Preview
1 JOHN C. MANLY (State Bar No. 149080)
jmanly@manlystewart.com
2 VINCE W. FINALDI, Esq. (State Bar No. 238279)
vfinaldi@manlystewart.com
3 ALEX E. CUNNY, Esq. (State Bar No. 291567)
acunny@manlystewart.com
4 COURTNEY P. PENDRY (State Bar No. 327382)
cpendry@manlystewart.com
5 MANLY STEWART FINALDI
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
6 Irvine, California 92612
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
7 Facsimile: (949) 252-9991
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jane BE Doe
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF MONTEREY
11
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 JANE BE DOE, [ Case No. 21CV000805
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
13 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF COURTNEY P.
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612
PENDRY, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF
14 v. PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BIG
15 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
AMERICA, a California corporation; BIG AMERICA’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
16 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER.
COUNTY, a California corporation; BOYS
17 AND GIRLS CLUBS OF MONTEREY
COUNTY, a California Corporation; JON [Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and
18 DAVID WOODY, an individual; and DOES [Proposed] Order]
1-50, inclusive,
19
Defendant. Date: March 8, 2022
20 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Judge: Thomas W. Wills
21 Dept.: 15
22 Action Filed: March 12, 2021
Trial Date: None
23
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
1
DECLARATION OF COURTNEY PENDRY, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
1 DECLARATION OF COURTNEY P. PENDRY
2 I, Courtney P. Pendry, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am an
4 attorney with Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, attorneys of record for Plaintiff Jane BE Doe in the above-
5 entitled matter. I am personally familiar with the facts of this case and the contents of this
6 Declaration, and if called upon, could and would competently testify as to its contents.
7 2. This Declaration is made in support of Plaintiff Jane BE Doe’s (“Plaintiff”)
8 Opposition to Defendant Big Brothers Big Sisters of America’s (“BBBSA”) Motion for Protective
9 Order, or in the Alternative an Order Shortening Time.
10 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit “1” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s First Amended
11 Complaint, filed on December 13, 2021.
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit “2” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s October 5,
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
13 2021 Notice of Deposition for the Person Most Qualified re: Background Checks and Supervision
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612
14 and corresponding Request for Production of Documents.
15 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit “3” is a true and correct copy of the October 22, 2021
16 email correspondence between counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for BBBSA, Ms. Alison Crane,
17 wherein Ms. Crane indicated that she needed to reschedule the deposition due to a scheduling
18 conflict, and offered up November 19 as an available date. At this time, Ms. Crane also requested
19 confirmation that Woody would be dismissed in advance of the PMQ deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel
20 responded agreeing to the November 19th date but noted that Plaintiff would be waiting until after
21 the filing of the First Amended Complaint to default Woody.
22 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit “4” is a true and correct copy BBBSA’s October 26, 2021
23 Objection to Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition.
24 7. In neither counsel’s October 22 email correspondence or BBBSA’s objection did
25 counsel indicate that they would not be producing the witness until Woody was defaulted.
26 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit “5” is a true and correct copy Plaintiffs Amended Notice
27 of Deposition for the Person Most Qualified re: Background Checks and Supervision and
28 corresponding Request for Production of Documents, served on October 27, 2021.
2
DECLARATION OF COURTNEY PENDRY, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
1 9. On November 11, 2021, Plaintiff received BBBSA's Amended Objection to
2 Plaintiff’s Amended Notice, and for the first time, BBBSA objected on the grounds that the case
3 was “not at issue” given Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, to correct the erroneously named entity to
4 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County (“BBBSMC”) and to add a new entity, Boys and Girls
5 Clubs of Monterey County (“Boys and Girls Clubs”). Attached hereto as Exhibit “6” is a true and
6 correct copy of BBBSA’s Amended Notice of Deposition, served on November 11, 2021.
7 10. While Plaintiff maintained that the case being “at issue” was not a prerequisite for
8 depositions to proceed, Plaintiff agreed to postpone the PMQ deposition until after the filing of its
9 FAC.
10 11. On January 25, 2022 after the FAC had been served on BBBSA and newly added
11 entity Boys and Girls Clubs and both parties had filed their respective Answers, Plaintiff served its
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 Second Amended Notice for February 28, 2022. Attached hereto as Exhibit “7” is a true and correct
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
13 copy of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Notice of Amended Notice of Deposition for the Person Most
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612
14 Qualified re: Background Checks and Supervision and corresponding Request for Production of
15 Documents.
16 12. On January 27, 2022 counsel for BBBSA, Ms. Tara Murray, contacted counsel for
17 Plaintiff via telephone and indicated BBBSA’s PMQ witness would be out of town on February 28
18 and provided her alternate dates of availability. At no point in this conversation did Ms. Murray
19 indicate that BBBSA would not be producing its witness unless BBBSM or Woody had appeared.
20 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit “8” is a true and correct copy of the parties January 27,
21 2022 email correspondence wherein Ms. Murray represented its PMQ witness was available from
22 March 21-24. I responded to Ms. Murray requesting dates of availability prior to March 21, and Ms.
23 Murray indicated that the “conflicts are also in part due to our trial calendar” but offered up the
24 week of March 14-18. I advised Ms. Murray that Plaintiff would be noticing the PMQ deposition
25 for March 14. Again, at no time during this exchange did Ms. Murray indicate that BBBSA would
26 not be producing its witness unless BBBSM or Woody was dismissed.
