Preview
1 JANEAN ACEVEDO DANIELS, SBN 145707
Attorney at Law
2 Law Office of Janean Acevedo Daniels
1160 Via del Rey
3 Goleta, CA 93117
phone: (805) 284-4428 fax: (805) 456-2050
janean@jadanielslaw.com
4
Attorney for PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE
5
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
9
10 KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE Case No. 23CV01793
11 PLAINTIFF, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
12 DAMAGES FOR:
v.
13
MISSION ROWING, a California nonprofit 1. Assault & Battery
14 public benefit corporation; CONAL 2. Sexual Battery in Violation of Civil Code
GROOM, an individual; CAROL NAGY, an § 1708.5
15 individual; UNITED STATES ROWING 3. Sexual Harassment in Violation of Unruh
Act, Civil Code § 51.9
ASSOCIATION, a Pennsylvania nonprofit 4. Gender Violence in Violation of Civil Code §
16 corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 52.4
5. Violation of Ralphs Civil Rights Act, Civil
17 Code § 51.7
DEFENDANTS. 6. False Imprisonment
18
7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
19 8. Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision and
Retention
20 9. Negligence
10. Defamation Per Se
21
22 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
23
24 PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE alleges:
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 1 of 62
27
28
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1
1. At all times pertinent hereto, PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE
2
(“PLAINTIFF”) was a resident of the State of Washington and of the County of Santa Barbara,
3
California, where she lived and resided during the times she was training with DEFENDANTS
4 MISSION ROWING and CONAL GROOM in Santa Ynez, California. PLAINTIFF was a minor
5 at the time she was subjected to the injurious actions described herein.
6 2. The true names and capacities of DOES 1-50, whether individual, corporate,
associate or otherwise are unknown to PLAINTIFF at this time, who therefore sues these
7
DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names. When the true names and capacities of such
8
DEFENDANTS are ascertained, PLAINTIFF will amend this complaint to insert the true names
9
and capacities of said DOE DEFENDANTS.
10 3. DEFENDANT MISSION ROWING (“MISSION ROWING”) is, and at all times
11 pertinent hereto has been, a nonprofit public benefit corporation organized and existing under the
12 laws of the State of California that operates and/or operated a rowing club in the County of Santa
Barbara, California.
13
4. DEFENDANT UNITED STATES ROWING ASSOCIATION (“USROWING”) is,
14
and at all times pertinent hereto has been, a nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the
15
laws of the State of Pennsylvania. USROWING is a nonprofit membership organization
16 recognized by the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee as the national governing body
17 for the sport of rowing in the United States. USROWING maintains its corporate headquarters in
18 New Jersey.
19 5. DEFENDANT CONAL GROOM is an individual who resides in the County of
Santa Barbara, California. At all times pertinent hereto, GROOM was employed by MISSION
20
ROWING in the County of Santa Barbara, California and regularly communicated and interacted
21
with PLAINTIFF regarding the matters at issue in this case as an agent and servant of MISSION
22 ROWING, acting within the course and scope of his employment with MISSION ROWING.
23 6. DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY is an individual who resides in the County of Santa
24 Barbara, California. At all times pertinent hereto, NAGY was employed by MISSION ROWING
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 2 of 62
27
28
in the County of Santa Barbara, California and regularly communicated and interacted with
1
PLAINTIFF regarding the matters at issue in this case as an agent and servant of MISSION
2
ROWING, acting within the course and scope of her employment with MISSION ROWING.
3
7. DEFENDANTS MISSION ROWING and CONAL GROOM are liable in a cause
4 of action for sexual harassment under California’s Unruh Act, Civil. Code § 51.9, because they are
5 persons who had a business, service, or professional relationship with PLAINTIFF at all times
6 pertinent hereto.
8. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges and on that basis alleges
7
that each DEFENDANT in this Complaint was, at all times mentioned, the agent, servant and/or
8
employee of the other DEFENDANT and was at all such times acting within the course and scope
9
of said agency and/or employment.
10 9. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges and on that basis alleges
11 that each DEFENDANT named as a DOE DEFENDANT is responsible for each and every act and
12 obligation set forth in this complaint.
13
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
14
10. PLAINTIFF is a former MISSION ROWING athlete and client. PLAINTIFF
15
asserts claims against DEFENDANTS MISSION ROWING, CONAL GROOM, CAROL NAGY,
16 and USROWING arising from the physical, verbal, and emotional abuse, threats, sexual
17 harassment, assault, and battery to which she was subjected for more than two years while she was
18 a minor, culminating in her false imprisonment and sexual battery by MISSION ROWING
19 employee and coach CONAL GROOM. GROOM was a decades older adult who PLAINTIFF
trusted and did everything possible to please until he violated her trust by grievously injuring her
20
when he ordered her to come to his home on the evening of August 13, 2021, where he forcibly
21
detained and restrained, falsely imprisoned, and assaulted, battered, and sexually battered her (“the
22 August 13, 2021 Assault”). PLAINTIFF was seventeen years old at the time of the August 13,
23 2021 Assault; GROOM was forty-eight.
24
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 3 of 62
27
28
11. From November 2019, when CONAL GROOM engaged in his first angry outburst
1
toward PLAINTIFF, until August 13, 2021, the night he falsely imprisoned and assaulted and
2
sexually battered her, CONAL GROOM pushed PLAINTIFF relentlessly, often to the point of
3
tears and emotional breakdowns, with his abusive, demeaning, and at times violent behavior, and
4 his inappropriate, unwelcome, and sexually-suggestive personal attention and predatory grooming
5 behavior--all under the auspices of MISSION ROWING, and with the purported purpose of
6 helping this high school-aged athlete achieve her goal of rowing competitively at the national
level, and her dream of becoming an Olympic athlete.
7
12. GROOM’s shocking actions towards PLAINTIFF, who was only 15 years old
8
when the abuse began, violated standards for appropriate coaching of minor athletes by the United
9
States Rowing Association and United States Center for SafeSport, and were committed within the
10 course and scope of GROOM’s employment with MISSION ROWING.
11 13. GROOM’s unlawful and offensive actions were ratified by MISSION ROWING
12 and its founder, Director, and then-Executive Director CAROL NAGY, who were aware of
GROOM’s wrongful conduct toward PLAINTIFF and other athletes but did nothing to protect
13
PLAINTIFF from further harm (or ultimately, from GROOM’s sexual harassment, assault and
14
battery).
15
14. GROOM’s unlawful and offensive actions were also ratified by USROWING,
16 which as early as 2014 and continuing into 2015 received numerous complaints about and was
17 aware of inappropriate, abusive, and unsafe coaching/training practices and other wrongful
18 conduct by GROOM toward athletes under his control and/or supervision, and/or with whom he
19 came into contact while coaching and training athletes, but failed to act with due care to protect
such athletes from GROOM by failing to take prompt effective actions to prevent GROOM from
20
engaging in further misconduct. Instead, USROWING allowed GROOM to remain a member of
21
USROWING, and to continue to coach teams and athletes under USROWING’s auspices,
22 jurisdiction and governance, thereby enabling GROOM to be employed by and coach for
23 MISSION ROWING, to have access to PLAINTIFF as her rowing coach, and to have the power
24 and opportunity to engage in the injurious actions towards PLAINTIFF described herein.
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 4 of 62
27
28
15. GROOM’s shocking actions, which could have been prevented had NAGY,
1
MISSION ROWING, and/or USROWING acted with due care and concern for the safety and
2
well-being of PLAINTIFF and other athletes being coached by GROOM, have traumatized
3
PLAINTIFF and caused her to suffer various physical and emotional injuries which have required
4 professional evaluation and treatment, including anxiety, panic, recurring disturbing thoughts and
5 nightmares regarding GROOM’s abuse, and other symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder,
6 along with sleep disruption, depressed mood, withdrawal from social situations, and a loss of
interest in activities that previously brought her pleasure.
7
16. As a result, this strong and brave young woman, whose love and passion for rowing
8
were eclipsed only by her desire to please and prove herself to the coach she idolized, CONAL
9
GROOM, remains pained and haunted by these events to this day.
10 17. Based on GROOM’s unlawful, offensive, and injurious actions towards
11 PLAINTIFF as described below, and GROOM’s position and authority over PLAINTIFF as her
12 coach and an employee of MISSION ROWING, the rowing club of which she was a loyal and
committed member, PLAINTIFF asserts the common law tort claims and statutory claims as
13
described herein against MISSION ROWING, and against GROOM and NAGY individually to
14
the extent permitted by law, and seeks compensation for all harm, injury, loss, general and special
15
damages she has suffered, and for the attorney’s fees and costs she has incurred, as a proximate
16 result thereof.
17 18. PLAINTIFF also asserts claims against USROWING and NAGY based on their
18 knowing and reckless disregard for, and lack of due care for, PLAINTIFF’s safety, well-being, and
19 dignity in allowing GROOM to continue to have access to, and continue to coach in an abusive
and harmful manner, PLAINTIFF and other young athletes, thereby sanctioning GROOM’s
20
abusive conduct, and providing GROOM with the opportunity and authority to direct PLAINTIFF
21
to come to his home on NAGY’s property (a shipping container shed in NAGY’s backyard that
22 serves as GROOM’s living quarters), where GROOM falsely imprisoned, assaulted, battered, and
23 sexually battered her.
24
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 5 of 62
27
28
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1
19. From 2002 to 2007, CONAL GROOM worked at the Pocock Rowing Center in
2
Seattle, Washington, where he coached the club’s elite sculling team. (Elite sculling teams are
3
made up of elite athletes who are competing for spots on national team/competition-level boats,
4 often young adults in their late teens and early twenties.)
5 20. While working and coaching at the Pocock club, GROOM met CAROL NAGY
6 and her minor daughter. GROOM hired NAGY to be the boathouse business manager, a position
she held from approximately 2006 to 2007, and coached her daughter.
