CJ Doe, Jr a minor v Sonora Elementary School District et. al.

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 May 6, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

5 CV67873 CJ Doe, Jr a minor v Sonora Elementary School District et. al. 12/08/2025

CJ DOE Attorney: Christopher Wood

Sonora Elementary School District Attorney: Anthony DeMaria

Mary Winifred McGrew CJ Doe Attorney: Christopher Wood

Sonora Elementary School District Attorney: Anthony DeMaria

Mary Winifred McGrew Cheryl Griffiths Attorney: Yet Not Entered Case Management Conference Motion Hearing - Other Petition for Relief from Claim Filing Requirements and Order Permitting Late Claim Set per MO 02/10/2026 Cross Complaint File Tracking 12/24/2025 High Density

Case notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.” Unless directed otherwise, all participants may appear via Zoom: https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Passcode: 123456]. All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are assigned to that department for all pre-trial purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice, parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

This is a personal injury action commenced by the parents of a student with individualized educational needs. It is alleged that the student sustained injury/offense following a speech therapy session in which the paraprofessional exhibited aberrant/abhorrent behavior for a professional tasked with the care of a vulnerable segment of society. Before the Court this day is a petition for relief from certain statutory claim filing deadlines, as well as an “827” petition seeking the release of law enforcement records pertaining thereto. Objection/opposition is noted to the former, largely on the theory that plaintiff’s counsel failed to exercise sufficient diligence navigating this county’s labyrinthine (and some would say top heavy) education system. While the parties would certainly appreciate a substantive tentative at this time for both requests, it is noted that the previous hearing was continued for a procedural matter unrelated to the merits, and this bench officer will not impose upon the parties a tacit stipulation for all purposes under the circumstances unless and until the parties have actually appeared and the proper colloquy has taken place. All parties are expected to appear, prepared to proceed with oral argument.