27 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit “9” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Third
28 Amended Notice of Amended Notice of Deposition for the Person Most Qualified re: Background
3
DECLARATION OF COURTNEY PENDRY, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
1 Checks and Supervision, served on February 1, 2022.
2 15. On March 3, 2022 Plaintiff received BBSA’s Third Amended Objection, citing
3 counsel’s unavailability due to a “trial conflict” and noting that the case was not at issue until Woody
4 and BBSMC had appeared. Notably, this was the first occasion since Plaintiff filed her Complaint
5 in March 2020 that BBBSA contended its local affiliate BBBSMC (a dissolved entity) must appear
6 for the case to be “at issue.” Attached hereto as Exhibit “10” is a true and correct copy of Defendant
7 BBBSA’s Third Amended Objection.
8 16. Although counsel’s representations of availability and willingness to produce a
9 witness had again materially changed, in order to alleviate and concerns of the case being “at issue”
10 and to further accommodate counsel’s ever changing “trial schedule,” Plaintiff agreed to move the
11 PMQ deposition to the week of March 28 – a full week after Woody’s deadline to file a responsive
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12 pleading. Counsel for BBBSA again cited their unavailability due to “trial conflicts” during the
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
13 week of March 28 and maintained that both Woody and the dissolved entity, BBBSMC must be
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612
14 served prior to any depositions moving forward. Attached hereto as Exhibit “11” is a true and
15 correct copy of the parties March 3, 2022 meet and confer correspondence.
16 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit “12” is a true and correct copy of the parties March 4,
17 2022 continued meet and confer correspondence, wherein Plaintiff reminded BBBSA that their local
18 entity, BBBSMC, had been dissolved and thus their appearance was neither necessary nor possible.
19 Moreover, Plaintiff represented that Woody had repeatedly stated his desire to be dismissed from
20 the litigation and would likely not file a responsive pleading. However, in order to avoid the need
21 for judicial intervention, Plaintiff agreed to move the PMQ deposition to the week of April 4. In
22 light of BBBSA’s repeated misrepresentations, Plaintiff’s offer was contingent upon BBBSA’s
23 signing of a stipulation agreeing to produce a witness on the date agreed upon date.
24 18. Attached hereto as Exhibit “13” is a true and correct copy of Big Brothers Big Sisters
25 of Monterey County’s Certificate of Dissolution, filed February 17, 2011. My office obtained this
26 document on September 8, 2021 at the following web address:
27 https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/
28 19. Attached hereto as Exhibit “14” is a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the
4
DECLARATION OF COURTNEY PENDRY, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
1 Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Monterey County, held
2 October 21, 2010, wherein it was resolved that Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County would
3 be dissolved and 100% of the assets of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County would be
4 distributed to Boys and Girls Clubs of Monterey County. This document was produced by BBBSA
5 pursuant to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests.
6 20. Attached hereto as Exhibit “15” is a true and correct copy of Defendant Boys and
7 Girls Clubs of Monterey County’s Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed January
8 18, 2022.
9 21. Attached hereto as Exhibit “16” is a true and correct copy of a handwritten letter
10 from Defendant Jon David Woody wherein he clearly and unequivocally expresses his
11 unwillingness to participate in the instant litigation.
MANLY STEWART FINALDI
12
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
Telephone (949) 252-9990
Irvine, California 92612
14 foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
15
16 Executed on this 7th day of March, 2022, at Irvine, California.
17
18
Courtney P. Pendry
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
DECLARATION OF COURTNEY PENDRY, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
EXHIBIT "1"
ELECTRONICALLY FILED BY
Superior Court of California,
1 JOHN C. MANLY, Esq. (State Bar No. 149080) County of Monterey
TAYLOR RAYFIELD, Esq (State Bar No. 27300) On 12/13/2021 3:24 PM
2 COURTNEY P. PENDRY, Esq. (State Bar No. 327382) By: Elia Mendoza, Deputy
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
3 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
4 Telephone: (949) 252-9990
Fax: (949) 252-9991
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff, JANE BE DOE
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF MONTEREY
9
10 JANE BE DOE an individual, Case No.: 21CV000805
Judge: Thomas W. Wills
11 Plaintiff, Department: 15
12 vs. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
AMERICA, a California corporation; ; BIG
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(1) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
14 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY
Irvine, CA 92612
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
COUNTY, a California Corporation, BOYS & (2) NEGLIGENCE;
15 GIRLS CLUBS OF MONTEREY COUNTY, (3) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;
a California Corporation JON DAVID (4) CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD (CIVIL
16 WOODY, an individual; and DOES 1-50, CODE § 1573);
inclusive, (5) SEXUAL HARASSEMENT (CIVIL
17 CODE
Defendants. § 51.9);
18 (6) SEXUAL BATTERY;
(7) GENDER VIOLENCE (CIVIL CODE
19 § 52.4);
(8) VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE §
20 288(a);
(9) VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE §
21 647.6(a)(1).
22 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
23
24
COMES NOW, Plaintiff JANE BE DOE (“Plaintiff”), who hereby complains and alleges
25
against Defendants BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, BIG BROTHERS BIG
26
SISTERS OF MONTEREY COUNTY; BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF MONTEREY
27
COUNTY, JON DAVID WOODY and DOES 2 through 50, inclusive (“Defendants”), as follows:
28
1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 1. Between in or around 2000 through 2002, Plaintiff was a minor participant
2 with BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA (hereinafter “BBBSA”) and/or BIG
3 BROTHER BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY COUNTY (hereinafter “BBBSMC ”), while she
4 was approximately 7 to 8 years old. It is through Plaintiff’s participation in BBBSMC that she
5 was placed in contact with JON DAVID WOODY (hereinafter “WOODY”), and his wife. During
6 this period, WOODY repeatedly sexually abused Plaintiff in multiple ways, including but not
7 limited to: WOODY grooming and secluding Plaintiff, fondling Plaintiff’s genitals, forcing
8 Plaintiff to lie down on a table and remove her pants and underwear, and digitally penetrating
9 Plaintiff’s vagina. WOODY was ultimately arrested for his abuse of Plaintiff and other
10 participants of BBBSA and BBBSMC and found guilty of 3 counts of sexual penetration of a
11 child, and 17 counts of lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 and sentenced to a term of 210
12 years to life and a consecutive determinate term of 16 years in state prison. Neither BBBSA,
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 BBBSMC, nor DOES 3-50 ever reached out to Plaintiff, following WOODY’s arrest, to inquire
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 about Plaintiff’s well-being, despite knowledge that Plaintiff had been secluded on multiple
Irvine, CA 92612
15 camping trips with WOODY.
