Court summons regarding validity of obligations for Los Angeles Unified School District.

SUMMONS
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): 
NOTICE! YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. THE COURT MAY DECIDE AGAINST YOU WITHOUT YOUR BEING HEARD UNLESS YOU RESPOND NOT LATER THAN MAY 18, 2026, WHICH IS AT LEAST TEN (10) DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PUBLICATION OF THIS SUMMONS. READ THE INFORMATION BELOW. 
¡AVISO! USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO. EL TRIBUNAL PUEDE DECIDIR CONTRA USTED SIN AUDIENCIA A MENOS QUE USTED RESPONDA A MÁS TARDAR PARA EL 18 DE MAYO 2026, QUE ES DIEZ (10) DIAS DESPUÉS QUE TERMINE LA ULTIMA PUBLICACIÓN DE ESTE CITATORIO. LEA LA INFORMACIÓN SIGUIENTE. 
TO: ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE MATTER OF THE VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION AND ISSUANCE OF NOTES AND BONDS TO BE ISSUED WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS OF THE LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ARISING FROM INVOLUNTARY TORT CLAIMS TO BE REDUCED TO JUDGMENT, A CREDIT AGREEMENT, AN INDENTURE AND ANY OTHER RELATED CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS AUTHORIZED OR CONTEMPLATED BY THE LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE ADOPTING OF A RESOLUTION PERTAINING THERETO. 
DETAILED SUMMARY OF MATTER TO BE VALIDATED: 
The Board of Education (the "District Board") of the Los Angeles Unified School District (the District") has authorized the issuance, from time to time, of judgment obligation notes (the "Promissory Notes") and judgment obligation bonds (the "Bonds"), the proceeds of which will be used to satisfy the District's obligations to pay judgments that have been or soon will be entered against the District in cases involving involuntary tort claims against the District either by application of California Assembly Bill Number 218, chaptered by the California Secretary of State on October 13, 2019 ("AB 218"), or as a result of similar childhood sexual assault, abuse, and/or molestation claims for tort liability (collectively, the "Judgment Refunding Program").
Enacted by the Legislature in 2019, among other things, AB 218 extended the statute of limitations for tort claims based on allegations of childhood sexual assault to a plaintiff's 40th birthday, and revived claims that were previously time-barred by the expiration of the statute of limitations for a period of three years, commencing on January 1, 2020 and ending on January 1, 2023 (the "Revival Window"). With the enactment of AB 218 and, in particular, the Revival Window provisions thereof, the District is defending an unprecedented number of involuntary tort claims from plaintiffs (the "Tort Plaintiffs") who allegedly spent time in the District's charge as children while suffering sexual assault, abuse, and/or molestation at the hands of District employees. As of February 17, 2026, the District has had more than 200 of such cases (involving over 400 individual Tort Plaintiffs), and counting, filed against it asserting involuntary tort claims by application of AB 218 or otherwise alleging claims in tort based on childhood sexual assault, abuse, and/or molestation claims (the "Lawsuits"). A significant portion of the Lawsuits could potentially be resolved in the coming months and years through settlements and stipulated judgments or via judgments on the merits entered against the District (each, a "Judgment" and, together, the "Judgments"). In either case, the District faces a substantial increase in liability from Judgments entered in the Lawsuits in favor of Tort Plaintiffs which obtain such Judgments (each a "Judgment Obligee" and, collectively, the "Judgment Obligees") in the coming months and years. Given the potential liability amounts to result from the Lawsuits, payment of each Judgment in full upon conclusion of the related Lawsuit would likely result in significant and material impacts to the District's operating budget that would be immediately felt across the District's operating funds for years to come. 
To mitigate and manage these impacts, the Judgment Refunding Program establishes interim and long-term financing mechanisms to refund the District's obligations to the Judgment Obligees evidenced by the Judgments as and when the Judgments are entered against the District. First, the District will refund the Judgments on an interim basis pursuant to one or more credit facilities established under one or more credit agreements (each, a "Credit Agreement") to be entered into by the District and one or more lender banks (each, a "Lender"). Each Credit Agreement will provide a short-term line of credit that will be drawn upon as funds are needed to satisfy a Judgment or Judgments. The District's obligations under each Credit Agreement will be evidenced by Promissory Notes to be issued thereunder. Moreover, to confirm the agreement between each Lender and the District with respect to certain commitment fees and other fees payable to such Lender under a Credit Agreement, the District will enter into fee agreements (each, a "Fee Agreement" and, together with the related Credit Agreement, a "Lender Agreement") with each Lender. To provide additional short-term borrowing options and flexibility, the District may also from time to time and pursuant to its authority under applicable law authorize other forms of temporary borrowing by the District in the form of temporary notes to be issued from time to time (each, a "Temporary Note" or, collectively, the "Temporary Notes" and, together with the Promissory Notes, the "Notes"), the proceeds of which are used to satisfy and refund one or more Judgments. 
