Preview
1 Alison M. Crane, SBN 197359
Tara A. Murray, SBN 284871
2 BLEDSOE, DIESTEL, TREPPA & CRANE LLP
180 Sansome Street, 5th Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94104-3713
Telephone: (415) 981-5411
4 Facsimile: (415) 981-0352
acrane@bledsoelaw.com
5 tmurray@bledsoelaw.com
6 Attorneys for Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS
OF AMERICA, a California corporation
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
10
11 JANE BE DOE an individual, Case No. 21CV000805
12 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF ALISON M. CRANE
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’s BIG
13 v. BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
AMERICA, BIG BROTHERS BIG
14 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SISTERS OF SALINA, MOTION TO
AMERICA, a California corporation; BIG COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONES TO
15 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SALINA, REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
a California corporation; JON DAVID AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET
16 WOODY, an individual; and DOES 1-50, TWO
inclusive,
17 Date: June 3, 2022
Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m.
18 Dept.: 15
19
I, Alison M. Crane, declare:
20
1. I am a partner at the law firm Bledsoe, Diestel, Treppa & Crane LLP, attorneys of
21
record for Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA (hereinafter “BBBSA”) in
22
the above-titled action.
23
2. I have personal knowledge of all facts stated herein, and if called as a witness
24
could and would competently testify to them under oath.
25
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s First
26
Amended Complaint, filed on December 13, 2021, against Defendants JON DAVID WOODY
27
(“Woody”), BIG BROTHERS AND BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY COUNTY, BOYS & GIRLS
28
DECL. ISO BBBSA’S MTN TO COMPEL PLTF’S RESP. TO RFA, SET ONE, & FROGS, SET TWO
1 CLUB OF MONTEREY COUNTY, and BBBSA.
2 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of BBBSA’s Form
3 Interrogatories, Set Two, to Plaintiff JANE BE DOE (“Plaintiff”) served on February 10, 2022.
4 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of BBBSA’s Request for
5 Admission, Set One, to Plaintiff served on February 10, 2022.
6 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s verified
7 response to BBBSA’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, served on August 20, 2021.
8 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s verified
9 response to BBBSA’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, served on December 7, 2021.
10 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s production of
11 Texas criminal records for a “Jon David Woody” in response to BBBSA’s Request for Production of
12 Documents, Set Two, served on December 7, 2021.
13 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s verified
14 responses to BBBSA’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, served on March 14, 2022.
15 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s responses to
16 BBBSA’s Request for Admission, Set One, served on March 14, 2022.
17 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of BBBSA’s meet and
18 confer with Plaintiff regarding the deficient discovery responses in letters dated March 28, 2022,
19 regarding Plaintiff’s deficient responses to BBBSA’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request
20 for Admissions of Documents, Set One, and requesting further verified responses.
21 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s responding
22 meet and confer letter dated April 1, 2022.
23 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of BBBSA’s meet and
24 confer with Plaintiff regarding the deficient discovery responses in letters dated April 27, 2022, regarding
25 Plaintiff’s deficient responses to BBBSA’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Admissions of
26 Documents, Set One, and requesting further verified responses.
27 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s responding
28 meet and confer letter dated April 29, 2022.
-2-
DECL. ISO BBBSA’S MTN TO COMPEL PLTF’S RESP. TO RFA, SET ONE, & FROGS, SET TWO
1 15. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of an email from defense
2 counsel to Plaintiff’s counsel dated April 29, 2022, regarding further verified responses to Request for
3 Admissions of Documents, Set One.
4 16. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing is
5 true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on May 2, 2022, in Walnut Creek,
6 California.
7 Dated: May 2, 2022 BLEDSOE, DIESTEL, TREPPA & CRANE LLP
8
9 By:
10 Alison M. Crane
Tara A. Murray
11 Attorneys for Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG
SISTERS OF AMERICA, a California corporation
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
DECL. ISO BBBSA’S MTN TO COMPEL PLTF’S RESP. TO RFA, SET ONE, & FROGS, SET TWO
EXHIBIT A
1 JOHN C. MANLY, Esq. (State Bar No. 149080)
TAYLOR RAYFIELD, Esq (State Bar No. 27300)
2 COURTNEY P. PENDRY, Esq. (State Bar No. 327382)
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
3 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
4 Telephone: (949) 252-9990
Fax: (949) 252-9991
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff, JANE BE DOE
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF MONTEREY
9
10 JANE BE DOE an individual, Case No.: 21CV000805
Judge: Thomas W. Wills
11 Plaintiff, Department: 15
12 vs. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13
AMERICA, a California corporation; ; BIG
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
(1) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
Irvine, CA 92612
COUNTY, a California Corporation, BOYS & (2) NEGLIGENCE;
15 GIRLS CLUBS OF MONTEREY COUNTY, (3) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;
a California Corporation JON DAVID (4) CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD (CIVIL
16 WOODY, an individual; and DOES 1-50, CODE § 1573);
inclusive, (5) SEXUAL HARASSEMENT (CIVIL
17 CODE
Defendants. § 51.9);
18 (6) SEXUAL BATTERY;
(7) GENDER VIOLENCE (CIVIL CODE
19 § 52.4);
(8) VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE §
20 288(a);
(9) VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE §
21 647.6(a)(1).
