Preview
1
Sandra Ribera Speed (SBN 236769)
2 RIBERA LAW FIRM, APC
157 West Portal Avenue, Suite 2
3 San Francisco, CA 94127
Telephone: (415) 576-1600
Facsimile: (415) 842-0321 4/24/2023
4
sribera@riberalaw.com
5
Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO- UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10
11 John Doe 1; John Doe 2; John Doe 3; John Case No.: 22-CIV-05492
Doe 4; John Doe 5; John Doe 6; John Doe
12 7; John Doe 8; John Doe 9; John Doe 10; FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
John Doe 11; John Doe 12; and DAMAGES
13 John Doe 13 Filed Pursuant to CCP Sec. 3401.1, as Amended
14 PLAINTIFFS; 1) Sexual Battery
2) Gender Violence
15 v. 3) Negligence
4) Negligent Supervision
16 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, a 5) Negligent Retention
governmental entity; STATE OF 6) Negligent Failure to Train, Warn, or
17 CALIFORNIA, a governmental entity; and Educate
DOES 3 through 25, inclusive,
18 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS.
19
20
21
22
23
24 INTRODUCTION
25 1. This case is about the systemic failures of a local government and how those failures resulted in
26 the sexual abuse of likely over one thousand young boys over a 40-year period in San Mateo.
27
28
1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 FACTUAL SUMMARY
2 San Mateo Creates a Pipeline for Pedophilia by Dr. William Ayres
3 2. Psychiatrist, Dr. William Ayres, departed his home and practice in Boston in 1963 rather abruptly.
4 While in Boston, it was known that Ayres had an unorthodox practice of making physical examinations
5 a part of his psychiatric evaluations of young boys.
6 3. Ayres relocated to San Mateo County in California in 1963. Almost immediately upon moving to
7 California in 1963, Ayres is awarded contracts with the San Mateo juvenile courts; San Mateo juvenile
8 probation; the San Mateo Private Defenders juvenile program, and San Mateo Children’s Services to
9 perform psychiatric evaluations on court-referred juvenile defendants. According to retired San Mateo
10 Superior Court Judge Pat Bresee, Ayres was originally awarded these contracts, because he was the
11 lowest bidder. These contracts ensured that Dr. Ayres would have a steady stream of boys to sexually
12 abuse who were not likely to be believed if they ever decided to report what Dr. Ayres was doing to
13 them.
14 Notice of Dr. Ayres’ Sexual Proclivities Prior to 1987
15 4. Beginning in the mid-1960s, stories of Dr. Ayres sexually abusing his minor male patients were
16 well-known throughout the San Mateo medical community.
17 5. In or around 1966, JOHN DOE 1 was approximately 12-13 years old and incarcerated at Hillcrest
18 Juvenile Hall when he was sexually assaulted by Dr. Ayres during a “physical” at Ayres’ office that
19 involved Ayres fondling JOHN DOE 1’s naked penis. One of JOHN DOE 1’s counselors at Hillcrest
20 was Jim Fox, who will later become the District Attorney of Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO.
21 6. In the late 1960s, Ayres collaborated with a Bay Area television station to produce an educational
22 series for kids about puberty, masturbation, and sex. The series, “Time of Your Life,” which was written
23 by Ayres, set off a nationwide backlash, with parents decrying it as pornography. Following several
24 lawsuits by parents whose children were being showed the series in school, the San Mateo School
25 District stopped showing Dr. Ayres’ “Time of Your Life” in and around 1968.
26 7. In 1969, G.S., age 12, was sent to Ayres after he broke some windows and ran away from home.
27
28
2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Ayres raped G.S. at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall and said that he would send G.S. to Youth Authority, where
2 the inmates would “beat him up and make him a woman,” if G.S. told anyone what Ayres had done to
3 him.
4 8. In or around 1969 -1970, JOHN DOE 2, who was approximately 12 -13 years old, was
5 sexually assaulted repeatedly by Dr. Ayres at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall each day, Monday – Friday, for
6 four months. Ayres would perform physical exams on JOHN DOE 2 during which time Ayres would
7 fondle JOHN DOE 2’s penis and perform oral sex on JOHN DOE 2. Dr. Ayres told JOHN DOE 2 that
8 if he told anyone about Ayres sexually assaulting him, Ayres would send JOHN DOE 2 away forever.
9 JOHN DOE 2 attempted to report the abuse to his female counselor at Hillcrest. However, nothing
10 happened to Ayres as a result and he remained at Hillcrest.
11 9. In or around 1971-1972, JOHN DOE 3, who was approximately 7-9 years old, was court-ordered
12 to undergo psychiatric evaluation with Ayres. JOHN DOE 3 saw Ayres on approximately seven
13 occasions during which Ayres would tell JOHN DOE 3 to take his clothes off so that Ayres could
14 conduct a physical examination of him. During these examinations, Ayres would fondle JOHN DOE
15 3’s penis, engage in oral sex, and take naked photographs of JOHN DOE 3. JOHN DOE 3 reported what
16 Ayres was doing to him to his juvenile defender at the time. JOHN DOE 3’s juvenile defender and the
17 prosecutor on his case met with the judge and JOHN DOE 3 never had to see Ayres again. While Ayres
18 had threatened to have JOHN DOE 3 sent to California Youth Authority if he told anyone about the
19 sexual assaults, following JOHN DOE 3’s disclosure to his juvenile defender, JOHN DOE 3 was allowed
20 to go live with his mother.
21 10. In or around 1972-1973, JOHN DOE 4, who was approximately 14 years old, was incarcerated
22 at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall and ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation with Ayres. During his
23 evaluation of JOHN DOE 4 at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall, Ayres told JOHN DOE 4 to pull his pants down
24 to have his temperature and attempted to sexually assault him. However, JOHN DOE 4 reportedly told
25 Ayres, “Fuck you! This is supposed to be a mental exam!” Ayres was so angry that he called in Hillcrest
26 staff. When JOHN DOE 4 told the other boys at Hillcrest about what Ayres had done to him, the other
27 boys said that “Dr. Bill was well known for this sort of thing.” In fact, during the brief time that JOHN
28
3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 DOE 4 was at Hillcrest, JOHN DOE 4 reported that two other boys at Hillcrest, D.A. and M.P., had
2 been sexually assaulted by Ayres during their psychiatric evaluations at Hillcrest.
3 11. In 1973, A.Y., age 14, was sent to Ayres by a San Mateo judge after A.Y. was caught by police
4 drinking beer in a park while out on probation. During his psychiatric evaluation of A.Y., Ayres made
5 A.Y. take off his clothes and sexually assaulted him during a physical examination. At a follow-up
6 hearing, a traumatized A.Y. told the San Mateo judge that he refused to see Ayres again. Both A.Y. and
7 his mother recalled that the judge yelled at A.Y. for refusing to see Ayres and then gave him an
8 ultimatum: Either attend sessions with Ayres or A.Y would be sent to Camp Glenwood, a juvenile camp
9 run by DOE 1. A.Y. told the judge that he wanted to go the Camp Glenwood.
10 12. In or around 1973-1974, JOHN DOE 5, who was approximately 12-13 years old, was
11 incarcerated at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall and ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluations with Ayres during
12 which JOHN DOE 5 was sexually assaulted by Ayres on approximately four occasions. During these
13 sexual assaults of JOHN DOE 5 at Hillcrest, Ayres fondled JOHN DOE 5’s penis and forced JOHN
14 DOE 5 to rub Ayres’ penis and engage in oral sex. JOHN DOE 5 returned to Hillcrest Juvenile Hall
15 when he was approximately 15 years old at which time Dr. Ayres again sexually assaulted JOHN DOE
16 5. Ayres threatened JOHN DOE 5 that bad things would happen to him if JOHN DOE 5 told anyone
17 about the sexual assaults.
18 13. In or around 1975, JOHN DOE 6, who was approximately 12 years old, was incarcerated at
19 Hillcrest Juvenile Hall and ordered to undergo several psychiatric evaluations with Ayres. Ayres
20 sexually assaulted JOHN DOE 6 on numerous occasions during these evaluations at Hillcrest. During
21 JOHN DOE 6’s first appointment with Dr. Ayres, Ayres had JOHN DOE 6 pull down his pants and
22 Ayres fondled JOHN DOE 6’s penis. Additionally, Dr. Ayres stuck his finger inside JOHN DOE 6’s
23 anus during this appointment. During JOHN DOE 6’s second appointment with Dr. Ayres, Ayres
24 performed oral sex on JOHN DOE 6. During JOHN DOE 6’s third appointment with Dr. Ayres, Ayres
25 continued to fondle JOHN DOE 6 and perform oral sex on him. Ayres also warned JOHN DOE 6 not to
26 tell anybody about Ayres sexually assaulting him, because others would think that JOHN DOE 6 was
27 lying. On the fourth occasion that JOHN DOE 6 met with Ayres at Hillcrest, JOHN DOE 6 screamed
28
4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 and refused to let Ayres sexually assault him. Ayres called in Hillcrest staff and had JONH DOE 6
2 thrown into “The Hole” (i.e. solitary confinement) for several days. JOHN DOE 6 told his two
3 counselors at Hillcrest, believed to be named Ware and McCready, that he had repeatedly been sexually
4 assaulted by Dr. Ayres. However, nothing was done and Dr. Ayres continued to work at Hillcrest and
5 “evaluate” those juveniles who were incarcerated there.
6 14. In approximately 1982, Dr. William Ayres publicly suggested at a Bay Area conference that
7 psychiatrists should assess the sexual development of their adolescent patients by conducting intimate
8 physical exams. It was important, Ayres contended, to determine whether a patient had reached what
9 were known in the profession as “Tanner stages,” i.e. milestones of sexual development, such as the
10 development of pubic hair.
11 15. In or around 1984, JOHN DOE 8, who was approximately 14 years old, was incarcerated at
12 Hillcrest Juvenile Hall after running away from a group home. JOHN DOE 8 was ordered to be evaluated
13 by Ayres who forced the 14-year-old to perform oral sex on him and to masturbate him. Ayres also
14 performed oral sex on JOHN DOE 8. Ayres sexually assaulted JOHN DOE 8 at Hillcrest on
15 approximately five separate occasions. JOHN DOE 8 recalled Ayres telling him that if JOHN DOE 8
16 ever told anyone about what Ayres did to him, nobody would believe JOHN DOE 8 because he was a
17 troublemaker and already incarcerated. As a result of being sexually assaulted by Ayres, JOHN DOE 8
18 attempted suicide at Hillcrest, which was indicated in his records.
19
16. From 1984 – 1986, Marta Diaz was a prosecutor who worked on the San Mateo District
20
Attorney’s sexual assault team under the supervision of Chief Deputy District Attorney Stephen M.
