Avorh v. San Diego Community College Dist. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Aug 13, 2025 No. D083486MUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed summary adjudication of the plaintiff's harassment and failure to prevent harassment claims, holding they were time-barred because no actionable harassment occurred within the applicable statute of limitations period.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff's harassment and failure to prevent harassment claims under FEHA were timely filed.
Whether the continuing violation doctrine applies to allow claims based on conduct occurring outside the statute of limitations.
Whether a student review posted after the plaintiff's resignation can constitute actionable harassment under FEHA.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The claims being time-barred, we perceive no triable issue of material fact precluding summary adjudication.”

“Absent a showing of actionable harassment during the limitations period, the continuing violation doctrine does not apply.”

“And without any timely, valid harassment claims, the derivative failure to prevent harassment claims fail as a matter of law.”

Filed 8/13/25 Avorh v. San Diego Community College Dist. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN AVORH, D083486

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2020- v. 00031025-CU-OE-CTL)

SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE ORDER MODIFYING DISTRICT, OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING Defendant and Respondent. NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

THE COURT: On our own motion, we modify the opinion filed on July 24, 2025 to (1) delete the last sentence and corresponding citation on page 7 and (2) replace it with “The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.” With this modification, the disposition shall now read, “We affirm. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.” There is no change in the judgment.

Separately, the petition for rehearing is denied. IRION, Acting P. J. Copies to: All parties

Filed 7/24/25 Avorh v. San Diego Community College Dist. CA4/1 (unmodified opinion) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Avorh v. San Diego Community College Dist. CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN AVORH, D083486

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CASTILLO, J.

DATO, J.

AI Brief