22 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
23
24
COMES NOW, Plaintiff JANE BE DOE (“Plaintiff”), who hereby complains and alleges
25
against Defendants BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, BIG BROTHERS BIG
26
SISTERS OF MONTEREY COUNTY; BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF MONTEREY
27
COUNTY, JON DAVID WOODY and DOES 2 through 50, inclusive (“Defendants”), as follows:
28
1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 1. Between in or around 2000 through 2002, Plaintiff was a minor participant
2 with BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA (hereinafter “BBBSA”) and/or BIG
3 BROTHER BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY COUNTY (hereinafter “BBBSMC ”), while she
4 was approximately 7 to 8 years old. It is through Plaintiff’s participation in BBBSMC that she
5 was placed in contact with JON DAVID WOODY (hereinafter “WOODY”), and his wife. During
6 this period, WOODY repeatedly sexually abused Plaintiff in multiple ways, including but not
7 limited to: WOODY grooming and secluding Plaintiff, fondling Plaintiff’s genitals, forcing
8 Plaintiff to lie down on a table and remove her pants and underwear, and digitally penetrating
9 Plaintiff’s vagina. WOODY was ultimately arrested for his abuse of Plaintiff and other
10 participants of BBBSA and BBBSMC and found guilty of 3 counts of sexual penetration of a
11 child, and 17 counts of lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 and sentenced to a term of 210
12 years to life and a consecutive determinate term of 16 years in state prison. Neither BBBSA,
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 BBBSMC, nor DOES 3-50 ever reached out to Plaintiff, following WOODY’s arrest, to inquire
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 about Plaintiff’s well-being, despite knowledge that Plaintiff had been secluded on multiple
Irvine, CA 92612
15 camping trips with WOODY.
16 2. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(q) as amended by Assembly Bill 218,
17 effective January 1, 2020 there is a three (3) year window in which all civil claims of childhood
18 sexual assault are revived if they have not been litigated to finality. This provision provides that,
19 “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any claim for damages described in paragraphs (1)
20 through (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a) that has not been litigated to finality and that would
21 otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2020, because the applicable statute of limitations, claim
22 presentation deadline, or any other time limit had expired, is revived, and these claims may be
23 commenced within three years of January 1, 2020. A plaintiff shall have the later of the three-year
24 time period under this subdivision or the time period under subdivision (a) as amended by the act
25 that added this subdivision.” This claim has not been previously litigated to finality; thus, it is
26 timely under the revised provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(q).
27 ///
28 ///
2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2 PARTIES
3 (Plaintiff JANE BE DOE)
4 3. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff JANE BE DOE (“Plaintiff”) was a resident
5 of the State of California, in and for the County of Monterey. The name utilized by JANE BE
6 DOE in this Complaint is not the real name of JANE BE DOE, but is a fictitious name utilized to
7 protect her privacy as a victim of childhood sexual harassment, molestation, abuse, and assault.
8 See Doe v. Lincoln Unified School District (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758. Plaintiff was born on
9 October 7, 1993, and he was a minor throughout the period of childhood sexual assault alleged
10 herein. She brings this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1 for the childhood
11 sexual assault he suffered at the hands of BBBSA, BBBSMC, WOODY, and DOES 3 through 50.
12 Currently, Plaintiff resides in the City of Hollister, State of California.
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 4. The Plaintiff was a participant with BBBSA, BBBSS and DOES 3 through 50,
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 inclusive, during the time that she was subjected to childhood sexual assault by WOODY. By
Irvine, CA 92612
15 virtue of this relationship between the Plaintiff and BBBSA, BBBSMC, WOODY, and DOES 3
16 through 50, Defendants stood in loco parentis with the Plaintiff and her parents and created a
17 special, trusting, fiduciary, and protective duty of care to the Plaintiff, who was a minor child in
18 their custody, care, and control.
19 (Defendant, BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA)
20 5. Defendant BBBSA is, at all times mentioned herein, a California corporation,
21 having its principal place of business in Tampa in the County of Hillsborough, State of Florida.
22 Big Brothers Big Sisters of America is or was formerly known as Big Brothers of America. Big
23 Brothers big Sisters of America is the successor in interest of Big Brothers of America.
24 6. BBBSA was incorporated on September 2, 1958. Upon information and therefore
25 belief, in around 2000 to 2002, the time in which WOODY abused Plaintiff, WOODY operated
26 under the auspices, supervision, custody, and control of BBBSA. Defendant BBBSA purposely
27 conducts substantial business activities in the State of California, and BBBSA was the primary
28 entity supervising and controlling the activities and behavior of its employee agents, including
3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 WOODY and DOES 3 through 50, and all other employees, agents, and supervisors of those
2 defendants. BBBSA, acting through employees, representatives, affiliates, volunteers, members,
3 and agents of any kind, cause acts, events, or omissions to occur in Salinas, California, out of
4 which these claims arise.
5 7. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant
6 BBBSA was an entity that supervised BBBSS, its volunteers and partners, supervised children,
7 and understood that children would be in its programs and in the care, custody, and control of
8 Defendant BBBSA, including the Plaintiff when she was a participant. According to its website,
9 BBBSA has developed a “unique brand of one-to-one mentoring, in which a child facing
10 adversity is carefully matched with a caring adult mentor in a relationship supported by
11 professional Big Brothers Big Sisters staff members, changes lives for the better forever.”
12 8. On or before 1977, Defendant BBBSA (formerly Big Brothers of America) created
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 a National Clearing House for Information on Sexual Child Abuse. Defendant BBBSA’s national
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 clearing house required each agency and or affiliated organization to send a written report to
Irvine, CA 92612
15 Defendant BBBSA’s national headquarters to:
16 a. Determine the incident level;
17 b. Analyze the patterns of pedophilic behaviors;
18 c. develop National Policy; and
19 d. provide guidance on volunteer selection and predictability.
20 9. In or around 1981, Defendant BBSA solicited, developed, and or approved an
21 insurance program designed specifically for affiliated agencies and or organizations, to cover
22 child sexual abuse in Defendants’ programs.
