Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California,
Michael W. Carey (State Bar No. 241564)
MCarney@ sssfirm.com County of Alameda
Ryan A. Camastra (State Bar No. 329231)
RCamastra@ sssfirm.com
02/20/2024 at 03:43:40 PM
By: Damaree Franklin,
Mackenzie L. Johnson (State Bar No. 334635)
MJohnson@ sssfirm.com Deputy Clerk
SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 255
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Tel.: (310) 341-2086
Fax: (310) 773-5573
Attomeys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
10
11 JOHN ROE R.S., an individual, Case No.: 24070684704
(Anticipated to be Added-On to JCCP No
12 Plaintiff, 5108, Dept. 21)
13 Vv.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ASSAULT
14 MARY HELP OF CHRISTIANS CATHOLIC
CHURCH, an entity of unknown
(Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1.)
15 form; and
DOES 1 through 500, inclusive,
16 DEMAND FORJ URY TRIAL
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiff hereby submits Plaintiff's Complaint based on the Master Complaint for use in
Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding Number 5108, along with the Notice of Adoption Form
attached as “Exhibit
A” pursuant to the August 24, 2021 Stipulated Order Regarding Procedure for
Original Filings for In Re Northem California Clergy Cases (JCCP 5108) in Alameda County.
COMES NOW, the Plaintiffs who hereby complain and allege against Defendants DOE
ARCHDIOCESE, DOE DIOCESE, DOE PARISH, DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER, DOE
PERPETRATOR, and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive (“Defendants”), as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS
1 The Plaintiffs, survivors of childhood sexual abuse, bring this action to hold the
10 religious institutions accountable that they and their family entrusted with their safety as minor
11 children; institutions that harbored their perpetrators and failed to protect these minor children with
12 whom the RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS stood in loco parentis. This case seeks to
13 vindicate the rights of these survivors who unnecessarily suffered abuse at the hands of trusted
14 religious leaders, to whom they were vulnerable and which they trusted. This Master Complaint has
EB
15 been created and will be adopted by each Plaintiff assigned to the Coordinated Proceeding, Northern
16 California Clergy Cases, JCCP Case No. 5108. Hereinafter, the term “Plaintiff” will be utilized, and
17 referring to each Plaintiff that provides an adoption form to this Master Complaint.
18 THE PLAINTIFF
19 2 The Plaintiff is an adult individual, who is under the age of forty (40) years old.
20 Therefore, the Plaintiff need not file Certificates of Merit, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
21 §340.1(g) and is permitted to name the Defendants in this action by their true and correct names.
22 3 The Plaintiff is an adult individual, who is over the age of forty (40) years old.
23 Therefore, the Plaintiff has filed a declaration from a mental healthcare practitioner, and an attorney
24 declaration for each named defendant in this Action, pursuant to the requirements of Code of Civil
25 Procedure §340.1. Moreover, each named defendant in this action shall be named as a “Doe”
26 pursuant to the requirement of Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(n), until such time as a declaration
27 of corroborative fact has been approved by the Court.
28 4. A declaration of corroborative fact has been filed in this matter and approved by a
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Court of competent jurisdiction. As such, the Plaintiff, who is over the age of forty (40) years of age,
is permitted to name the Defendants by their true and correct names.
5 The Plaintiff is a minor, thus, the instant Complaint is brought by and through the
Plaintiff's Guardian ad litem.
6 The Plaintiff is currently a resident of the State of Califomia.
7 The Plaintiff was a resident of the State of California, during the time when the
childhood sexual abuse, harassment and/or assault occurred.
8 The childhood sexual abuse, harassment, and/or assault occurred within the State of
Califomia, at least in part.
10 DEFENDANTS
11 (@efendant, DOE ARCHDIOCESE)
12 9 Defendant DOE ARCHDIOCESE is at all times mentioned herein was and is, a
13 corporation sole, having its principal place of business in the County of San Francisco, State of
14 California. Defendant DOE 1 purposely conducts substantial business activities in the State of
EB
15 California, and was the primary entity owning, operating and controlling the activities and behavior
16 of its employees, agents, volunteers, and/or servants, including the DOE PERPETRATOR, as well
17 as DOES 1 through 500 and all other employees, agents, and supervisors of those defendants.
18 10. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant DOE
19 ARCHDIOCESE was an entity that supervised priests, supervised children, and understood that
20 children would be in its programs, on its premises, and in the care, custody, and control of Defendant
21 DOE ARCHDIOCESE, including the Plaintiff when they were parishioners, and/or participants in
22 religious, recreational, athletic, and/or social activities, altar servers and/or students.
23 11. At all relevant times herein, DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER was required to obtain
24 permission from DOE ARCHDIOCESE, in order for its religious personnel to be assigned within
25 DOE ARCHDIOCESE, and to be in contact with minor children within those institutions. As such,
26 DOE ARCHDIOCESE had a duty to ensure that those DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER personnel were
27 safe to be around minor children and parishioners.
28 (@efendant, DOE DIOCESE)
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
12. Defendant DOE DIOCESE, at all times mentioned herein, was and is a corporation
sole, having its principal place of business in the State of California. Defendant DOE 1 purposely
conducts substantial business activities in the State of California, and was the primary entity owning,
operating and controlling the activities and behavior of its employees, agents, volunteers and/or
servants, including the DOE PERPETRATOR, as well as DOES 1 through 500 and all other
employees, agents, and supervisors of those defendants. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and
thereon alleges that Defendant DOE DIOCESE was an entity that supervised priests, supervised
children, and understood that children would be in its programs, on its premises, and in the care,
custody, and control of Defendant DOE 1, including the Plaintiffs when they were parishioners,
10 participants in religious, recreational, athletic, and social activities, altar servers and/or students.
11 13. At all relevant times herein, DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER was required to obtain
12 permission from DOE DIOCESE, in order for its religious personnel to be assigned within DOE
13 DIOCESE, and to be in contact with minor children within those institutions. As such, DOE
14 DIOCESE had a duty to ensure that those DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER personnel were safe to be
EB
15 around minor children and parishioners.
16 @efendant, DOE PARISH)
17 14, Defendant DOE PARISH, at all times mentioned herein, was and is, a religious
18 corporation, having its principal place of business in the State of Califomia. Defendant DOE
19 PARISH purposely conducts substantial business activities in the State of California, and was the
20 primary entity owning, operating and controlling the activities and behavior of its employees, agents,
21 volunteers, and/or servants including but not limited to the DOE PERPETRATOR, as well as DOES
22 1 through 500 and all other employees, agents, and supervisors of those defendants. The Plaintiffs
23 are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendant DOE 1 was an entity that supervised
24 priests, supervised children, and understood that children would be in its programs, on its premises,
25 and in the care, custody, and control of Defendant DOE 1, including the Plaintiffs when they were
26 parishioners, participants in religious, recreational, athletic, and social activities, altar servers and/or
27 students.
28 15. Defendant DOE PARISH was incorporated after the childhood sexual abuse of the
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiff, and was incorporated, as an entity wholly owned, controlled, managed, operated, and
supervised by DOE ARCHDIOCESE and/or DOE DIOCESE. It is based upon information, and
therefore belief, that DOE PARISH was incorporated as a successor-in-interest to and/or alter ego
of DOE DIOCESE and/or DOE ARCHDIOCESE.
(@efendant, DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER)
16. Defendant DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER is at all times mentioned herein was and is,
a religious corporation. Defendant DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER purposely conducts substantial
business activities in the State of California, and was the primary entity owning, operating and
controlling the activities and behavior of its employees, agents, volunteers, and/or servants,
10 including the DOE PERPETRATOR, as well as DOES 1 through 500 and all other employees,
11 agents, and supervisors of those defendants.