21
Wagstaffe. Years later when Wagstaffe was interviewed about sexual assault allegations against
22
Ayres, Wagstaffe was quoted as saying that it would not have been impossible for Diaz to have
23
received reports while she served on the sexual assault team that Ayres had been accused of sexually
24
abusing minors.
25
17. In or around 1985 -1987, JOHN DOE 9, who was approximately 12-14 years old, was
26
27 incarcerated at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall when Ayres asked JOHN DOE 9 to show Ayres his “private
28
5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
parts” while Ayres masturbated in front of him. JOHN DOE 9 recalled that Ayres told him that he was
1
“good friends” with San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe and that if JOHN DOE 9 let Ayres
2
3 perform a sexual act on him, he could talk to Wagstaffe and get a reduced sentence for JOHN DOE 9.
4 Ayres never followed through on his promise and sexually assaulted JOHN DOE 9 on approximately
5 four separate occasions at Hillcrest. Ayres also threatened JOHN DOE 9 that if he ever told anyone
6 about Ayres sexually assaulting him, Ayres would “make it real hard” on him.
7 Multiple Reports of Dr. Ayers Sexually Assaulting Minors
8 18. In 1987, G.H. reported to his mother’s therapist, Jeff Lugerner, that two years prior, when he
9
was 15 years old, G.H. was sexually assaulted on several occasions by Ayres during therapy sessions.
10
G.H. described that he was masturbated by Ayres while Ayres showed him photos of boys’ penises.
11
Lugerner filed a complaint with San Mateo Children’s Services. Lugerner told the San Francisco
12
Chronicle that there was “an audible gasp” at San Mateo Children’s Services when he contacted them,
13
because Ayres was their “primary vendor.” As a result of Lugerner’s complaint with San Mateo
14
Children’s Services, a police investigation was launched by the San Mateo Police Department. As part
15
16 of its investigation, the San Mateo Police Department interviewed child psychiatrist, Dr. David
17 Schwartz, who, like Ayres, treated boys incarcerated at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall. Schwartz told the
18 police that it was NOT normal for a psychiatrist to perform a physical exam as part of a psychiatric
19 evaluation. Schwartz then informed the San Mateo Police Department that he had a patient who was
20 sexually assaulted by Ayres in the 1970s. After the San Mateo police closed their investigation into
21
Hogue’s sexual assault allegations against Ayres, G.H.’s mother received a check from Dr. Ayres, who
22
her son had not seen for several years, for $1000. Mrs. H., who suspected that this was a bribe, turned
23
the check over to the San Mateo Police Department.
24
19. In or around 1988, JOHN DOE 11 was approximately 14-15 years old and incarcerated at
25
Hillcrest Juvenile Hall. JOHN DOE 11 was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation with Ayres at
26
Hillcrest. At his first appointment with Ayres, JOHN DOE 11 entered Ayres’ office and observed
27
Ayres masturbating. At his second appointment with Ayres, Ayres was again masturbating and
28
6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
ordered JOHND DOE 11 to do the same. Ayres also fondled JOHN DOE 11’s private parts and
1
threatened JOHN DOE 11 that if he told anyone about what Ayres did to him, Ayres would write a
2
3 report about JOHN DOE 11, which would result in JOHN DOE 11 being incarcerated for a longer
4 period of time. Ayres also warned JOHN DOE 11 that no one would believe him if said that Ayres had
5 sexually assaulted him.
6 20. In approximately 1988, S.S., age 11, was a private patient of Ayres when he was sexually
7 assaulted by him. Four years later, S.S. reported the sexual assault to counselors at a group home in
8 Petaluma who reported the sexual assault to the San Mateo Police Department.
9
21. In approximately 1990, L.H., a 12-year-old boy incarcerated at Hillcrest was ordered to
10
undergo psychiatric evaluation with Ayres, who sexually assaulted him. The boy informed his mother
11
and his juvenile defender that Ayres had sexually assaulted him. The boy’s attorney reported to San
12
Mateo prosecutor, Marta Diaz, that Ayres had sexually assaulted his client. According to L.H.’s
13
attorney, Marta Diaz dismissed the allegation, stating that Ayres “could never have molested” his
14
client as she and Ayres were friends and she was sending boys to him as a prosecutor. Diaz not only
15
16 ignored L.H.’s complaint against Ayres, but continued to send boys to Ayres for at least another 14
17 years as both a prosecutor and later as a Juvenile Judge for the San Mateo Superior Court.
18 22. In or around 1990 – 1991, JOHN DOE 12 was approximately 15 years old and was incarcerated
19 at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall when the prosecutor in his case, Robert Foiles, sent Ayres to evaluate him
20 despite prior complaints to the DA’s office that Ayres was sexually assaulting boys at Hillcrest and at
21
least one major police investigation involving sexual assault allegations against Ayres. During these
22
evaluations with Ayres at Hillcrest, JOHN DOE 12 would be shown child pornography by Ayres, was
23
forced to watch Ayres masturbate in front of him, was groped by Ayres, and pressured by Ayres to
24
engage in anal sex with him. Ayres threatened JOHN DOE 12 telling him that if JOHN DOE 12 ever
25
told anyone what Ayres did to him during their sessions at Hillcrest, Ayres would make the report of
26
his psychiatric evaluation of JOHN DOE 12 “so one-sided that they would lock him up and throw
27
away the key.” Ayres also told JOHN DOE 12 that nobody would believe him if he reported Ayres,
28
7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
because Ayres was well known and liked in San Mateo.
1
23. In or around 1991-1992, JOHN DOE 10 was approximately 15 years old and incarcerated at
2
3 Hillcrest Juvenile Hall. JOHN DOE 10 was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation with Ayres at
4 Hillcrest and Ayres sexually assaulted him. During JOHN DOE 10’s “evaluation” with Ayres, Ayres
5 put his hands inside JOHN DOE 10’s pants and fondled his penis and buttocks. Ayres threatened
6 JOHN DOE 10 that if he told anyone about Ayres sexually assaulting him, Ayres would make his
7 report of JOHN DOE 10’s evaluation “so one-sided that they would lock him up and throw away the
8 key.” Ayres also warned JOHN DOE 10 that no one would believe JOHN DOE 10 if he reported that
9
Ayres had sexually assaulted him. Ayres then attempted to have anal intercourse with JOHN DOE 10,
10
but JOHN DOE 10 pushed Ayres away. As a result, Dr. Ayres had Hillcrest staff punish JOHN DOE
11
10 by throwing him in to “The Hole” (i.e. solitary confinement).
12
24. In approximately 1994, JOHN DOE 1 wrote a letter to the California Medical Board stating that
13
Ayres had sexually assaulted him at Hillcrest in 1966.
14
25. Also in 1994, a report was made to the San Mateo Police Department that a minor who had
15
16 been incarcerated at Hillcrest was sexually assaulted by Ayres while undergoing psychiatric evaluation
17 there. The San Mateo Police Department told the San Francisco Chronicle that the outcome of that
18 investigation was “unclear.” San Mateo Deputy Police Chief Mike Callagy stated in 2006 that Wayne
19 Hoss, the police officer in charge of investigating the 1994 sexual assault allegation against Ayres,
20 “did not have a very illustrious career.”
21
26. In approximately 1995, a report was made to San Mateo Children’s Services that Ayres is forcing
22 a minor to undress while he is undergoing psychiatric evaluation with Ayres.
23 A Coordinated Cover-Up to Protect the County from Potential Civil Liability Relating to Dr. Ayres
24 27. In January of 2002, after at least four publicly confirmed reports to San Mateo authorities
25 involving victims alleging that Ayres sexually assaulted them when they were minors, Defendant
26 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO recognizes Ayres with a Lifetime Achievement Award hailing his decades
27 of work with Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO “to improve the lives of children and adolescents.”
28
8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 28. In August of 2002, New York City journalist and victim’s advocate, Victoria Balfour, contacted
2 the San Mateo Police Department after one of Ayres’ victims, then a resident of Brooklyn, confided to
3 her that Ayres had molested him in 1976 when he was 12 years old.
4 29. In September of 2002, Victoria Balfour received a call back from San Mateo Police Detective,
5 Randy Billingsley, who informed her that the police have two other complaints from Ayres’ victims on
6 file. Billingsley explained that one complaint was from 1987, but that the victim’s file was “lost.”
7 Billingsley stated that the other complaint was from 1994 and involved a victim who alleged that he had
8 been sexually assaulted by Ayres some years prior when he was a minor incarcerated at Hillcrest.
9 Billingsley informed Balfour that there were likely 1000 victims of Ayres and assured Balfour that the
10 San Mateo Police Department would make sure that Ayres went to prison “for the rest of his life.”
11 30. In October of 2002, San Mateo Superior Court’s Supervising Juvenile Judge Marta Diaz, upon
12 learning that the San Mateo Police Department was investigating Dr. Ayres for child molestation,
13 contacted the San Mateo Police Department and actively tried to get the police to stop investigating
14 Ayres. Judge Diaz told the police that she and Ayres were “friends” and warned them to be “real careful”
15 about Ayres.
16 31. In November of 2002, Balfour had a follow up telephone conversation with San Mateo Police
17 Detective, Randy Billingsley, whose tone had since changed about pursuing child molestation charges
18 against Dr. Ayres. Billingsley told Balfour that he had been speaking to San Mateo Superior Court
19 judges and that he had learned that Ayres was friends “with all of the judges” and that, as a result, the
20 San Mateo Police Department had to be “real careful” about investigating Ayres.
21 32. On January 31, 2003, Supervising Juvenile Judge Marta Diaz ordered a juvenile boy in a
22 detention hearing to be evaluated by Dr. Ayres.
23 33. On October 27, 2004, Ayres testified in a civil case, which had been brought against him for
24 sexually assaulting a minor, that San Mateo Superior Court Juvenile Judge Marta Diaz was still sending
25 boys to Ayres to undergo psychiatric evaluation with him. Dr. Ayres estimated that over his 40-year
26 career, he had performed approximately 30-40 psychiatric evaluations each year.
27 34. On July 14, 2005, Victoria Balfour learned in phone conversations with San Francisco Chronicle
28
9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 reporter Alan Gathright and San Mateo County Times reporter Jason Dearen that “a source in the San
2 Mateo DA’s office” told them that San Mateo Presiding Juvenile Judge Marta Diaz had actively tried to
3 get the San Mateo Police Department to stop investigating Ayres because she said they were friends.
4 Dearen told Balfour that there was “a huge power struggle between Diaz and her people and the DA’s
5 office with Diaz demanding that the police stop investigating Ayres.” Approximately two years later,
6 San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe admitted to Balfour that he was the source from the San
7 Mateo DA’s office for the information provided to the reporters regarding Judge Diaz’s interference
8 with the criminal investigation into Ayres.