23 10. In or around 1982, Defendant BBBSA published a report entitled “Child Sexual
24 Abuse.” Defendants relied on experts in the fields of mental health, psychology, medicine, and
25 social work among others to assist Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and or its chapters,
26 executive directors, staff, parents, board members, volunteers and the community, in the
27 detection, selection, supervision and investigation procedures of alleged abusers. The report
28
4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 recognized that BBBSA knew that the Big Brothers Big Sisters programs attracts child sexual
2 abusers. Defendants acknowledged the Big Brother Big Sister programs attracts sexual predators:
Generally, itis agreed that child molestation type offenses do not
3 involve physical force for the commission of the offense. In fact the
reverse is more often true. The offender usually entices through
4 indoctrination the child into the sexual behavior through either
persuasion or entrapment in which the child is caused to feel
5 indebted or obligated. Since we deal with boys and girls who may
have no adequate role model or parent figure in their lives, it is very
6 characteristic to shower the child with new found approval,
affection and attention with the new relationship. Money, gifts and
7 new, exciting adventures for the child with this new friend all could
be ways to pressure the child into approval for otherwise reluctant
8 behavior. Clearly our clients are a ‘high risk’ for the potential
abuser. The pedophilic applicant will generally try to encourage
9 overnight visits, weekend stays at his home, or trips which involve
travel very early in the relationship. The case worker should be
10 attuned to this type of behavior and I generally recommend that
staff approval be obtained before home visits and travel with the
11 volunteer are approved.
12 Child Sexual Abuse, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (1982).
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 11. An evaluation and report by the American Bar Association on child sexual abuse
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 allegations within Defendants’ programs revealed:
Irvine, CA 92612
15
a. Between 1982 and 1991 there were 304 reports of child sexual abuse in
16
Defendants’ programs;
17
18 b. Big brothers are more likely to sexually abuse children;
19 c. Little brothers were more likely to be sexually abused by their Big Brothers;
20
d. Child sexual abuse was more likely to occur in the big brother’s home or
21
residence.
22
23 12. Defendant BBBSA manages, trains, supervises, and or controls its local
24 chapters/affiliates through an affiliate agreement. Under the agreements, local chapters must
25 comply with the standards set by Defendant Big Brothers Big Sisters of America.
26
///
27
///
28
5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 (Defendant, BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY COUNTY)
2 13. BBBSA operate through a national system of local affiliates, including Big
3 Brothers, Big Sisters of Monterey County (“BBBSMC ”), an entity of form unknown. BBBSMC
4 purposely conduct conducts substantial business activities in the State of California, and was the
5 primary entity owning, operating and controlling the activities and behavior of its employees,
6 agents, and servants including but not limited to WOODY and DOES 2 through 50 and all other
7 employees, agents, and supervisors of those defendants. The Plaintiff is informed and believes,
8 and thereon alleges that Defendant BBBSMC was an entity that supervised mentors, partners,
9 volunteers, children, and understood that children would be in its programs, on its premises, and
10 in the care, custody, and control of Defendant BBBSMC, including the Plaintiff when she was a
11 minor participant of BBBSMC and BBBSA.
12 14. At all relevant times herein, BBBSMC was the alter ego and successor-in-interest
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 with BBBSA and vice-versa as BBBSMC was (and has always been) wholly owned and
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 controlled by BBBSA.
Irvine, CA 92612
15 (Defendant, Boys & Girls Clubs of Monterey County)
16 15. Defendant Boys & Girls Clubs of Monterey County ("BGCMC") is, at all times
17 mentioned herein, a California corporation, having its principal place of business in Seaside in the
18 County of Monterey, State of California. Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County is or was
19 formerly known as Boys and Girls Clubs of Monterey County. Boys & Girls Clubs of America is
20 the successor in interest of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County.
21 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes, in or around December 2010, BBBSMC ceased
22 operations and all existing Big Brother Big Sister matches were merged into the BGCMC
23 program. Plaintiff is informed and believes that upon the merger of BBBSMC and BGCMC, at
24 least three members of the Board of Directors of BBBSMC, Peter Baird, Patsy Schulte, and Phil
25 Wilhelm, became members of the Board of Directors for BGCMC. Plaintiff is informed and
26 believes that upon its dissolution, all of BBBSMC's known debts and liabilities were assumed by
27 BGCMC and all of BBBSMC's assets were distributed to BGCMC.
28
6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times
2 mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of
3 them, such that any individuality and separateness between Defendants, and each of them, ceased
4 to exist. Defendants and each of them, were the successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the
5 other Defendants, and each of them, in that they purchased, controlled, dominated and operated
6 each other without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or other manner of division.
7 To continue maintaining the facade of a separate and individual existence between and among
8 Defendants, and each of them, would serve to perpetrate a fraud and an injustice.
9 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times
10 mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the agents, representatives and/or
11 employees of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, Defendants
12 and each of them, were acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality,
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 capacity, identity, agency, representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 authority, whether actual or apparent. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,
Irvine, CA 92612
15 that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the trustees, partners,
16 servants, joint venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other
17 Defendant, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually,
18 through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and
19 consent of each and every other Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by each
20 and every other Defendant, and that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff.
21
22 (Defendant, JON DAVID WOODY)
23 19. Defendant WOODY was formerly a volunteer and mentor with BBBSA,
24 BBBSMC, and DOES 2 through 50, who began working therein, as alleged upon information and
25 belief, between in or around 1972 through in or around 2002. During all instances of sexual
26 assault outlined herein, WOODY was a resident of California and perpetrated his repeated sexual
27 assault against the Plaintiff (and many others) while a volunteer and mentor with BBBSA and
28 DOES 2 through 50. Currently, WOODY is,based on information and belief, a registered sex
7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 offender in the State of California, being housed at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility located in
2 San Diego, California where he is serving a 226-year sentence.
3 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the true names and
4 capacities, whether individual, corporate, assistant or otherwise, of Defendants named herein as
5 DOES 2 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by
6 such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend Complaint to allege their true names and capacities
7 when such have been ascertained. Upon information and belief, each of the said DOE Defendants
8 is responsible in some manner under Code of Civil Procedure §§340.1(a)(1),(2),(3), and 340.1 (c)
9 for the occurrences herein alleged, and were a legal cause of the childhood sexual assault which
10 resulted in injury to the Plaintiff as alleged herein.