16 2. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(q) as amended by Assembly Bill 218,
17 effective January 1, 2020 there is a three (3) year window in which all civil claims of childhood
18 sexual assault are revived if they have not been litigated to finality. This provision provides that,
19 “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any claim for damages described in paragraphs (1)
20 through (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a) that has not been litigated to finality and that would
21 otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2020, because the applicable statute of limitations, claim
22 presentation deadline, or any other time limit had expired, is revived, and these claims may be
23 commenced within three years of January 1, 2020. A plaintiff shall have the later of the three-year
24 time period under this subdivision or the time period under subdivision (a) as amended by the act
25 that added this subdivision.” This claim has not been previously litigated to finality; thus, it is
26 timely under the revised provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(q).
27 ///
28 ///
2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2 PARTIES
3 (Plaintiff JANE BE DOE)
4 3. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff JANE BE DOE (“Plaintiff”) was a resident
5 of the State of California, in and for the County of Monterey. The name utilized by JANE BE
6 DOE in this Complaint is not the real name of JANE BE DOE, but is a fictitious name utilized to
7 protect her privacy as a victim of childhood sexual harassment, molestation, abuse, and assault.
8 See Doe v. Lincoln Unified School District (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758. Plaintiff was born on
9 October 7, 1993, and he was a minor throughout the period of childhood sexual assault alleged
10 herein. She brings this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1 for the childhood
11 sexual assault he suffered at the hands of BBBSA, BBBSMC, WOODY, and DOES 3 through 50.
12 Currently, Plaintiff resides in the City of Hollister, State of California.
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 4. The Plaintiff was a participant with BBBSA, BBBSS and DOES 3 through 50,
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 inclusive, during the time that she was subjected to childhood sexual assault by WOODY. By
Irvine, CA 92612
15 virtue of this relationship between the Plaintiff and BBBSA, BBBSMC, WOODY, and DOES 3
16 through 50, Defendants stood in loco parentis with the Plaintiff and her parents and created a
17 special, trusting, fiduciary, and protective duty of care to the Plaintiff, who was a minor child in
18 their custody, care, and control.
19 (Defendant, BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA)
20 5. Defendant BBBSA is, at all times mentioned herein, a California corporation,
21 having its principal place of business in Tampa in the County of Hillsborough, State of Florida.
22 Big Brothers Big Sisters of America is or was formerly known as Big Brothers of America. Big
23 Brothers big Sisters of America is the successor in interest of Big Brothers of America.
24 6. BBBSA was incorporated on September 2, 1958. Upon information and therefore
25 belief, in around 2000 to 2002, the time in which WOODY abused Plaintiff, WOODY operated
26 under the auspices, supervision, custody, and control of BBBSA. Defendant BBBSA purposely
27 conducts substantial business activities in the State of California, and BBBSA was the primary
28 entity supervising and controlling the activities and behavior of its employee agents, including
3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 WOODY and DOES 3 through 50, and all other employees, agents, and supervisors of those
2 defendants. BBBSA, acting through employees, representatives, affiliates, volunteers, members,
3 and agents of any kind, cause acts, events, or omissions to occur in Salinas, California, out of
4 which these claims arise.
5 7. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant
6 BBBSA was an entity that supervised BBBSS, its volunteers and partners, supervised children,
7 and understood that children would be in its programs and in the care, custody, and control of
8 Defendant BBBSA, including the Plaintiff when she was a participant. According to its website,
9 BBBSA has developed a “unique brand of one-to-one mentoring, in which a child facing
10 adversity is carefully matched with a caring adult mentor in a relationship supported by
11 professional Big Brothers Big Sisters staff members, changes lives for the better forever.”
12 8. On or before 1977, Defendant BBBSA (formerly Big Brothers of America) created
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 a National Clearing House for Information on Sexual Child Abuse. Defendant BBBSA’s national
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 clearing house required each agency and or affiliated organization to send a written report to
Irvine, CA 92612
15 Defendant BBBSA’s national headquarters to:
16 a. Determine the incident level;
17 b. Analyze the patterns of pedophilic behaviors;
18 c. develop National Policy; and
19 d. provide guidance on volunteer selection and predictability.
20 9. In or around 1981, Defendant BBSA solicited, developed, and or approved an
21 insurance program designed specifically for affiliated agencies and or organizations, to cover
22 child sexual abuse in Defendants’ programs.
23 10. In or around 1982, Defendant BBBSA published a report entitled “Child Sexual
24 Abuse.” Defendants relied on experts in the fields of mental health, psychology, medicine, and
25 social work among others to assist Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and or its chapters,
26 executive directors, staff, parents, board members, volunteers and the community, in the
27 detection, selection, supervision and investigation procedures of alleged abusers. The report
28
4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 recognized that BBBSA knew that the Big Brothers Big Sisters programs attracts child sexual
2 abusers. Defendants acknowledged the Big Brother Big Sister programs attracts sexual predators:
Generally, itis agreed that child molestation type offenses do not
3 involve physical force for the commission of the offense. In fact the
reverse is more often true. The offender usually entices through
4 indoctrination the child into the sexual behavior through either
persuasion or entrapment in which the child is caused to feel
5 indebted or obligated. Since we deal with boys and girls who may
have no adequate role model or parent figure in their lives, it is very
6 characteristic to shower the child with new found approval,
affection and attention with the new relationship. Money, gifts and
7 new, exciting adventures for the child with this new friend all could
be ways to pressure the child into approval for otherwise reluctant
8 behavior. Clearly our clients are a ‘high risk’ for the potential
abuser. The pedophilic applicant will generally try to encourage
9 overnight visits, weekend stays at his home, or trips which involve
travel very early in the relationship. The case worker should be
10 attuned to this type of behavior and I generally recommend that
staff approval be obtained before home visits and travel with the
11 volunteer are approved.