12 17. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant DOE
13 RELIGIOUS ORDER was an entity that supervised priests, other religious personnel, supervised
14 children, and understood that children would be in its programs, on its premises, and in the care,
EB
15 custody, and control of Defendant DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER and its agents, including the Plaintiff.
16 18. Collectively, the institutions DOE ARCHDIOCESE, DOE DIOCESE, and/or DOE
17 PARISH named in this lawsuit, shall be referred to as: “RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS”,
18 hereinafter.
19 (@efendant, DOE PERPETRATOR)
20 19. Defendant, DOE PERPETRATOR is an adult individual The DOE
21 PERPETRATOR was in a position of trust, confidence, and responsibility with the Plaintiff, as a
22 function of the position the DOE PERPETRATOR was with the RELIGIOUS ENTITY
23 DEFENDANTS. Specifically, the DOE PERPETRATOR was placed in contact with minor
24 children, through the DOE PERPETRATOR’s role with the RELIGIOUS ENTITY
25 DEFENDANTS, and thus, stood in loco parentis with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's guardians.
26 20. Defendant DOE PERPETRATOR was an agent, servant, employee, volunteer
27 and/or member of the RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS during the time of the Plaintiff's
28 childhood sexual abuse.
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
21. Collectively, the DOE PERPETRATOR, DOE ARCHDIOCESE, DOE DIOCESE,
DOE PARISH, DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER, and/or DOES 1 through 500 are referred to as
“Defendants.”
22. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the true names
and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of Defendants named herein
as DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, are unknown to the Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants
by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend the Complaint to allege their true names and capacities
when such have been ascertained. Upon information and belief, each of the said Doe Defendants is
responsible in some manner under Code of Civil Procedure §§340.1(a)(1),(2),(3), and 340.1 (c) for
10 the occurrences herein alleged, and were a legal cause of the childhood sexual assault which resulted
11 in injury to the Plaintiff as alleged herein.
12 23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis allege, that at all times
13 mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of
14 them, such that any individuality and separateness between Defendants, and each of them, ceased to
EB
15 exist. Defendants and each of them, were the successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the other
16 Defendants, and each of them, in that they purchased, controlled, dominated and operated each other
17 without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or other manner of division. To continue
18 maintaining the facade of a separate and individual existence between and among Defendants, and
19 each of them, would serve to perpetrate a fraud and an injustice.
20 24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times
21 mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the agents, representatives and/or employees
22 of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, Defendants and each of
23 them, were acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality, capacity, identity,
24 agency, representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their authority, whether
25 actual or apparent. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times
26 mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the trustees, partners, servants, joint venturers,
27 shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other Defendant, and the acts and
28 omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, through such capacity and within
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
the scope of their authority, and with the permission and consent of each and every other Defendant
and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by each and every other Defendant, and that each of
them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff.
CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ASSAULT, ABUSE AND/OR HARASSMENT SUFFERED BY
THE PLAINTIFF,
25. The Plaintiff was subjected to acts of childhood sexual assault, harassment, abuse,
and/or molestation by the DOE PERPETRATOR. These acts of childhood sexual assault,
harassment, abuse and/or molestation perpetrated upon the Plaintiff, began to occur when the
Plaintiff was under the age of 18 years old, and constitute childhood sexual assault within the
10 definition of Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(d). These acts of childhood sexual assault, harassment,
11 abuse and/or molestation resulted in the personal physical injury, as well as emotional, psychological
12 and psychiatric injury and damage to the Plaintiff.
13 26. The Plaintiff was a minor child, under the age of 18, at the time of the sexual
14 assaults, harassment, and/or abuse alleged herein, therefore, the Plaintiff did not, and was unable to,
EB
15 give free or voluntary consent to the sexual acts and assaults committed upon Plaintiff by The DOE
16 PERPETRATOR.
17 27. The sexual abuse, harassment and/or assaults were committed by the DOE
18 PERPETRATOR for his sexual gratification and was based upon the gender of the Plaintiff.
19 28. The sexually abusive, harassing and/or assaultive acts by the DOE PERPETRATOR
20 were committed in violation of the California Penal Code, which proscribes sexual acts and
21 misconduct against minor children.
22 DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFF AS A RESULT OF THEIR CHILDHOOD
23 SEXUAL ASSAULT, ABUSE, AND/OR HARASSMENT BY THE DOE PERPETRATOR
24 29. As a direct and proximate result of the childhood sexual assault, harassment and
25 abuse committed against the Plaintiff by the DOE PERPETRATOR, which was enabled and
26 facilitated by RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS, Plaintiff has suffered personal physical injury
27 of sexual assault, and has and will continue to suffer, psychological, mental and emotional distress.
28 The Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, from, but is not limited to, the following conditions:
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Anxiety;
Depression;
Flashbacks and/or reexperiencing;
Suicidal ideation or thoughts;
Suicide attempts;
Anger;
Betrayal;
Loss of faith;
Nervousness;
10 Problems with those in positions of authority;
11 Interpersonal relationship problems with those in positions of confidence or trust;
12 1 Problems interacting with others, including but not limited to family members;
13 m, Guilt, shame, and/or humiliation;
14 30. As a direct and proximate result of the childhood sexual assault, harassment and
EB
15 abuse committed against the Plaintiff by the DOE PERPETRATOR, which was enabled and
16 facilitated by RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS, Plaintiff has, and will continue to, incur
17 expenses for mental, psychological, psychiatric, and medical care due to the assault, according to
18 proof at trial:
a. Future Medical Expenses, including but not limited psychological and/or
19 psychiatric care;
b, Past Medical Expenses (Past) including but not limited psychological
20 and/or psychiatric care;
21 31. As a further direct and proximate result of the DOE PERPETRATOR’s sexual
22 assaults, harassment and abuse, which was enabled and facilitated by RELIGIOUS ENTITY
23 DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs have suffered additional economic injury as follows:
24 a. Lost earning capacity (Future);
25 b, Lost income (Past).
26 32. These damages were all suffered as to the Plaintiffs general, special and
27 consequential damage in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than the minimum
28 jurisdictional amount of this Court.
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
DUTIES
OF THE RELIGIOUS ENITTY DEFENDANTS
TO PROTECT
THE PLAINTIFF
AND CONTROL THE DOE PERPETRATOR
33. At all times herein, the RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS, and each of them,
knew or should have known that the DOE PERPETRATOR was unfit, posed a risk of harm to minor
children, and/or posed a risk of childhood sexual assault to minor children in its care, custody and
control. Specifically, RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS knew or should have known, or were
otherwise on notice, that the DOE PERPETRATOR had engaged in misconduct that created the risk
of childhood sexual assault and failed to take reasonable steps or to implement reasonable safeguards
to avoid acts of childhood sexual assault by the DOE PERPETRATOR on minors, including
10 Plaintiff.
11 34. As a priest, employee, representative, servant, agent, and/or volunteer of
12 RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS, and DOES 1 through 500, the DOE PERPETRATOR was
13 placed into a position of moral, ethical, religious, and legal authority over the Plaintiffs, their parents,
14 and parishioners with whom became into contact. The DOE PERPETRATOR was a confidant to
EB
15 the Plaintiffs and their families, and as a result, there was a special, trusting, confidential and
16 fiduciary relationship between the Plaintiff and the DOE PERPETRATOR, as well as between
17 Defendants DOE 1 and DOES 1-50 and the Plaintiff. Through this relationship with the Plaintiff,
18 Defendants DOE 1 stood in loco parentis with the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs family. Specifically,
19 Defendants took the Plaintiff into their custody, care and control, which conferred upon the Plaintiff
20 and their families the reasonable belief that the Plaintiff, a minor children, would be protected and
21 cared for, as if Defendants were the Plaintiffs’ own parents.