11 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times
12 mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 them, such that any individuality and separateness between Defendants, and each of them, ceased
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 to exist. Defendants and each of them, were the successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the
Irvine, CA 92612
15 other Defendants, and each of them, in that they purchased, controlled, dominated and operated
16 each other without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or other manner of division.
17 To continue maintaining the facade of a separate and individual existence between and among
18 Defendants, and each of them, would serve to perpetrate a fraud and an injustice.
19 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times
20 mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the agents, representatives and/or
21 employees of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, Defendants
22 and each of them, were acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality,
23 capacity, identity, agency, representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their
24 authority, whether actual or apparent. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,
25 that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the trustees, partners,
26 servants, joint venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other
27 Defendant, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually,
28 through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and
8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 consent of each and every other Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by each
2 and every other Defendant, and that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff.
3 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE AND
DAMAGES
4
23. From in or around 2000 through in or around 2002, Plaintiff was a minor,
5
approximately 7 or 8 years old, who participated in BBBSA and/or BBBSMC mentoring
6
program. Plaintiff and her sisters were raised by a single mother. It is through this participation
7
that Plaintiff and her sister was placed in contact with WOODY. During this period, WOODY
8
repeatedly sexually abused Plaintiff in multiple ways, including but not limited to: WOODY
9
grooming and secluding Plaintiff, fondling Plaintiff’s genitals, forcing Plaintiff to lie down on a
10
table and remove her pants and underwear, and digitally penetrating Plaintiff’s vagina. Plaintiff
11
came into contact with WOODY through his role with BBBSA and BBBSMC. The childhood
12
sexual assaults of Plaintiff occurred on over 60 occasions between in or around 2000 and in or
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13
around 2002.
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14
24. Plaintiff alleges, upon information and belief, that WOODY was arrested for
Irvine, CA 92612
15
molesting a child, pursuant to California Penal Code § 288. Plaintiff was never contacted by
16
anyone with BBBSA, BBBSMC, BGCMC or DOES 2-50, regarding the abuse.
17
25. The sexual assault described herein was done for the sexual gratification of
18
Defendant WOODY and was based, at least in part, on the gender of the Plaintiff, who was a
19
minor girl at the time.
20
26. The childhood sexual assault described herein was a violation of various
21
provisions of the California Penal Code involving sexual assault of minors, including but not
22
limited to Penal Code §§288(a), 647.6, and potentially others.
23
27. Given that the Plaintiff was a minor child at the time of his sexual assault alleged
24
herein, the Plaintiff did not, and was unable to, give free or voluntary consent to the sexual acts
25
perpetrated upon him as a child by Defendant WOODY.
26
28. As a direct and proximate result of his sexual assault by Defendant WOODY,
27
which was enabled and facilitated by BBBSA, BBBSMC, BGCMC and DOES 2 through 50,
28
9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, psychological, mental and emotional distress,
2 including but not limited to: great pain of mind and body, shock, physical manifestations of
3 emotional distress, nightmares, extreme bouts of anger, stress, fear, shame, humiliation,
4 depression, anxiety, sadness, trust issues, control issues, social isolation, fearfulness, and loss of
5 enjoyment of loss. She has and will continue to incur expenses for mental, psychological,
6 psychiatric, and medical care due to the assault, according to proof at trial.
7 29. As a direct and proximate result of her sexual assault by Defendant WOODY,
8 which was enabled and facilitated by Defendant BBBSA, BBBSMC, BGCMC and DOES 2-50,
9 Plaintiff has been damaged in her employment, specifically losing wages and earnings and
10 economic benefits according to proof at the time of trial. Plaintiff has lost wages as a result of the
11 assault he suffered at the hands of Defendants and will continue to lose wages in an amount to be
12 determined at trial. Plaintiff has suffered economic injury, all to Plaintiff's general, special and
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 consequential damage in an amount to be proven at trial,but in no event less than the Court’s
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 minimum jurisdictional amount.
Irvine, CA 92612
15 DEFENDANT WOODY’S TENURE WITH BBBSA AND BBBSMC AND WARNING
SIGNS TO DEFENDANT, AND DUTIES OF DEFENDANTS BBBSA, BBBSMC AND
16 DOES 1-50 TO PROTECT THE PLAINTIFF
17 30. As volunteer and mentor with BBBSA, , BBBSMC and DOES 2 through 50,
18 WOODY was placed into a position of functional and legal authority, control, and supervision,
19 over the Plaintiff, her parents, and other BBBSA and BBBSMC participants with whom he came
20 into contact. WOODY was a confidant to the Plaintiff and her family, and as a result, there was a
21 special, trusting, confidential and fiduciary relationship between the Plaintiff and WOODY, as
22 well as between Defendants BBBS, BBBSMC, and DOES 2-50, inclusive, and the Plaintiff.
23 Through this relationship with the Plaintiff, Defendants BBBSA, BBBSMC , WOODY, and
24 DOES 2 through 50, inclusive, stood in loco parentis with the Plaintiff as well as with her family.
25 Specifically, Defendants BBBSA, BBBSMC, WOODY, and DOES 2 through 50, inclusive, took
26 the Plaintiff into their custody, care and control, which conferred upon the Plaintiff and her
27 family, the reasonable belief that the Plaintiff, a minor child, would be protected and cared for, as
28
10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 if BBBSA, BBBSMC , WOODY, and DOES 2 through 50, inclusive, were the Plaintiff’s own
2 parents.