7
21. On March 24, 2007, GROOM physically assaulted and battered one of the young
8
female elite rowers he was coaching. According to a written statement that the athlete provided in
9
2014 as part of a grievance against GROOM filed with the United States Rowing Association at
10 that time, after the athlete questioned GROOM’s failure to notify her and other rowers in her scull
11 during a race training exercise that a large boat was approaching them (resulting in their boat
12 taking on so much water that they had to return to the boathouse), GROOM grabbed her by the
arms/shoulders and threw her toward the stairs of the Pocock boathouse, where she fell to the
13
ground.
14
22. The female rower, who reported GROOM’s assault to the police, confirmed in a
15
written statement provided to USROWING in or about December 2014 that the assault and other
16 wrongful treatment she and other athletes experienced under GROOM’s coaching supervision led
17 her to quit rowing--a sport she had dedicated years of her life to--altogether.
18 23. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that GROOM was
19 reprimanded by Pocock for his attack on the female athlete and was suspended from coaching the
elite sculling team. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that NAGY was
20
aware of GROOM’s assault of the female rower, of the rower’s complaint regarding the assault,
21
and of GROOM’s suspension by Pocock for engaging in the assault. Following GROOM’s
22 suspension, GROOM and NAGY left Pocock together.
23 24. GROOM then moved to a head coaching position at Lake Union Crew in Seattle.
24 NAGY followed GROOM to the club and worked as Lake Union Crew’s business manager.
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 6 of 62
27
28
25. In 2010, GROOM and NAGY left Lake Union Crew together and established
1
their own private rowing club, the Seattle Rowing Center (“SRC”).
2
26. From 2010 to 2019, GROOM served as head coach of SRC and lived in the club’s
3
boathouse. NAGY served as the club’s Director and GROOM’s supervisor, and operated the
4 organization as a for-profit entity without oversight by an independent Board of Directors. This
5 management structure and the lack of oversight by a Board of Directors made it impossible for
6 complaints of misconduct by GROOM to be escalated beyond the level of or to persons other than
NAGY, who was understood by the rowing community to have a close relationship with GROOM
7
due to his coaching of her daughter, and her own friendship with GROOM. NAGY protected
8
GROOM and failed to take action to address coaching misconduct that he reportedly repeatedly
9
engaged in towards the athletes entrusted to his supervision, of which NAGY was aware.
10 27. SRC, which had a middle school program, a junior racing team, and a high-
11 performance elite sculling team, catered to young rowers and their parents, promising that
12 GROOM’s intense coaching style and training regimens would pay off for the young athletes
placed in his charge by significantly improving their performance and allowing them to reach their
13
goals of rowing at the elite level.
14
28. When many of the young athletes and their parents were subjected to, witnessed, or
15
otherwise became aware of wrongful, offensive, and at times dangerous actions by GROOM
16 towards his athletes, and complained to GROOM and NAGY, GROOM denied acting
17 inappropriately and/or blamed his victims. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon
18 alleges that NAGY was aware of GROOM’s wrongful, offensive, and dangerous actions, and of
19 GROOM’s abuse of alcohol, which adversely affected his behavior towards athletes he coached.
NAGY nonetheless continually defended GROOM and his actions, often claiming that GROOM
20
had just had a “bad day,” and trying to explain away GROOM’S misconduct by telling the
21
complaining parties that GROOM had “anger issues” that he needed to work on, and/or that he
22 was struggling with alcohol addiction.
23
24
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 7 of 62
27
28
29. On November 19, 2011, GROOM sent several of his junior athletes, including a
1
male high school rower, out to row in perilous weather conditions near the Evergreen Point
2
Floating Bridge (known locally as the “Highway 520 Bridge”) on Lake Washington in Seattle.
3
30. According to information later submitted to USROWING in connection with a
4 December 2014 Complaint as described herein, GROOM became angry when he believed that the
5 male high school rower and other rowers under his supervision were not listening to his
6 commands (when in fact they could not hear him due to the weather conditions), and directed
them to row closer to the bridge, thereby creating an even more dangerous situation for the young
7
athletes. As their boat began taking on freezing water, the rowers tried to bail it out with their
8
water bottles until they were able to get away from the bridge and turn back.
9
31. The male high school rower and his crew mates were freezing, exhausted, and
10 shaken by the time they made it back to the boathouse, although GROOM appeared nonplussed.
11 Although the male high school rower feared angry disapproval and retaliation by his coach, given
12 the dangerous situation that GROOM had deliberately put him and his teammates in, and the
blatant disregard for their safety and well-being that GROOM had displayed in doing so, the male
13
high school rower believed he had no choice but to express his concerns to his coach about what
14
had transpired on the lake in order to protect himself and his crew from future harm.
15
32. Two days later, on November 21, 2011, the male high school rower approached
16 GROOM with his concerns about the Highway 520 Bridge incident. In response, GROOM
17 became visibly angry and began yelling at and berating the young athlete, dismissing his concerns
18 and exhorting him to “stop thinking about safety.”
19 33. In a series of subsequent emails, the male high school rower and his parents
complained to GROOM and his supervisor, SRC founder and Director CAROL NAGY, about
20
GROOM’s reckless disregard of his rowers’ safety and well-being, and his belligerent and abusive
21
tirade towards the male high school rower when he attempted to voice his concerns about the
22 Highway 520 Bridge incident. NAGY was aware of, but did nothing to address, GROOM’s
23 wrongful actions.
24
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 8 of 62
27
28
34. GROOM’s unsafe and abusive actions towards the male high school rower and
1
numerous other SRC rowers–which NAGY and the club failed to take any effective action to
2
address—eventually resulted in the filing of a complaint in December 2014 against GROOM and
3
SRC with USROWING, the sports’ governing body, by several individuals involved in the Pacific
4 Northwest rowing community who were concerned about GROOM and the harm he was causing
5 to the athletes he was coaching (“the December 2014 Complaint”).
6 35. USROWING’s stated mission is “to champion participation and the passionate
pursuit of excellence in rowing.” In pursuit of its mission, USROWING aims to, among other
7
things, provide education on rowing safety, healthy training methods, and effective rowing
8
technique, and provide standards for all rowers of safe, fair racing. USROWING asserts that it
9
serves and promotes the sport of rowing on all levels of competition. The organization registers
10 hundreds of regattas across the country each year, purportedly ensuring they are run under specific
11 safety guidelines, and stages national championship regattas annually including the USRowing
12 National Championships, USRowing Masters National Championships, and USRowing Youth
National Championships. USROWING also conducts regional championships and national team
13
selection events. USROWING also provides programs to educate referees and coaches.
14
36. USROWING has over 83,000 individual members, including on information and
15
belief and at all times pertinent hereto PLAINTIFF, GROOM, and NAGY, and 1,350
16 organizational members, including GROOM and NAGY’s former club, SRC, during its existence,
17 and MISSION ROWING.
18 37. One of the parties who filed the December 2014 Complaint against GROOM with
19 USROWING, Margaret Christopher (“Christopher”), a coach at Pocock Rowing Center and an
attorney, had learned of and was deeply troubled by the male high school rower’s experience with
20
GROOM and SRC. Christopher had worked with GROOM and NAGY at Pocock, and had
21
personally observed GROOM’s inappropriate actions, as well as NAGY’s complicity therein and
22 failure to take any effective action to address, throughout their tenure at Pocock.
23 38. After Christopher interviewed numerous other athletes (and their families) who had
24 been coached by GROOM and had been subjected to similarly abusive, demeaning, and dangerous
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 9 of 62
27
28
actions by GROOM, and/or to sexually harassing, sexually offensive, and related inappropriate
1
grooming behavior, Christopher and other concerned parties filed the December 2014 Complaint
2
in order to make USROWING, the sport’s governing body, aware of GROOM’s harmful actions,
3
with the expectation that USROWING would protect the athletes under its jurisdiction from
4 continuing harm, threats, and injury by GROOM by taking appropriate action to stop GROOM’s
5 wrongful conduct, and/or to prevent GROOM from continuing to coach, supervise, and/or have
6 professional access to those athletes. The December 2014 Complaint was based on and detailed
the following wrongful actions by GROOM, NAGY, and SRC as asserted therein:
7
In and prior to 2006, while coaching at Pocock, CONAL GROOM reportedly seduced a
8
junior athlete and initiated a sexual relationship with her. He exhibited all the grooming
9
behavior towards both the athlete and her parent that is described in Safe Sport [training
10 and guidelines].
11 GROOM has exhibited frequent and extreme rageful behavior for many years towards
12 athletes which creates an abusive environment for his athletes, their families, other
13 members of the rowing community, and the public. This behavior includes screaming,
swearing, physically threatening behavior and even physical assault, in public, in front of
14
witnesses. Several statements from athletes and coaches who have directly experienced
15
this behavior [were] provided [with the complaint].
16
GROOM uses extremely offensive and abusive language toward his junior and high-
17 performance athletes, e.g. Calling a 4x of junior girls “[C word]s”, an incident which was
18 witnessed by a coach from a neighboring club and her 8+ of junior girls.
19 GROOM engages in inappropriate touching and sexually suggestive conversations with his
20 athletes as a matter of course and as a means of establishing and maintaining control and
power, such as leaning his body in close to rowers, particularly young female rowers,
21
trapping them up against a wall or door and having a forearm on the wall above them.
22
GROOM recruits rowers from other clubs in part by offering their parents the possibility of
23
scholarships, college admissions and national team hopes. This is not abusive in and of
24 itself but given his abusive behavior and coaching methods, it is identified by Safe Sport as
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 10 of 62
27
28
a means of seducing athletes and their parents while protecting himself from and deflecting
1
criticism and concern by those parents and the rowers themselves.
2
GROOM treats certain athletes as “special,” openly stating that they are his favorites. [At
3
that time, he had been] showing special attention to a junior girl at SRC, and has been
4 rowing a private double with her at a different boathouse and outside of normal SRC
5 practice time. His attention toward her has caused alarm in parents and coaches who are
6 aware of it.
7 Some parents and athletes have left SRC as a result of their concerns, but others stay and
do not say anything, or develop “coping mechanisms” to deal with the behavior for all of
8
the reasons identified in the Safe Sport training. Given the structure of SRC, which is a
9
private, for-profit LLC with no board of directors, there is no meaningful way to bring a
10 grievance to the club itself, and clearly no oversight of the head coach.
