KHTS Radio Santa Clarita Radio – Santa Clarita News
A joint lawsuit brought by the parents of two students killed on November 14, 2019, in the Saugus High School Shooting is likely to proceed to trial, according to a preliminary Los Angeles Superior Court ruling.
The parents of Gracie Muehlberger, 15, and Dominic Blackwell, 14, allege that the William S. Hart Union High School District missed “numerous red flags” ahead of the shooting due to having no program in place to identify and intervene with troubled students, according to legal representation for the parents.
“Our son, Dominic, was shot standing with his best friend and other friends, waiting for class to start. No parent should have to bear the grief of losing their child, especially in such a tragic manner in a place that was supposed to be safe for them,” said Frank and Nancy Blackwell, parents of Dominic Blackwell, in a statement. “It’s deeply disheartening to see a school district suggest they don’t bear responsibility for our children’s safety. We still have other children navigating the school system, and every child deserves a safe learning environment. We trusted them with our most precious treasures – our children, and we were let down. We hope for accountability and change so that no other family endures our heartbreak.”
The Blackwell and Muehlberger families also allege the Hart District did not adequately supervise or secure the school campus.
“The District ignored numerous warning signs in the days and months before the shooting, including an assailant with a history of family abuse whose friends had become concerned over obvious signs of his distress just days before the shooting. Those concerns went unreported, and the District’s advertised student text-to-tip hotline was not working at the time of the shooting,” stated Julie Fieber, a partner at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, the legal office representing the Blackwells in their suit.
According to a trial brief filed with the court, the Muehlberger and Blackwell families’ attorneys allege that the Hart District did not have policies in place to identify troubled students, and allowed the teenage shooter to enter school grounds through an unmonitored entrance.
On the morning of Nov. 14, 2019, 16-year-old Nathaniel Berhow walked into the quad of Saugus High School, pulled a .45-caliber semi-automatic ghost handgun from his backpack, and opened fire, according to officials with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD).
Muehlberger and Blackwell were killed as a result of the shooting. Three other students were injured before Berhow turned the gun on himself, all over a 10-second period. He died the next day at Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital with his mother at his side, according to a statement issued by the LASD at the time.
Judge Stephen P. Pfaler held that the Hart District’s argument that it could deny that ongoing threat unless and until a shooting occurred “myopically” limited the debate over campus safety requirements and “obtusely” denied an ongoing well-documented concern, according to a Wednesday statement from Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.
Hart District representatives previously argued that the shooting was unforeseeable, and the District had no legal duty to prevent the incident, an argument rejected by the Court.
A Hart District representative stated in legal filings. “As a matter of law, the district had no legal duty to prevent this unfortunate and unforeseeable terrorist attack, especially given no warning signs from Nathan.”
The Court held that the general awareness of potential campus gun violence and the need for safety protocols is the baseline foundation for the District’s specific duty to enact protections for student-on-student gun violence.
KHTS reached out to the William S. Hart Union High School District for comment, but has not received a response as of the publication of this article.
A final ruling on the possibility of a trial has not been released, as the judge and legal representation are set to re-examine details ahead of a final ruling.
If finalized, a trial would likely begin in January 2024.
Ed. Note: Jade Aubuchon and Louie Diaz contributed to this article.
Sponsored Articles
KHTS FM 98.1 and AM 1220 is Santa Clarita’s only local radio station. KHTS mixes in a combination of news, traffic, sports, and features along with your favorite adult contemporary hits. Santa Clarita news and features are delivered throughout the day over our airwaves, on our website and through a variety of social media platforms. Our KHTS national award-winning daily news briefs are now read daily by 34,000+ residents. A vibrant member of the Santa Clarita community, the KHTS broadcast signal reaches all of the Santa Clarita Valley and parts of the high desert communities located in the Antelope Valley. The station streams its talk shows over the web, reaching a potentially worldwide audience. Follow @KHTSRadio on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
I went to SHS and all 4 years I attended there was a Deputy onsite at all times. I remember reading early in 2019 that funding for On-Campus Law Enforcement was pulled. I would say that the school should be held liable as a secondary contributor of the shooting. Both families should also be going after the mother of the shooter. As parents we are responsible for our children until they turn 18. The shooter lost his father a year prior. Many articles stated that the shooter was having a rough time after the death of his father. Did the mother seek help for her son? Articles also stated that the Husband and the shooter were into guns. Was this ghost gun purchased by the husband and the shooter had access to it? He defiantly had access to the ammo, to which the mother of the shooter broke the law. CA law states that all firearms and ammo must be in a CA compliant gun safe or trigger lock. If any firearms were in the home and in the deceased fathers name, then the mother also broke the law. She should have removed the firearms and ammo from the home if she legally couldn’t lock them up, so a minor didn’t have access. People scream for more gun control laws, yet our current laws are being broken and people aren’t being held accountable.
Finally, someone posting something that’s clear and makes sense around here! Right on the money Ridiculous!
Go get’em! I hope they pay!
I do not know these families, but they will ALWAYS be in my thoughts. I had 2 kids in a Hart district school at the time of this shooting. I understand that without being in these families shoes, there is no way I can fully understand what they have gone through and all the ways this event changed their lives.
What this article does not mention, is what the families are suing for. I am guessing money, which is where people like myself wonder, will money bring their child back? How can money make them feel better?
With that said, the Hart School District, NEEDS to be held accountable for policies they have enacted (or not enacted) at the cost to our kids safety… both physically and emotionally. To hear their attorney say ‘the district has NO LEGAL obligation to provide safety for our kids’? FIRE that attorney!! Shame on the district !!
No. The school is not responsible for this. You can’t protect everyone. It is very easy to bring a gun into any fully protected facility if someone really wants to.