9 35. In approximately October 2005, Ayres’ victim, A.Y., who had been sexually assaulted by Ayres
10 in 1973 and was sent to Camp Glenwood when he refused to see him again, died. Prior to his death, A.Y.
11 reported to the San Mateo Police Department that Ayres had sexually assaulted him when he was a
12 minor. However, two weeks before A.Y.’s death, A.Y. expressed hopelessness with regards to the
13 criminal investigation of his allegations against Ayres. At the time, A.Y. stated in an email to Victoria
14 Balfour that neither the San Mateo Superior Court judges nor the San Mateo police would ever help him
15 or the other Ayres’ victims. Following A.Y.’s death, Balfour contacted San Mateo Police Captain
16 Callagy and urged him to find a way to investigate Ayres for sexually assaulting minors.
17 36. On November 11, 2005, Captain Callagy asked Balfour to send him the names and information
18 of minor sexual assault victims of Ayres that she had located so that he could try to obtain a search
19 warrant. Despite the fact that Balfour’s list included minors who were sexually assaulted by Ayres
20 during court-ordered evaluations at the request of DEFENDANTS, including evaluations performed at
21 Hillcrest Juvenile Hall, the San Mateo Police Department’s investigation of Ayres was limited to the
22 sexual assaults he had committed involving his private patients.
23 37. On or about April 26, 2006, despite knowing that Ayres was under criminal investigation, Gerry
24 Hilliard, Managing Attorney for the San Mateo Private Defenders program in San Mateo’s juvenile
25 court responsible for sending hundreds of juveniles to Ayres for decades, publicly defended Ayres. In a
26 story by the San Mateo County Times entitled, “Police Probe Child Doctor,” Hilliard stated that Ayres
27 was “the most trusted, most professional and most helpful” of any of the psychiatrists in the Private
28
10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Defenders program. In another story published in the San Jose Mercury News entitled, “Patients Allege
2 Abuse as Teens,” Gerry Hilliard was quoted as saying, “If my grandchildren needed a psychiatrist, I
3 would take them to [Ayres] without hesitation.”
4 38. On April 5, 2007, Ayres was arrested for sexually assaulting three minor males who were his
5 private patients. In a surprising move, San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe appointed relative
6 newcomer, Melissa McKowan as the sole prosecutor from the San Mateo DA’s office on Ayres’ case.
7 39. In and around March through September 2008, Mariah Baird, an investigator for the California
8 Commission on Judicial Performance, launched an investigation into allegations that Judge Marta Diaz
9 interfered with the San Mateo Police Department’s investigation of Dr. Ayres. During Baird’s
10 investigation, information surfaced that San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe was able to
11 corroborate the allegations of interference against Judge Diaz. Ultimately, Mariah Baird had to shut
12 down the investigation into Judge Marta Diaz, because DA Wagstaffe refused to be interviewed by Baird
13 or cooperate with the investigation against Judge Diaz in any way.
14 40. In June of 2009, Ayres’ criminal trial took place. In an inexplicable departure from San Mateo
15 DA Steve Wagstaffe’s typical practice to assist his prosecutors every step of the way at trial, McKowan
16 tried the high-profile case against Ayres by herself and Wagstaffe failed to show up to any portion of
17 the trial.
18 41. On July 27, 2009, a mistrial was declared in the criminal trial of Dr. William Ayres because of a
19 deadlocked jury. McKowan admitted to reporters that she had made crucial mistakes that led to the
20 mistrial, including allowing a new attorney on the jury and failing to seek a search warrant after San
21 Mateo Detective Rick Decker discovered erotic photos of young boys in Ayres’ work file cabinet. The
22 juror who was a new attorney was the sole hold out in the prosecution obtaining a conviction on at least
23 one of the child molestation charges against Ayres. The erotic photos found in Ayres’ possession were
24 previously found to have been illegally obtained and excluded from the evidence the prosecution was
25 allowed to present to the jury at Ayres’ trial. Following the trial, the jurors were polled and indicated
26 that the presentation of such evidence would have been persuasive and likely led to a conviction of
27 Ayres. Additionally, while psychiatrists who had trained with Ayres early in his career admitted that
28
11
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 they had not been trained to perform a physical exam during a psychiatric evaluation, as Ayres asserted
2 in his defense, McKowan failed to call any of these witnesses at trial claiming they were not necessary
3 to prove her case. McKowan’s “mistakes” and resulting mistrial provided Ayres with an opportunity to
4 avoid a retrial by claiming that he was not competent to participate in his own defense because he was
5 suffering from dementia – a claim that he started to lay the foundation for during his testimony at his
6 criminal trial.
7 42. On June 17, 2011, a mistrial was declared in a mental competency trial for Ayres, as the jury was
8 unable to come to a decision as to whether Ayres was incompetent to stand trial and unable to assist in
9 his own defense on the criminal child molestation charges against him.
10 43. On August 17, 2011, at the request of some victims’ families, San Mateo Supervisor Dave Pine
11 met with DA Steve Wagstaffe to ask whether the DA’s Office was going to announce that they will retry
12 Ayres for mental competency at the next hearing on August 22, 2011. Wagstaffe told Pine, “There’s a
13 very good chance we WILL retry Ayres.”
14 44. On August 18, 2011, a team of three private investigators hired by the families of Ayres’ victims
15 tailed Ayres and his wife to a San Francisco restaurant. Ayres was filmed enjoying lunch with his wife
16 and some friends. The private investigators documented in their surveillance report that Ayres talked to
17 the group he was with about various topics during lunch including the Iowa Straw Caucuses, the future
18 of the Republican party, his business ventures, his former patients, and the fact that he had to make an
19 appearance in court on August 22, 2011 in his competency case. An attorney for the victims’ families
20 delivered the surveillance report and the video footage of Ayres to the San Mateo prosecutor on the
21 Ayres competency case, Melissa McKowan. McKowan was reportedly angered that the families had
22 found proof that Ayres was mentally competent and stated to the attorney, “We’re NOT retrying Ayres.”
23 45. On August 22, 2011, the San Mateo DA’s office announced that it would not retry the mental
24 competency case involving Ayres. Despite being in possession of overwhelming medical evidence that
25 Ayres was competent to stand trial in his criminal case, in addition to the surveillance report and video
26 footage of Ayres from just days before, San Mateo prosecutor Melissa McKowan entered into a
27 stipulation with Ayres’ counsel that Ayres was no competent to defend himself in the child molestation
28
12
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 proceedings. As a result, Ayres avoided the possibility of being sent to jail and was instead sent to Napa
2 State Hospital.
3 46. In approximately 2012, Ayres’ doctors at Napa State Hospital reported that he was faking his
4 condition so that he did not have to go to jail. The doctors advised the San Mateo DA’s office that Ayres
5 WAS mentally competent to stand trial.
6 47. In March of 2013, McKowan received a private reproval from the State Bar for her conduct on
7 the Ayres case. Specifically, while preparing for Ayres’ first trial, McKowan had lied to the mother of
8 one of Ayres’ victims when McKowan informed her that she had contacted a critical witness in Ayres’
9 criminal case when she had not contacted the witness. The witness is question was someone who had
10 trained with Ayres and would have undercut Ayres’ defense that he had been trained to perform physical
11 examinations during his psychiatric evaluations of minors. Given the scrutiny the San Mateo DA’s
12 office was under regarding Ayres’ retrial, the San Mateo DA’s office adds two additional prosecutors to
13 assist McKowan with the case.
14 48. On May 16, 2013, pled No Contest to eight felony counts of child molestation.
15 49. On August 26, 2013, Ayres was sentenced to a mere 8 years in state prison.
16 50. On August 24, 2015, JOHN DOE 1, who was sexually assaulted by Ayres on multiple occasions
17 as a juvenile, received a response from Hillcrest Juvenile Hall to his request for his juvenile records that
18 his “file was destroyed in August 2009 as part of a file purge project . . . California Welfare and
19 Institutions Code Section 826 authorizes the Court to destroy files when the subject of juvenile
20 delinquency proceeding reaches the age of 38.” However, instead of JOHN DOE 1’s juvenile file being
21 destroyed when he turned 38 years old, JOHN DOE 1’s juvenile file was destroyed only DAYS after
22 the end of the first Ayres criminal trial on July 28, 2009, when JOHN DOE 1 was 53 years old.
23 PARTIES
24 51. Plaintiffs JOHN DOES 1-6 and JOHN DOES 8-12 (hereinafter collectively referred to as,
25 PLAINTIFFS) are adult males who ranged in age from approximately 7 to 15 years old when they
26 were sexually assaulted by Dr. William Ayres at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall in San Mateo, California;
27 and/or sexually assaulted by Ayres at another juvenile detention center within San Mateo County;
28
13
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 and/or sexually assaulted by Ayres within San Mateo County during a court-appointed psychiatric
2 evaluation with Ayres ordered by a San Mateo Superior Court Juvenile Judge, and/or referred to
3 Ayres by the San Mateo District Attorney’s Office, and/or San Mateo Private Defender’s Office,
4 and/or another office affiliated with, employed by, and/or working on behalf of Defendant COUNTY
5 OF SAN MATEO and/or Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA and/or Defendants DOES 3-25.
6 PLAINTIFFS were all minors throughout the period of childhood sexual assault alleged herein.
7 PLAINTIFFS bring this Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.1, as amended
8 by Assembly Bill 218, for damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault. Thus,
9 PLAINTIFFS’ claims for damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault are timely filed as
10 PLAINTIFFS’ Complaint was filed within three years of January 1, 2020.
11 52. At all relevant times herein, the San Mateo Juvenile Court, San Mateo Juvenile Probation; the
12 San Mateo Private Defenders Juvenile Program; San Mateo Children’s Services and/or San Mateo
13 Child Protective Services; San Mateo Police Department, and/or San Mateo District Attorney’s
14 Office, as well as each of their employees, agents, representatives, and/or contractors, were operated,
15 controlled, supervised, and/or retained by Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and/or Defendants
16 DOES 3-25 and/or were employees, agents, representatives, and/or working on behalf of Defendant
17 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and/or Defendants DOES 3-25. At all relevant times herein, Defendant
18 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO was and is a governmental entity headquartered within the jurisdiction
19 of this Court.
20 53. At all relevant times herein, San Mateo Superior Court, as well as its judges, employees,
21 agents, representatives, and/or contractors, were operated, controlled, supervised, and/or retained by
22 Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA and/or Defendants DOES 3-25 and/or were judges, employees,
23 agents, representatives, and/or working on behalf of Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA and/or
24 Defendants DOES 3-25. At all relevant times herein, Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA was and
25 is a governmental entity with substantial ties within the jurisdiction of this Court.