11 There does not appear to be any other means of seeking redress of this matter except
12 through US Rowing. The purpose of bringing this grievance is to do whatever possible to
13 get this individual off the water; he has done far too much damage to athletes, to the
community and to the sport to allow him to remain part of competitive rowing.
14
15 39. During the course of interviewing athletes who had been subjected to harassing and
16 abusive treatment by GROOM and their family members, Christopher learned that GROOM had a
pattern and practice of selecting certain young female rowers and “grooming” them for potential
17
future sexual attention and abuse. Among the grooming behaviors that GROOM reportedly
18
engaged in towards female rowers who he openly declared were his “favorites” were:
19
Rides alone with them in cars, drives them to and from practice, to and from regattas
20 Gives them keys to his apartment
21 Asks them to take care of his pets
22 Gives them keys to his office
Gives them other special and inappropriate privileges at the boathouse, like driving a
23
Has blatantly inappropriate physical contact and lack of physical boundaries with them
24
Rows alone with them (clandestinely, at other boathouses)
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 11 of 62
27
28
Texts and calls them at all hours and about personal/sexual things
1
Stands too close or leans into them against a wall with an arm over their head when talking
2
Trains side by side with them for hours at a time
3
Gets close with their parents
4 Comments on their physical appearance, both negatively and positively, both alone and in
5 front of their teammates
6 Makes weird remarks about his relationship with them to imply that they are dating and/or
others are jealous of her/them
7
Pays special attention to them in front of other rowers and neglects/ignores other rowers
8
Walks into the girls locker room at will to “talk” to someone or yell at the team while they
9
are changing clothes, to the point where some of them would change in the closet.
10
40. Christopher reported to USROWING that GROOM engaged in the above wrongful
11
actions on top of the toxic environment he creates, where his authority cannot be questioned and
12
athletes’ physical and emotional boundaries are broken down by daily abuse, reckless
13 endangerment, and bullying, thereby making athletes even more vulnerable to sexual exploitation.
14 41. Regarding GROOM’s offensive and dangerous actions towards the male high
15 school rower, Christopher and the athlete’s father confirmed in connection with the December
2014 Complaint to USROWING that that athlete experienced ongoing verbal, physical and
16
emotional abuse by coach CONAL GROOM and witnessed the same perpetrated on his
17
teammates.
18
42. After receiving the December 2014 Complaint to USROWING, the organization
19 hired a law firm, Bryan Cave, to investigate the matter. Christopher provided to USROWING and
20 Bryan Cave names and contact information for numerous athletes and family members who had
21 experienced and/or were aware of wrongful actions by GROOM while coaching and training
22 rowers. Various athletes and family members who had been subjected to and/or were aware of
wrongful actions by GROOM while he was coaching and training rowers reported their
23
experiences to USROWING and Bryan Cave. Other athletes and family members who had been
24
subjected to and/or were aware of wrongful actions by GROOM while he was coaching and
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 12 of 62
27
28
training rowers contacted USROWING and/or Bryan Cave regarding their concerns about
1
GROOM’s actions, but were not interviewed by USROWING and/or Bryan Cave.
2
43. After investigating the December 2014 Complaint, Bryan Cave provided an
3
extensive report to USROWING regarding GROOM’S wrongful, abusive, and dangerous conduct
4 towards toward athletes under his control and/or supervision, and/or with whom he came into
5 contact while coaching and training athletes under USROWING’s jurisdiction. Notwithstanding
6 the report, and the information that had been reported to and was known to USROWING at that
time about GROOM’s misconduct and his offensive, inappropriate, and dangerous actions towards
7
those athletes and others, USROWING failed to take prompt effective action to prevent GROOM
8
from engaging in further misconduct, such as prohibiting GROOM from coaching or interacting
9
with minors athletes in connection with events or activities within USROWING’s jurisdiction,
10 prohibiting and/or suspending GROOM from coaching minor and/or all athletes in connection
11 with events or activities within USROWING’s jurisdiction, or otherwise disciplining GROOM in
12 a manner that would prevent him from continuing to harm athletes under USROWING’s
jurisdiction, including USROWING members and/or USROWING event or activity participants,
13
and/or individuals otherwise under GROOM’s control and/or supervision, and/or to whom
14
GROOM had access in connection with his coaching duties, and/or during such events and
15
activities.
16 44. In so doing, USROWING failed to act with reasonable care towards its member
17 athletes and other individuals involved in events sponsored by USROWING and/or within its
18 jurisdiction, and failed to protect such persons from GROOM, thereby resulting in foreseeable
19 harm and injury to PLAINTIFF and other athletes under USROWING’s jurisdiction. Instead,
USROWING allowed GROOM to remain a member of USROWING, and to continue to coach
20
and train teams and athletes, under USROWING’s auspices, jurisdiction and governance,
21
including minor athletes like PLAINTIFF, thereby enabling GROOM to be employed by and
22 coach for rowing organizations such as MISSION ROWING, to have access to PLAINTIFF as her
23 rowing coach, and to have the power and opportunity to engage in the injurious actions towards
24 PLAINTIFF described herein.
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 13 of 62
27
28
45. It was not until March 2022, eight months after GROOM’s harmful and injurious
1
actions towards PLAINTIFF culminated in the August 13, 2021 Assault as described herein, and
2
more than seven years after USROWING was informed and aware of GROOM’S harmful and
3
dangerous actions towards athletes under USROWING’s jurisdiction in connection with the
4 December 2014 Complaint, that USROWING implemented “temporary measures” that prohibited
5 GROOM from coaching or interacting with “Minor Participants” in connection with events
6 sponsored by USROWING and/or within its jurisdiction, pending an investigation by the U.S.
Center for SafeSport into allegations of sexual misconduct by GROOM towards PLAINTIFF as
7
described herein.
8
46. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges and thereon alleges that
9
numerous athletes, family members, and other persons also reported to NAGY prior to GROOM’s
10 August 13, 2021 assault on PLAINTIFF various inappropriate, abusive, dangerous, and at times
11 violent actions by GROOM towards rowers under his control and/or supervision, and/or with
12 whom he came into contact while coaching and training athletes, including open and belligerent
altercations between him and such athletes.
13
47. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges and thereon alleges that
14
in one incident, four female rowers who were training under GROOM at SRC left the club and
15
went to Pocock to train for a brief period prior to a key competition after GROOM reportedly
16 engaged in an altercation with them and kicked them out of SRC.
17 48. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in another disturbing
18 incident in 2013, a Pocock staff member witnessed and reported an angry and denigrating outburst
19 by GROOM towards four female rowers he was coaching during a rowing practice session on
Portage Bay (Lake Union) in which GROOM yelled at them that they were “[C word]s,” shocking
20
and offending the Pocock staff member and the female athletes in her boat who witnessed
21
GROOM’s outburst, and causing them great concern for the safety and well-being of the female
22 athletes under GROOM’s supervision.
23 49. Pocock subsequently sent a letter to USROWING to report and express the club’s
24 concerns regarding the incident. The letter noted that GROOM had violated established coaching
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 14 of 62
27
28
and behavioral standards set by USROWING for working with youth athletes, and that the local
1
rowing community had been subjected to and/or was aware of various other instances of
2
inappropriate and dangerous conduct by GROOM that had occurred over a period of years, and
3
that it would be unsafe and morally reprehensible to allow him to continue to coach athletes,
4 particularly young athletes, given the power, ability, and access he had to harm and abuse them.
5 50. CAROL NAGY was aware of Pocock’s letter to USROWING regarding
6 GROOM’s harmful and offensive actions towards, and mistreatment of, athletes he coached.
NAGY was also aware of various acts of mistreatment by GROOM towards athletes he coached,
7
which she had witnessed, which had been reported to her, and/or which were otherwise known to
8
her. Following submission of the December 2014 Complaint against GROOM with USROWING
9
by Pocock coach Margaret Christopher, NAGY began to send threatening emails to Pocock
10 Rowing demanding that the club fire Christopher for reporting GROOM’s harmful and offensive
11 actions towards, and mistreatment of, athletes he coached. Shortly after Pocock informed NAGY
12 that it would not be silencing or terminating Christopher, NAGY abruptly entered the club’s
offices and again angrily demanded that a club official fire Christopher. Specifically, NAGY
13
slammed her hands down on the official’s desk and exhorted the official in a hostile manner, “you
14
need to stop her from doing this” and “you need to fire Margaret.” NAGY then threatened the
15
official and Pocock by stating that Christopher’s complaint against GROOM was “ruining [her]
16 business” and that “this needs to stop or I will sue you.”
17 51. Notwithstanding the December 2014 Complaint, of which NAGY was aware,
18 NAGY in her capacity as Director of SRC allowed GROOM to remain employed with and
19 continue serving as a coach for the rowing club. Eventually, NAGY and GROOM closed SRC
and founded MISSION ROWING in Santa Ynez, California in 2019.
20
52. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that NAGY failed to take
21
any actions to address GROOM’s wrongful and dangerous actions towards the athletes he
22 coached, or to protect those athletes from further harm by GROOM. Instead, NAGY routinely
23 defended GROOM and his inappropriate behavior to those who questioned or complained about
24 GROOM, was complicit in his wrongful actions, and sanctioned his wrongful actions by allowing
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 15 of 62
27
28
them to continue unabated throughout the time that NAGY worked with GROOM at SRC, and
1
later, at MISSION ROWING.
2
53. Given this history of inappropriate behavior by GROOM, and DEFENDANTS
3
MISSION ROWING’S, USROWING’S, and NAGY’s knowledge of and failure to take any
4 effective action to deter such wrongful behavior, and to instead support and sanction GROOM’s
5 actions, it is not surprising that, following the December 2014 Complaint, GROOM continued to
6 have the opportunity and authority to harm vulnerable and impressionable young athletes like
PLAINTIFF, thereby proximately resulting in the injuries to PLAINTIFF described here.
7
GROOM First Noticed PLAINTIFF and Began To Engage in Predatory Grooming
8 Behaviors Towards Her When She Showed Talent and Dedication to His SRC
Rowing Teams as an Eighth Grader
9
54. PLAINTIFF initially became involved with GROOM’s and NAGY’s Seattle-based
10
rowing club, SRC, when she joined the club’s after school youth program in 2015 as a fifth grader.