3 31. As is set forth herein, Defendants and each of them have failed to uphold
4 numerous mandatory duties imposed upon them by state and federal law, and by written policies
5 and procedures applicable to Defendants, including but not limited to the following:
6 * Duty to protect minor children in their care, and provide adequate
supervision;
7
* Duty to ensure that any direction given to employees and agents is lawful,
8 and that adults act fairly, responsibly and respectfully towards other adults
and minor children;
9
* Duty to properly train teachers, mentors, supervisors and advisors so that
10 they are aware of their individual responsibility for creating and
maintaining a safe environment;
11
* Duty to supervise employees and minor children in its car
Preview
1 Alison M. Crane, SBN 197359 Tara A. Murray, SBN 284871 2 BLEDSOE, DIESTEL, TREPPA & CRANE LLP 180 Sansome Street, 5th Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94104-3713 Telephone: (415) 981-5411 4 Facsimile: (415) 981-0352 acrane@bledsoelaw.com 5 tmurray@bledsoelaw.com 6 Attorneys for Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, a California corporation 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY 10 11 JANE BE DOE an individual, Case No. 21CV000805 12 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF ALISON M. CRANE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’s BIG 13 v. BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, BIG BROTHERS BIG 14 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SISTERS OF SALINA, MOTION TO AMERICA, a California corporation; BIG COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONES TO 15 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SALINA, REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE a California corporation; JON DAVID AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET 16 WOODY, an individual; and DOES 1-50, TWO inclusive, 17 Date: June 3, 2022 Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m. 18 Dept.: 15 19 I, Alison M. Crane, declare: 20 1. I am a partner at the law firm Bledsoe, Diestel, Treppa & Crane LLP, attorneys of 21 record for Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA (hereinafter “BBBSA”) in 22 the above-titled action. 23 2. I have personal knowledge of all facts stated herein, and if called as a witness 24 could and would competently testify to them under oath. 25 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s First 26 Amended Complaint, filed on December 13, 2021, against Defendants JON DAVID WOODY 27 (“Woody”), BIG BROTHERS AND BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY COUNTY, BOYS & GIRLS 28 DECL. ISO BBBSA’S MTN TO COMPEL PLTF’S RESP. TO RFA, SET ONE, & FROGS, SET TWO 1 CLUB OF MONTEREY COUNTY, and BBBSA. 2 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of BBBSA’s Form 3 Interrogatories, Set Two, to Plaintiff JANE BE DOE (“Plaintiff”) served on February 10, 2022. 4 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of BBBSA’s Request for 5 Admission, Set One, to Plaintiff served on February 10, 2022. 6 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s verified 7 response to BBBSA’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, served on August 20, 2021. 8 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s verified 9 response to BBBSA’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, served on December 7, 2021. 10 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s production of 11 Texas criminal records for a “Jon David Woody” in response to BBBSA’s Request for Production of 12 Documents, Set Two, served on December 7, 2021. 13 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s verified 14 responses to BBBSA’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, served on March 14, 2022. 15 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s responses to 16 BBBSA’s Request for Admission, Set One, served on March 14, 2022. 17 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of BBBSA’s meet and 18 confer with Plaintiff regarding the deficient discovery responses in letters dated March 28, 2022, 19 regarding Plaintiff’s deficient responses to BBBSA’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request 20 for Admissions of Documents, Set One, and requesting further verified responses. 21 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s responding 22 meet and confer letter dated April 1, 2022. 23 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of BBBSA’s meet and 24 confer with Plaintiff regarding the deficient discovery responses in letters dated April 27, 2022, regarding 25 Plaintiff’s deficient responses to BBBSA’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Admissions of 26 Documents, Set One, and requesting further verified responses. 27 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s responding 28 meet and confer letter dated April 29, 2022. -2- DECL. ISO BBBSA’S MTN TO COMPEL PLTF’S RESP. TO RFA, SET ONE, & FROGS, SET TWO 1 15. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of an email from defense 2 counsel to Plaintiff’s counsel dated April 29, 2022, regarding further verified responses to Request for 3 Admissions of Documents, Set One. 4 16. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing is 5 true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on May 2, 2022, in Walnut Creek, 6 California. 7 Dated: May 2, 2022 BLEDSOE, DIESTEL, TREPPA & CRANE LLP 8 9 By: 10 Alison M. Crane Tara A. Murray 11 Attorneys for Defendant BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, a California corporation 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- DECL. ISO BBBSA’S MTN TO COMPEL PLTF’S RESP. TO RFA, SET ONE, & FROGS, SET TWO EXHIBIT A 1 JOHN C. MANLY, Esq. (State Bar No. 149080) TAYLOR RAYFIELD, Esq (State Bar No. 27300) 2 COURTNEY P. PENDRY, Esq. (State Bar No. 327382) MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 3 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 4 Telephone: (949) 252-9990 Fax: (949) 252-9991 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, JANE BE DOE 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF MONTEREY 9 10 JANE BE DOE an individual, Case No.: 21CV000805 Judge: Thomas W. Wills 11 Plaintiff, Department: 15 12 vs. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 AMERICA, a California corporation; ; BIG Telephone: (949) 252-9990 (1) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; Irvine, CA 92612 COUNTY, a California Corporation, BOYS & (2) NEGLIGENCE; 15 GIRLS CLUBS OF MONTEREY COUNTY, (3) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; a California Corporation JON DAVID (4) CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD (CIVIL 16 WOODY, an individual; and DOES 1-50, CODE § 1573); inclusive, (5) SEXUAL HARASSEMENT (CIVIL 17 CODE Defendants. § 51.9); 18 (6) SEXUAL BATTERY; (7) GENDER VIOLENCE (CIVIL CODE 19 § 52.4); (8) VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE § 20 288(a); (9) VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE § 21 647.6(a)(1). 