort, and sexual assault and battery based on injuries he allegedly sustained from the principal’s kick to his groin almost 11 years earlier. ICEF demurred on the following grounds: (1) the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board had exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiff’s injury claims; (2) worker’s compensation was plaintiff’s exclusive remedy; and (3) plaintiff’s claims were time barred. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. On April 18, 2023, the court sustained ICEF’s demurrer with leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed his FAC on May 9, 2023. He again pleaded the same causes of action, except for “intentional tort,” and added causes of action – without the court’s permission – for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well “malice.” ICEF demurred on the same grounds as before and argued the new causes of action were time-barred, insufficiently pleaded, or weren’t causes of action at all.

The court sustained ICEF’s demurrer without leave to amend. The court found plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the FAC’s allegations were insufficient to state a cause of action. The court also noted plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support an exception to worker’s compensation exclusivity.

After judgment had been entered, on September 27, 2023, plaintiff moved for reconsideration. Plaintiff accused ICEF’s attorneys of fraud and of having “bamboozled” the court into believing counsel had agreed to give plaintiff more time to respond to discovery, not to a continuance of the demurrer hearing. Plaintiff argued “[d]efendants” violated his due process rights.

The court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff appealed the judgment of dismissal on the grounds he was denied his federal constitutional rights to due process and of access to the courts under the Fourteenth and First Amendments, respectively.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in the unpublished case of Gutierrez v Inner City Education Foundation CA2/3 – B333337 – (June 2025)

The Court of Appeal noted it reviewed the record and found no error.

“The record shows plaintiff received adequate, effective, and meaningful access to the court. After ICEF demurred to plaintiff’s initial complaint, he had an opportunity to file his FAC. At plaintiff’s request, the court continued the hearing on ICEF’s demurrer to the FAC from July to August 2023 due to plaintiff’s medical emergency. Before ruling on ICEF’s demurrer, the court considered the written response plaintiff filed, even though he filed the response late and did not appear at the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [opposition papers must be filed nine court days before the hearing].)8 Indeed, the court explained in detail plaintiff’s position in its ruling.”

“Nor did plaintiff demonstrate he did not receive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.”  … “Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to meet his burden on appeal to demonstrate the court erred in sustaining ICEF’s demurrer to his FAC or that it abused its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend the FAC.”