Second, the District will issue Bonds, from time to time, pursuant to an indenture (the "Indenture") to be entered into by the District and a commercial bank as trustee (the "Trustee"), and, if applicable, one or more supplemental indentures (each, a "Supplemental Indenture"), to be entered into by the District and the Trustee as provided under the Indenture. That is, when the amount of outstanding Notes and the timing is periodically appropriate to issue long-term obligations, the District will issue Bonds to refund the District's interim obligations under Notes, the proceeds of which will go to satisfying amounts payable to a Lender or other holders of Notes then outstanding and issued in satisfaction of any Judgment or Judgments, from time to time, and related costs. Bonds may also be issued to directly refund Judgments unrefunded at the time of issuance of any Bonds, and if desirable in the future, any previously issued Bonds then outstanding which previously refunded any Notes or Judgments. 
On February 17, 2026, after public notice in accordance with law, the District Board adopted a Resolution entitled, "Resolution of the Board of Education of the Los Angeles Unified School District Approving and Authorizing the Issuance of Additional Judgment Obligation Notes and Bonds, an Indenture and Related Documents, an Official Statement, a Related Validation Proceeding and Related Actions, All for the Purpose of Refunding Obligations Incurred by Application of Assembly Bill Number 218 and Similar Claims for Tort Liability" (the "Resolution"). 
The Resolution authorized the District to (a) issue the Promissory Notes under the Judgment Refunding Program, on an interim basis, to refund obligations the District owes in connection with the Judgments; (b) enter one or more Lender Agreements pursuant to which the Promissory Notes are to be issued; (c) issue Bonds, on a long-term basis, to refund obligations the District owes in connection with the Judgments (i.e., any outstanding Notes or Judgments or previously issued Bonds at the time of issuance); (d) enter the Indenture and one or more Supplemental Indentures as provided under the Indenture, pursuant to which the Bonds are to be issued; and (e) undertake certain related proceedings, or execute certain documents, instruments and other matters, with respect to the Judgment Refunding Program. Under the Resolution, the aggregate dollar amount of Judgments to be refunded by Promissory Notes and/or Bonds must not exceed $250,000,000 (excluding any interest due thereunder). 
The District brought this validation action to confirm the validity of the Judgment Refunding Program and its various constituent parts, as described above and more specifically in the Complaint and exhibits thereto. The District seeks a judgment declaring, among other things, that the District's incurrence of any and all indebtedness and/or liability in connection with the amounts due to Judgment Obligees as set forth in the Judgments, the Notes, the Bonds, the Lender Agreement(s), the Indenture and any Supplemental Indenture as provided under the Indenture, and any and all contracts and agreements executed and delivered in connection therewith, is exempt from and not subject to the debt limitation set forth in Article XVI, Section 18 of the California Constitution. Namely, that the Notes, the Lender Agreement(s), the Bonds, the Indenture, and any Supplemental Indenture as provided under the Indenture, and any related contracts and agreements authorized or contemplated by the District Board in the Resolution do not create a new or different liability for purposes of the debt limitation set forth in Article XVI, Section 18 of the California Constitution but, rather, merely evidence the change of the form of the existing involuntary liabilities of the District arising in tort, as reflected in the Judgments, which are obligations imposed by law. 
The Plaintiff has filed a civil complaint against you. If you wish to contest the legality or validity of the matter that is the subject of this lawsuit, you must appear and file with the Court a written pleading in response to the Complaint not later than May 18, 2026. Your pleading must be in the form required by the California Rules of Court. Your original pleading must be filed in this Court with proper filing fees and proof that a copy thereof was served on Plaintiff's attorneys. 
Unless you so respond, your default will be entered upon Plaintiff's application, and this Court may enter a judgment against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Persons who contest the legality or validity of the matters which are the subject of this lawsuit will not be subject to punitive action, such as wage garnishment or seizure of their real or personal property. 
YOU MAY SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY IN ANY MATTER CONNECTED WITH THE COMPLAINT OR THIS SUMMONS. SUCH ATTORNEY SHOULD BE CONSULTED PROMPTLY SO THAT YOUR PLEADING MAY BE FILED OR ENTERED WITHIN THE TIME REQUIRED BY THIS SUMMONS. 
SI USTED DESEA SOLICITAR EL CONSEJO DE UN ABOGADO EN ESTE ASUNTO, DEBERÍA HACERLO INMEDIATAMENTE, PARA QUE, SU REPUESTA ESCRITA, SI HAY ALGUNA, PUEDA SER REGISTRADA A TIEMPO.
CASE NUMBER (Número del Caso): 26STCV05691 
The name and address of the court is (El nombre y la dirección de la corte es): 
SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 
Stanley Mosk Courthouse 
Department 51 
111 North Hill Street 
Los Angeles, CA 90012 
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney is (El nombre, la dirección y el número de telèfono del abogado del demandante es): 
Attn: William B. Tunick, Esq. 
Meredith B. Johnson, Esq. 
Aidan Wallace, Esq. 
Luke L. Punnakanta, Esq. 
Dannis Woliver Kelley 
444 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 1750 
Long Beach, CA 90802 
Telephone: (562) 366-8500
Facsimile: (562) 366-8505
Date: 03/10/2026 	David W. Slayton, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court
(Fecha) (Delegado)	Clerk, by S. Bolden, Deputy (Actuario)