11
55. In late summer 2018, at the beginning of her eighth-grade school year, PLAINTIFF
12
joined SRC’s juniors racing program, which was coached by CONAL GROOM and made up
13 largely of high school aged athletes. PLAINTIFF loved rowing and demonstrated intense focus
14 and significant aptitude for the sport.
15 56. By the middle of PLAINTIFF’s first academic year as a junior rower (Spring
2019), GROOM had noticed her, her dedication, and her talent, and moved her up from the novice
16
team to row with the SRC varsity team.
17
57. Around the same time, GROOM began to show special attention and display
18
favorable treatment towards PLAINTIFF, such as telling her what a talented athlete she was,
19 allowing her to eat pie while her teammates worked to re-rig a boat, and giving her the nicest
20 single boat to row for time trials (which were held to determine which athletes would attend the
21 upcoming junior national competition).
22 58. Predatory “grooming” occurs when an individual (often with power and/or
authority over their victim) engages in a series of behaviors with the goal of engaging in sexual
23
misconduct. In situations of child sexual abuse, the abuser targets a minor and works to earn the
24
trust of the minor, the minor’s family, and the community. It can also be manipulative behavior
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 16 of 62
27
28
the abuser uses to prolong the abuse and make the minor fear reporting or be less likely to be
1
believed if they do report. See https://uscenterforsafesport.org/endabuseinsport_parents/ ;
2
https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Parent-Toolkit_Complete-1.pdf
3
59. According to the U.S. Center for SafeSport (“SafeSport”), inappropriate and
4 potentially dangerous grooming behaviors include:
5 Attempts to befriend the minor as a peer or “cool adult”
6 Giving the minor gifts and special attention
7 Talking to the minor about sexual experiences or desires
Being helpful and non-threatening to the minor’s family
8
Volunteering for situations that involve spending time alone with the minor
9
Using organizational status to have one-on-one interactions with the minor. (Id.)
10
11 60. In an effort to guard against and help protect vulnerable athletes from potentially
dangerous grooming behaviors, SafeSport provides training and guidelines for athletic
12
organizations to help them, their managers, coaches and staff, the athletes that train with them, and
13
their families to be able to identify, understand, and take steps to guard against such grooming.
14 One of the key preventative measures an athletic organization should take, according to SafeSport,
15 is to prevent unsupervised, one-on-one conduct between a coach and their minor athlete. See
16 SafeSport Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policies (“MAAPP”), which limit one-on-one
17 adult/minor interactions and set standards for training and sport settings that prevent abuse and
misconduct: https://maapp.uscenterforsafesport.org/ ; See also
18
https://uscenterforsafesport.org/endabuseinsport_parents/; https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-
19
content/uploads/2020/05/Parent-Toolkit_Complete-1.pdf .
20
61. As PLAINTIFF, her family members and friends, and other MISSION ROWING,
21 SRC, and Pocock athletes and coaches will testify, and as evidenced by the thousands of text
22 messages exchanged between PLAINTIFF and GROOM during the two-year period leading up to
23 the August 13, 2021 Assault, shortly after GROOM began coaching PLAINTIFF at SRC, and
continuing throughout the time he coached her at MISSION ROWING, GROOM:
24
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 17 of 62
27
28
engaged in all of the above-described predatory grooming behaviors towards
1
PLAINTIFF that SafeSport cautions against; and
2
engaged in various acts of physical and psychological abuse, intimidation, threats,
3
assault, battery, sexual battery, and sexual harassment towards PLAINTIFF,
4
within the course and scope of his employment with SRC and MISSION ROWING, using his
5
authority as a rowing coach for the clubs, and in furtherance of his duties as a rowing coach, and
6
related to and in furtherance of the clubs’ purposes of providing rowing training to athletes using
7 GROOM’s intense coaching style and methods.
8 62. NAGY, in her capacity as a director and managing agent of MISSION ROWING,
9 and as Executive Director of the club, and MISSION ROWING ratified GROOM’s wrongful
conduct towards PLAINTIFF by their knowledge of, and failure to take action to address or stop,
10
GROOM’s tortious, unlawful, dangerous, and otherwise wrongful conduct, and to instead allow
11
GROOM to continue to coach PLAINTIFF and other athletes and to remain employed by
12
MISSION ROWING, thereby ratifying GROOM’s wrongful actions.
13 63. In May 2019, GROOM invited PLAINTIFF to row for SRC at the USROWING
14 Youth National Championships scheduled to be held in Florida in Sarasota, Florida the following
15 month. Shortly thereafter, GROOM and NAGY announced that they were closing SRC and
starting a new rowing club, MISSION ROWING, based in Santa Ynez, California.
16
64. After the announcement, and in conjunction with GROOM’s coaching duties and
17
employment with SRC and/or MISSION ROWING, and his coaching relationship with
18
PLAINTIFF, GROOM sent PLAINTIFF a predatory letter regarding her graduation from middle
19 school in May 2019 in which GROOM stated, “We will miss you more than others,” commented
20 “I love the passion and fire you Bring” and “I love how much you care and how hard you take the
21 losses and the failures,” and invited her to “free to call/text/email … to vent or ask questions
22 whenever you need or want.” GROOM closed the letter by commenting in part, “It will be hard to
leave you and for that I am very very sorry” and signed it, “Love Always, Conal.”
23
65. Following the announcement of SRC’s closure and the opening of MISSION
24
ROWING, PLAINTIFF’s mother met with GROOM to discuss PLAINTIFF’s rowing future.
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 18 of 62
27
28
GROOM told PLAINTIFF’S mother that her daughter was talented and could continue to train at
1
Pocock, but commented that he was really “the best coach for her.”
2
66. In a subsequent conversation, GROOM and NAGY told PLAINTIFF’S mother that
3
PLAINTIFF could come to California to train with their new MISSION ROWING club during the
4 summer and other school breaks.
5 67. In June 2019, PLAINTIFF and other selected SRC rowers represented the club at
6 the USROWING Youth National Championships in Sarasota, Florida. On the first day of racing,
GROOM made it clear that PLAINTIFF was one of his new “favorite” athletes, introducing her to
7
his friends and showing her off as the small but powerful middle schooler he had brought to race.
8
68. During the summer of 2019, GROOM, NAGY, and NAGY’s husband, Ed Meyer,
9
moved to Santa Ynez to operate GROOM’s and NAGY’s new club, MISSION ROWING, and
10 started living together in a large rental house at on Tivola Street in Santa Ynez, California.
11 69. At least four former SRC rowers also moved to the Santa Ynez Valley area to train
12 with MISSION ROWING. Although PLAINTIFF rowed with College Club that summer and
Pocock through the fall, GROOM, in his position and capacity as a rowing coach for, and within
13
the course and scope of his employment with, MISSION ROWING, remained intensively
14
involved in PLAINTIFF’S training, provided her with daily work out routines, and talked with her
15
frequently by phone and FaceTime about her practices. GROOM regularly asked PLAINTIFF to
16 send screen shots and video footage of her rowing on the Pocock club’s indoor rowing machine
17 (known as an ergometer or “erg”) for him to review, and spent hours analyzing her movements
18 and “debriefing” with her. GROOM’s actions were in furtherance of MISSION ROWING’s goal,
19 purpose, and enterprise of attracting rowers like PLAINTIFF to train with MISSION ROWING.
70. In November 2019, GROOM and NAGY drove from Santa Ynez to San Diego to
20
watch and encourage PLAINTIFF as she competed as a member of the Pocock Rowing Center
21
team in the Fall Classic rowing competition held at MISSION ROWING Bay. GROOM also
22 loaned her a SpeedCoach GPS 2 performance monitor, helped her rig her boat, and got her
23 “psyched up” for the race. PLAINTIFF finished second in both the single and the double races
24 she competed in. GROOM’s and NAGY’s actions were in furtherance of MISSION ROWING’s
25
26
COMPLAINT Page 19 of 62
27
28
goal, purpose, and enterprise of attracting rowers like PLAINTIFF to train with MISSION
1
ROWING, and NAGY engaged in these actions in her capacity as a managing agent for MISSION
2
ROWING.
3
71. The special attention that GROOM and NAGY paid to PLAINTIFF in furtherance
4 of MISSION ROWING’s goal, purpose, and enterprise of attracting rowers like PLAINTIFF to
5 train with MISSION ROWING paid off. Two weeks after GROOM and NAGY went to San
6 Diego and supported PLAINTIFF as she competed in the Fall Classic later, PLAINTIFF and her
family came to the Santa Ynez Valley for Thanksgiving to allow PLAINTIFF to trained with
7
GROOM and MISSION ROWING. GROOM again gave PLAINTIFF one of the nicest boats to
8
row and showered her with attention, both in front of other athletes, and during private one-on-one
9
sessions he arranged with her (which as noted above, are prohibited under SafeSport’s Minor
10 Athlete Abuse Prevention Policies). PLAINTIFF and her family were invited to Thanksgiving
11 dinner at NAGY’s and GROOM’s house. GROOM’s and NAGY’s actions were in furtherance of
12 MISSION ROWING’s goal, purpose, and enterprise of attracting rowers like PLAINTIFF to train
with MISSION ROWING, and NAGY engaged in these actions in her capacity as a managing
13
agent for MISSION ROWING.
14
72. During one of the training sessions that PLAINTIFF attended that week, GROOM
15
became angry and began yelling and screaming at her for failing to pick up an instruction quickly
16 enough. Understanding that her worst fear was being only an “average” rower, GROOM
17 screamed at PLAINTIFF that she would be “average forever.” PLAINTIFF captured GROOM’s
18 outburst on video on her cell phone.