22 35. As a minor at DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES, where the DOE
23 PERPETRATOR was employed, retained, and worked, Plaintiff was under the DOE
24 PERPETRATOR’s, as well as DOE 1 and DOES 1-50’s direct supervision, care and control, thus
25 creating a special relationship, fiduciary relationship, and/or special care relationship with
26 Defendants, and each of them. Additionally, as minor children under the custody, care and control
27 of Defendants, Defendants stood in loco parentis with respect to Plaintiff while Plaintiff was at DOE
28 1 and DOES 1 through 500. As the responsible parties and/or employers controlling the DOE
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PERPETRATOR, Defendants were also in a special relationship with Plaintiff, and owed special
duties to Plaintiff.
36. Defendants also intentionally and willfully implemented various measures intended
and designed to, or which effectively, made the DOE PERPETRATOR’s s conduct harder to detect
including, but not limited to:
a. Assigning and permitting the DOE PERPETRATOR to remain ina position
of authority and trust after DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES and
DOES 1 through 500 knew or should have known that was an unfit agent,
servant, employee, member and/or volunteer;
Assigning and permitting the DOE PERPETRATOR to remain ina position
of authority and trust after DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES and
DOES 1 through 500 knew or should have known that was in misconduct
10 that created a risk of childhood sexual assault to be perpetrated by the DOE
PERPETRATOR;
11
Placing the DOE PERPETRATOR ina separate and secluded environment,
12 including placing him in charge of children, which allowed the DOE
PERPETRATOR to sexually and physically interact with and assault the
13 children, including Plaintiff;
14 Authorizing the DOE PERPETRATOR to come into contact with minors,
EB including Plaintiff, without adequate supervision;
15
Failing to inform, or concealing from Plaintiff's parents and law
16 enforcement officials the fact that Plaintiff and others were or may have
been sexually assaulted after Defendants knew or should have known that
17 the DOE PERPETRATOR may have sexually assaulted Plaintiff or others,
thereby enabling Plaintiff to continue to e endangered and sexually
18 assaulted, and/or creating the circumstance where the Plaintiff and others
were less likely to receive medical/mental health care and treatment, thus
19 exacerbating the harm to Plaintiff;
20 Holding out and affirming the DOE PERPETRATOR to Plaintiff and
Plaintiff's parents, other children and their parents, and to the community
21 as being in good standing and trustworthy;
22 Failing to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safe ards to
avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by the DOE PERPETRATOR with
23 students minor children; and
24 Failing to put in place a system or procedure to supervise or monitor
employees, volunteers, representatives or agents to insure that they did not
25 molest or assault minors in Defendants’ custody or care, including Plaintiff.
26 37. By his position within the DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES, Defendants
27 demanded and required that Plaintiff respect the DOE PERPETRATOR in his position of priest,
28
10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
spiritual advisor, confidant, teacher, and/or mentor at DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES and
DOES 1 through 500.
38. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants and each
of them, were or should have been aware of the DOE PERPETRATOR’s wrongful conduct at or
about the time it was occurring, and thereafter, but took no action to obstruct, inhibit or stop such
continuing conduct, or to help Plaintiff endure the trauma from such conduct. Despite the authority
and ability to do so, these Defendants negligently and/or willfully refused to, and/or did not act
effectively to stop the sexual assaults on the Plaintiff, to inhibit or obstruct such assault, or to protect
the Plaintiff from the results of that trauma.
10 39. During the period of assaults perpetrated upon the Plaintiff, DEFENDANT
11 RELIGIOUS ENTITIES and DOES 1 through 500 had the authority and the ability to obstruct or
12 stop the DOE PERPETRATOR’s sexual assaults on the Plaintiff, but intentionally, negligently
13 and/or willfully failed to do so, thereby allowing the assault to occur and to continue unabated. This
14 failure was a part of Defendants’ intended plan and arrangement to conceal wrongful acts, to avoid
EB
15 and inhibit detection, to block public disclosure, to avoid scandal, to avoid the disclosure of their
16 tolerance of child sexual molestation and assault, to preserve a false appearance of propriety, and to
17 avoid investigation and action by public authority including law enforcement. The Plaintiff is
18 informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that such actions were motivated by a desire to
19 protect the reputation of Defendants and each of them, and to protect the monetary support of
20 Defendants while fostering an environment where such assault could continue to occur.
21 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
22 40. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(q) as amended by Assembly Bill 218,
23 effective January 1, 2020 there is a three (3) year window in which all civil claims of childhood
24 sexual assault are revived if they have not been litigated to finality. This provision provides that,
25 “{nJotwithstanding any other provision of law, any claim for damages described in paragraphs (1)
26 through (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a) that has not been litigated to finality and that would
27 otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2020, because the applicable statute of limitations, claim
28 presentation deadline, or any other time limit had expired, is revived, and these claims may be
i
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
commenced within three years of January 1, 2020. A plaintiff shall have the later of the three-year
time period under this subdivision or the time period under subdivision (a) as amended by the act
that added this subdivision.” These claims of the Plaintiff have not been previously litigated to
finality and have been filed (or are still pending) within the timeframe specified supra, thus, it is
timely under the revised provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(q).
41. The Plaintiff is under the age of forty (40) years old at the time of filing of the
Complaint, therefore, their action is timely pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(a).
42. The Plaintiff is over the age of forty (40) years old at the time of filing of the
Complaint. Since this action is being commenced after the Plaintiff's 40" birthday, and as set forth
10 more fully supra, it is upon information, and therefore belief, that the RELIGIOUS ENTITY
11 DEFENDANTS knew or had reason to know, or were otherwise on notice, of misconduct that
12 created a risk of childhood sexual assault by DOE PERPETRATOR
13 43. Since this action is being commenced after the Plaintiff's 4o% birthday, and as set
14 forth more fully supra, it is upon information, and therefore belief, that the RELIGIOUS ENTITY
EB
15 DEFENDANTS failed to take reasonable steps, or to implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid acts
16 of childhood sexual assault, including but not limited to preventing or avoiding placement of the
17 DOE PERPETRATOR ina function or environment in which contact with children was an inherent
18 part of that function or environment.
19 44, Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(g)(1), a separate Certificate of Merit
20 was filed by the Plaintiff’s attorney for each defendant in this action.
21 45. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(g)(2), a declaration from a mental
22 healthcare practitioner was filed concurrently with the instant Complaint for the Plaintiff.
23 PUNITIVE DAMAGES SOUGHT AGAINST RELIGIOUS ENITTY DEFENDANTS AND
24 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
25 46. DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES and DOES 1 through 500 are, based on
26 information and belief, religious corporations, organized under the laws of California, and therefore,
27 are afforded the protection of Code of Civil Procedure §425.14. Upon such time as appropriate, the
28 Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to file a Motion to Amend the instant Complaint, in order to
12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
allege facts sufficient to constitute punitive damages against DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS
ENTITIES, in accord with evidence that substantiates a finding of the clear and convincing
evidentiary requirement of Civil Code §3294.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Against Defendants DOE ARCHDIOCESE, DOE DIOCESE, DOE PARISH, DOE
RELIGIOUS ORDER, DOE PERPETRATOR and DOES 1 through 500)
47. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all prior
paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein.
10 48. Defendants' conduct towards the Plaintiff, as described herein, was outrageous and
11 extreme.
12 49. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate the DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS
13 ENTITIES and DOES 1 through 500 putting the DOE PERPETRATOR in positions of authority at
14 DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES and DOES 1 through 500, which enabled the DOE
EB
15 PERPETRATOR to have access to minor children, including the Plaintiff, so that he could commit
16 wrongful sexual acts with them, including the conduct described herein above. The Plaintiff held
17 great trust, faith and confidence in Defendants, which, by virtue of Defendants' wrongful conduct,
18 tumed to fear.
