to recover damages for pain and suffering. First, the court in Lopez reasoned that section 1988(a) does not apply to modem civil rights provisions such as Title IX. Lopez, 5 F.Supp.3d at 1119 (“Section 1988 is clear — it applies to specific claims brought under specific provisions that do not include the more modern civil rights actions of the twentieth century.”). Second, the court concluded that eveñ if section 1988(a) did apply to Title IX, California’s survival statute does not apply to Title IX because its application would be inconsistent with the broad remedial purpose of Title IX. Id. Because the ACA draws on Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex, the Court is persuaded by the Lopez duc., Inc., No. C98-1312, 1999 WL 138889, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 1999) (<HOLDING>). These cases, however, are inapplicable
holding that a teacher could not sue as a representative of her students under unruh holding no rational fact finder could conclude that a teacher acted with deliberate indifference to her students wellbeing because the teacher did not know there was any immediate danger in allowing the plaintiff to briefly use the nextdoor bathroom alone holding that plaintiffs motion to amend her complaint to add her husband as a defendant did not relate back because her failure to sue her husband was not due to misnomer or mistake involving the identity of the proper party but because the law at the time of the complaint did not allow one spouse to sue another in tort holding that sexual molestation of students by teacher is presumed to result in physical injury holding that a students right to bodily integrity under the fourteenth amendment encompasses a students right to be free from sexual assaults by his or her teachers