12 Child Sexual Abuse, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (1982).
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 11. An evaluation and report by the American Bar Association on child sexual abuse
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 allegations within Defendants’ programs revealed:
Irvine, CA 92612
15
a. Between 1982 and 1991 there were 304 reports of child sexual abuse in
16
Defendants’ programs;
17
18 b. Big brothers are more likely to sexually abuse children;
19 c. Little brothers were more likely to be sexually abused by their Big Brothers;
20
d. Child sexual abuse was more likely to occur in the big brother’s home or
21
residence.
22
23 12. Defendant BBBSA manages, trains, supervises, and or controls its local
24 chapters/affiliates through an affiliate agreement. Under the agreements, local chapters must
25 comply with the standards set by Defendant Big Brothers Big Sisters of America.
26
///
27
///
28
5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 (Defendant, BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY COUNTY)
2 13. BBBSA operate through a national system of local affiliates, including Big
3 Brothers, Big Sisters of Monterey County (“BBBSMC ”), an entity of form unknown. BBBSMC
4 purposely conduct conducts substantial business activities in the State of California, and was the
5 primary entity owning, operating and controlling the activities and behavior of its employees,
6 agents, and servants including but not limited to WOODY and DOES 2 through 50 and all other
7 employees, agents, and supervisors of those defendants. The Plaintiff is informed and believes,
8 and thereon alleges that Defendant BBBSMC was an entity that supervised mentors, partners,
9 volunteers, children, and understood that children would be in its programs, on its premises, and
10 in the care, custody, and control of Defendant BBBSMC, including the Plaintiff when she was a
11 minor participant of BBBSMC and BBBSA.
12 14. At all relevant times herein, BBBSMC was the alter ego and successor-in-interest
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 with BBBSA and vice-versa as BBBSMC was (and has always been) wholly owned and
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 controlled by BBBSA.
Irvine, CA 92612
15 (Defendant, Boys & Girls Clubs of Monterey County)
16 15. Defendant Boys & Girls Clubs of Monterey County ("BGCMC") is, at all times
17 mentioned herein, a California corporation, having its principal place of business in Seaside in the
18 County of Monterey, State of California. Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County is or was
19 formerly known as Boys and Girls Clubs of Monterey County. Boys & Girls Clubs of America is
20 the successor in interest of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County.
21 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes, in or around December 2010, BBBSMC ceased
22 operations and all existing Big Brother Big Sister matches were merged into the BGCMC
23 program. Plaintiff is informed and believes that upon the merger of BBBSMC and BGCMC, at
24 least three members of the Board of Directors of BBBSMC, Peter Baird, Patsy Schulte, and Phil
25 Wilhelm, became members of the Board of Directors for BGCMC. Plaintiff is informed and
26 believes that upon its dissolution, all of BBBSMC's known debts and liabilities were assumed by
27 BGCMC and all of BBBSMC's assets were distributed to BGCMC.
28
6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times
2 mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of
3 them, such that any individuality and separateness between Defendants, and each of them, ceased
4 to exist. Defendants and each of them, were the successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the
5 other Defendants, and each of them, in that they purchased, controlled, dominated and operated
6 each other without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or other manner of division.
7 To continue maintaining the facade of a separate and individual existence between and among
8 Defendants, and each of them, would serve to perpetrate a fraud and an injustice.
9 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times
10 mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the agents, representatives and/or
11 employees of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, Defendants
12 and each of them, were acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality,
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 capacity, identity, agency, representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 authority, whether actual or apparent. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,
Irvine, CA 92612
15 that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the trustees, partners,
16 servants, joint venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other
17 Defendant, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually,
18 through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and
19 consent of each and every other Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by each
20 and every other Defendant, and that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff.
21
22 (Defendant, JON DAVID WOODY)
23 19. Defendant WOODY was formerly a volunteer and mentor with BBBSA,
24 BBBSMC, and DOES 2 through 50, who began working therein, as alleged upon information and
25 belief, between in or around 1972 through in or around 2002. During all instances of sexual
26 assault outlined herein, WOODY was a resident of California and perpetrated his repeated sexual
27 assault against the Plaintiff (and many others) while a volunteer and mentor with BBBSA and
28 DOES 2 through 50. Currently, WOODY is,based on information and belief, a registered sex
7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 offender in the State of California, being housed at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility located in
2 San Diego, California where he is serving a 226-year sentence.
3 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the true names and
4 capacities, whether individual, corporate, assistant or otherwise, of Defendants named herein as
5 DOES 2 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by
6 such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend Complaint to allege their true names and capacities
7 when such have been ascertained. Upon information and belief, each of the said DOE Defendants
8 is responsible in some manner under Code of Civil Procedure §§340.1(a)(1),(2),(3), and 340.1 (c)
9 for the occurrences herein alleged, and were a legal cause of the childhood sexual assault which
10 resulted in injury to the Plaintiff as alleged herein.
11 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times
12 mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI
13 them, such that any individuality and separateness between Defendants, and each of them, ceased
Telephone: (949) 252-9990
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
14 to exist. Defendants and each of them, were the successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the
Irvine, CA 92612
15 other Defendants, and each of them, in that they purchased, controlled, dominated and operated
16 each other without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or other manner of division.