26 54. At all relevant times herein, Hillcrest Juvenile Hall was owned, operated, and/or controlled by
27
28
14
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO. At all relevant times herein, including but not limited to,
2 during the periods in which PLAINTIFFS were sent to Dr. William Ayres for psychiatric evaluation
3 and/or sexually assaulted by Dr. William Ayres, PLAINTIFFS were minors entrusted to and under
4 the care, custody, and control of Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and/or Defendant STATE
5 OF CALIFORNIA and/or Defendants DOES 3-25.
6 55. At all relevant times herein, Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and/or Defendant
7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA and/or Defendants DOES 3-25 retained Dr. William Ayres as its agent,
8 representative, and/or contractor and had the ability to control and/or supervise Dr. Ayres’ activities
9 at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall and/or Dr. Ayres’ activities that included minors who were court-ordered,
10 referred, and/or sent to Dr. William Ayres for psychiatric evaluation who were minors entrusted to
11 and under the care, custody, and control of Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and/or Defendant
12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA and/or Defendants DOES 3-25. Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
13 was responsible for the supervision of the minors incarcerated at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall, as well as
14 the supervision of Hillcrest Juvenile Hall’s employees, agents, representatives, and contractors,
15 including medical professionals, like Dr. Ayres, who Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and/or
16 Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA and/or Defendants DOES 3-25 ordered minors incarcerated at
17 Hillcrest Juvenile Hall to be evaluated by during their period of incarceration. Dr. Ayres was an adult
18 between the ages of approximately 34 to 60 years old when he perpetrated acts of childhood sexual
19 assault upon PLAINTIFFS when PLAINTIFFS were minors and approximately between the ages of 7
20 and 15 years old.
21 56. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believes and thereon alleges that the true names and
22 capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of Defendants named herein as
23 Defendants DOES 3 through 25, inclusive, are currently unknown to PLAINTIFFS, who therefore
24 sue DOE Defendants by such fictitious names, and who will amend the Complaint to show their true
25 names and capacities when such names have been ascertained. PLAINTIFFS are informed and
26 believe and thereon allege that DOE Defendants are legally responsible in some manner for the
27 events, happenings, and/or tortious and unlawful conduct that caused the injuries and damages
28
15
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 alleged in this Complaint. Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Defendant STATE OF
2 CALIFORNIA and Defendants DOES 3 through 25 shall be collectively referred to herein as
3 “DEFENDANTS”.
4 57. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon alleges that at all times referenced herein,
5 DEFENDANTS were the agents, representatives, and/or employees of each and every other
6 Defendant and were acting within the course and scope of said alternative capacity, identity, agency,
7 representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their authority, whether actual or
8 apparent. At all times material hereto, DEFENDANTS were the trustees, partners, servants, joint
9 venturers, shareholders, co-conspirators, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other
10 Defendant, and the acts and omissions alleged herein were done by them, acting individually, through
11 such capacity and within the scope of their authority with the permission and consent of each and
12 every other Defendant, and that such conduct was thereafter ratified by each Defendant.
13 DEFENDANTS are vicariously liable for the childhood sexual abuse committed by Dr. William
14 Ayres, including but not limited to, through the theories of respondeat superior, ratification, and/or
15 authorization.
16 58. Each of the DEFENDANTS aided and abetted each other Defendant and/or Dr. Ayres. Each
17 Defendant knowingly gave substantial assistance to each other Defendant and/or Dr. Ayres who
18 performed the wrongful conduct alleged herein. Accordingly, each Defendant is jointly and severally
19 liable for the damages proximately caused by each other Defendant’s and/or Dr. Ayres’ wrongful
20 conduct.
21 59. Each of the DEFENDANTS is, and at all relevant times herein mentioned was, the co-
22 conspirator of each other Defendant and/or Dr. Ayres, and, therefore, each Defendant is jointly and
23 severally liable to PLAINTIFFS for the damages sustained as a proximate result of each other
24 Defendant. Each Defendant entered into an express or implied agreement with each of the other
25 Defendants and/or Dr. Ayres to commit the wrongs alleged herein. This includes, but is not limited
26 to, the conspiracy to perpetrate sexual assault against PLAINTIFFS and other young boys.
27 60. Dr. Ayres’ sexual assaults of PLAINTIFFS were committed as a result of the cover-up of
28
16
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 DEFENDANTS as statutorily define by Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.1 (b).
2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
3 SEXUAL BATTERY
4 (Against All DEFENDANTS)
5 61. PLAINTIFFS repeat and incorporate by reference all allegations contained in the
6 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
7 62. During PLAINTIFFS’ time as minors incarcerated at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall; and/or minors
8 court-ordered, referred, and/or sent by DEFENDANTS to Dr. William Ayres for psychiatric evaluation
9
while Ayres was a contractor for and/or working on behalf of and/or at the direction of and/or being paid
by DEFENDANTS; and/or were minors entrusted to and under the care, custody, and control of
10
DEFENDANTS; Dr. Ayres intentionally, maliciously, recklessly, and wantonly made sexual contact,
11
advances, solicitations, and demands for sexual compliance of a hostile nature toward PLAINTIFFS that
12
were unwelcome, pervasive, and severe. Such conduct included, but was not limited to: Dr. Ayres
13
making inappropriate sexually suggestive comments and/or aggressive sexual demands; performing
14
unclothed physical examinations; fondling and groping of their penis and/or anus; anal digital
15
penetration; anal sex; oral sex; being shown sexually suggestive Polaroids of naked young boys and
16
other erotic photos of young boys in an attempt to normalize the idea of sexual contact between an adult
17
and a minor; Dr. Ayres masturbating and exposing his naked penis; and/or Dr. Ayres rubbing his body
18 and genitalia against the bodies of his minor victims in a sexual manner. Dr. Ayres also threatened
19 PLAINTIFFS that if PLAINTIFFS told anyone about this conduct by Dr. Ayres that no one would
20 believe them and/or that Dr. Ayres would provide negative feedback to DEFENDANTS about his
21 psychiatric evaluations of PLAINTIFFS and/or recommend more severe punishments for PLAINTIFFS.
22 63. Dr. Ayres did the aforementioned acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact
23 with an intimate part of PLAINTIFFS’ persons and those acts would offend a reasonable sense of
24 personal dignity. Further, said acts did cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of
25 PLAINTIFFS’ persons that would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity.
26
64. Because of Dr. Ayres’ position of authority over PLAINTIFFS, PLAINTIFFS’ mental and
27
28
17
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 emotional states, and PLAINTIFFS’ young ages, PLAINTIFFS were unable to and did not consent to
2 such acts.
3 65. Dr. Ayres sexually abused and sexually assaulted PLAINTIFFS for sexual gratification, which
4 was, at least in part, based on the fact that PLAINTIFFS were minor males at the time.
5 66. Dr. Ayres utilized DEFENDANTS’ facilities, events, and institutions to gain access to
6 PLAINTIFFS. It was by virtue of Dr. Ayres’ position with DEFENDANTS that he met and groomed
7 PLAINTIFFS, established trust with PLAINTIFFS, and manipulated that trust in order to sexually
8 assault PLAINTIFFS.
9 67. At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFFS, as minors and vulnerable children, were dependent
10 on DEFENDANTS and their agents, including Dr. Ayres. PLAINTIFFS were under the custody and
11 control of DEFENDANTS, who had control over PLAINTIFFS’ welfare and who had a duty to
12 protect PLAINTIFFS because they were in a special relationship with DEFENDANTS and their
13 agents, including Dr. Ayres. DEFENDANTS accepted the entrustment of PLAINTIFFS and had
14 responsibility for PLAINTIFFS and authority and power over PLAINTIFFS.
15 68. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, ratified and authorized Dr. Ayres’ sexual assaults and
16 sexual battery of PLAINTIFFS by: (1) DEFENDANTS failed to terminate, dismiss, discipline, place
17 on leave, and/or suspend Dr. Ayres after being on constructive and/or actual notice of Dr. Ayres’
18 sexually inappropriate propensities relating to minors and/or allegations of Dr. Ayres sexually
19 assaulting young boys during psychiatric evaluations; (2) DEFENDANTS failed to supervise Dr.
20 Ayres after being on constructive and/or actual notice of Dr. Ayres’ sexually inappropriate
21 propensities relating to minors and/or allegations of Dr. Ayres sexually assaulting young boys during
22 psychiatric evaluations and/or Dr. Ayres engaging in and/or being associated with disturbing
23 behaviors involving minor boys, including but not limited to those he evaluated at Hillcrest Juvenile
24 Hall; (3) DEFENDANTS failed to conduct a timely investigation of Dr. Ayres’ alleged conduct after
25 being on constructive and/or actual notice of Dr. Ayres’ sexually inappropriate propensities relating
26 to minors and/or allegations of Dr. Ayres sexually assaulting young boys during psychiatric
27 evaluations; (4) DEFENDANTS failed to timely report Dr. Ayres’ alleged conduct to the appropriate
28
18
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 authorities and/or agencies after being on constructive and/or actual notice of Dr. Ayres’ sexually
2 inappropriate propensities relating to minors and/or allegations of Dr. Ayres sexually assaulting
3 young boys during psychiatric evaluations; and (5) DEFENDANTS failed to take immediate steps to
4 remove Dr. Ayres from any lists DEFENDANTS utilized to order, refer, and/or send minors who
5 were under DEFENDANTS’ care, custody, and control to undergo psychiatric evaluation with Dr.
6 Ayres so as to prevent Dr. Ayres from using his authority bestowed upon him by DEFENDANTS to
7 gain access to minor male inmates at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall and/or minor males entrusted to and/or
8 under the care, custody, and/or control of DEFENDANTS and provide Ayres with the opportunity
9 and means to sexually assault these young boys.
10 69. DEFENDANTS’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFFS’ personal injuries and
11 damages as set forth herein.
12 70. As a result of the conduct previously set forth herein, PLAINTIFFS have suffered, currently
13 suffer, and will continue to suffer in the future, economic injuries all to PLAINTIFFS’ general,
14 special, and consequential damage in amounts to be proven at trial.
15 71. As a result of the conduct previously set forth herein, PLAINTIFFS suffered from as minors
16 and currently suffer from and will continue to suffer from as adults severe emotional distress, mental
anguish, and pain and suffering, including, but not limited to: physical pain and/or injury as a minor,
17
undergoing harsher, more severe, and/or unfair penal punishments as a minor, familial ostracization,
18
separation from family and loved ones, loneliness, isolation, mental illness, PTSD, depression,
19
anxiety, intimacy and relationship issues, drug use, self-harm, suicidal ideations and attempts,
20
propensity to engage in criminal activity, incarceration, lack of self-esteem, inability to trust, inability
21
to develop job-related skills and have the ability to comfortably support oneself, shame, humiliation,
22
fear, anger, and embarrassment.