19 50. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate the DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS
20 ENTITIES to be incapable of supervising and preventing employees of Defendants, including the
21 DOE PERPETRATOR, from committing wrongful sexual acts with minor children in their charge,
22 including Plaintiff, or to be incapable of properly supervising the DOE PERPETRATOR to prevent
23 such assault from occurring.
24 51. Defendants' conduct described herein was intentional and malicious and done for
25 the purpose of causing, or with reckless disregard of the rights of the Plaintiff, with the substantial
26 certainty that it would cause Plaintiff and the other children who were enrolled in, participated in,
27 or were members and participants in, activities of their parish and of Defendants’ religious,
28 educational, recreational, and social programs, to suffer humiliation, mental anguish and emotional
13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
and physical distress.
52. As aresult of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer
great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional
distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life;
has suffered and continues to suffer and were prevented and will continue to be prevented from
performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and
eaming capacity, and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and
psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.
53. As to DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES and DOES 1 through 500, Plaintiff
10 reserves the right to file a Motion to Amend the complaint, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
11 §425.14.
12 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
13 HUMANTRAFFICKING (CIVIL CODE §52.5)
14 (Against Defendants DOE ARCHDIOCESE, DOE DIOCESE, DOE PARISH, DOE
15 RELIGIOUS ORDER, DOE PERPETRATOR and DOES 1 through 500)
16 54. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all prior
17 paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein.
18 55. The Plaintiff, who was a minor when the DOE PERPETRATOR took custody of
19 them, was a victim under Penal Code §236.1 (specifically, subsection (a)), and is entitled to bring a
20 claim under Civil Code §52.5(a).
21 56. The Plaintiff is a victim under California Penal Code §236.1(a), given the following
22 facts:
23 The Plaintiff had their personal liberty and/or freedom deprived when, the
DOE PERPETRATOR transported them;
24
The Plaintiff was a minor, therefore was unable to give consent to such acts.
25 Purported consent of a minor, is no basis for a defense under Penal Code
§236.1(e);
26
The DOE PERPETRATOR transported the Plaintiff in order to obtain
27 forced, sexual services from the Plaintiff, in a secluded area, which were
performed upon the DOE PERPETRATOR;
28
14
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
The Plaintiff, as a minor, did perform forced, sexual services for the DOE
PERPETRATOR, after they had been transported. The Plaintiff was a minor
at all relevant times and was unable to give valid consent to any of the sex
acts that were perpetrated upon them by DOE PERPETRATOR.
57. The Defendant RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS, and DOES 1 through 500,
having full knowledge of the dangerous and sexually exploitive propensities of the DOE
PERPETRATOR, ratified the DOE PERPETRATOR’s conduct and are liable pursuant to C.R. v.
Tenet Healthcare Corp. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1110 (“...an employer may be liable for an
employee's act where the employer either authorized the tortious act or subsequently ratified an
originally unauthorized tort. [Citations.] The failure to discharge an employee who has committed
misconduct may be evidence of ratification. [Citations.] The theory of ratification is generally
10
applied where an employer fails to investigate or respond to charges that an employee committed an
11
intentional tort, such as assault or battery.”) Prior to the Plaintiff’s transportation by the DOE
12
PERPETRATOR, the DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES knew, or should have known, that
13
the DOE PERPETRATOR was unfit to be around minor children and posed a danger to those
14
children the DOE PERPETRATOR was assigned to care for, or otherwise supervise.
EB
15
58. Furthermore, the RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS, and DOES 1 through 500,
16
were made well aware that the DOE PERPETRATOR was transporting minor students in his
17
vehicle, with no other adults present. Despite having this knowledge, the RELIGIOUS ENTITY
18
DEFENDANTS, and DOES 1 through 100, chose not to discipline, remove, sanction, deter,
19
supervise, or restrict the DOE PERPETRATOR’s conduct.
20
59. As a result of the above-described conduct, the Plaintiff suffered and continues to
21
suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional
22
distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; has
23
suffered and continues to suffer and were prevented and will continue to be prevented from
24
performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of eamings and
25
earning capacity, and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and
26
psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.
27
60. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendant DOE
28
15
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PERPETRATOR acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious
disregard of Plaintiff's rights, so as to constitute malice and/or oppression under California Civil
Code section 3294.
61. Plaintiff is therefore entitled, upon proper application to the court, to the recovery of
punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, the RELIGIOUS ENTITY
DEFENDANTS. Plaintiff reserves his right, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §
425.14, to seek leave of court to pursue an award of punitive damages against RELIGIOUS ENTITY
DEFENDANTS, in a sum to be shown according to proof.
62. Pursuant to Civil Code §52.5(a), the Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual damages,
10 compensatory damages, punitive damages (specified above and in accordance with Code of Civil
11 Procedure §425.14), as well as attorneys’ fees. Furthermore, pursuant to Civil Code §52.5(b), the
12 Plaintiff seeks to recover three (3) times their actual damages against Defendants, and DOES 1
13 through 500, in addition to the remedies stated in the previous sentence, as their actual damages are
14 far exceed $10,000.00.
EB
15 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
16 NEGLIGENCE
17 (gninst Defendants DOE ARCHDIOCESE, DOE DIOCESE, DOE PARISH, DOE
18 RELIGIOUS ORDER, and DOES 1 through 500)
19 63. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all prior
20 paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein.
21 64. As more fully set forth above, the conduct and actions of the DEFENDANT
22 RELIGIOUS ENTITIES, and DOES 1 through 500, served to create an environment in which the
23 DOE PERPETRATOR was afforded years of continuous secluded access to minor children
24 including the Plaintiff, a minor child at the time of their sexual assaults by the DOE
25 PERPETRATOR.
26 65. As more fully set forth above, Defendants DOE 1, and DOES 1 through 500,
27 inclusive, were aware and/or on notice of the DOE PERPETRATOR’s sexual misconduct with
28 minors prior to the first occasion on which Plaintiff was placed in the DOE PERPETRATOR’s
16
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
custody through the acts of Defendants. Accordingly, at the time the DOE PERPETRATOR and
Defendants DOE 1, and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, performed the acts alleged herein, it was
or should have been reasonably foreseeable to Defendants that by continuously exposing and making
Plaintiff available to the DOE PERPETRATOR, Defendants were placing Plaintiff in grave risk of
being sexually assaulted by the DOE PERPETRATOR. By knowingly subjecting Plaintiff to such
foreseeable danger, Defendants DOE 1, and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, were duty-bound to
take reasonable steps and implement reasonable safeguards to protect Plaintiff from the DOE
PERPETRATOR. Furthermore, as alleged herein, Defendants DOE 1, and DOES 1 through 500,
inclusive, at all times exercised a sufficient degree of control over the DOE PERPETRATOR’s
10 personal and business affairs to prevent the acts of assault by keeping the DOE PERPETRATOR
11 away from Plaintiffs. However, Defendants DOE 1, and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, failed to
12 take any reasonable steps or implement any reasonable safeguards for Plaintiff's protection
13 whatsoever, and continued to make Plaintiff accessible to the DOE PERPETRATOR for the
14 purposes of sexual assault.
EB
15 NEGLIGENCE PER SE—PENAL CODE MANDATORY CHILD ABUSE REPORTING
16 66. Under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (““CANRA”), RELIGIOUS
17 ENTITY DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, by and through their agents, servants,
18 volunteers, and/or employees, including priests, were child care custodians and were under a
19 statutory duty to report known or suspected incidents of sexual molestation or abuse of minors to a
20 child protective agency, pursuant to Califomia Penal Code § 11166, and/or not to impede the filing
21 of any such report. Furthermore, RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 500
22 were under a statutory duty to provide their employees with various acknowledgements of reporting
23 requirements under Penal Code §11166.5.