19 73. Following their Thanksgiving training sessions in Santa Ynez, GROOM continued
to contact PLAINTIFF frequently about her training and various aspects of her personal life, in his
20
position and capacity as a rowing coach for, and within the course and scope of his employment
21
with, MISSION ROWING, and in furtherance of MISSION ROWING’s goal, purpose, and
22 enterprise of training high-caliber athlet
Preview
1 JANEAN ACEVEDO DANIELS, SBN 145707 Attorney at Law 2 Law Office of Janean Acevedo Daniels 1160 Via del Rey 3 Goleta, CA 93117 phone: (805) 284-4428 fax: (805) 456-2050 janean@jadanielslaw.com 4 Attorney for PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE 5 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 9 10 KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE Case No. 23CV01793 11 PLAINTIFF, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 12 DAMAGES FOR: v. 13 MISSION ROWING, a California nonprofit 1. Assault & Battery 14 public benefit corporation; CONAL 2. Sexual Battery in Violation of Civil Code GROOM, an individual; CAROL NAGY, an § 1708.5 15 individual; UNITED STATES ROWING 3. Sexual Harassment in Violation of Unruh Act, Civil Code § 51.9 ASSOCIATION, a Pennsylvania nonprofit 4. Gender Violence in Violation of Civil Code § 16 corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 52.4 5. Violation of Ralphs Civil Rights Act, Civil 17 Code § 51.7 DEFENDANTS. 6. False Imprisonment 18 7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 19 8. Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision and Retention 20 9. Negligence 10. Defamation Per Se 21 22 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 23 24 PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE alleges: 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 1 of 62 27 28 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1 1. At all times pertinent hereto, PLAINTIFF KATHERINE LORD-KRAUSE 2 (“PLAINTIFF”) was a resident of the State of Washington and of the County of Santa Barbara, 3 California, where she lived and resided during the times she was training with DEFENDANTS 4 MISSION ROWING and CONAL GROOM in Santa Ynez, California. PLAINTIFF was a minor 5 at the time she was subjected to the injurious actions described herein. 6 2. The true names and capacities of DOES 1-50, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise are unknown to PLAINTIFF at this time, who therefore sues these 7 DEFENDANTS by such fictitious names. When the true names and capacities of such 8 DEFENDANTS are ascertained, PLAINTIFF will amend this complaint to insert the true names 9 and capacities of said DOE DEFENDANTS. 10 3. DEFENDANT MISSION ROWING (“MISSION ROWING”) is, and at all times 11 pertinent hereto has been, a nonprofit public benefit corporation organized and existing under the 12 laws of the State of California that operates and/or operated a rowing club in the County of Santa Barbara, California. 13 4. DEFENDANT UNITED STATES ROWING ASSOCIATION (“USROWING”) is, 14 and at all times pertinent hereto has been, a nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the 15 laws of the State of Pennsylvania. USROWING is a nonprofit membership organization 16 recognized by the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee as the national governing body 17 for the sport of rowing in the United States. USROWING maintains its corporate headquarters in 18 New Jersey. 19 5. DEFENDANT CONAL GROOM is an individual who resides in the County of Santa Barbara, California. At all times pertinent hereto, GROOM was employed by MISSION 20 ROWING in the County of Santa Barbara, California and regularly communicated and interacted 21 with PLAINTIFF regarding the matters at issue in this case as an agent and servant of MISSION 22 ROWING, acting within the course and scope of his employment with MISSION ROWING. 23 6. DEFENDANT CAROL NAGY is an individual who resides in the County of Santa 24 Barbara, California. At all times pertinent hereto, NAGY was employed by MISSION ROWING 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 2 of 62 27 28 in the County of Santa Barbara, California and regularly communicated and interacted with 1 PLAINTIFF regarding the matters at issue in this case as an agent and servant of MISSION 2 ROWING, acting within the course and scope of her employment with MISSION ROWING. 3 7. DEFENDANTS MISSION ROWING and CONAL GROOM are liable in a cause 4 of action for sexual harassment under California’s Unruh Act, Civil. Code § 51.9, because they are 5 persons who had a business, service, or professional relationship with PLAINTIFF at all times 6 pertinent hereto. 8. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges and on that basis alleges 7 that each DEFENDANT in this Complaint was, at all times mentioned, the agent, servant and/or 8 employee of the other DEFENDANT and was at all such times acting within the course and scope 9 of said agency and/or employment. 10 9. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges and on that basis alleges 11 that each DEFENDANT named as a DOE DEFENDANT is responsible for each and every act and 12 obligation set forth in this complaint. 13 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS 14 10. PLAINTIFF is a former MISSION ROWING athlete and client. PLAINTIFF 15 asserts claims against DEFENDANTS MISSION ROWING, CONAL GROOM, CAROL NAGY, 16 and USROWING arising from the physical, verbal, and emotional abuse, threats, sexual 17 harassment, assault, and battery to which she was subjected for more than two years while she was 18 a minor, culminating in her false imprisonment and sexual battery by MISSION ROWING 19 employee and coach CONAL GROOM. GROOM was a decades older adult who PLAINTIFF trusted and did everything possible to please until he violated her trust by grievously injuring her 20 when he ordered her to come to his home on the evening of August 13, 2021, where he forcibly 21 detained and restrained, falsely imprisoned, and assaulted, battered, and sexually battered her (“the 22 August 13, 2021 Assault”). PLAINTIFF was seventeen years old at the time of the August 13, 23 2021 Assault; GROOM was forty-eight. 24 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 3 of 62 27 28 11. From November 2019, when CONAL GROOM engaged in his first angry outburst 1 toward PLAINTIFF, until August 13, 2021, the night he falsely imprisoned and assaulted and 2 sexually battered her, CONAL GROOM pushed PLAINTIFF relentlessly, often to the point of 3 tears and emotional breakdowns, with his abusive, demeaning, and at times violent behavior, and 4 his inappropriate, unwelcome, and sexually-suggestive personal attention and predatory grooming 5 behavior--all under the auspices of MISSION ROWING, and with the purported purpose of 6 helping this high school-aged athlete achieve her goal of rowing competitively at the national level, and her dream of becoming an Olympic athlete. 7 12. GROOM’s shocking actions towards PLAINTIFF, who was only 15 years old 8 when the abuse began, violated standards for appropriate coaching of minor athletes by the United 9 States Rowing Association and United States Center for SafeSport, and were committed within the 10 course and scope of GROOM’s employment with MISSION ROWING. 11 13. GROOM’s unlawful and offensive actions were ratified by MISSION ROWING 12 and its founder, Director, and then-Executive Director CAROL NAGY, who were aware of GROOM’s wrongful conduct toward PLAINTIFF and other athletes but did nothing to protect 13 PLAINTIFF from further harm (or ultimately, from GROOM’s sexual harassment, assault and 14 battery). 15 14. GROOM’s unlawful and offensive actions were also ratified by USROWING, 16 which as early as 2014 and continuing into 2015 received numerous complaints about and was 17 aware of inappropriate, abusive, and unsafe coaching/training practices and other wrongful 18 conduct by GROOM toward athletes under his control and/or supervision, and/or with whom he 19 came into contact while coaching and training athletes, but failed to act with due care to protect such athletes from GROOM by failing to take prompt effective actions to prevent GROOM from 20 engaging in further misconduct. Instead, USROWING allowed GROOM to remain a member of 21 USROWING, and to continue to coach teams and athletes under USROWING’s auspices, 22 jurisdiction and governance, thereby enabling GROOM to be employed by and coach for 23 MISSION ROWING, to have access to PLAINTIFF as her rowing coach, and to have the power 24 and opportunity to engage in the injurious actions towards PLAINTIFF described herein. 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 4 of 62 27 28 15. GROOM’s shocking actions, which could have been prevented had NAGY, 1 MISSION ROWING, and/or USROWING acted with due care and concern for the safety and 2 well-being of PLAINTIFF and other athletes being coached by GROOM, have traumatized 3 PLAINTIFF and caused her to suffer various physical and emotional injuries which have required 4 professional evaluation and treatment, including anxiety, panic, recurring disturbing thoughts and 5 nightmares regarding GROOM’s abuse, and other symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, 6 along with sleep disruption, depressed mood, withdrawal from social situations, and a loss of interest in activities that previously brought her pleasure. 7 16. As a result, this strong and brave young woman, whose love and passion for rowing 8 were eclipsed only by her desire to please and prove herself to the coach she idolized, CONAL 9 GROOM, remains pained and haunted by these events to this day. 10 17. Based on GROOM’s unlawful, offensive, and injurious actions towards 11 PLAINTIFF as described below, and GROOM’s position and authority over PLAINTIFF as her 12 coach and an employee of MISSION ROWING, the rowing club of which she was a loyal and committed member, PLAINTIFF asserts the common law tort claims and statutory claims as 13 described herein against MISSION ROWING, and against GROOM and NAGY individually to 14 the extent permitted by law, and seeks compensation for all harm, injury, loss, general and special 15 damages she has suffered, and for the attorney’s fees and costs she has incurred, as a proximate 16 result thereof. 17 18. PLAINTIFF also asserts claims against USROWING and NAGY based on their 18 knowing and reckless disregard for, and lack of due care for, PLAINTIFF’s safety, well-being, and 19 dignity in allowing GROOM to continue to have access to, and continue to coach in an abusive and harmful manner, PLAINTIFF and other young athletes, thereby sanctioning GROOM’s 20 abusive conduct, and providing GROOM with the opportunity and authority to direct PLAINTIFF 21 to come to his home on NAGY’s property (a shipping container shed in NAGY’s backyard that 22 serves as GROOM’s living quarters), where GROOM falsely imprisoned, assaulted, battered, and 23 sexually battered her. 24 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 5 of 62 27 28 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 19. From 2002 to 2007, CONAL GROOM worked at the Pocock Rowing Center in 2 Seattle, Washington, where he coached the club’s elite sculling team. (Elite sculling teams are 3 made up of elite athletes who are competing for spots on national team/competition-level boats, 4 often young adults in their late teens and early twenties.) 5 20. While working and coaching at the Pocock club, GROOM met CAROL NAGY 6 and her minor daughter. GROOM hired NAGY to be the boathouse business manager, a position she held from approximately 2006 to 2007, and coached her daughter. 