22 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 23 24 COMES NOW, Plaintiff JANE BE DOE (“Plaintiff”), who hereby complains and alleges 25 against Defendants BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, BIG BROTHERS BIG 26 SISTERS OF MONTEREY COUNTY; BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF MONTEREY 27 COUNTY, JON DAVID WOODY and DOES 2 through 50, inclusive (“Defendants”), as follows: 28 1 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 1. Between in or around 2000 through 2002, Plaintiff was a minor participant 2 with BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA (hereinafter “BBBSA”) and/or BIG 3 BROTHER BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY COUNTY (hereinafter “BBBSMC ”), while she 4 was approximately 7 to 8 years old. It is through Plaintiff’s participation in BBBSMC that she 5 was placed in contact with JON DAVID WOODY (hereinafter “WOODY”), and his wife. During 6 this period, WOODY repeatedly sexually abused Plaintiff in multiple ways, including but not 7 limited to: WOODY grooming and secluding Plaintiff, fondling Plaintiff’s genitals, forcing 8 Plaintiff to lie down on a table and remove her pants and underwear, and digitally penetrating 9 Plaintiff’s vagina. WOODY was ultimately arrested for his abuse of Plaintiff and other 10 participants of BBBSA and BBBSMC and found guilty of 3 counts of sexual penetration of a 11 child, and 17 counts of lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 and sentenced to a term of 210 12 years to life and a consecutive determinate term of 16 years in state prison. Neither BBBSA, 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 BBBSMC, nor DOES 3-50 ever reached out to Plaintiff, following WOODY’s arrest, to inquire Telephone: (949) 252-9990 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 about Plaintiff’s well-being, despite knowledge that Plaintiff had been secluded on multiple Irvine, CA 92612 15 camping trips with WOODY. 16 2. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(q) as amended by Assembly Bill 218, 17 effective January 1, 2020 there is a three (3) year window in which all civil claims of childhood 18 sexual assault are revived if they have not been litigated to finality. This provision provides that, 19 “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any claim for damages described in paragraphs (1) 20 through (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a) that has not been litigated to finality and that would 21 otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2020, because the applicable statute of limitations, claim 22 presentation deadline, or any other time limit had expired, is revived, and these claims may be 23 commenced within three years of January 1, 2020. A plaintiff shall have the later of the three-year 24 time period under this subdivision or the time period under subdivision (a) as amended by the act 25 that added this subdivision.” This claim has not been previously litigated to finality; thus, it is 26 timely under the revised provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(q). 27 /// 28 /// 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 PARTIES 3 (Plaintiff JANE BE DOE) 4 3. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff JANE BE DOE (“Plaintiff”) was a resident 5 of the State of California, in and for the County of Monterey. The name utilized by JANE BE 6 DOE in this Complaint is not the real name of JANE BE DOE, but is a fictitious name utilized to 7 protect her privacy as a victim of childhood sexual harassment, molestation, abuse, and assault. 8 See Doe v. Lincoln Unified School District (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758. Plaintiff was born on 9 October 7, 1993, and he was a minor throughout the period of childhood sexual assault alleged 10 herein. She brings this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1 for the childhood 11 sexual assault he suffered at the hands of BBBSA, BBBSMC, WOODY, and DOES 3 through 50. 12 Currently, Plaintiff resides in the City of Hollister, State of California. 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 4. The Plaintiff was a participant with BBBSA, BBBSS and DOES 3 through 50, Telephone: (949) 252-9990 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 inclusive, during the time that she was subjected to childhood sexual assault by WOODY. By Irvine, CA 92612 15 virtue of this relationship between the Plaintiff and BBBSA, BBBSMC, WOODY, and DOES 3 16 through 50, Defendants stood in loco parentis with the Plaintiff and her parents and created a 17 special, trusting, fiduciary, and protective duty of care to the Plaintiff, who was a minor child in 18 their custody, care, and control. 19 (Defendant, BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA) 20 5. Defendant BBBSA is, at all times mentioned herein, a California corporation, 21 having its principal place of business in Tampa in the County of Hillsborough, State of Florida. 22 Big Brothers Big Sisters of America is or was formerly known as Big Brothers of America. Big 23 Brothers big Sisters of America is the successor in interest of Big Brothers of America. 24 6. BBBSA was incorporated on September 2, 1958. Upon information and therefore 25 belief, in around 2000 to 2002, the time in which WOODY abused Plaintiff, WOODY operated 26 under the auspices, supervision, custody, and control of BBBSA. Defendant BBBSA purposely 27 conducts substantial business activities in the State of California, and BBBSA was the primary 28 entity supervising and controlling the activities and behavior of its employee agents, including 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 WOODY and DOES 3 through 50, and all other employees, agents, and supervisors of those 2 defendants. BBBSA, acting through employees, representatives, affiliates, volunteers, members, 3 and agents of any kind, cause acts, events, or omissions to occur in Salinas, California, out of 4 which these claims arise. 5 7. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant 6 BBBSA was an entity that supervised BBBSS, its volunteers and partners, supervised children, 7 and understood that children would be in its programs and in the care, custody, and control of 8 Defendant BBBSA, including the Plaintiff when she was a participant. According to its website, 9 BBBSA has developed a “unique brand of one-to-one mentoring, in which a child facing 10 adversity is carefully matched with a caring adult mentor in a relationship supported by 11 professional Big Brothers Big Sisters staff members, changes lives for the better forever.” 12 8. On or before 1977, Defendant BBBSA (formerly Big Brothers of America) created 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 a National Clearing House for Information on Sexual Child Abuse. Defendant BBBSA’s national Telephone: (949) 252-9990 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 clearing house required each agency and or affiliated organization to send a written report to Irvine, CA 92612 15 Defendant BBBSA’s national headquarters to: 16 a. Determine the incident level; 17 b. Analyze the patterns of pedophilic behaviors; 18 c. develop National Policy; and 19 d. provide guidance on volunteer selection and predictability. 20 9. In or around 1981, Defendant BBSA solicited, developed, and or approved an 21 insurance program designed specifically for affiliated agencies and or organizations, to cover 22 child sexual abuse in Defendants’ programs. 