17 To continue maintaining the facade of a separate and individual existence between and among
18 Defendants, and each of them, would serve to perpetrate a fraud and an injustice.
19 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times
20 mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the agents, representatives and/or
21 employees of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, Defendants
22 and each of them, were acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality,
23 capacity, identity, agency, representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their
24 authority, whether actual or apparent. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,
25 that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the trustees, partners,
26 servants, joint venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other
27 Defendant, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually,
28 through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and
8
Preview
1 JOHN C. MANLY (State Bar No. 149080) jmanly@manlystewart.com 2 VINCE W. FINALDI, Esq. (State Bar No. 238279) vfinaldi@manlystewart.com 3 ALEX E. CUNNY, Esq. (State Bar No. 291567) acunny@manlystewart.com 4 COURTNEY P. PENDRY (State Bar No. 327382) cpendry@manlystewart.com 5 MANLY STEWART FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 6 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252-9990 7 Facsimile: (949) 252-9991 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jane BE Doe 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF MONTEREY 11 MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 JANE BE DOE, [ Case No. 21CV000805 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF COURTNEY P. Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 PENDRY, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF 14 v. PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BIG 15 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, a California corporation; BIG AMERICA’S EX PARTE APPLICATION 16 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. COUNTY, a California corporation; BOYS 17 AND GIRLS CLUBS OF MONTEREY COUNTY, a California Corporation; JON [Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and 18 DAVID WOODY, an individual; and DOES [Proposed] Order] 1-50, inclusive, 19 Defendant. Date: March 8, 2022 20 Time: 8:30 a.m. Judge: Thomas W. Wills 21 Dept.: 15 22 Action Filed: March 12, 2021 Trial Date: None 23 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 DECLARATION OF COURTNEY PENDRY, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 DECLARATION OF COURTNEY P. PENDRY 2 I, Courtney P. Pendry, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am an 4 attorney with Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, attorneys of record for Plaintiff Jane BE Doe in the above- 5 entitled matter. I am personally familiar with the facts of this case and the contents of this 6 Declaration, and if called upon, could and would competently testify as to its contents. 7 2. This Declaration is made in support of Plaintiff Jane BE Doe’s (“Plaintiff”) 8 Opposition to Defendant Big Brothers Big Sisters of America’s (“BBBSA”) Motion for Protective 9 Order, or in the Alternative an Order Shortening Time. 10 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit “1” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s First Amended 11 Complaint, filed on December 13, 2021. MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit “2” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s October 5, 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 2021 Notice of Deposition for the Person Most Qualified re: Background Checks and Supervision Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 and corresponding Request for Production of Documents. 15 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit “3” is a true and correct copy of the October 22, 2021 16 email correspondence between counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for BBBSA, Ms. Alison Crane, 17 wherein Ms. Crane indicated that she needed to reschedule the deposition due to a scheduling 18 conflict, and offered up November 19 as an available date. At this time, Ms. Crane also requested 19 confirmation that Woody would be dismissed in advance of the PMQ deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel 20 responded agreeing to the November 19th date but noted that Plaintiff would be waiting until after 21 the filing of the First Amended Complaint to default Woody. 22 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit “4” is a true and correct copy BBBSA’s October 26, 2021 23 Objection to Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition. 24 7. In neither counsel’s October 22 email correspondence or BBBSA’s objection did 25 counsel indicate that they would not be producing the witness until Woody was defaulted. 26 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit “5” is a true and correct copy Plaintiffs Amended Notice 27 of Deposition for the Person Most Qualified re: Background Checks and Supervision and 28 corresponding Request for Production of Documents, served on October 27, 2021. 2 DECLARATION OF COURTNEY PENDRY, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 9. On November 11, 2021, Plaintiff received BBBSA's Amended Objection to 2 Plaintiff’s Amended Notice, and for the first time, BBBSA objected on the grounds that the case 3 was “not at issue” given Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, to correct the erroneously named entity to 4 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County (“BBBSMC”) and to add a new entity, Boys and Girls 5 Clubs of Monterey County (“Boys and Girls Clubs”). Attached hereto as Exhibit “6” is a true and 6 correct copy of BBBSA’s Amended Notice of Deposition, served on November 11, 2021. 7 10. While Plaintiff maintained that the case being “at issue” was not a prerequisite for 8 depositions to proceed, Plaintiff agreed to postpone the PMQ deposition until after the filing of its 9 FAC. 10 11. On January 25, 2022 after the FAC had been served on BBBSA and newly added 11 entity Boys and Girls Clubs and both parties had filed their respective Answers, Plaintiff served its MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 Second Amended Notice for February 28, 2022. Attached hereto as Exhibit “7” is a true and correct 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 copy of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Notice of Amended Notice of Deposition for the Person Most Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 Qualified re: Background Checks and Supervision and corresponding Request for Production of 15 Documents. 16 12. On January 27, 2022 counsel for BBBSA, Ms. Tara Murray, contacted counsel for 17 Plaintiff via telephone and indicated BBBSA’s PMQ witness would be out of town on February 28 18 and provided her alternate dates of availability. At no point in this conversation did Ms. Murray 19 indicate that BBBSA would not be producing its witness unless BBBSM or Woody had appeared. 20 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit “8” is a true and correct copy of the parties January 27, 21 2022 email correspondence wherein Ms. Murray represented its PMQ witness was available from 22 March 21-24. I responded to Ms. Murray requesting dates of availability prior to March 21, and Ms. 23 Murray indicated that the “conflicts are also in part due to our trial calendar” but offered up the 24 week of March 14-18. I advised Ms. Murray that Plaintiff would be noticing the PMQ deposition 25 for March 14. Again, at no time during this exchange did Ms. Murray indicate that BBBSA would 26 not be producing its witness unless BBBSM or Woody was dismissed. 