7 21. On March 24, 2007, GROOM physically assaulted and battered one of the young 8 female elite rowers he was coaching. According to a written statement that the athlete provided in 9 2014 as part of a grievance against GROOM filed with the United States Rowing Association at 10 that time, after the athlete questioned GROOM’s failure to notify her and other rowers in her scull 11 during a race training exercise that a large boat was approaching them (resulting in their boat 12 taking on so much water that they had to return to the boathouse), GROOM grabbed her by the arms/shoulders and threw her toward the stairs of the Pocock boathouse, where she fell to the 13 ground. 14 22. The female rower, who reported GROOM’s assault to the police, confirmed in a 15 written statement provided to USROWING in or about December 2014 that the assault and other 16 wrongful treatment she and other athletes experienced under GROOM’s coaching supervision led 17 her to quit rowing--a sport she had dedicated years of her life to--altogether. 18 23. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that GROOM was 19 reprimanded by Pocock for his attack on the female athlete and was suspended from coaching the elite sculling team. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that NAGY was 20 aware of GROOM’s assault of the female rower, of the rower’s complaint regarding the assault, 21 and of GROOM’s suspension by Pocock for engaging in the assault. Following GROOM’s 22 suspension, GROOM and NAGY left Pocock together. 23 24. GROOM then moved to a head coaching position at Lake Union Crew in Seattle. 24 NAGY followed GROOM to the club and worked as Lake Union Crew’s business manager. 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 6 of 62 27 28 25. In 2010, GROOM and NAGY left Lake Union Crew together and established 1 their own private rowing club, the Seattle Rowing Center (“SRC”). 2 26. From 2010 to 2019, GROOM served as head coach of SRC and lived in the club’s 3 boathouse. NAGY served as the club’s Director and GROOM’s supervisor, and operated the 4 organization as a for-profit entity without oversight by an independent Board of Directors. This 5 management structure and the lack of oversight by a Board of Directors made it impossible for 6 complaints of misconduct by GROOM to be escalated beyond the level of or to persons other than NAGY, who was understood by the rowing community to have a close relationship with GROOM 7 due to his coaching of her daughter, and her own friendship with GROOM. NAGY protected 8 GROOM and failed to take action to address coaching misconduct that he reportedly repeatedly 9 engaged in towards the athletes entrusted to his supervision, of which NAGY was aware. 10 27. SRC, which had a middle school program, a junior racing team, and a high- 11 performance elite sculling team, catered to young rowers and their parents, promising that 12 GROOM’s intense coaching style and training regimens would pay off for the young athletes placed in his charge by significantly improving their performance and allowing them to reach their 13 goals of rowing at the elite level. 14 28. When many of the young athletes and their parents were subjected to, witnessed, or 15 otherwise became aware of wrongful, offensive, and at times dangerous actions by GROOM 16 towards his athletes, and complained to GROOM and NAGY, GROOM denied acting 17 inappropriately and/or blamed his victims. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon 18 alleges that NAGY was aware of GROOM’s wrongful, offensive, and dangerous actions, and of 19 GROOM’s abuse of alcohol, which adversely affected his behavior towards athletes he coached. NAGY nonetheless continually defended GROOM and his actions, often claiming that GROOM 20 had just had a “bad day,” and trying to explain away GROOM’S misconduct by telling the 21 complaining parties that GROOM had “anger issues” that he needed to work on, and/or that he 22 was struggling with alcohol addiction. 23 24 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 7 of 62 27 28 29. On November 19, 2011, GROOM sent several of his junior athletes, including a 1 male high school rower, out to row in perilous weather conditions near the Evergreen Point 2 Floating Bridge (known locally as the “Highway 520 Bridge”) on Lake Washington in Seattle. 3 30. According to information later submitted to USROWING in connection with a 4 December 2014 Complaint as described herein, GROOM became angry when he believed that the 5 male high school rower and other rowers under his supervision were not listening to his 6 commands (when in fact they could not hear him due to the weather conditions), and directed them to row closer to the bridge, thereby creating an even more dangerous situation for the young 7 athletes. As their boat began taking on freezing water, the rowers tried to bail it out with their 8 water bottles until they were able to get away from the bridge and turn back. 9 31. The male high school rower and his crew mates were freezing, exhausted, and 10 shaken by the time they made it back to the boathouse, although GROOM appeared nonplussed. 11 Although the male high school rower feared angry disapproval and retaliation by his coach, given 12 the dangerous situation that GROOM had deliberately put him and his teammates in, and the blatant disregard for their safety and well-being that GROOM had displayed in doing so, the male 13 high school rower believed he had no choice but to express his concerns to his coach about what 14 had transpired on the lake in order to protect himself and his crew from future harm. 15 32. Two days later, on November 21, 2011, the male high school rower approached 16 GROOM with his concerns about the Highway 520 Bridge incident. In response, GROOM 17 became visibly angry and began yelling at and berating the young athlete, dismissing his concerns 18 and exhorting him to “stop thinking about safety.” 19 33. In a series of subsequent emails, the male high school rower and his parents complained to GROOM and his supervisor, SRC founder and Director CAROL NAGY, about 20 GROOM’s reckless disregard of his rowers’ safety and well-being, and his belligerent and abusive 21 tirade towards the male high school rower when he attempted to voice his concerns about the 22 Highway 520 Bridge incident. NAGY was aware of, but did nothing to address, GROOM’s 23 wrongful actions. 24 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 8 of 62 27 28 34. GROOM’s unsafe and abusive actions towards the male high school rower and 1 numerous other SRC rowers–which NAGY and the club failed to take any effective action to 2 address—eventually resulted in the filing of a complaint in December 2014 against GROOM and 3 SRC with USROWING, the sports’ governing body, by several individuals involved in the Pacific 4 Northwest rowing community who were concerned about GROOM and the harm he was causing 5 to the athletes he was coaching (“the December 2014 Complaint”). 6 35. USROWING’s stated mission is “to champion participation and the passionate pursuit of excellence in rowing.” In pursuit of its mission, USROWING aims to, among other 7 things, provide education on rowing safety, healthy training methods, and effective rowing 8 technique, and provide standards for all rowers of safe, fair racing. USROWING asserts that it 9 serves and promotes the sport of rowing on all levels of competition. The organization registers 10 hundreds of regattas across the country each year, purportedly ensuring they are run under specific 11 safety guidelines, and stages national championship regattas annually including the USRowing 12 National Championships, USRowing Masters National Championships, and USRowing Youth National Championships. USROWING also conducts regional championships and national team 13 selection events. USROWING also provides programs to educate referees and coaches. 14 36. USROWING has over 83,000 individual members, including on information and 15 belief and at all times pertinent hereto PLAINTIFF, GROOM, and NAGY, and 1,350 16 organizational members, including GROOM and NAGY’s former club, SRC, during its existence, 17 and MISSION ROWING. 18 37. One of the parties who filed the December 2014 Complaint against GROOM with 19 USROWING, Margaret Christopher (“Christopher”), a coach at Pocock Rowing Center and an attorney, had learned of and was deeply troubled by the male high school rower’s experience with 20 GROOM and SRC. Christopher had worked with GROOM and NAGY at Pocock, and had 21 personally observed GROOM’s inappropriate actions, as well as NAGY’s complicity therein and 22 failure to take any effective action to address, throughout their tenure at Pocock. 23 38. After Christopher interviewed numerous other athletes (and their families) who had 24 been coached by GROOM and had been subjected to similarly abusive, demeaning, and dangerous 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 9 of 62 27 28 actions by GROOM, and/or to sexually harassing, sexually offensive, and related inappropriate 1 grooming behavior, Christopher and other concerned parties filed the December 2014 Complaint 2 in order to make USROWING, the sport’s governing body, aware of GROOM’s harmful actions, 3 with the expectation that USROWING would protect the athletes under its jurisdiction from 4 continuing harm, threats, and injury by GROOM by taking appropriate action to stop GROOM’s 5 wrongful conduct, and/or to prevent GROOM from continuing to coach, supervise, and/or have 6 professional access to those athletes. The December 2014 Complaint was based on and detailed the following wrongful actions by GROOM, NAGY, and SRC as asserted therein: 7 In and prior to 2006, while coaching at Pocock, CONAL GROOM reportedly seduced a 8 junior athlete and initiated a sexual relationship with her. He exhibited all the grooming 9 behavior towards both the athlete and her parent that is described in Safe Sport [training 10 and guidelines]. 11 GROOM has exhibited frequent and extreme rageful behavior for many years towards 12 athletes which creates an abusive environment for his athletes, their families, other 13 members of the rowing community, and the public. This behavior includes screaming, swearing, physically threatening behavior and even physical assault, in public, in front of 14 witnesses. Several statements from athletes and coaches who have directly experienced 15 this behavior [were] provided [with the complaint]. 16 GROOM uses extremely offensive and abusive language toward his junior and high- 17 performance athletes, e.g. Calling a 4x of junior girls “[C word]s”, an incident which was 18 witnessed by a coach from a neighboring club and her 8+ of junior girls. 19 GROOM engages in inappropriate touching and sexually suggestive conversations with his 20 athletes as a matter of course and as a means of establishing and maintaining control and power, such as leaning his body in close to rowers, particularly young female rowers, 21 trapping them up against a wall or door and having a forearm on the wall above them. 22 GROOM recruits rowers from other clubs in part by offering their parents the possibility of 23 scholarships, college admissions and national team hopes. This is not abusive in and of 24 itself but given his abusive behavior and coaching methods, it is identified by Safe Sport as 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 10 of 62 27 28 a means of seducing athletes and their parents while protecting himself from and deflecting 1 criticism and concern by those parents and the rowers themselves. 