23 10. In or around 1982, Defendant BBBSA published a report entitled “Child Sexual 24 Abuse.” Defendants relied on experts in the fields of mental health, psychology, medicine, and 25 social work among others to assist Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and or its chapters, 26 executive directors, staff, parents, board members, volunteers and the community, in the 27 detection, selection, supervision and investigation procedures of alleged abusers. The report 28 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 recognized that BBBSA knew that the Big Brothers Big Sisters programs attracts child sexual 2 abusers. Defendants acknowledged the Big Brother Big Sister programs attracts sexual predators: Generally, itis agreed that child molestation type offenses do not 3 involve physical force for the commission of the offense. In fact the reverse is more often true. The offender usually entices through 4 indoctrination the child into the sexual behavior through either persuasion or entrapment in which the child is caused to feel 5 indebted or obligated. Since we deal with boys and girls who may have no adequate role model or parent figure in their lives, it is very 6 characteristic to shower the child with new found approval, affection and attention with the new relationship. Money, gifts and 7 new, exciting adventures for the child with this new friend all could be ways to pressure the child into approval for otherwise reluctant 8 behavior. Clearly our clients are a ‘high risk’ for the potential abuser. The pedophilic applicant will generally try to encourage 9 overnight visits, weekend stays at his home, or trips which involve travel very early in the relationship. The case worker should be 10 attuned to this type of behavior and I generally recommend that staff approval be obtained before home visits and travel with the 11 volunteer are approved. 12 Child Sexual Abuse, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (1982). 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 11. An evaluation and report by the American Bar Association on child sexual abuse Telephone: (949) 252-9990 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 allegations within Defendants’ programs revealed: Irvine, CA 92612 15 a. Between 1982 and 1991 there were 304 reports of child sexual abuse in 16 Defendants’ programs; 17 18 b. Big brothers are more likely to sexually abuse children; 19 c. Little brothers were more likely to be sexually abused by their Big Brothers; 20 d. Child sexual abuse was more likely to occur in the big brother’s home or 21 residence. 22 23 12. Defendant BBBSA manages, trains, supervises, and or controls its local 24 chapters/affiliates through an affiliate agreement. Under the agreements, local chapters must 25 comply with the standards set by Defendant Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. 26 /// 27 /// 28 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 (Defendant, BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY COUNTY) 2 13. BBBSA operate through a national system of local affiliates, including Big 3 Brothers, Big Sisters of Monterey County (“BBBSMC ”), an entity of form unknown. BBBSMC 4 purposely conduct conducts substantial business activities in the State of California, and was the 5 primary entity owning, operating and controlling the activities and behavior of its employees, 6 agents, and servants including but not limited to WOODY and DOES 2 through 50 and all other 7 employees, agents, and supervisors of those defendants. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, 8 and thereon alleges that Defendant BBBSMC was an entity that supervised mentors, partners, 9 volunteers, children, and understood that children would be in its programs, on its premises, and 10 in the care, custody, and control of Defendant BBBSMC, including the Plaintiff when she was a 11 minor participant of BBBSMC and BBBSA. 12 14. At all relevant times herein, BBBSMC was the alter ego and successor-in-interest 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 with BBBSA and vice-versa as BBBSMC was (and has always been) wholly owned and Telephone: (949) 252-9990 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 controlled by BBBSA. Irvine, CA 92612 15 (Defendant, Boys & Girls Clubs of Monterey County) 16 15. Defendant Boys & Girls Clubs of Monterey County ("BGCMC") is, at all times 17 mentioned herein, a California corporation, having its principal place of business in Seaside in the 18 County of Monterey, State of California. Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County is or was 19 formerly known as Boys and Girls Clubs of Monterey County. Boys & Girls Clubs of America is 20 the successor in interest of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County. 21 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes, in or around December 2010, BBBSMC ceased 22 operations and all existing Big Brother Big Sister matches were merged into the BGCMC 23 program. Plaintiff is informed and believes that upon the merger of BBBSMC and BGCMC, at 24 least three members of the Board of Directors of BBBSMC, Peter Baird, Patsy Schulte, and Phil 25 Wilhelm, became members of the Board of Directors for BGCMC. Plaintiff is informed and 26 believes that upon its dissolution, all of BBBSMC's known debts and liabilities were assumed by 27 BGCMC and all of BBBSMC's assets were distributed to BGCMC. 28 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times 2 mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of 3 them, such that any individuality and separateness between Defendants, and each of them, ceased 4 to exist. Defendants and each of them, were the successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the 5 other Defendants, and each of them, in that they purchased, controlled, dominated and operated 6 each other without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or other manner of division. 7 To continue maintaining the facade of a separate and individual existence between and among 8 Defendants, and each of them, would serve to perpetrate a fraud and an injustice. 9 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times 10 mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the agents, representatives and/or 11 employees of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, Defendants 12 and each of them, were acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality, 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 capacity, identity, agency, representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their Telephone: (949) 252-9990 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 authority, whether actual or apparent. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, Irvine, CA 92612 15 that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the trustees, partners, 16 servants, joint venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other 17 Defendant, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, 18 through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and 19 consent of each and every other Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by each 20 and every other Defendant, and that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff. 21 22 (Defendant, JON DAVID WOODY) 23 19. Defendant WOODY was formerly a volunteer and mentor with BBBSA, 24 BBBSMC, and DOES 2 through 50, who began working therein, as alleged upon information and 25 belief, between in or around 1972 through in or around 2002. During all instances of sexual 26 assault outlined herein, WOODY was a resident of California and perpetrated his repeated sexual 27 assault against the Plaintiff (and many others) while a volunteer and mentor with BBBSA and 28 DOES 2 through 50. Currently, WOODY is,based on information and belief, a registered sex 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 offender in the State of California, being housed at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility located in 2 San Diego, California where he is serving a 226-year sentence. 3 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the true names and 4 capacities, whether individual, corporate, assistant or otherwise, of Defendants named herein as 5 DOES 2 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by 6 such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend Complaint to allege their true names and capacities 7 when such have been ascertained. Upon information and belief, each of the said DOE Defendants 8 is responsible in some manner under Code of Civil Procedure §§340.1(a)(1),(2),(3), and 340.1 (c) 9 for the occurrences herein alleged, and were a legal cause of the childhood sexual assault which 10 resulted in injury to the Plaintiff as alleged herein. 