27 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit “9” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Third 28 Amended Notice of Amended Notice of Deposition for the Person Most Qualified re: Background 3 DECLARATION OF COURTNEY PENDRY, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 Checks and Supervision, served on February 1, 2022. 2 15. On March 3, 2022 Plaintiff received BBSA’s Third Amended Objection, citing 3 counsel’s unavailability due to a “trial conflict” and noting that the case was not at issue until Woody 4 and BBSMC had appeared. Notably, this was the first occasion since Plaintiff filed her Complaint 5 in March 2020 that BBBSA contended its local affiliate BBBSMC (a dissolved entity) must appear 6 for the case to be “at issue.” Attached hereto as Exhibit “10” is a true and correct copy of Defendant 7 BBBSA’s Third Amended Objection. 8 16. Although counsel’s representations of availability and willingness to produce a 9 witness had again materially changed, in order to alleviate and concerns of the case being “at issue” 10 and to further accommodate counsel’s ever changing “trial schedule,” Plaintiff agreed to move the 11 PMQ deposition to the week of March 28 – a full week after Woody’s deadline to file a responsive MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 pleading. Counsel for BBBSA again cited their unavailability due to “trial conflicts” during the 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 week of March 28 and maintained that both Woody and the dissolved entity, BBBSMC must be Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 served prior to any depositions moving forward. Attached hereto as Exhibit “11” is a true and 15 correct copy of the parties March 3, 2022 meet and confer correspondence. 16 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit “12” is a true and correct copy of the parties March 4, 17 2022 continued meet and confer correspondence, wherein Plaintiff reminded BBBSA that their local 18 entity, BBBSMC, had been dissolved and thus their appearance was neither necessary nor possible. 19 Moreover, Plaintiff represented that Woody had repeatedly stated his desire to be dismissed from 20 the litigation and would likely not file a responsive pleading. However, in order to avoid the need 21 for judicial intervention, Plaintiff agreed to move the PMQ deposition to the week of April 4. In 22 light of BBBSA’s repeated misrepresentations, Plaintiff’s offer was contingent upon BBBSA’s 23 signing of a stipulation agreeing to produce a witness on the date agreed upon date. 24 18. Attached hereto as Exhibit “13” is a true and correct copy of Big Brothers Big Sisters 25 of Monterey County’s Certificate of Dissolution, filed February 17, 2011. My office obtained this 26 document on September 8, 2021 at the following web address: 27 https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/ 28 19. Attached hereto as Exhibit “14” is a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the 4 DECLARATION OF COURTNEY PENDRY, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Monterey County, held 2 October 21, 2010, wherein it was resolved that Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County would 3 be dissolved and 100% of the assets of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County would be 4 distributed to Boys and Girls Clubs of Monterey County. This document was produced by BBBSA 5 pursuant to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests. 6 20. Attached hereto as Exhibit “15” is a true and correct copy of Defendant Boys and 7 Girls Clubs of Monterey County’s Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed January 8 18, 2022. 9 21. Attached hereto as Exhibit “16” is a true and correct copy of a handwritten letter 10 from Defendant Jon David Woody wherein he clearly and unequivocally expresses his 11 unwillingness to participate in the instant litigation. MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 15 16 Executed on this 7th day of March, 2022, at Irvine, California. 17 18 Courtney P. Pendry 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 DECLARATION OF COURTNEY PENDRY, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF JANE BE DOE’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER EXHIBIT "1" ELECTRONICALLY FILED BY Superior Court of California, 1 JOHN C. MANLY, Esq. (State Bar No. 149080) County of Monterey TAYLOR RAYFIELD, Esq (State Bar No. 27300) On 12/13/2021 3:24 PM 2 COURTNEY P. PENDRY, Esq. (State Bar No. 327382) By: Elia Mendoza, Deputy MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 3 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 4 Telephone: (949) 252-9990 Fax: (949) 252-9991 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, JANE BE DOE 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF MONTEREY 9 10 JANE BE DOE an individual, Case No.: 21CV000805 Judge: Thomas W. Wills 11 Plaintiff, Department: 15 12 vs. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF Telephone: (949) 252-9990 AMERICA, a California corporation; ; BIG ATTORNEYS AT LAW (1) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF 14 BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY Irvine, CA 92612 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; COUNTY, a California Corporation, BOYS & (2) NEGLIGENCE; 15 GIRLS CLUBS OF MONTEREY COUNTY, (3) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; a California Corporation JON DAVID (4) CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD (CIVIL 16 WOODY, an individual; and DOES 1-50, CODE § 1573); inclusive, (5) SEXUAL HARASSEMENT (CIVIL 17 CODE Defendants. § 51.9); 18 (6) SEXUAL BATTERY; (7) GENDER VIOLENCE (CIVIL CODE 19 § 52.4); (8) VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE § 20 288(a); (9) VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE § 21 647.6(a)(1). 22 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 23 24 COMES NOW, Plaintiff JANE BE DOE (“Plaintiff”), who hereby complains and alleges 25 against Defendants BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA, BIG BROTHERS BIG 26 SISTERS OF MONTEREY COUNTY; BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF MONTEREY 27 COUNTY, JON DAVID WOODY and DOES 2 through 50, inclusive (“Defendants”), as follows: 28 1 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 1. Between in or around 2000 through 2002, Plaintiff was a minor participant 2 with BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA (hereinafter “BBBSA”) and/or BIG 3 BROTHER BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY COUNTY (hereinafter “BBBSMC ”), while she 4 was approximately 7 to 8 years old. It is through Plaintiff’s participation in BBBSMC that she 5 was placed in contact with JON DAVID WOODY (hereinafter “WOODY”), and his wife. During 6 this period, WOODY repeatedly sexually abused Plaintiff in multiple ways, including but not 7 limited to: WOODY grooming and secluding Plaintiff, fondling Plaintiff’s genitals, forcing 8 Plaintiff to lie down on a table and remove her pants and underwear, and digitally penetrating 9 Plaintiff’s vagina. WOODY was ultimately arrested for his abuse of Plaintiff and other 10 participants of BBBSA and BBBSMC and found guilty of 3 counts of sexual penetration of a 11 child, and 17 counts of lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 and sentenced to a term of 210 12 years to life and a consecutive determinate term of 16 years in state prison. Neither BBBSA, 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 BBBSMC, nor DOES 3-50 ever reached out to Plaintiff, following WOODY’s arrest, to inquire Telephone: (949) 252-9990 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 about Plaintiff’s well-being, despite knowledge that Plaintiff had been secluded on multiple Irvine, CA 92612 15 camping trips with WOODY. 16 2. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(q) as amended by Assembly Bill 218, 17 effective January 1, 2020 there is a three (3) year window in which all civil claims of childhood 18 sexual assault are revived if they have not been litigated to finality. This provision provides that, 19 “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any claim for damages described in paragraphs (1) 20 through (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a) that has not been litigated to finality and that would 21 otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2020, because the applicable statute of limitations, claim 22 presentation deadline, or any other time limit had expired, is revived, and these claims may be 23 commenced within three years of January 1, 2020. A plaintiff shall have the later of the three-year 24 time period under this subdivision or the time period under subdivision (a) as amended by the act 25 that added this subdivision.” This claim has not been previously litigated to finality; thus, it is 26 timely under the revised provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(q). 27 /// 28 /// 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 PARTIES 3 (Plaintiff JANE BE DOE) 4 3. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff JANE BE DOE (“Plaintiff”) was a resident 5 of the State of California, in and for the County of Monterey. The name utilized by JANE BE 6 DOE in this Complaint is not the real name of JANE BE DOE, but is a fictitious name utilized to 7 protect her privacy as a victim of childhood sexual harassment, molestation, abuse, and assault. 8 See Doe v. Lincoln Unified School District (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758. Plaintiff was born on 9 October 7, 1993, and he was a minor throughout the period of childhood sexual assault alleged 10 herein. She brings this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1 for the childhood 11 sexual assault he suffered at the hands of BBBSA, BBBSMC, WOODY, and DOES 3 through 50. 12 Currently, Plaintiff resides in the City of Hollister, State of California. 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 4. The Plaintiff was a participant with BBBSA, BBBSS and DOES 3 through 50, Telephone: (949) 252-9990 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 inclusive, during the time that she was subjected to childhood sexual assault by WOODY. By Irvine, CA 92612 15 virtue of this relationship between the Plaintiff and BBBSA, BBBSMC, WOODY, and DOES 3 16 through 50, Defendants stood in loco parentis with the Plaintiff and her parents and created a 17 special, trusting, fiduciary, and protective duty of care to the Plaintiff, who was a minor child in 18 their custody, care, and control. 19 (Defendant, BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA) 20 5. Defendant BBBSA is, at all times mentioned herein, a California corporation, 21 having its principal place of business in Tampa in the County of Hillsborough, State of Florida. 22 Big Brothers Big Sisters of America is or was formerly known as Big Brothers of America. Big 23 Brothers big Sisters of America is the successor in interest of Big Brothers of America. 24 6. BBBSA was incorporated on September 2, 1958. Upon information and therefore 25 belief, in around 2000 to 2002, the time in which WOODY abused Plaintiff, WOODY operated 26 under the auspices, supervision, custody, and control of BBBSA. Defendant BBBSA purposely 27 conducts substantial business activities in the State of California, and BBBSA was the primary 28 entity supervising and controlling the activities and behavior of its employee agents, including 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 WOODY and DOES 3 through 50, and all other employees, agents, and supervisors of those 2 defendants. BBBSA, acting through employees, representatives, affiliates, volunteers, members, 3 and agents of any kind, cause acts, events, or omissions to occur in Salinas, California, out of 4 which these claims arise. 5 7. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant 6 BBBSA was an entity that supervised BBBSS, its volunteers and partners, supervised children, 7 and understood that children would be in its programs and in the care, custody, and control of 8 Defendant BBBSA, including the Plaintiff when she was a participant. According to its website, 9 BBBSA has developed a “unique brand of one-to-one mentoring, in which a child facing 10 adversity is carefully matched with a caring adult mentor in a relationship supported by 11 professional Big Brothers Big Sisters staff members, changes lives for the better forever.” 12 8. On or before 1977, Defendant BBBSA (formerly Big Brothers of America) created 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 a National Clearing House for Information on Sexual Child Abuse. Defendant BBBSA’s national Telephone: (949) 252-9990 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 clearing house required each agency and or affiliated organization to send a written report to Irvine, CA 92612 15 Defendant BBBSA’s national headquarters to: 16 a. Determine the incident level; 17 b. Analyze the patterns of pedophilic behaviors; 18 c. develop National Policy; and 19 d. provide guidance on volunteer selection and predictability. 20 9. In or around 1981, Defendant BBSA solicited, developed, and or approved an 21 insurance program designed specifically for affiliated agencies and or organizations, to cover 22 child sexual abuse in Defendants’ programs. 23 10. In or around 1982, Defendant BBBSA published a report entitled “Child Sexual 24 Abuse.” Defendants relied on experts in the fields of mental health, psychology, medicine, and 25 social work among others to assist Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and or its chapters, 26 executive directors, staff, parents, board members, volunteers and the community, in the 27 detection, selection, supervision and investigation procedures of alleged abusers. The report 28 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 recognized that BBBSA knew that the Big Brothers Big Sisters programs attracts child sexual 2 abusers. Defendants acknowledged the Big Brother Big Sister programs attracts sexual predators: Generally, itis agreed that child molestation type offenses do not 3 involve physical force for the commission of the offense. In fact the reverse is more often true. The offender usually entices through 4 indoctrination the child into the sexual behavior through either persuasion or entrapment in which the child is caused to feel 5 indebted or obligated. Since we deal with boys and girls who may have no adequate role model or parent figure in their lives, it is very 6 characteristic to shower the child with new found approval, affection and attention with the new relationship. Money, gifts and 7 new, exciting adventures for the child with this new friend all could be ways to pressure the child into approval for otherwise reluctant 8 behavior. Clearly our clients are a ‘high risk’ for the potential abuser. The pedophilic applicant will generally try to encourage 9 overnight visits, weekend stays at his home, or trips which involve travel very early in the relationship. The case worker should be 10 attuned to this type of behavior and I generally recommend that staff approval be obtained before home visits and travel with the 11 volunteer are approved. 12 Child Sexual Abuse, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (1982). 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 11. An evaluation and report by the American Bar Association on child sexual abuse Telephone: (949) 252-9990 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 allegations within Defendants’ programs revealed: Irvine, CA 92612 15 a. Between 1982 and 1991 there were 304 reports of child sexual abuse in 16 Defendants’ programs; 17 18 b. Big brothers are more likely to sexually abuse children; 19 c. Little brothers were more likely to be sexually abused by their Big Brothers; 20 d. Child sexual abuse was more likely to occur in the big brother’s home or 21 residence. 