2 GROOM treats certain athletes as “special,” openly stating that they are his favorites. [At 3 that time, he had been] showing special attention to a junior girl at SRC, and has been 4 rowing a private double with her at a different boathouse and outside of normal SRC 5 practice time. His attention toward her has caused alarm in parents and coaches who are 6 aware of it. 7 Some parents and athletes have left SRC as a result of their concerns, but others stay and do not say anything, or develop “coping mechanisms” to deal with the behavior for all of 8 the reasons identified in the Safe Sport training. Given the structure of SRC, which is a 9 private, for-profit LLC with no board of directors, there is no meaningful way to bring a 10 grievance to the club itself, and clearly no oversight of the head coach. 11 There does not appear to be any other means of seeking redress of this matter except 12 through US Rowing. The purpose of bringing this grievance is to do whatever possible to 13 get this individual off the water; he has done far too much damage to athletes, to the community and to the sport to allow him to remain part of competitive rowing. 14 15 39. During the course of interviewing athletes who had been subjected to harassing and 16 abusive treatment by GROOM and their family members, Christopher learned that GROOM had a pattern and practice of selecting certain young female rowers and “grooming” them for potential 17 future sexual attention and abuse. Among the grooming behaviors that GROOM reportedly 18 engaged in towards female rowers who he openly declared were his “favorites” were: 19 Rides alone with them in cars, drives them to and from practice, to and from regattas 20 Gives them keys to his apartment 21 Asks them to take care of his pets 22 Gives them keys to his office Gives them other special and inappropriate privileges at the boathouse, like driving a 23 Has blatantly inappropriate physical contact and lack of physical boundaries with them 24 Rows alone with them (clandestinely, at other boathouses) 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 11 of 62 27 28 Texts and calls them at all hours and about personal/sexual things 1 Stands too close or leans into them against a wall with an arm over their head when talking 2 Trains side by side with them for hours at a time 3 Gets close with their parents 4 Comments on their physical appearance, both negatively and positively, both alone and in 5 front of their teammates 6 Makes weird remarks about his relationship with them to imply that they are dating and/or others are jealous of her/them 7 Pays special attention to them in front of other rowers and neglects/ignores other rowers 8 Walks into the girls locker room at will to “talk” to someone or yell at the team while they 9 are changing clothes, to the point where some of them would change in the closet. 10 40. Christopher reported to USROWING that GROOM engaged in the above wrongful 11 actions on top of the toxic environment he creates, where his authority cannot be questioned and 12 athletes’ physical and emotional boundaries are broken down by daily abuse, reckless 13 endangerment, and bullying, thereby making athletes even more vulnerable to sexual exploitation. 14 41. Regarding GROOM’s offensive and dangerous actions towards the male high 15 school rower, Christopher and the athlete’s father confirmed in connection with the December 2014 Complaint to USROWING that that athlete experienced ongoing verbal, physical and 16 emotional abuse by coach CONAL GROOM and witnessed the same perpetrated on his 17 teammates. 18 42. After receiving the December 2014 Complaint to USROWING, the organization 19 hired a law firm, Bryan Cave, to investigate the matter. Christopher provided to USROWING and 20 Bryan Cave names and contact information for numerous athletes and family members who had 21 experienced and/or were aware of wrongful actions by GROOM while coaching and training 22 rowers. Various athletes and family members who had been subjected to and/or were aware of wrongful actions by GROOM while he was coaching and training rowers reported their 23 experiences to USROWING and Bryan Cave. Other athletes and family members who had been 24 subjected to and/or were aware of wrongful actions by GROOM while he was coaching and 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 12 of 62 27 28 training rowers contacted USROWING and/or Bryan Cave regarding their concerns about 1 GROOM’s actions, but were not interviewed by USROWING and/or Bryan Cave. 2 43. After investigating the December 2014 Complaint, Bryan Cave provided an 3 extensive report to USROWING regarding GROOM’S wrongful, abusive, and dangerous conduct 4 towards toward athletes under his control and/or supervision, and/or with whom he came into 5 contact while coaching and training athletes under USROWING’s jurisdiction. Notwithstanding 6 the report, and the information that had been reported to and was known to USROWING at that time about GROOM’s misconduct and his offensive, inappropriate, and dangerous actions towards 7 those athletes and others, USROWING failed to take prompt effective action to prevent GROOM 8 from engaging in further misconduct, such as prohibiting GROOM from coaching or interacting 9 with minors athletes in connection with events or activities within USROWING’s jurisdiction, 10 prohibiting and/or suspending GROOM from coaching minor and/or all athletes in connection 11 with events or activities within USROWING’s jurisdiction, or otherwise disciplining GROOM in 12 a manner that would prevent him from continuing to harm athletes under USROWING’s jurisdiction, including USROWING members and/or USROWING event or activity participants, 13 and/or individuals otherwise under GROOM’s control and/or supervision, and/or to whom 14 GROOM had access in connection with his coaching duties, and/or during such events and 15 activities. 16 44. In so doing, USROWING failed to act with reasonable care towards its member 17 athletes and other individuals involved in events sponsored by USROWING and/or within its 18 jurisdiction, and failed to protect such persons from GROOM, thereby resulting in foreseeable 19 harm and injury to PLAINTIFF and other athletes under USROWING’s jurisdiction. Instead, USROWING allowed GROOM to remain a member of USROWING, and to continue to coach 20 and train teams and athletes, under USROWING’s auspices, jurisdiction and governance, 21 including minor athletes like PLAINTIFF, thereby enabling GROOM to be employed by and 22 coach for rowing organizations such as MISSION ROWING, to have access to PLAINTIFF as her 23 rowing coach, and to have the power and opportunity to engage in the injurious actions towards 24 PLAINTIFF described herein. 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 13 of 62 27 28 45. It was not until March 2022, eight months after GROOM’s harmful and injurious 1 actions towards PLAINTIFF culminated in the August 13, 2021 Assault as described herein, and 2 more than seven years after USROWING was informed and aware of GROOM’S harmful and 3 dangerous actions towards athletes under USROWING’s jurisdiction in connection with the 4 December 2014 Complaint, that USROWING implemented “temporary measures” that prohibited 5 GROOM from coaching or interacting with “Minor Participants” in connection with events 6 sponsored by USROWING and/or within its jurisdiction, pending an investigation by the U.S. Center for SafeSport into allegations of sexual misconduct by GROOM towards PLAINTIFF as 7 described herein. 8 46. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges and thereon alleges that 9 numerous athletes, family members, and other persons also reported to NAGY prior to GROOM’s 10 August 13, 2021 assault on PLAINTIFF various inappropriate, abusive, dangerous, and at times 11 violent actions by GROOM towards rowers under his control and/or supervision, and/or with 12 whom he came into contact while coaching and training athletes, including open and belligerent altercations between him and such athletes. 13 47. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges and thereon alleges that 14 in one incident, four female rowers who were training under GROOM at SRC left the club and 15 went to Pocock to train for a brief period prior to a key competition after GROOM reportedly 16 engaged in an altercation with them and kicked them out of SRC. 17 48. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in another disturbing 18 incident in 2013, a Pocock staff member witnessed and reported an angry and denigrating outburst 19 by GROOM towards four female rowers he was coaching during a rowing practice session on Portage Bay (Lake Union) in which GROOM yelled at them that they were “[C word]s,” shocking 20 and offending the Pocock staff member and the female athletes in her boat who witnessed 21 GROOM’s outburst, and causing them great concern for the safety and well-being of the female 22 athletes under GROOM’s supervision. 23 49. Pocock subsequently sent a letter to USROWING to report and express the club’s 24 concerns regarding the incident. The letter noted that GROOM had violated established coaching 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 14 of 62 27 28 and behavioral standards set by USROWING for working with youth athletes, and that the local 1 rowing community had been subjected to and/or was aware of various other instances of 2 inappropriate and dangerous conduct by GROOM that had occurred over a period of years, and 3 that it would be unsafe and morally reprehensible to allow him to continue to coach athletes, 4 particularly young athletes, given the power, ability, and access he had to harm and abuse them. 5 50. CAROL NAGY was aware of Pocock’s letter to USROWING regarding 6 GROOM’s harmful and offensive actions towards, and mistreatment of, athletes he coached. NAGY was also aware of various acts of mistreatment by GROOM towards athletes he coached, 7 which she had witnessed, which had been reported to her, and/or which were otherwise known to 8 her. Following submission of the December 2014 Complaint against GROOM with USROWING 9 by Pocock coach Margaret Christopher, NAGY began to send threatening emails to Pocock 10 Rowing demanding that the club fire Christopher for reporting GROOM’s harmful and offensive 11 actions towards, and mistreatment of, athletes he coached. Shortly after Pocock informed NAGY 12 that it would not be silencing or terminating Christopher, NAGY abruptly entered the club’s offices and again angrily demanded that a club official fire Christopher. Specifically, NAGY 13 slammed her hands down on the official’s desk and exhorted the official in a hostile manner, “you 14 need to stop her from doing this” and “you need to fire Margaret.” NAGY then threatened the 15 official and Pocock by stating that Christopher’s complaint against GROOM was “ruining [her] 16 business” and that “this needs to stop or I will sue you.” 17 51. Notwithstanding the December 2014 Complaint, of which NAGY was aware, 18 NAGY in her capacity as Director of SRC allowed GROOM to remain employed with and 19 continue serving as a coach for the rowing club. Eventually, NAGY and GROOM closed SRC and founded MISSION ROWING in Santa Ynez, California in 2019. 20 52. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that NAGY failed to take 21 any actions to address GROOM’s wrongful and dangerous actions towards the athletes he 22 coached, or to protect those athletes from further harm by GROOM. Instead, NAGY routinely 23 defended GROOM and his inappropriate behavior to those who questioned or complained about 24 GROOM, was complicit in his wrongful actions, and sanctioned his wrongful actions by allowing 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 15 of 62 27 28 them to continue unabated throughout the time that NAGY worked with GROOM at SRC, and 1 later, at MISSION ROWING. 