11 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times 12 mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 them, such that any individuality and separateness between Defendants, and each of them, ceased Telephone: (949) 252-9990 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 to exist. Defendants and each of them, were the successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the Irvine, CA 92612 15 other Defendants, and each of them, in that they purchased, controlled, dominated and operated 16 each other without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or other manner of division. 17 To continue maintaining the facade of a separate and individual existence between and among 18 Defendants, and each of them, would serve to perpetrate a fraud and an injustice. 19 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times 20 mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the agents, representatives and/or 21 employees of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, Defendants 22 and each of them, were acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality, 23 capacity, identity, agency, representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their 24 authority, whether actual or apparent. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, 25 that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the trustees, partners, 26 servants, joint venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other 27 Defendant, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, 28 through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 consent of each and every other Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by each 2 and every other Defendant, and that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff. 3 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE AND DAMAGES 4 23. From in or around 2000 through in or around 2002, Plaintiff was a minor, 5 approximately 7 or 8 years old, who participated in BBBSA and/or BBBSMC mentoring 6 program. Plaintiff and her sisters were raised by a single mother. It is through this participation 7 that Plaintiff and her sister was placed in contact with WOODY. During this period, WOODY 8 repeatedly sexually abused Plaintiff in multiple ways, including but not limited to: WOODY 9 grooming and secluding Plaintiff, fondling Plaintiff’s genitals, forcing Plaintiff to lie down on a 10 table and remove her pants and underwear, and digitally penetrating Plaintiff’s vagina. Plaintiff 11 came into contact with WOODY through his role with BBBSA and BBBSMC. The childhood 12 sexual assaults of Plaintiff occurred on over 60 occasions between in or around 2000 and in or 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 around 2002. Telephone: (949) 252-9990 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 24. Plaintiff alleges, upon information and belief, that WOODY was arrested for Irvine, CA 92612 15 molesting a child, pursuant to California Penal Code § 288. Plaintiff was never contacted by 16 anyone with BBBSA, BBBSMC, BGCMC or DOES 2-50, regarding the abuse. 17 25. The sexual assault described herein was done for the sexual gratification of 18 Defendant WOODY and was based, at least in part, on the gender of the Plaintiff, who was a 19 minor girl at the time. 20 26. The childhood sexual assault described herein was a violation of various 21 provisions of the California Penal Code involving sexual assault of minors, including but not 22 limited to Penal Code §§288(a), 647.6, and potentially others. 23 27. Given that the Plaintiff was a minor child at the time of his sexual assault alleged 24 herein, the Plaintiff did not, and was unable to, give free or voluntary consent to the sexual acts 25 perpetrated upon him as a child by Defendant WOODY. 26 28. As a direct and proximate result of his sexual assault by Defendant WOODY, 27 which was enabled and facilitated by BBBSA, BBBSMC, BGCMC and DOES 2 through 50, 28 9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, psychological, mental and emotional distress, 2 including but not limited to: great pain of mind and body, shock, physical manifestations of 3 emotional distress, nightmares, extreme bouts of anger, stress, fear, shame, humiliation, 4 depression, anxiety, sadness, trust issues, control issues, social isolation, fearfulness, and loss of 5 enjoyment of loss. She has and will continue to incur expenses for mental, psychological, 6 psychiatric, and medical care due to the assault, according to proof at trial. 7 29. As a direct and proximate result of her sexual assault by Defendant WOODY, 8 which was enabled and facilitated by Defendant BBBSA, BBBSMC, BGCMC and DOES 2-50, 9 Plaintiff has been damaged in her employment, specifically losing wages and earnings and 10 economic benefits according to proof at the time of trial. Plaintiff has lost wages as a result of the 11 assault he suffered at the hands of Defendants and will continue to lose wages in an amount to be 12 determined at trial. Plaintiff has suffered economic injury, all to Plaintiff's general, special and 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 consequential damage in an amount to be proven at trial,but in no event less than the Court’s Telephone: (949) 252-9990 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 minimum jurisdictional amount. Irvine, CA 92612 15 DEFENDANT WOODY’S TENURE WITH BBBSA AND BBBSMC AND WARNING SIGNS TO DEFENDANT, AND DUTIES OF DEFENDANTS BBBSA, BBBSMC AND 16 DOES 1-50 TO PROTECT THE PLAINTIFF 17 30. As volunteer and mentor with BBBSA, , BBBSMC and DOES 2 through 50, 18 WOODY was placed into a position of functional and legal authority, control, and supervision, 19 over the Plaintiff, her parents, and other BBBSA and BBBSMC participants with whom he came 20 into contact. WOODY was a confidant to the Plaintiff and her family, and as a result, there was a 21 special, trusting, confidential and fiduciary relationship between the Plaintiff and WOODY, as 22 well as between Defendants BBBS, BBBSMC, and DOES 2-50, inclusive, and the Plaintiff. 23 Through this relationship with the Plaintiff, Defendants BBBSA, BBBSMC , WOODY, and 24 DOES 2 through 50, inclusive, stood in loco parentis with the Plaintiff as well as with her family. 25 Specifically, Defendants BBBSA, BBBSMC, WOODY, and DOES 2 through 50, inclusive, took 26 the Plaintiff into their custody, care and control, which conferred upon the Plaintiff and her 27 family, the reasonable belief that the Plaintiff, a minor child, would be protected and cared for, as 28 10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 if BBBSA, BBBSMC , WOODY, and DOES 2 through 50, inclusive, were the Plaintiff’s own 2 parents. 3 31. As is set forth herein, Defendants and each of them have failed to uphold 4 numerous mandatory duties imposed upon them by state and federal law, and by written policies 5 and procedures applicable to Defendants, including but not limited to the following: 6 * Duty to protect minor children in their care, and provide adequate supervision; 7 * Duty to ensure that any direction given to employees and agents is lawful, 8 and that adults act fairly, responsibly and respectfully towards other adults and minor children; 9 * Duty to properly train teachers, mentors, supervisors and advisors so that 10 they are aware of their individual responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe environment; 11 * Duty to supervise employees and minor children in its car