23
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
24
GENDER VIOLENCE IN VIOLATION OF CIV. CODE SECTION 52.4
25
Preview
1 Sandra Ribera Speed (SBN 236769) 2 RIBERA LAW FIRM, APC 157 West Portal Avenue, Suite 2 3 San Francisco, CA 94127 Telephone: (415) 576-1600 Facsimile: (415) 842-0321 4/24/2023 4 sribera@riberalaw.com 5 Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO- UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 11 John Doe 1; John Doe 2; John Doe 3; John Case No.: 22-CIV-05492 Doe 4; John Doe 5; John Doe 6; John Doe 12 7; John Doe 8; John Doe 9; John Doe 10; FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR John Doe 11; John Doe 12; and DAMAGES 13 John Doe 13 Filed Pursuant to CCP Sec. 3401.1, as Amended 14 PLAINTIFFS; 1) Sexual Battery 2) Gender Violence 15 v. 3) Negligence 4) Negligent Supervision 16 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, a 5) Negligent Retention governmental entity; STATE OF 6) Negligent Failure to Train, Warn, or 17 CALIFORNIA, a governmental entity; and Educate DOES 3 through 25, inclusive, 18 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS. 19 20 21 22 23 24 INTRODUCTION 25 1. This case is about the systemic failures of a local government and how those failures resulted in 26 the sexual abuse of likely over one thousand young boys over a 40-year period in San Mateo. 27 28 1 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 FACTUAL SUMMARY 2 San Mateo Creates a Pipeline for Pedophilia by Dr. William Ayres 3 2. Psychiatrist, Dr. William Ayres, departed his home and practice in Boston in 1963 rather abruptly. 4 While in Boston, it was known that Ayres had an unorthodox practice of making physical examinations 5 a part of his psychiatric evaluations of young boys. 6 3. Ayres relocated to San Mateo County in California in 1963. Almost immediately upon moving to 7 California in 1963, Ayres is awarded contracts with the San Mateo juvenile courts; San Mateo juvenile 8 probation; the San Mateo Private Defenders juvenile program, and San Mateo Children’s Services to 9 perform psychiatric evaluations on court-referred juvenile defendants. According to retired San Mateo 10 Superior Court Judge Pat Bresee, Ayres was originally awarded these contracts, because he was the 11 lowest bidder. These contracts ensured that Dr. Ayres would have a steady stream of boys to sexually 12 abuse who were not likely to be believed if they ever decided to report what Dr. Ayres was doing to 13 them. 14 Notice of Dr. Ayres’ Sexual Proclivities Prior to 1987 15 4. Beginning in the mid-1960s, stories of Dr. Ayres sexually abusing his minor male patients were 16 well-known throughout the San Mateo medical community. 17 5. In or around 1966, JOHN DOE 1 was approximately 12-13 years old and incarcerated at Hillcrest 18 Juvenile Hall when he was sexually assaulted by Dr. Ayres during a “physical” at Ayres’ office that 19 involved Ayres fondling JOHN DOE 1’s naked penis. One of JOHN DOE 1’s counselors at Hillcrest 20 was Jim Fox, who will later become the District Attorney of Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO. 21 6. In the late 1960s, Ayres collaborated with a Bay Area television station to produce an educational 22 series for kids about puberty, masturbation, and sex. The series, “Time of Your Life,” which was written 23 by Ayres, set off a nationwide backlash, with parents decrying it as pornography. Following several 24 lawsuits by parents whose children were being showed the series in school, the San Mateo School 25 District stopped showing Dr. Ayres’ “Time of Your Life” in and around 1968. 26 7. In 1969, G.S., age 12, was sent to Ayres after he broke some windows and ran away from home. 27 28 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Ayres raped G.S. at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall and said that he would send G.S. to Youth Authority, where 2 the inmates would “beat him up and make him a woman,” if G.S. told anyone what Ayres had done to 3 him. 4 8. In or around 1969 -1970, JOHN DOE 2, who was approximately 12 -13 years old, was 5 sexually assaulted repeatedly by Dr. Ayres at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall each day, Monday – Friday, for 6 four months. Ayres would perform physical exams on JOHN DOE 2 during which time Ayres would 7 fondle JOHN DOE 2’s penis and perform oral sex on JOHN DOE 2. Dr. Ayres told JOHN DOE 2 that 8 if he told anyone about Ayres sexually assaulting him, Ayres would send JOHN DOE 2 away forever. 9 JOHN DOE 2 attempted to report the abuse to his female counselor at Hillcrest. However, nothing 10 happened to Ayres as a result and he remained at Hillcrest. 11 9. In or around 1971-1972, JOHN DOE 3, who was approximately 7-9 years old, was court-ordered 12 to undergo psychiatric evaluation with Ayres. JOHN DOE 3 saw Ayres on approximately seven 13 occasions during which Ayres would tell JOHN DOE 3 to take his clothes off so that Ayres could 14 conduct a physical examination of him. During these examinations, Ayres would fondle JOHN DOE 15 3’s penis, engage in oral sex, and take naked photographs of JOHN DOE 3. JOHN DOE 3 reported what 16 Ayres was doing to him to his juvenile defender at the time. JOHN DOE 3’s juvenile defender and the 17 prosecutor on his case met with the judge and JOHN DOE 3 never had to see Ayres again. While Ayres 18 had threatened to have JOHN DOE 3 sent to California Youth Authority if he told anyone about the 19 sexual assaults, following JOHN DOE 3’s disclosure to his juvenile defender, JOHN DOE 3 was allowed 20 to go live with his mother. 21 10. In or around 1972-1973, JOHN DOE 4, who was approximately 14 years old, was incarcerated 22 at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall and ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation with Ayres. During his 23 evaluation of JOHN DOE 4 at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall, Ayres told JOHN DOE 4 to pull his pants down 24 to have his temperature and attempted to sexually assault him. However, JOHN DOE 4 reportedly told 25 Ayres, “Fuck you! This is supposed to be a mental exam!” Ayres was so angry that he called in Hillcrest 26 staff. When JOHN DOE 4 told the other boys at Hillcrest about what Ayres had done to him, the other 27 boys said that “Dr. Bill was well known for this sort of thing.” In fact, during the brief time that JOHN 28 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 DOE 4 was at Hillcrest, JOHN DOE 4 reported that two other boys at Hillcrest, D.A. and M.P., had 2 been sexually assaulted by Ayres during their psychiatric evaluations at Hillcrest. 3 11. In 1973, A.Y., age 14, was sent to Ayres by a San Mateo judge after A.Y. was caught by police 4 drinking beer in a park while out on probation. During his psychiatric evaluation of A.Y., Ayres made 5 A.Y. take off his clothes and sexually assaulted him during a physical examination. At a follow-up 6 hearing, a traumatized A.Y. told the San Mateo judge that he refused to see Ayres again. Both A.Y. and 7 his mother recalled that the judge yelled at A.Y. for refusing to see Ayres and then gave him an 8 ultimatum: Either attend sessions with Ayres or A.Y would be sent to Camp Glenwood, a juvenile camp 9 run by DOE 1. A.Y. told the judge that he wanted to go the Camp Glenwood. 10 12. In or around 1973-1974, JOHN DOE 5, who was approximately 12-13 years old, was 11 incarcerated at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall and ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluations with Ayres during 12 which JOHN DOE 5 was sexually assaulted by Ayres on approximately four occasions. During these 13 sexual assaults of JOHN DOE 5 at Hillcrest, Ayres fondled JOHN DOE 5’s penis and forced JOHN 14 DOE 5 to rub Ayres’ penis and engage in oral sex. JOHN DOE 5 returned to Hillcrest Juvenile Hall 15 when he was approximately 15 years old at which time Dr. Ayres again sexually assaulted JOHN DOE 16 5. Ayres threatened JOHN DOE 5 that bad things would happen to him if JOHN DOE 5 told anyone 17 about the sexual assaults. 18 13. In or around 1975, JOHN DOE 6, who was approximately 12 years old, was incarcerated at 19 Hillcrest Juvenile Hall and ordered to undergo several psychiatric evaluations with Ayres. Ayres 20 sexually assaulted JOHN DOE 6 on numerous occasions during these evaluations at Hillcrest. During 21 JOHN DOE 6’s first appointment with Dr. Ayres, Ayres had JOHN DOE 6 pull down his pants and 22 Ayres fondled JOHN DOE 6’s penis. Additionally, Dr. Ayres stuck his finger inside JOHN DOE 6’s 23 anus during this appointment. During JOHN DOE 6’s second appointment with Dr. Ayres, Ayres 24 performed oral sex on JOHN DOE 6. During JOHN DOE 6’s third appointment with Dr. Ayres, Ayres 25 continued to fondle JOHN DOE 6 and perform oral sex on him. Ayres also warned JOHN DOE 6 not to 26 tell anybody about Ayres sexually assaulting him, because others would think that JOHN DOE 6 was 27 lying. On the fourth occasion that JOHN DOE 6 met with Ayres at Hillcrest, JOHN DOE 6 screamed 28 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 and refused to let Ayres sexually assault him. Ayres called in Hillcrest staff and had JONH DOE 6 2 thrown into “The Hole” (i.e. solitary confinement) for several days. JOHN DOE 6 told his two 3 counselors at Hillcrest, believed to be named Ware and McCready, that he had repeatedly been sexually 4 assaulted by Dr. Ayres. However, nothing was done and Dr. Ayres continued to work at Hillcrest and 5 “evaluate” those juveniles who were incarcerated there. 6 14. In approximately 1982, Dr. William Ayres publicly suggested at a Bay Area conference that 7 psychiatrists should assess the sexual development of their adolescent patients by conducting intimate 8 physical exams. It was important, Ayres contended, to determine whether a patient had reached what 9 were known in the profession as “Tanner stages,” i.e. milestones of sexual development, such as the 10 development of pubic hair. 11 15. In or around 1984, JOHN DOE 8, who was approximately 14 years old, was incarcerated at 12 Hillcrest Juvenile Hall after running away from a group home. JOHN DOE 8 was ordered to be evaluated 13 by Ayres who forced the 14-year-old to perform oral sex on him and to masturbate him. Ayres also 14 performed oral sex on JOHN DOE 8. Ayres sexually assaulted JOHN DOE 8 at Hillcrest on 15 approximately five separate occasions. JOHN DOE 8 recalled Ayres telling him that if JOHN DOE 8 16 ever told anyone about what Ayres did to him, nobody would believe JOHN DOE 8 because he was a 17 troublemaker and already incarcerated. As a result of being sexually assaulted by Ayres, JOHN DOE 8 18 attempted suicide at Hillcrest, which was indicated in his records. 19 16. From 1984 – 1986, Marta Diaz was a prosecutor who worked on the San Mateo District 20 Attorney’s sexual assault team under the supervision of Chief Deputy District Attorney Stephen M. 21 Wagstaffe. Years later when Wagstaffe was interviewed about sexual assault allegations against 22 Ayres, Wagstaffe was quoted as saying that it would not have been impossible for Diaz to have 23 received reports while she served on the sexual assault team that Ayres had been accused of sexually 24 abusing minors. 25 17. In or around 1985 -1987, JOHN DOE 9, who was approximately 12-14 years old, was 26 27 incarcerated at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall when Ayres asked JOHN DOE 9 to show Ayres his “private 28 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES parts” while Ayres masturbated in front of him. JOHN DOE 9 recalled that Ayres told him that he was 1 “good friends” with San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe and that if JOHN DOE 9 let Ayres 2 3 perform a sexual act on him, he could talk to Wagstaffe and get a reduced sentence for JOHN DOE 9. 