24 67. Defendants RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 500,
25 inclusive, knew or should have known that their agent, employee, counselor, advisor and mentor,
26 the DOE PERPETRATOR, had sexually molested, abused or caused touching, battery, harm, and
27 other injur
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, Michael W. Carey (State Bar No. 241564) MCarney@ sssfirm.com County of Alameda Ryan A. Camastra (State Bar No. 329231) RCamastra@ sssfirm.com 02/20/2024 at 03:43:40 PM By: Damaree Franklin, Mackenzie L. Johnson (State Bar No. 334635) MJohnson@ sssfirm.com Deputy Clerk SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 255 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Tel.: (310) 341-2086 Fax: (310) 773-5573 Attomeys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10 11 JOHN ROE R.S., an individual, Case No.: 24070684704 (Anticipated to be Added-On to JCCP No 12 Plaintiff, 5108, Dept. 21) 13 Vv. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ASSAULT 14 MARY HELP OF CHRISTIANS CATHOLIC CHURCH, an entity of unknown (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1.) 15 form; and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, 16 DEMAND FORJ URY TRIAL Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiff hereby submits Plaintiff's Complaint based on the Master Complaint for use in Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding Number 5108, along with the Notice of Adoption Form attached as “Exhibit A” pursuant to the August 24, 2021 Stipulated Order Regarding Procedure for Original Filings for In Re Northem California Clergy Cases (JCCP 5108) in Alameda County. COMES NOW, the Plaintiffs who hereby complain and allege against Defendants DOE ARCHDIOCESE, DOE DIOCESE, DOE PARISH, DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER, DOE PERPETRATOR, and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive (“Defendants”), as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS 1 The Plaintiffs, survivors of childhood sexual abuse, bring this action to hold the 10 religious institutions accountable that they and their family entrusted with their safety as minor 11 children; institutions that harbored their perpetrators and failed to protect these minor children with 12 whom the RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS stood in loco parentis. This case seeks to 13 vindicate the rights of these survivors who unnecessarily suffered abuse at the hands of trusted 14 religious leaders, to whom they were vulnerable and which they trusted. This Master Complaint has EB 15 been created and will be adopted by each Plaintiff assigned to the Coordinated Proceeding, Northern 16 California Clergy Cases, JCCP Case No. 5108. Hereinafter, the term “Plaintiff” will be utilized, and 17 referring to each Plaintiff that provides an adoption form to this Master Complaint. 18 THE PLAINTIFF 19 2 The Plaintiff is an adult individual, who is under the age of forty (40) years old. 20 Therefore, the Plaintiff need not file Certificates of Merit, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 21 §340.1(g) and is permitted to name the Defendants in this action by their true and correct names. 22 3 The Plaintiff is an adult individual, who is over the age of forty (40) years old. 23 Therefore, the Plaintiff has filed a declaration from a mental healthcare practitioner, and an attorney 24 declaration for each named defendant in this Action, pursuant to the requirements of Code of Civil 25 Procedure §340.1. Moreover, each named defendant in this action shall be named as a “Doe” 26 pursuant to the requirement of Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(n), until such time as a declaration 27 of corroborative fact has been approved by the Court. 28 4. A declaration of corroborative fact has been filed in this matter and approved by a 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Court of competent jurisdiction. As such, the Plaintiff, who is over the age of forty (40) years of age, is permitted to name the Defendants by their true and correct names. 5 The Plaintiff is a minor, thus, the instant Complaint is brought by and through the Plaintiff's Guardian ad litem. 6 The Plaintiff is currently a resident of the State of Califomia. 7 The Plaintiff was a resident of the State of California, during the time when the childhood sexual abuse, harassment and/or assault occurred. 8 The childhood sexual abuse, harassment, and/or assault occurred within the State of Califomia, at least in part. 10 DEFENDANTS 11 (@efendant, DOE ARCHDIOCESE) 12 9 Defendant DOE ARCHDIOCESE is at all times mentioned herein was and is, a 13 corporation sole, having its principal place of business in the County of San Francisco, State of 14 California. Defendant DOE 1 purposely conducts substantial business activities in the State of EB 15 California, and was the primary entity owning, operating and controlling the activities and behavior 16 of its employees, agents, volunteers, and/or servants, including the DOE PERPETRATOR, as well 17 as DOES 1 through 500 and all other employees, agents, and supervisors of those defendants. 18 10. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant DOE 19 ARCHDIOCESE was an entity that supervised priests, supervised children, and understood that 20 children would be in its programs, on its premises, and in the care, custody, and control of Defendant 21 DOE ARCHDIOCESE, including the Plaintiff when they were parishioners, and/or participants in 22 religious, recreational, athletic, and/or social activities, altar servers and/or students. 23 11. At all relevant times herein, DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER was required to obtain 24 permission from DOE ARCHDIOCESE, in order for its religious personnel to be assigned within 25 DOE ARCHDIOCESE, and to be in contact with minor children within those institutions. As such, 26 DOE ARCHDIOCESE had a duty to ensure that those DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER personnel were 27 safe to be around minor children and parishioners. 28 (@efendant, DOE DIOCESE) 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 12. Defendant DOE DIOCESE, at all times mentioned herein, was and is a corporation sole, having its principal place of business in the State of California. Defendant DOE 1 purposely conducts substantial business activities in the State of California, and was the primary entity owning, operating and controlling the activities and behavior of its employees, agents, volunteers and/or servants, including the DOE PERPETRATOR, as well as DOES 1 through 500 and all other employees, agents, and supervisors of those defendants. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant DOE DIOCESE was an entity that supervised priests, supervised children, and understood that children would be in its programs, on its premises, and in the care, custody, and control of Defendant DOE 1, including the Plaintiffs when they were parishioners, 10 participants in religious, recreational, athletic, and social activities, altar servers and/or students. 11 13. At all relevant times herein, DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER was required to obtain 12 permission from DOE DIOCESE, in order for its religious personnel to be assigned within DOE 13 DIOCESE, and to be in contact with minor children within those institutions. As such, DOE 14 DIOCESE had a duty to ensure that those DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER personnel were safe to be EB 15 around minor children and parishioners. 16 @efendant, DOE PARISH) 17 14, Defendant DOE PARISH, at all times mentioned herein, was and is, a religious 18 corporation, having its principal place of business in the State of Califomia. Defendant DOE 19 PARISH purposely conducts substantial business activities in the State of California, and was the 20 primary entity owning, operating and controlling the activities and behavior of its employees, agents, 21 volunteers, and/or servants including but not limited to the DOE PERPETRATOR, as well as DOES 22 1 through 500 and all other employees, agents, and supervisors of those defendants. The Plaintiffs 23 are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendant DOE 1 was an entity that supervised 24 priests, supervised children, and understood that children would be in its programs, on its premises, 25 and in the care, custody, and control of Defendant DOE 1, including the Plaintiffs when they were 26 parishioners, participants in religious, recreational, athletic, and social activities, altar servers and/or 27 students. 28 15. Defendant DOE PARISH was incorporated after the childhood sexual abuse of the 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiff, and was incorporated, as an entity wholly owned, controlled, managed, operated, and supervised by DOE ARCHDIOCESE and/or DOE DIOCESE. It is based upon information, and therefore belief, that DOE PARISH was incorporated as a successor-in-interest to and/or alter ego of DOE DIOCESE and/or DOE ARCHDIOCESE. (@efendant, DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER) 16. Defendant DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER is at all times mentioned herein was and is, a religious corporation. Defendant DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER purposely conducts substantial business activities in the State of California, and was the primary entity owning, operating and controlling the activities and behavior of its employees, agents, volunteers, and/or servants, 10 including the DOE PERPETRATOR, as well as DOES 1 through 500 and all other employees, 11 agents, and supervisors of those defendants. 12 17. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant DOE 13 RELIGIOUS ORDER was an entity that supervised priests, other religious personnel, supervised 14 children, and understood that children would be in its programs, on its premises, and in the care, EB 15 custody, and control of Defendant DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER and its agents, including the Plaintiff. 16 18. Collectively, the institutions DOE ARCHDIOCESE, DOE DIOCESE, and/or DOE 17 PARISH named in this lawsuit, shall be referred to as: “RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS”, 18 hereinafter. 19 (@efendant, DOE PERPETRATOR) 20 19. Defendant, DOE PERPETRATOR is an adult individual The DOE 21 PERPETRATOR was in a position of trust, confidence, and responsibility with the Plaintiff, as a 22 function of the position the DOE PERPETRATOR was with the RELIGIOUS ENTITY 23 DEFENDANTS. Specifically, the DOE PERPETRATOR was placed in contact with minor 24 children, through the DOE PERPETRATOR’s role with the RELIGIOUS ENTITY 25 DEFENDANTS, and thus, stood in loco parentis with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's guardians. 26 20. Defendant DOE PERPETRATOR was an agent, servant, employee, volunteer 27 and/or member of the RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS during the time of the Plaintiff's 28 childhood sexual abuse. 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 21. Collectively, the DOE PERPETRATOR, DOE ARCHDIOCESE, DOE DIOCESE, DOE PARISH, DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER, and/or DOES 1 through 500 are referred to as “Defendants.” 22. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, are unknown to the Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend the Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when such have been ascertained. Upon information and belief, each of the said Doe Defendants is responsible in some manner under Code of Civil Procedure §§340.1(a)(1),(2),(3), and 340.1 (c) for 10 the occurrences herein alleged, and were a legal cause of the childhood sexual assault which resulted 11 in injury to the Plaintiff as alleged herein. 12 23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis allege, that at all times 13 mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of 14 them, such that any individuality and separateness between Defendants, and each of them, ceased to EB 15 exist. Defendants and each of them, were the successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the other 16 Defendants, and each of them, in that they purchased, controlled, dominated and operated each other 17 without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or other manner of division. To continue 18 maintaining the facade of a separate and individual existence between and among Defendants, and 19 each of them, would serve to perpetrate a fraud and an injustice. 20 24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times 21 mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the agents, representatives and/or employees 22 of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, Defendants and each of 23 them, were acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality, capacity, identity, 24 agency, representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their authority, whether 25 actual or apparent. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times 26 mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the trustees, partners, servants, joint venturers, 27 shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other Defendant, and the acts and 28 omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, through such capacity and within 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES the scope of their authority, and with the permission and consent of each and every other Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by each and every other Defendant, and that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff. CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ASSAULT, ABUSE AND/OR HARASSMENT SUFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFF, 25. The Plaintiff was subjected to acts of childhood sexual assault, harassment, abuse, and/or molestation by the DOE PERPETRATOR. These acts of childhood sexual assault, harassment, abuse and/or molestation perpetrated upon the Plaintiff, began to occur when the Plaintiff was under the age of 18 years old, and constitute childhood sexual assault within the 10 definition of Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(d). These acts of childhood sexual assault, harassment, 11 abuse and/or molestation resulted in the personal physical injury, as well as emotional, psychological 12 and psychiatric injury and damage to the Plaintiff. 13 26. The Plaintiff was a minor child, under the age of 18, at the time of the sexual 14 assaults, harassment, and/or abuse alleged herein, therefore, the Plaintiff did not, and was unable to, EB 15 give free or voluntary consent to the sexual acts and assaults committed upon Plaintiff by The DOE 16 PERPETRATOR. 17 27. The sexual abuse, harassment and/or assaults were committed by the DOE 18 PERPETRATOR for his sexual gratification and was based upon the gender of the Plaintiff. 19 28. The sexually abusive, harassing and/or assaultive acts by the DOE PERPETRATOR 20 were committed in violation of the California Penal Code, which proscribes sexual acts and 21 misconduct against minor children. 22 DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFF AS A RESULT OF THEIR CHILDHOOD 23 SEXUAL ASSAULT, ABUSE, AND/OR HARASSMENT BY THE DOE PERPETRATOR 24 29. As a direct and proximate result of the childhood sexual assault, harassment and 25 abuse committed against the Plaintiff by the DOE PERPETRATOR, which was enabled and 26 facilitated by RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS, Plaintiff has suffered personal physical injury 27 of sexual assault, and has and will continue to suffer, psychological, mental and emotional distress. 28 The Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, from, but is not limited to, the following conditions: 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Anxiety; Depression; Flashbacks and/or reexperiencing; Suicidal ideation or thoughts; Suicide attempts; Anger; Betrayal; Loss of faith; Nervousness; 10 Problems with those in positions of authority; 11 Interpersonal relationship problems with those in positions of confidence or trust; 12 1 Problems interacting with others, including but not limited to family members; 13 m, Guilt, shame, and/or humiliation; 14 30. As a direct and proximate result of the childhood sexual assault, harassment and EB 15 abuse committed against the Plaintiff by the DOE PERPETRATOR, which was enabled and 16 facilitated by RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS, Plaintiff has, and will continue to, incur 17 expenses for mental, psychological, psychiatric, and medical care due to the assault, according to 18 proof at trial: a. Future Medical Expenses, including but not limited psychological and/or 19 psychiatric care; b, Past Medical Expenses (Past) including but not limited psychological 20 and/or psychiatric care; 21 31. As a further direct and proximate result of the DOE PERPETRATOR’s sexual 22 assaults, harassment and abuse, which was enabled and facilitated by RELIGIOUS ENTITY 23 DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs have suffered additional economic injury as follows: 24 a. Lost earning capacity (Future); 25 b, Lost income (Past). 26 32. These damages were all suffered as to the Plaintiffs general, special and 27 consequential damage in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than the minimum 28 jurisdictional amount of this Court. 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DUTIES OF THE RELIGIOUS ENITTY DEFENDANTS TO PROTECT THE PLAINTIFF AND CONTROL THE DOE PERPETRATOR 33. At all times herein, the RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knew or should have known that the DOE PERPETRATOR was unfit, posed a risk of harm to minor children, and/or posed a risk of childhood sexual assault to minor children in its care, custody and control. Specifically, RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS knew or should have known, or were otherwise on notice, that the DOE PERPETRATOR had engaged in misconduct that created the risk of childhood sexual assault and failed to take reasonable steps or to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of childhood sexual assault by the DOE PERPETRATOR on minors, including 10 Plaintiff. 11 34. As a priest, employee, representative, servant, agent, and/or volunteer of 12 RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS, and DOES 1 through 500, the DOE PERPETRATOR was 13 placed into a position of moral, ethical, religious, and legal authority over the Plaintiffs, their parents, 14 and parishioners with whom became into contact. The DOE PERPETRATOR was a confidant to EB 15 the Plaintiffs and their families, and as a result, there was a special, trusting, confidential and 16 fiduciary relationship between the Plaintiff and the DOE PERPETRATOR, as well as between 17 Defendants DOE 1 and DOES 1-50 and the Plaintiff. Through this relationship with the Plaintiff, 18 Defendants DOE 1 stood in loco parentis with the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs family. Specifically, 19 Defendants took the Plaintiff into their custody, care and control, which conferred upon the Plaintiff 20 and their families the reasonable belief that the Plaintiff, a minor children, would be protected and 21 cared for, as if Defendants were the Plaintiffs’ own parents. 