22 23 12. Defendant BBBSA manages, trains, supervises, and or controls its local 24 chapters/affiliates through an affiliate agreement. Under the agreements, local chapters must 25 comply with the standards set by Defendant Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. 26 /// 27 /// 28 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 (Defendant, BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MONTEREY COUNTY) 2 13. BBBSA operate through a national system of local affiliates, including Big 3 Brothers, Big Sisters of Monterey County (“BBBSMC ”), an entity of form unknown. BBBSMC 4 purposely conduct conducts substantial business activities in the State of California, and was the 5 primary entity owning, operating and controlling the activities and behavior of its employees, 6 agents, and servants including but not limited to WOODY and DOES 2 through 50 and all other 7 employees, agents, and supervisors of those defendants. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, 8 and thereon alleges that Defendant BBBSMC was an entity that supervised mentors, partners, 9 volunteers, children, and understood that children would be in its programs, on its premises, and 10 in the care, custody, and control of Defendant BBBSMC, including the Plaintiff when she was a 11 minor participant of BBBSMC and BBBSA. 12 14. At all relevant times herein, BBBSMC was the alter ego and successor-in-interest 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 with BBBSA and vice-versa as BBBSMC was (and has always been) wholly owned and Telephone: (949) 252-9990 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 controlled by BBBSA. Irvine, CA 92612 15 (Defendant, Boys & Girls Clubs of Monterey County) 16 15. Defendant Boys & Girls Clubs of Monterey County ("BGCMC") is, at all times 17 mentioned herein, a California corporation, having its principal place of business in Seaside in the 18 County of Monterey, State of California. Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County is or was 19 formerly known as Boys and Girls Clubs of Monterey County. Boys & Girls Clubs of America is 20 the successor in interest of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Monterey County. 21 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes, in or around December 2010, BBBSMC ceased 22 operations and all existing Big Brother Big Sister matches were merged into the BGCMC 23 program. Plaintiff is informed and believes that upon the merger of BBBSMC and BGCMC, at 24 least three members of the Board of Directors of BBBSMC, Peter Baird, Patsy Schulte, and Phil 25 Wilhelm, became members of the Board of Directors for BGCMC. Plaintiff is informed and 26 believes that upon its dissolution, all of BBBSMC's known debts and liabilities were assumed by 27 BGCMC and all of BBBSMC's assets were distributed to BGCMC. 28 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times 2 mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of 3 them, such that any individuality and separateness between Defendants, and each of them, ceased 4 to exist. Defendants and each of them, were the successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the 5 other Defendants, and each of them, in that they purchased, controlled, dominated and operated 6 each other without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or other manner of division. 7 To continue maintaining the facade of a separate and individual existence between and among 8 Defendants, and each of them, would serve to perpetrate a fraud and an injustice. 9 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times 10 mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the agents, representatives and/or 11 employees of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, Defendants 12 and each of them, were acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality, 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 capacity, identity, agency, representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their Telephone: (949) 252-9990 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 authority, whether actual or apparent. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, Irvine, CA 92612 15 that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the trustees, partners, 16 servants, joint venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other 17 Defendant, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, 18 through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and 19 consent of each and every other Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by each 20 and every other Defendant, and that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff. 21 22 (Defendant, JON DAVID WOODY) 23 19. Defendant WOODY was formerly a volunteer and mentor with BBBSA, 24 BBBSMC, and DOES 2 through 50, who began working therein, as alleged upon information and 25 belief, between in or around 1972 through in or around 2002. During all instances of sexual 26 assault outlined herein, WOODY was a resident of California and perpetrated his repeated sexual 27 assault against the Plaintiff (and many others) while a volunteer and mentor with BBBSA and 28 DOES 2 through 50. Currently, WOODY is,based on information and belief, a registered sex 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 offender in the State of California, being housed at RJ Donovan Correctional Facility located in 2 San Diego, California where he is serving a 226-year sentence. 3 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the true names and 4 capacities, whether individual, corporate, assistant or otherwise, of Defendants named herein as 5 DOES 2 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by 6 such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend Complaint to allege their true names and capacities 7 when such have been ascertained. Upon information and belief, each of the said DOE Defendants 8 is responsible in some manner under Code of Civil Procedure §§340.1(a)(1),(2),(3), and 340.1 (c) 9 for the occurrences herein alleged, and were a legal cause of the childhood sexual assault which 10 resulted in injury to the Plaintiff as alleged herein. 11 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times 12 mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 13 them, such that any individuality and separateness between Defendants, and each of them, ceased Telephone: (949) 252-9990 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 to exist. Defendants and each of them, were the successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the Irvine, CA 92612 15 other Defendants, and each of them, in that they purchased, controlled, dominated and operated 16 each other without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or other manner of division. 17 To continue maintaining the facade of a separate and individual existence between and among 18 Defendants, and each of them, would serve to perpetrate a fraud and an injustice. 19 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times 20 mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the agents, representatives and/or 21 employees of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, Defendants 22 and each of them, were acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality, 23 capacity, identity, agency, representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their 24 authority, whether actual or apparent. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, 25 that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the trustees, partners, 26 servants, joint venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other 27 Defendant, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, 28 through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and 8