4 Ayres never followed through on his promise and sexually assaulted JOHN DOE 9 on approximately 5 four separate occasions at Hillcrest. Ayres also threatened JOHN DOE 9 that if he ever told anyone 6 about Ayres sexually assaulting him, Ayres would “make it real hard” on him. 7 Multiple Reports of Dr. Ayers Sexually Assaulting Minors 8 18. In 1987, G.H. reported to his mother’s therapist, Jeff Lugerner, that two years prior, when he 9 was 15 years old, G.H. was sexually assaulted on several occasions by Ayres during therapy sessions. 10 G.H. described that he was masturbated by Ayres while Ayres showed him photos of boys’ penises. 11 Lugerner filed a complaint with San Mateo Children’s Services. Lugerner told the San Francisco 12 Chronicle that there was “an audible gasp” at San Mateo Children’s Services when he contacted them, 13 because Ayres was their “primary vendor.” As a result of Lugerner’s complaint with San Mateo 14 Children’s Services, a police investigation was launched by the San Mateo Police Department. As part 15 16 of its investigation, the San Mateo Police Department interviewed child psychiatrist, Dr. David 17 Schwartz, who, like Ayres, treated boys incarcerated at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall. Schwartz told the 18 police that it was NOT normal for a psychiatrist to perform a physical exam as part of a psychiatric 19 evaluation. Schwartz then informed the San Mateo Police Department that he had a patient who was 20 sexually assaulted by Ayres in the 1970s. After the San Mateo police closed their investigation into 21 Hogue’s sexual assault allegations against Ayres, G.H.’s mother received a check from Dr. Ayres, who 22 her son had not seen for several years, for $1000. Mrs. H., who suspected that this was a bribe, turned 23 the check over to the San Mateo Police Department. 24 19. In or around 1988, JOHN DOE 11 was approximately 14-15 years old and incarcerated at 25 Hillcrest Juvenile Hall. JOHN DOE 11 was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation with Ayres at 26 Hillcrest. At his first appointment with Ayres, JOHN DOE 11 entered Ayres’ office and observed 27 Ayres masturbating. At his second appointment with Ayres, Ayres was again masturbating and 28 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ordered JOHND DOE 11 to do the same. Ayres also fondled JOHN DOE 11’s private parts and 1 threatened JOHN DOE 11 that if he told anyone about what Ayres did to him, Ayres would write a 2 3 report about JOHN DOE 11, which would result in JOHN DOE 11 being incarcerated for a longer 4 period of time. Ayres also warned JOHN DOE 11 that no one would believe him if said that Ayres had 5 sexually assaulted him. 6 20. In approximately 1988, S.S., age 11, was a private patient of Ayres when he was sexually 7 assaulted by him. Four years later, S.S. reported the sexual assault to counselors at a group home in 8 Petaluma who reported the sexual assault to the San Mateo Police Department. 9 21. In approximately 1990, L.H., a 12-year-old boy incarcerated at Hillcrest was ordered to 10 undergo psychiatric evaluation with Ayres, who sexually assaulted him. The boy informed his mother 11 and his juvenile defender that Ayres had sexually assaulted him. The boy’s attorney reported to San 12 Mateo prosecutor, Marta Diaz, that Ayres had sexually assaulted his client. According to L.H.’s 13 attorney, Marta Diaz dismissed the allegation, stating that Ayres “could never have molested” his 14 client as she and Ayres were friends and she was sending boys to him as a prosecutor. Diaz not only 15 16 ignored L.H.’s complaint against Ayres, but continued to send boys to Ayres for at least another 14 17 years as both a prosecutor and later as a Juvenile Judge for the San Mateo Superior Court. 18 22. In or around 1990 – 1991, JOHN DOE 12 was approximately 15 years old and was incarcerated 19 at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall when the prosecutor in his case, Robert Foiles, sent Ayres to evaluate him 20 despite prior complaints to the DA’s office that Ayres was sexually assaulting boys at Hillcrest and at 21 least one major police investigation involving sexual assault allegations against Ayres. During these 22 evaluations with Ayres at Hillcrest, JOHN DOE 12 would be shown child pornography by Ayres, was 23 forced to watch Ayres masturbate in front of him, was groped by Ayres, and pressured by Ayres to 24 engage in anal sex with him. Ayres threatened JOHN DOE 12 telling him that if JOHN DOE 12 ever 25 told anyone what Ayres did to him during their sessions at Hillcrest, Ayres would make the report of 26 his psychiatric evaluation of JOHN DOE 12 “so one-sided that they would lock him up and throw 27 away the key.” Ayres also told JOHN DOE 12 that nobody would believe him if he reported Ayres, 28 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES because Ayres was well known and liked in San Mateo. 1 23. In or around 1991-1992, JOHN DOE 10 was approximately 15 years old and incarcerated at 2 3 Hillcrest Juvenile Hall. JOHN DOE 10 was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation with Ayres at 4 Hillcrest and Ayres sexually assaulted him. During JOHN DOE 10’s “evaluation” with Ayres, Ayres 5 put his hands inside JOHN DOE 10’s pants and fondled his penis and buttocks. Ayres threatened 6 JOHN DOE 10 that if he told anyone about Ayres sexually assaulting him, Ayres would make his 7 report of JOHN DOE 10’s evaluation “so one-sided that they would lock him up and throw away the 8 key.” Ayres also warned JOHN DOE 10 that no one would believe JOHN DOE 10 if he reported that 9 Ayres had sexually assaulted him. Ayres then attempted to have anal intercourse with JOHN DOE 10, 10 but JOHN DOE 10 pushed Ayres away. As a result, Dr. Ayres had Hillcrest staff punish JOHN DOE 11 10 by throwing him in to “The Hole” (i.e. solitary confinement). 12 24. In approximately 1994, JOHN DOE 1 wrote a letter to the California Medical Board stating that 13 Ayres had sexually assaulted him at Hillcrest in 1966. 14 25. Also in 1994, a report was made to the San Mateo Police Department that a minor who had 15 16 been incarcerated at Hillcrest was sexually assaulted by Ayres while undergoing psychiatric evaluation 17 there. The San Mateo Police Department told the San Francisco Chronicle that the outcome of that 18 investigation was “unclear.” San Mateo Deputy Police Chief Mike Callagy stated in 2006 that Wayne 19 Hoss, the police officer in charge of investigating the 1994 sexual assault allegation against Ayres, 20 “did not have a very illustrious career.” 21 26. In approximately 1995, a report was made to San Mateo Children’s Services that Ayres is forcing 22 a minor to undress while he is undergoing psychiatric evaluation with Ayres. 23 A Coordinated Cover-Up to Protect the County from Potential Civil Liability Relating to Dr. Ayres 24 27. In January of 2002, after at least four publicly confirmed reports to San Mateo authorities 25 involving victims alleging that Ayres sexually assaulted them when they were minors, Defendant 26 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO recognizes Ayres with a Lifetime Achievement Award hailing his decades 27 of work with Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO “to improve the lives of children and adolescents.” 28 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 28. In August of 2002, New York City journalist and victim’s advocate, Victoria Balfour, contacted 2 the San Mateo Police Department after one of Ayres’ victims, then a resident of Brooklyn, confided to 3 her that Ayres had molested him in 1976 when he was 12 years old. 4 29. In September of 2002, Victoria Balfour received a call back from San Mateo Police Detective, 5 Randy Billingsley, who informed her that the police have two other complaints from Ayres’ victims on 6 file. Billingsley explained that one complaint was from 1987, but that the victim’s file was “lost.” 7 Billingsley stated that the other complaint was from 1994 and involved a victim who alleged that he had 8 been sexually assaulted by Ayres some years prior when he was a minor incarcerated at Hillcrest. 9 Billingsley informed Balfour that there were likely 1000 victims of Ayres and assured Balfour that the 10 San Mateo Police Department would make sure that Ayres went to prison “for the rest of his life.” 11 30. In October of 2002, San Mateo Superior Court’s Supervising Juvenile Judge Marta Diaz, upon 12 learning that the San Mateo Police Department was investigating Dr. Ayres for child molestation, 13 contacted the San Mateo Police Department and actively tried to get the police to stop investigating 14 Ayres. Judge Diaz told the police that she and Ayres were “friends” and warned them to be “real careful” 15 about Ayres. 16 31. In November of 2002, Balfour had a follow up telephone conversation with San Mateo Police 17 Detective, Randy Billingsley, whose tone had since changed about pursuing child molestation charges 18 against Dr. Ayres. Billingsley told Balfour that he had been speaking to San Mateo Superior Court 19 judges and that he had learned that Ayres was friends “with all of the judges” and that, as a result, the 20 San Mateo Police Department had to be “real careful” about investigating Ayres. 21 32. On January 31, 2003, Supervising Juvenile Judge Marta Diaz ordered a juvenile boy in a 22 detention hearing to be evaluated by Dr. Ayres. 23 33. On October 27, 2004, Ayres testified in a civil case, which had been brought against him for 24 sexually assaulting a minor, that San Mateo Superior Court Juvenile Judge Marta Diaz was still sending 25 boys to Ayres to undergo psychiatric evaluation with him. Dr. Ayres estimated that over his 40-year 26 career, he had performed approximately 30-40 psychiatric evaluations each year. 27 34. On July 14, 2005, Victoria Balfour learned in phone conversations with San Francisco Chronicle 28 9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 reporter Alan Gathright and San Mateo County Times reporter Jason Dearen that “a source in the San 2 Mateo DA’s office” told them that San Mateo Presiding Juvenile Judge Marta Diaz had actively tried to 3 get the San Mateo Police Department to stop investigating Ayres because she said they were friends. 4 Dearen told Balfour that there was “a huge power struggle between Diaz and her people and the DA’s 5 office with Diaz demanding that the police stop investigating Ayres.” Approximately two years later, 6 San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe admitted to Balfour that he was the source from the San 7 Mateo DA’s office for the information provided to the reporters regarding Judge Diaz’s interference 8 with the criminal investigation into Ayres. 9 35. In approximately October 2005, Ayres’ victim, A.Y., who had been sexually assaulted by Ayres 10 in 1973 and was sent to Camp Glenwood when he refused to see him again, died. Prior to his death, A.Y. 11 reported to the San Mateo Police Department that Ayres had sexually assaulted him when he was a 12 minor. However, two weeks before A.Y.’s death, A.Y. expressed hopelessness with regards to the 13 criminal investigation of his allegations against Ayres. At the time, A.Y. stated in an email to Victoria 14 Balfour that neither the San Mateo Superior Court judges nor the San Mateo police would ever help him 15 or the other Ayres’ victims. Following A.Y.’s death, Balfour contacted San Mateo Police Captain 16 Callagy and urged him to find a way to investigate Ayres for sexually assaulting minors. 17 36. On November 11, 2005, Captain Callagy asked Balfour to send him the names and information 18 of minor sexual assault victims of Ayres that she had located so that he could try to obtain a search 19 warrant. Despite the fact that Balfour’s list included minors who were sexually assaulted by Ayres 20 during court-ordered evaluations at the request of DEFENDANTS, including evaluations performed at 21 Hillcrest Juvenile Hall, the San Mateo Police Department’s investigation of Ayres was limited to the 22 sexual assaults he had committed involving his private patients. 