2 53. Given this history of inappropriate behavior by GROOM, and DEFENDANTS 3 MISSION ROWING’S, USROWING’S, and NAGY’s knowledge of and failure to take any 4 effective action to deter such wrongful behavior, and to instead support and sanction GROOM’s 5 actions, it is not surprising that, following the December 2014 Complaint, GROOM continued to 6 have the opportunity and authority to harm vulnerable and impressionable young athletes like PLAINTIFF, thereby proximately resulting in the injuries to PLAINTIFF described here. 7 GROOM First Noticed PLAINTIFF and Began To Engage in Predatory Grooming 8 Behaviors Towards Her When She Showed Talent and Dedication to His SRC Rowing Teams as an Eighth Grader 9 54. PLAINTIFF initially became involved with GROOM’s and NAGY’s Seattle-based 10 rowing club, SRC, when she joined the club’s after school youth program in 2015 as a fifth grader. 11 55. In late summer 2018, at the beginning of her eighth-grade school year, PLAINTIFF 12 joined SRC’s juniors racing program, which was coached by CONAL GROOM and made up 13 largely of high school aged athletes. PLAINTIFF loved rowing and demonstrated intense focus 14 and significant aptitude for the sport. 15 56. By the middle of PLAINTIFF’s first academic year as a junior rower (Spring 2019), GROOM had noticed her, her dedication, and her talent, and moved her up from the novice 16 team to row with the SRC varsity team. 17 57. Around the same time, GROOM began to show special attention and display 18 favorable treatment towards PLAINTIFF, such as telling her what a talented athlete she was, 19 allowing her to eat pie while her teammates worked to re-rig a boat, and giving her the nicest 20 single boat to row for time trials (which were held to determine which athletes would attend the 21 upcoming junior national competition). 22 58. Predatory “grooming” occurs when an individual (often with power and/or authority over their victim) engages in a series of behaviors with the goal of engaging in sexual 23 misconduct. In situations of child sexual abuse, the abuser targets a minor and works to earn the 24 trust of the minor, the minor’s family, and the community. It can also be manipulative behavior 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 16 of 62 27 28 the abuser uses to prolong the abuse and make the minor fear reporting or be less likely to be 1 believed if they do report. See https://uscenterforsafesport.org/endabuseinsport_parents/ ; 2 https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Parent-Toolkit_Complete-1.pdf 3 59. According to the U.S. Center for SafeSport (“SafeSport”), inappropriate and 4 potentially dangerous grooming behaviors include: 5 Attempts to befriend the minor as a peer or “cool adult” 6 Giving the minor gifts and special attention 7 Talking to the minor about sexual experiences or desires Being helpful and non-threatening to the minor’s family 8 Volunteering for situations that involve spending time alone with the minor 9 Using organizational status to have one-on-one interactions with the minor. (Id.) 10 11 60. In an effort to guard against and help protect vulnerable athletes from potentially dangerous grooming behaviors, SafeSport provides training and guidelines for athletic 12 organizations to help them, their managers, coaches and staff, the athletes that train with them, and 13 their families to be able to identify, understand, and take steps to guard against such grooming. 14 One of the key preventative measures an athletic organization should take, according to SafeSport, 15 is to prevent unsupervised, one-on-one conduct between a coach and their minor athlete. See 16 SafeSport Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policies (“MAAPP”), which limit one-on-one 17 adult/minor interactions and set standards for training and sport settings that prevent abuse and misconduct: https://maapp.uscenterforsafesport.org/ ; See also 18 https://uscenterforsafesport.org/endabuseinsport_parents/; https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp- 19 content/uploads/2020/05/Parent-Toolkit_Complete-1.pdf . 20 61. As PLAINTIFF, her family members and friends, and other MISSION ROWING, 21 SRC, and Pocock athletes and coaches will testify, and as evidenced by the thousands of text 22 messages exchanged between PLAINTIFF and GROOM during the two-year period leading up to 23 the August 13, 2021 Assault, shortly after GROOM began coaching PLAINTIFF at SRC, and continuing throughout the time he coached her at MISSION ROWING, GROOM: 24 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 17 of 62 27 28 engaged in all of the above-described predatory grooming behaviors towards 1 PLAINTIFF that SafeSport cautions against; and 2 engaged in various acts of physical and psychological abuse, intimidation, threats, 3 assault, battery, sexual battery, and sexual harassment towards PLAINTIFF, 4 within the course and scope of his employment with SRC and MISSION ROWING, using his 5 authority as a rowing coach for the clubs, and in furtherance of his duties as a rowing coach, and 6 related to and in furtherance of the clubs’ purposes of providing rowing training to athletes using 7 GROOM’s intense coaching style and methods. 8 62. NAGY, in her capacity as a director and managing agent of MISSION ROWING, 9 and as Executive Director of the club, and MISSION ROWING ratified GROOM’s wrongful conduct towards PLAINTIFF by their knowledge of, and failure to take action to address or stop, 10 GROOM’s tortious, unlawful, dangerous, and otherwise wrongful conduct, and to instead allow 11 GROOM to continue to coach PLAINTIFF and other athletes and to remain employed by 12 MISSION ROWING, thereby ratifying GROOM’s wrongful actions. 13 63. In May 2019, GROOM invited PLAINTIFF to row for SRC at the USROWING 14 Youth National Championships scheduled to be held in Florida in Sarasota, Florida the following 15 month. Shortly thereafter, GROOM and NAGY announced that they were closing SRC and starting a new rowing club, MISSION ROWING, based in Santa Ynez, California. 16 64. After the announcement, and in conjunction with GROOM’s coaching duties and 17 employment with SRC and/or MISSION ROWING, and his coaching relationship with 18 PLAINTIFF, GROOM sent PLAINTIFF a predatory letter regarding her graduation from middle 19 school in May 2019 in which GROOM stated, “We will miss you more than others,” commented 20 “I love the passion and fire you Bring” and “I love how much you care and how hard you take the 21 losses and the failures,” and invited her to “free to call/text/email … to vent or ask questions 22 whenever you need or want.” GROOM closed the letter by commenting in part, “It will be hard to leave you and for that I am very very sorry” and signed it, “Love Always, Conal.” 23 65. Following the announcement of SRC’s closure and the opening of MISSION 24 ROWING, PLAINTIFF’s mother met with GROOM to discuss PLAINTIFF’s rowing future. 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 18 of 62 27 28 GROOM told PLAINTIFF’S mother that her daughter was talented and could continue to train at 1 Pocock, but commented that he was really “the best coach for her.” 2 66. In a subsequent conversation, GROOM and NAGY told PLAINTIFF’S mother that 3 PLAINTIFF could come to California to train with their new MISSION ROWING club during the 4 summer and other school breaks. 5 67. In June 2019, PLAINTIFF and other selected SRC rowers represented the club at 6 the USROWING Youth National Championships in Sarasota, Florida. On the first day of racing, GROOM made it clear that PLAINTIFF was one of his new “favorite” athletes, introducing her to 7 his friends and showing her off as the small but powerful middle schooler he had brought to race. 8 68. During the summer of 2019, GROOM, NAGY, and NAGY’s husband, Ed Meyer, 9 moved to Santa Ynez to operate GROOM’s and NAGY’s new club, MISSION ROWING, and 10 started living together in a large rental house at on Tivola Street in Santa Ynez, California. 11 69. At least four former SRC rowers also moved to the Santa Ynez Valley area to train 12 with MISSION ROWING. Although PLAINTIFF rowed with College Club that summer and Pocock through the fall, GROOM, in his position and capacity as a rowing coach for, and within 13 the course and scope of his employment with, MISSION ROWING, remained intensively 14 involved in PLAINTIFF’S training, provided her with daily work out routines, and talked with her 15 frequently by phone and FaceTime about her practices. GROOM regularly asked PLAINTIFF to 16 send screen shots and video footage of her rowing on the Pocock club’s indoor rowing machine 17 (known as an ergometer or “erg”) for him to review, and spent hours analyzing her movements 18 and “debriefing” with her. GROOM’s actions were in furtherance of MISSION ROWING’s goal, 19 purpose, and enterprise of attracting rowers like PLAINTIFF to train with MISSION ROWING. 70. In November 2019, GROOM and NAGY drove from Santa Ynez to San Diego to 20 watch and encourage PLAINTIFF as she competed as a member of the Pocock Rowing Center 21 team in the Fall Classic rowing competition held at MISSION ROWING Bay. GROOM also 22 loaned her a SpeedCoach GPS 2 performance monitor, helped her rig her boat, and got her 23 “psyched up” for the race. PLAINTIFF finished second in both the single and the double races 24 she competed in. GROOM’s and NAGY’s actions were in furtherance of MISSION ROWING’s 25 26 COMPLAINT Page 19 of 62 27 28 goal, purpose, and enterprise of attracting rowers like PLAINTIFF to train with MISSION 1 ROWING, and NAGY engaged in these actions in her capacity as a managing agent for MISSION 2 ROWING. 3 71. The special attention that GROOM and NAGY paid to PLAINTIFF in furtherance 4 of MISSION ROWING’s goal, purpose, and enterprise of attracting rowers like PLAINTIFF to 5 train with MISSION ROWING paid off. Two weeks after GROOM and NAGY went to San 6 Diego and supported PLAINTIFF as she competed in the Fall Classic later, PLAINTIFF and her family came to the Santa Ynez Valley for Thanksgiving to allow PLAINTIFF to trained with 7 GROOM and MISSION ROWING. GROOM again gave PLAINTIFF one of the nicest boats to 8 row and showered her with attention, both in front of other athletes, and during private one-on-one 9 sessions he arranged with her (which as noted above, are prohibited under SafeSport’s Minor 10 Athlete Abuse Prevention Policies). PLAINTIFF and her family were invited to Thanksgiving 11 dinner at NAGY’s and GROOM’s house. GROOM’s and NAGY’s actions were in furtherance of 12 MISSION ROWING’s goal, purpose, and enterprise of attracting rowers like PLAINTIFF to train with MISSION ROWING, and NAGY engaged in these actions in her capacity as a managing 13 agent for MISSION ROWING. 14 72. During one of the training sessions that PLAINTIFF attended that week, GROOM 15 became angry and began yelling and screaming at her for failing to pick up an instruction quickly 16 enough. Understanding that her worst fear was being only an “average” rower, GROOM 17 screamed at PLAINTIFF that she would be “average forever.” PLAINTIFF captured GROOM’s 18 outburst on video on her cell phone. 19 73. Following their Thanksgiving training sessions in Santa Ynez, GROOM continued to contact PLAINTIFF frequently about her training and various aspects of her personal life, in his 20 position and capacity as a rowing coach for, and within the course and scope of his employment 21 with, MISSION ROWING, and in furtherance of MISSION ROWING’s goal, purpose, and 22 enterprise of training high-caliber athlet