22 35. As a minor at DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES, where the DOE 23 PERPETRATOR was employed, retained, and worked, Plaintiff was under the DOE 24 PERPETRATOR’s, as well as DOE 1 and DOES 1-50’s direct supervision, care and control, thus 25 creating a special relationship, fiduciary relationship, and/or special care relationship with 26 Defendants, and each of them. Additionally, as minor children under the custody, care and control 27 of Defendants, Defendants stood in loco parentis with respect to Plaintiff while Plaintiff was at DOE 28 1 and DOES 1 through 500. As the responsible parties and/or employers controlling the DOE 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES PERPETRATOR, Defendants were also in a special relationship with Plaintiff, and owed special duties to Plaintiff. 36. Defendants also intentionally and willfully implemented various measures intended and designed to, or which effectively, made the DOE PERPETRATOR’s s conduct harder to detect including, but not limited to: a. Assigning and permitting the DOE PERPETRATOR to remain ina position of authority and trust after DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES and DOES 1 through 500 knew or should have known that was an unfit agent, servant, employee, member and/or volunteer; Assigning and permitting the DOE PERPETRATOR to remain ina position of authority and trust after DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES and DOES 1 through 500 knew or should have known that was in misconduct 10 that created a risk of childhood sexual assault to be perpetrated by the DOE PERPETRATOR; 11 Placing the DOE PERPETRATOR ina separate and secluded environment, 12 including placing him in charge of children, which allowed the DOE PERPETRATOR to sexually and physically interact with and assault the 13 children, including Plaintiff; 14 Authorizing the DOE PERPETRATOR to come into contact with minors, EB including Plaintiff, without adequate supervision; 15 Failing to inform, or concealing from Plaintiff's parents and law 16 enforcement officials the fact that Plaintiff and others were or may have been sexually assaulted after Defendants knew or should have known that 17 the DOE PERPETRATOR may have sexually assaulted Plaintiff or others, thereby enabling Plaintiff to continue to e endangered and sexually 18 assaulted, and/or creating the circumstance where the Plaintiff and others were less likely to receive medical/mental health care and treatment, thus 19 exacerbating the harm to Plaintiff; 20 Holding out and affirming the DOE PERPETRATOR to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's parents, other children and their parents, and to the community 21 as being in good standing and trustworthy; 22 Failing to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safe ards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by the DOE PERPETRATOR with 23 students minor children; and 24 Failing to put in place a system or procedure to supervise or monitor employees, volunteers, representatives or agents to insure that they did not 25 molest or assault minors in Defendants’ custody or care, including Plaintiff. 26 37. By his position within the DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES, Defendants 27 demanded and required that Plaintiff respect the DOE PERPETRATOR in his position of priest, 28 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES spiritual advisor, confidant, teacher, and/or mentor at DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES and DOES 1 through 500. 38. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants and each of them, were or should have been aware of the DOE PERPETRATOR’s wrongful conduct at or about the time it was occurring, and thereafter, but took no action to obstruct, inhibit or stop such continuing conduct, or to help Plaintiff endure the trauma from such conduct. Despite the authority and ability to do so, these Defendants negligently and/or willfully refused to, and/or did not act effectively to stop the sexual assaults on the Plaintiff, to inhibit or obstruct such assault, or to protect the Plaintiff from the results of that trauma. 10 39. During the period of assaults perpetrated upon the Plaintiff, DEFENDANT 11 RELIGIOUS ENTITIES and DOES 1 through 500 had the authority and the ability to obstruct or 12 stop the DOE PERPETRATOR’s sexual assaults on the Plaintiff, but intentionally, negligently 13 and/or willfully failed to do so, thereby allowing the assault to occur and to continue unabated. This 14 failure was a part of Defendants’ intended plan and arrangement to conceal wrongful acts, to avoid EB 15 and inhibit detection, to block public disclosure, to avoid scandal, to avoid the disclosure of their 16 tolerance of child sexual molestation and assault, to preserve a false appearance of propriety, and to 17 avoid investigation and action by public authority including law enforcement. The Plaintiff is 18 informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that such actions were motivated by a desire to 19 protect the reputation of Defendants and each of them, and to protect the monetary support of 20 Defendants while fostering an environment where such assault could continue to occur. 21 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 22 40. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(q) as amended by Assembly Bill 218, 23 effective January 1, 2020 there is a three (3) year window in which all civil claims of childhood 24 sexual assault are revived if they have not been litigated to finality. This provision provides that, 25 “{nJotwithstanding any other provision of law, any claim for damages described in paragraphs (1) 26 through (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a) that has not been litigated to finality and that would 27 otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2020, because the applicable statute of limitations, claim 28 presentation deadline, or any other time limit had expired, is revived, and these claims may be i COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES commenced within three years of January 1, 2020. A plaintiff shall have the later of the three-year time period under this subdivision or the time period under subdivision (a) as amended by the act that added this subdivision.” These claims of the Plaintiff have not been previously litigated to finality and have been filed (or are still pending) within the timeframe specified supra, thus, it is timely under the revised provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(q). 41. The Plaintiff is under the age of forty (40) years old at the time of filing of the Complaint, therefore, their action is timely pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(a). 42. The Plaintiff is over the age of forty (40) years old at the time of filing of the Complaint. Since this action is being commenced after the Plaintiff's 40" birthday, and as set forth 10 more fully supra, it is upon information, and therefore belief, that the RELIGIOUS ENTITY 11 DEFENDANTS knew or had reason to know, or were otherwise on notice, of misconduct that 12 created a risk of childhood sexual assault by DOE PERPETRATOR 13 43. Since this action is being commenced after the Plaintiff's 4o% birthday, and as set 14 forth more fully supra, it is upon information, and therefore belief, that the RELIGIOUS ENTITY EB 15 DEFENDANTS failed to take reasonable steps, or to implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid acts 16 of childhood sexual assault, including but not limited to preventing or avoiding placement of the 17 DOE PERPETRATOR ina function or environment in which contact with children was an inherent 18 part of that function or environment. 19 44, Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(g)(1), a separate Certificate of Merit 20 was filed by the Plaintiff’s attorney for each defendant in this action. 21 45. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(g)(2), a declaration from a mental 22 healthcare practitioner was filed concurrently with the instant Complaint for the Plaintiff. 23 PUNITIVE DAMAGES SOUGHT AGAINST RELIGIOUS ENITTY DEFENDANTS AND 24 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 25 46. DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES and DOES 1 through 500 are, based on 26 information and belief, religious corporations, organized under the laws of California, and therefore, 27 are afforded the protection of Code of Civil Procedure §425.14. Upon such time as appropriate, the 28 Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to file a Motion to Amend the instant Complaint, in order to 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES allege facts sufficient to constitute punitive damages against DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES, in accord with evidence that substantiates a finding of the clear and convincing evidentiary requirement of Civil Code §3294. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Against Defendants DOE ARCHDIOCESE, DOE DIOCESE, DOE PARISH, DOE RELIGIOUS ORDER, DOE PERPETRATOR and DOES 1 through 500) 47. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all prior paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. 10 48. Defendants' conduct towards the Plaintiff, as described herein, was outrageous and 11 extreme. 12 49. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate the DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS 13 ENTITIES and DOES 1 through 500 putting the DOE PERPETRATOR in positions of authority at 14 DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES and DOES 1 through 500, which enabled the DOE EB 15 PERPETRATOR to have access to minor children, including the Plaintiff, so that he could commit 16 wrongful sexual acts with them, including the conduct described herein above. The Plaintiff held 17 great trust, faith and confidence in Defendants, which, by virtue of Defendants' wrongful conduct, 18 tumed to fear. 19 50. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate the DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS 20 ENTITIES to be incapable of supervising and preventing employees of Defendants, including the 21 DOE PERPETRATOR, from committing wrongful sexual acts with minor children in their charge, 22 including Plaintiff, or to be incapable of properly supervising the DOE PERPETRATOR to prevent 23 such assault from occurring. 24 51. Defendants' conduct described herein was intentional and malicious and done for 25 the purpose of causing, or with reckless disregard of the rights of the Plaintiff, with the substantial 26 certainty that it would cause Plaintiff and the other children who were enrolled in, participated in, 27 or were members and participants in, activities of their parish and of Defendants’ religious, 28 educational, recreational, and social programs, to suffer humiliation, mental anguish and emotional 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and physical distress. 52. As aresult of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and eaming capacity, and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. 53. As to DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES and DOES 1 through 500, Plaintiff 10 reserves the right to file a Motion to Amend the complaint, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 11 §425.14. 12 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 13 HUMANTRAFFICKING (CIVIL CODE §52.5) 14 (Against Defendants DOE ARCHDIOCESE, DOE DIOCESE, DOE PARISH, DOE 15 RELIGIOUS ORDER, DOE PERPETRATOR and DOES 1 through 500) 16 54. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all prior 17 paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. 18 55. The Plaintiff, who was a minor when the DOE PERPETRATOR took custody of 19 them, was a victim under Penal Code §236.1 (specifically, subsection (a)), and is entitled to bring a 20 claim under Civil Code §52.5(a). 21 56. The Plaintiff is a victim under California Penal Code §236.1(a), given the following 22 facts: 23 The Plaintiff had their personal liberty and/or freedom deprived when, the DOE PERPETRATOR transported them; 24 The Plaintiff was a minor, therefore was unable to give consent to such acts. 25 Purported consent of a minor, is no basis for a defense under Penal Code §236.1(e); 26 The DOE PERPETRATOR transported the Plaintiff in order to obtain 27 forced, sexual services from the Plaintiff, in a secluded area, which were performed upon the DOE PERPETRATOR; 28 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES The Plaintiff, as a minor, did perform forced, sexual services for the DOE PERPETRATOR, after they had been transported. The Plaintiff was a minor at all relevant times and was unable to give valid consent to any of the sex acts that were perpetrated upon them by DOE PERPETRATOR. 57. The Defendant RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS, and DOES 1 through 500, having full knowledge of the dangerous and sexually exploitive propensities of the DOE PERPETRATOR, ratified the DOE PERPETRATOR’s conduct and are liable pursuant to C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1110 (“...an employer may be liable for an employee's act where the employer either authorized the tortious act or subsequently ratified an originally unauthorized tort. [Citations.] The failure to discharge an employee who has committed misconduct may be evidence of ratification. [Citations.] The theory of ratification is generally 10 applied where an employer fails to investigate or respond to charges that an employee committed an 11 intentional tort, such as assault or battery.”) Prior to the Plaintiff’s transportation by the DOE 12 PERPETRATOR, the DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS ENTITIES knew, or should have known, that 13 the DOE PERPETRATOR was unfit to be around minor children and posed a danger to those 14 children the DOE PERPETRATOR was assigned to care for, or otherwise supervise. EB 15 58. Furthermore, the RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS, and DOES 1 through 500, 16 were made well aware that the DOE PERPETRATOR was transporting minor students in his 17 vehicle, with no other adults present. Despite having this knowledge, the RELIGIOUS ENTITY 18 DEFENDANTS, and DOES 1 through 100, chose not to discipline, remove, sanction, deter, 19 supervise, or restrict the DOE PERPETRATOR’s conduct. 20 59. As a result of the above-described conduct, the Plaintiff suffered and continues to 21 suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional 22 distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; has 23 suffered and continues to suffer and were prevented and will continue to be prevented from 24 performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of eamings and 25 earning capacity, and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and 26 psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. 27 60. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendant DOE 28 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES PERPETRATOR acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, so as to constitute malice and/or oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. 61. Plaintiff is therefore entitled, upon proper application to the court, to the recovery of punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, the RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS. Plaintiff reserves his right, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.14, to seek leave of court to pursue an award of punitive damages against RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS, in a sum to be shown according to proof. 62. Pursuant to Civil Code §52.5(a), the Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual damages, 10 compensatory damages, punitive damages (specified above and in accordance with Code of Civil 11 Procedure §425.14), as well as attorneys’ fees. Furthermore, pursuant to Civil Code §52.5(b), the 12 Plaintiff seeks to recover three (3) times their actual damages against Defendants, and DOES 1 13 through 500, in addition to the remedies stated in the previous sentence, as their actual damages are 14 far exceed $10,000.00. EB 15 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 16 NEGLIGENCE 17 (gninst Defendants DOE ARCHDIOCESE, DOE DIOCESE, DOE PARISH, DOE 18 RELIGIOUS ORDER, and DOES 1 through 500) 19 63. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference all prior 20 paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. 21 64. As more fully set forth above, the conduct and actions of the DEFENDANT 22 RELIGIOUS ENTITIES, and DOES 1 through 500, served to create an environment in which the 23 DOE PERPETRATOR was afforded years of continuous secluded access to minor children 24 including the Plaintiff, a minor child at the time of their sexual assaults by the DOE 25 PERPETRATOR. 26 65. As more fully set forth above, Defendants DOE 1, and DOES 1 through 500, 27 inclusive, were aware and/or on notice of the DOE PERPETRATOR’s sexual misconduct with 28 minors prior to the first occasion on which Plaintiff was placed in the DOE PERPETRATOR’s 16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES custody through the acts of Defendants. Accordingly, at the time the DOE PERPETRATOR and Defendants DOE 1, and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, performed the acts alleged herein, it was or should have been reasonably foreseeable to Defendants that by continuously exposing and making Plaintiff available to the DOE PERPETRATOR, Defendants were placing Plaintiff in grave risk of being sexually assaulted by the DOE PERPETRATOR. By knowingly subjecting Plaintiff to such foreseeable danger, Defendants DOE 1, and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, were duty-bound to take reasonable steps and implement reasonable safeguards to protect Plaintiff from the DOE PERPETRATOR. Furthermore, as alleged herein, Defendants DOE 1, and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, at all times exercised a sufficient degree of control over the DOE PERPETRATOR’s 10 personal and business affairs to prevent the acts of assault by keeping the DOE PERPETRATOR 11 away from Plaintiffs. However, Defendants DOE 1, and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, failed to 12 take any reasonable steps or implement any reasonable safeguards for Plaintiff's protection 13 whatsoever, and continued to make Plaintiff accessible to the DOE PERPETRATOR for the 14 purposes of sexual assault. EB 15 NEGLIGENCE PER SE—PENAL CODE MANDATORY CHILD ABUSE REPORTING 16 66. Under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (““CANRA”), RELIGIOUS 17 ENTITY DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, by and through their agents, servants, 18 volunteers, and/or employees, including priests, were child care custodians and were under a 19 statutory duty to report known or suspected incidents of sexual molestation or abuse of minors to a 20 child protective agency, pursuant to Califomia Penal Code § 11166, and/or not to impede the filing 21 of any such report. Furthermore, RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 500 22 were under a statutory duty to provide their employees with various acknowledgements of reporting 23 requirements under Penal Code §11166.5. 24 67. Defendants RELIGIOUS ENTITY DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 500, 25 inclusive, knew or should have known that their agent, employee, counselor, advisor and mentor, 26 the DOE PERPETRATOR, had sexually molested, abused or caused touching, battery, harm, and 27 other injur