23 37. On or about April 26, 2006, despite knowing that Ayres was under criminal investigation, Gerry 24 Hilliard, Managing Attorney for the San Mateo Private Defenders program in San Mateo’s juvenile 25 court responsible for sending hundreds of juveniles to Ayres for decades, publicly defended Ayres. In a 26 story by the San Mateo County Times entitled, “Police Probe Child Doctor,” Hilliard stated that Ayres 27 was “the most trusted, most professional and most helpful” of any of the psychiatrists in the Private 28 10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Defenders program. In another story published in the San Jose Mercury News entitled, “Patients Allege 2 Abuse as Teens,” Gerry Hilliard was quoted as saying, “If my grandchildren needed a psychiatrist, I 3 would take them to [Ayres] without hesitation.” 4 38. On April 5, 2007, Ayres was arrested for sexually assaulting three minor males who were his 5 private patients. In a surprising move, San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe appointed relative 6 newcomer, Melissa McKowan as the sole prosecutor from the San Mateo DA’s office on Ayres’ case. 7 39. In and around March through September 2008, Mariah Baird, an investigator for the California 8 Commission on Judicial Performance, launched an investigation into allegations that Judge Marta Diaz 9 interfered with the San Mateo Police Department’s investigation of Dr. Ayres. During Baird’s 10 investigation, information surfaced that San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe was able to 11 corroborate the allegations of interference against Judge Diaz. Ultimately, Mariah Baird had to shut 12 down the investigation into Judge Marta Diaz, because DA Wagstaffe refused to be interviewed by Baird 13 or cooperate with the investigation against Judge Diaz in any way. 14 40. In June of 2009, Ayres’ criminal trial took place. In an inexplicable departure from San Mateo 15 DA Steve Wagstaffe’s typical practice to assist his prosecutors every step of the way at trial, McKowan 16 tried the high-profile case against Ayres by herself and Wagstaffe failed to show up to any portion of 17 the trial. 18 41. On July 27, 2009, a mistrial was declared in the criminal trial of Dr. William Ayres because of a 19 deadlocked jury. McKowan admitted to reporters that she had made crucial mistakes that led to the 20 mistrial, including allowing a new attorney on the jury and failing to seek a search warrant after San 21 Mateo Detective Rick Decker discovered erotic photos of young boys in Ayres’ work file cabinet. The 22 juror who was a new attorney was the sole hold out in the prosecution obtaining a conviction on at least 23 one of the child molestation charges against Ayres. The erotic photos found in Ayres’ possession were 24 previously found to have been illegally obtained and excluded from the evidence the prosecution was 25 allowed to present to the jury at Ayres’ trial. Following the trial, the jurors were polled and indicated 26 that the presentation of such evidence would have been persuasive and likely led to a conviction of 27 Ayres. Additionally, while psychiatrists who had trained with Ayres early in his career admitted that 28 11 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 they had not been trained to perform a physical exam during a psychiatric evaluation, as Ayres asserted 2 in his defense, McKowan failed to call any of these witnesses at trial claiming they were not necessary 3 to prove her case. McKowan’s “mistakes” and resulting mistrial provided Ayres with an opportunity to 4 avoid a retrial by claiming that he was not competent to participate in his own defense because he was 5 suffering from dementia – a claim that he started to lay the foundation for during his testimony at his 6 criminal trial. 7 42. On June 17, 2011, a mistrial was declared in a mental competency trial for Ayres, as the jury was 8 unable to come to a decision as to whether Ayres was incompetent to stand trial and unable to assist in 9 his own defense on the criminal child molestation charges against him. 10 43. On August 17, 2011, at the request of some victims’ families, San Mateo Supervisor Dave Pine 11 met with DA Steve Wagstaffe to ask whether the DA’s Office was going to announce that they will retry 12 Ayres for mental competency at the next hearing on August 22, 2011. Wagstaffe told Pine, “There’s a 13 very good chance we WILL retry Ayres.” 14 44. On August 18, 2011, a team of three private investigators hired by the families of Ayres’ victims 15 tailed Ayres and his wife to a San Francisco restaurant. Ayres was filmed enjoying lunch with his wife 16 and some friends. The private investigators documented in their surveillance report that Ayres talked to 17 the group he was with about various topics during lunch including the Iowa Straw Caucuses, the future 18 of the Republican party, his business ventures, his former patients, and the fact that he had to make an 19 appearance in court on August 22, 2011 in his competency case. An attorney for the victims’ families 20 delivered the surveillance report and the video footage of Ayres to the San Mateo prosecutor on the 21 Ayres competency case, Melissa McKowan. McKowan was reportedly angered that the families had 22 found proof that Ayres was mentally competent and stated to the attorney, “We’re NOT retrying Ayres.” 23 45. On August 22, 2011, the San Mateo DA’s office announced that it would not retry the mental 24 competency case involving Ayres. Despite being in possession of overwhelming medical evidence that 25 Ayres was competent to stand trial in his criminal case, in addition to the surveillance report and video 26 footage of Ayres from just days before, San Mateo prosecutor Melissa McKowan entered into a 27 stipulation with Ayres’ counsel that Ayres was no competent to defend himself in the child molestation 28 12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 proceedings. As a result, Ayres avoided the possibility of being sent to jail and was instead sent to Napa 2 State Hospital. 3 46. In approximately 2012, Ayres’ doctors at Napa State Hospital reported that he was faking his 4 condition so that he did not have to go to jail. The doctors advised the San Mateo DA’s office that Ayres 5 WAS mentally competent to stand trial. 6 47. In March of 2013, McKowan received a private reproval from the State Bar for her conduct on 7 the Ayres case. Specifically, while preparing for Ayres’ first trial, McKowan had lied to the mother of 8 one of Ayres’ victims when McKowan informed her that she had contacted a critical witness in Ayres’ 9 criminal case when she had not contacted the witness. The witness is question was someone who had 10 trained with Ayres and would have undercut Ayres’ defense that he had been trained to perform physical 11 examinations during his psychiatric evaluations of minors. Given the scrutiny the San Mateo DA’s 12 office was under regarding Ayres’ retrial, the San Mateo DA’s office adds two additional prosecutors to 13 assist McKowan with the case. 14 48. On May 16, 2013, pled No Contest to eight felony counts of child molestation. 15 49. On August 26, 2013, Ayres was sentenced to a mere 8 years in state prison. 16 50. On August 24, 2015, JOHN DOE 1, who was sexually assaulted by Ayres on multiple occasions 17 as a juvenile, received a response from Hillcrest Juvenile Hall to his request for his juvenile records that 18 his “file was destroyed in August 2009 as part of a file purge project . . . California Welfare and 19 Institutions Code Section 826 authorizes the Court to destroy files when the subject of juvenile 20 delinquency proceeding reaches the age of 38.” However, instead of JOHN DOE 1’s juvenile file being 21 destroyed when he turned 38 years old, JOHN DOE 1’s juvenile file was destroyed only DAYS after 22 the end of the first Ayres criminal trial on July 28, 2009, when JOHN DOE 1 was 53 years old. 23 PARTIES 24 51. Plaintiffs JOHN DOES 1-6 and JOHN DOES 8-12 (hereinafter collectively referred to as, 25 PLAINTIFFS) are adult males who ranged in age from approximately 7 to 15 years old when they 26 were sexually assaulted by Dr. William Ayres at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall in San Mateo, California; 27 and/or sexually assaulted by Ayres at another juvenile detention center within San Mateo County; 28 13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 and/or sexually assaulted by Ayres within San Mateo County during a court-appointed psychiatric 2 evaluation with Ayres ordered by a San Mateo Superior Court Juvenile Judge, and/or referred to 3 Ayres by the San Mateo District Attorney’s Office, and/or San Mateo Private Defender’s Office, 4 and/or another office affiliated with, employed by, and/or working on behalf of Defendant COUNTY 5 OF SAN MATEO and/or Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA and/or Defendants DOES 3-25. 6 PLAINTIFFS were all minors throughout the period of childhood sexual assault alleged herein. 7 PLAINTIFFS bring this Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.1, as amended 8 by Assembly Bill 218, for damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault. Thus, 9 PLAINTIFFS’ claims for damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault are timely filed as 10 PLAINTIFFS’ Complaint was filed within three years of January 1, 2020. 11 52. At all relevant times herein, the San Mateo Juvenile Court, San Mateo Juvenile Probation; the 12 San Mateo Private Defenders Juvenile Program; San Mateo Children’s Services and/or San Mateo 13 Child Protective Services; San Mateo Police Department, and/or San Mateo District Attorney’s 14 Office, as well as each of their employees, agents, representatives, and/or contractors, were operated, 15 controlled, supervised, and/or retained by Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and/or Defendants 16 DOES 3-25 and/or were employees, agents, representatives, and/or working on behalf of Defendant 17 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and/or Defendants DOES 3-25. At all relevant times herein, Defendant 18 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO was and is a governmental entity headquartered within the jurisdiction 19 of this Court. 20 53. At all relevant times herein, San Mateo Superior Court, as well as its judges, employees, 21 agents, representatives, and/or contractors, were operated, controlled, supervised, and/or retained by 22 Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA and/or Defendants DOES 3-25 and/or were judges, employees, 23 agents, representatives, and/or working on behalf of Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA and/or 24 Defendants DOES 3-25. At all relevant times herein, Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA was and 25 is a governmental entity with substantial ties within the jurisdiction of this Court. 26 54. At all relevant times herein, Hillcrest Juvenile Hall was owned, operated, and/or controlled by 27 28 14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO. At all relevant times herein, including but not limited to, 2 during the periods in which PLAINTIFFS were sent to Dr. William Ayres for psychiatric evaluation 3 and/or sexually assaulted by Dr. William Ayres, PLAINTIFFS were minors entrusted to and under 4 the care, custody, and control of Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and/or Defendant STATE 5 OF CALIFORNIA and/or Defendants DOES 3-25. 6 55. At all relevant times herein, Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and/or Defendant 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA and/or Defendants DOES 3-25 retained Dr. William Ayres as its agent, 8 representative, and/or contractor and had the ability to control and/or supervise Dr. Ayres’ activities 9 at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall and/or Dr. Ayres’ activities that included minors who were court-ordered, 10 referred, and/or sent to Dr. William Ayres for psychiatric evaluation who were minors entrusted to 11 and under the care, custody, and control of Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and/or Defendant 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA and/or Defendants DOES 3-25. Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 13 was responsible for the supervision of the minors incarcerated at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall, as well as 14 the supervision of Hillcrest Juvenile Hall’s employees, agents, representatives, and contractors, 15 including medical professionals, like Dr. Ayres, who Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and/or 16 Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA and/or Defendants DOES 3-25 ordered minors incarcerated at 17 Hillcrest Juvenile Hall to be evaluated by during their period of incarceration. Dr. Ayres was an adult 18 between the ages of approximately 34 to 60 years old when he perpetrated acts of childhood sexual 19 assault upon PLAINTIFFS when PLAINTIFFS were minors and approximately between the ages of 7 20 and 15 years old. 21 56. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believes and thereon alleges that the true names and 22 capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of Defendants named herein as 23 Defendants DOES 3 through 25, inclusive, are currently unknown to PLAINTIFFS, who therefore 24 sue DOE Defendants by such fictitious names, and who will amend the Complaint to show their true 25 names and capacities when such names have been ascertained. PLAINTIFFS are informed and 26 believe and thereon allege that DOE Defendants are legally responsible in some manner for the 27 events, happenings, and/or tortious and unlawful conduct that caused the injuries and damages 28 15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 alleged in this Complaint. Defendant COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Defendant STATE OF 2 CALIFORNIA and Defendants DOES 3 through 25 shall be collectively referred to herein as 3 “DEFENDANTS”. 4 57. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon alleges that at all times referenced herein, 5 DEFENDANTS were the agents, representatives, and/or employees of each and every other 6 Defendant and were acting within the course and scope of said alternative capacity, identity, agency, 7 representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their authority, whether actual or 8 apparent. At all times material hereto, DEFENDANTS were the trustees, partners, servants, joint 9 venturers, shareholders, co-conspirators, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other 10 Defendant, and the acts and omissions alleged herein were done by them, acting individually, through 11 such capacity and within the scope of their authority with the permission and consent of each and 12 every other Defendant, and that such conduct was thereafter ratified by each Defendant. 13 DEFENDANTS are vicariously liable for the childhood sexual abuse committed by Dr. William 14 Ayres, including but not limited to, through the theories of respondeat superior, ratification, and/or 15 authorization. 16 58. Each of the DEFENDANTS aided and abetted each other Defendant and/or Dr. Ayres. Each 17 Defendant knowingly gave substantial assistance to each other Defendant and/or Dr. Ayres who 18 performed the wrongful conduct alleged herein. Accordingly, each Defendant is jointly and severally 19 liable for the damages proximately caused by each other Defendant’s and/or Dr. Ayres’ wrongful 20 conduct. 21 59. Each of the DEFENDANTS is, and at all relevant times herein mentioned was, the co- 22 conspirator of each other Defendant and/or Dr. Ayres, and, therefore, each Defendant is jointly and 23 severally liable to PLAINTIFFS for the damages sustained as a proximate result of each other 24 Defendant. Each Defendant entered into an express or implied agreement with each of the other 25 Defendants and/or Dr. Ayres to commit the wrongs alleged herein. This includes, but is not limited 26 to, the conspiracy to perpetrate sexual assault against PLAINTIFFS and other young boys. 27 60. Dr. Ayres’ sexual assaults of PLAINTIFFS were committed as a result of the cover-up of 28 16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 DEFENDANTS as statutorily define by Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.1 (b). 2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 3 SEXUAL BATTERY 4 (Against All DEFENDANTS) 5 61. PLAINTIFFS repeat and incorporate by reference all allegations contained in the 6 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 7 62. During PLAINTIFFS’ time as minors incarcerated at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall; and/or minors 8 court-ordered, referred, and/or sent by DEFENDANTS to Dr. William Ayres for psychiatric evaluation 9 while Ayres was a contractor for and/or working on behalf of and/or at the direction of and/or being paid by DEFENDANTS; and/or were minors entrusted to and under the care, custody, and control of 10 DEFENDANTS; Dr. Ayres intentionally, maliciously, recklessly, and wantonly made sexual contact, 11 advances, solicitations, and demands for sexual compliance of a hostile nature toward PLAINTIFFS that 12 were unwelcome, pervasive, and severe. Such conduct included, but was not limited to: Dr. Ayres 13 making inappropriate sexually suggestive comments and/or aggressive sexual demands; performing 14 unclothed physical examinations; fondling and groping of their penis and/or anus; anal digital 15 penetration; anal sex; oral sex; being shown sexually suggestive Polaroids of naked young boys and 16 other erotic photos of young boys in an attempt to normalize the idea of sexual contact between an adult 17 and a minor; Dr. Ayres masturbating and exposing his naked penis; and/or Dr. Ayres rubbing his body 18 and genitalia against the bodies of his minor victims in a sexual manner. Dr. Ayres also threatened 19 PLAINTIFFS that if PLAINTIFFS told anyone about this conduct by Dr. Ayres that no one would 20 believe them and/or that Dr. Ayres would provide negative feedback to DEFENDANTS about his 21 psychiatric evaluations of PLAINTIFFS and/or recommend more severe punishments for PLAINTIFFS. 22 63. Dr. Ayres did the aforementioned acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact 23 with an intimate part of PLAINTIFFS’ persons and those acts would offend a reasonable sense of 24 personal dignity. Further, said acts did cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of 25 PLAINTIFFS’ persons that would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity. 26 64. Because of Dr. Ayres’ position of authority over PLAINTIFFS, PLAINTIFFS’ mental and 27 28 17 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 emotional states, and PLAINTIFFS’ young ages, PLAINTIFFS were unable to and did not consent to 2 such acts. 3 65. Dr. Ayres sexually abused and sexually assaulted PLAINTIFFS for sexual gratification, which 4 was, at least in part, based on the fact that PLAINTIFFS were minor males at the time. 5 66. Dr. Ayres utilized DEFENDANTS’ facilities, events, and institutions to gain access to 6 PLAINTIFFS. It was by virtue of Dr. Ayres’ position with DEFENDANTS that he met and groomed 7 PLAINTIFFS, established trust with PLAINTIFFS, and manipulated that trust in order to sexually 8 assault PLAINTIFFS. 9 67. At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFFS, as minors and vulnerable children, were dependent 10 on DEFENDANTS and their agents, including Dr. Ayres. PLAINTIFFS were under the custody and 11 control of DEFENDANTS, who had control over PLAINTIFFS’ welfare and who had a duty to 12 protect PLAINTIFFS because they were in a special relationship with DEFENDANTS and their 13 agents, including Dr. Ayres. DEFENDANTS accepted the entrustment of PLAINTIFFS and had 14 responsibility for PLAINTIFFS and authority and power over PLAINTIFFS. 15 68. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, ratified and authorized Dr. Ayres’ sexual assaults and 16 sexual battery of PLAINTIFFS by: (1) DEFENDANTS failed to terminate, dismiss, discipline, place 17 on leave, and/or suspend Dr. Ayres after being on constructive and/or actual notice of Dr. Ayres’ 18 sexually inappropriate propensities relating to minors and/or allegations of Dr. Ayres sexually 19 assaulting young boys during psychiatric evaluations; (2) DEFENDANTS failed to supervise Dr. 20 Ayres after being on constructive and/or actual notice of Dr. Ayres’ sexually inappropriate 21 propensities relating to minors and/or allegations of Dr. Ayres sexually assaulting young boys during 22 psychiatric evaluations and/or Dr. Ayres engaging in and/or being associated with disturbing 23 behaviors involving minor boys, including but not limited to those he evaluated at Hillcrest Juvenile 24 Hall; (3) DEFENDANTS failed to conduct a timely investigation of Dr. Ayres’ alleged conduct after 25 being on constructive and/or actual notice of Dr. Ayres’ sexually inappropriate propensities relating 26 to minors and/or allegations of Dr. Ayres sexually assaulting young boys during psychiatric 27 evaluations; (4) DEFENDANTS failed to timely report Dr. Ayres’ alleged conduct to the appropriate 28 18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 authorities and/or agencies after being on constructive and/or actual notice of Dr. Ayres’ sexually 2 inappropriate propensities relating to minors and/or allegations of Dr. Ayres sexually assaulting 3 young boys during psychiatric evaluations; and (5) DEFENDANTS failed to take immediate steps to 4 remove Dr. Ayres from any lists DEFENDANTS utilized to order, refer, and/or send minors who 5 were under DEFENDANTS’ care, custody, and control to undergo psychiatric evaluation with Dr. 6 Ayres so as to prevent Dr. Ayres from using his authority bestowed upon him by DEFENDANTS to 7 gain access to minor male inmates at Hillcrest Juvenile Hall and/or minor males entrusted to and/or 8 under the care, custody, and/or control of DEFENDANTS and provide Ayres with the opportunity 9 and means to sexually assault these young boys. 10 69. DEFENDANTS’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFFS’ personal injuries and 11 damages as set forth herein. 12 70. As a result of the conduct previously set forth herein, PLAINTIFFS have suffered, currently 13 suffer, and will continue to suffer in the future, economic injuries all to PLAINTIFFS’ general, 14 special, and consequential damage in amounts to be proven at trial. 15 71. As a result of the conduct previously set forth herein, PLAINTIFFS suffered from as minors 16 and currently suffer from and will continue to suffer from as adults severe emotional distress, mental anguish, and pain and suffering, including, but not limited to: physical pain and/or injury as a minor, 17 undergoing harsher, more severe, and/or unfair penal punishments as a minor, familial ostracization, 18 separation from family and loved ones, loneliness, isolation, mental illness, PTSD, depression, 19 anxiety, intimacy and relationship issues, drug use, self-harm, suicidal ideations and attempts, 20 propensity to engage in criminal activity, incarceration, lack of self-esteem, inability to trust, inability 21 to develop job-related skills and have the ability to comfortably support oneself, shame, humiliation, 22 fear, anger, and embarrassment. 23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 24 GENDER VIOLENCE IN VIOLATION OF CIV. CODE SECTION 52.4 25