Charissa et al Coordinated Cases v. Jehovah's Witnesses — Court Documents (2012)

Download: PDF — Charissa et al Coordinated Cases v. Jehovah's Witnesses — Court Documents (2012)

Not a Watch Tower publication

Papers of a civil suit in the United States brought by people who were abused as children by members of Jehovah's Witness congregations: complaints, motions, depositions and rulings, often with the Society's internal letters to elders attached as exhibits.

Court Records: Child Abuse Cases: Court records and official inquiries about how allegations of child sexual abuse were handled in congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses: the exhibits and hearing transcripts of Case Study 29 of Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2015), the 2013 hearing before a committee of the Parliament of Victoria, the papers of civil suits in the United States (including Conti and Lopez) and a judgment of the High Court in London (2015). A handbook for lawyers prepared by former members (2016) summarises these cases from the plaintiffs' side. The court papers are public documents. For a student of the organisation they are among the few sources that show, under oath and with internal letters and instructions attached as evidence, how the written policies for elders — the "two-witness" rule, judicial committees, reporting to authorities, confidentiality — were applied in real cases, and how the Society responded in court and later revised its policies. Petitions and complaints state the plaintiffs' allegations, not findings of a court. They contain distressing accounts of abuse; victims are often named by pseudonyms or initials, as in the originals. The Society's own statements on the subject are in its publications in this archive.

About the Related Works section

BARBARA ANDERSON

Court Documents

Charissa et al Coordinated Cases vs Jehovah's Witnesses

Secrets of Pedophilia in an American Religion

Jehovah’s Witnesses in Crisis

BARBARA ANDERSON

Court Documents

Charissa et al Coordinated Cases

Jehovah’s Witnesses Charissa et al Coordinated Cases Vs Jehovah's Witnesses

Introduction

The following information is presented as supplied and filed by the Napa County Superior Court of California. This resource contains over 3700 pages of documentation, consisting of over 400 separate documents.

The Napa County Superior Court has arranged these documents beginning in reverse chronological order, and then reverting to standard chronological order. Accordingly, pages 3-2945 run from May 16, 2005 to July 24, 2003. Pages 2946-3738 run from June 2, 2005 to April 10, 2007.

Though the filing order is somewhat disconcerting, this PDF data collection has bookmarks with date stamps to assist in understanding the sequence of events. The first bookmarked document on page 3 is dated 050516 (year/month/day).

The sheer number of documents would, in the opinion of this author, create such an unwieldy table of contents as to make it self-defeating. For this particular presentation, the built in bookmarks will better serve as a table of contents.

When the Court originally supplied these documents it inadvertently released pages that should have been sealed. Pages 3685 to 3701 of this collection show the result. In particular, pages 3687 and 3701 detail and explain what occurred.

Case: Charissa W., et al vs Roes 1-100 et al. (G)

Judge: W. Scott Snowden

Courtroom: Department B

Event: Motion/Case Management Conference

PID #:

Case #26-22191

Event Date: May 16, 2005

Clerk: J. Roche

Reporter: Malinda Hentz

Cite/Report #:

Appearances:

William L. Brelsford, Jr. Attorney for Plaintiff

Rudy Nolen, Attorney for Plaintiff

Robert J. Schnack, Attorney for Defendant

This matter comes on this date for hearing on Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Fred M. and for Case Management Conference.

After hearing comments of counsel, the Court Grants the Motion.

At this time, the Court, counsel, court staff and court reporter retire to chambers.

On the record the court hears comments of counsel.

Mr. Schnack shall submit a declaration as to certain facts contained in the Nathan D. case, which after review by Plaintiff, shall ascertain the need for production of the claims file.

DATE

TIME

DEPT

PURPOSE

TIME EST

6/7/05

9:30 AM

Case Management Conference

.30

ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY(Name,state bar number,and address):William Brelsford,SBN202839William L.Brelsford,Esq.,SBN202839NOLEN SAUL BRELSFORD350 University Avenue, Suite 280Sacramento,CA95825TELEPHONE NO:(916)564-9990FAX NO.(optional):(916)564-9991E-MAIL ADDRESS(optional):ATTORNEY FOR(Name):DANIELLE A.

MAY162005Clerk of the Napa Superior CourtBy:Jose O. SheltDeputyJudicial CouncilCoordination ProceedingNo.4374Coordinated with NapaCounty Superior CourtCase No.26-22191

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF SonomaSTREET ADDRESS:Hall of JusticeMAILING ADDRESS:600 Administrion Drive,Rm107-JCITY AND ZIP CODE:Santa Rosa,CA95403BRANCH NAME:

CASE NUMBER:234140

CASE NAME:DANIELLEA.v.Watchtower,et al.

HEARING DATE:May16,2005DEPT.:B TIME:9:30 amBEFORE HON.:W.Scott SnowdenDATE ACTION FILED:Dec.31,2003TRIAL DATE:None

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'SMOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL—CIVIL

The motion of (name of attorney): William Brelsford, SBN 202839

to be relieved as counsel of record for (name of client): DANIELLE A.

The following persons were present at the hearing: William Brelsford of NOLEN SAUL BRELSFORD

FINDINGS

Attorney has

a. \Box personally served the client with papers in support of this motion.

b. served client by mail and submitted a declaration establishing that the service requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 376, have been satisfied.

Attorney has shown sufficient reasons why the motion to be relieved as counsel should be granted and why the attorney has brought a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) instead of filing a consent under section 284(1).

ORDER

Attorney is relieved as counsel of record for client

a. X effective upon the filing of the proof of service of this signed order upon the client.

b. \Box effective on (specify date):

The client's current last known address and telephone number: Danielle A., 2281 Peachtree Drive, Apt. 11, Fairfield, CA 94533; Last known telephone: 707-720-6063

If the client's current address is known, service on the client must hereafter be made at that address unless otherwise ordered in item 13. If the current address is not known, service must be made according to Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) and rule 202.5 of the California Rules of Court.

a. The next scheduled hearing in this action or proceeding is set for (date, time, and place):

b. The hearing will concern (subject matter):

NOTICE TO CLIENT

You or your new attorney, if any, must prepare for and attend this hearing.

Page 1 of 2

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California MC-053 [Rev. January 1, 2003] CASE NAME: DANIELLE A.

v. Watchtower, et al.CASE NUMBER:

The following additional hearings and other proceedings (including discovery matters) are set in this action (describe the date, time, place, and subject matter of each):

The trial in this action or proceeding:

a. \Box X is not yet set.

b. \Box is set for (specify date, time, and place):

Client is hereby notified of the following effects this order may have upon parties.

NOTICE TO CLIENT

Your present attorney will no longer be representing you. You may not in most cases represent yourself if you are one of the parties on the following list:

A guardian

A personal representative

A guardian ad litem

A conservator

A probate fiduciary

A trustee

A corporation

An unincorporated association

If you are one of these parties, YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY SEEK LEGAL ADVICE REGARDING LEGAL REPRESENTATION. Failure to retain an attorney may lead to an order striking the pleadings or to the entry of a default judgment.

Client is notified that, if the client will be representing himself or herself, the client shall be solely responsible for the case.

NOTICE TO CLIENT WHO WILL BE UNREPRESENTED

You will not have an attorney representing you. You may wish to seek legal assistance. If you do not have a new attorney to represent you in this action or proceeding, and you are legally permitted to do so, you will be representing yourself. It will be your responsibility to comply with all court rules and applicable laws. If you fail to do so, or fail to appear at hearings, action may be taken against you. You may lose your case.

Client is notified that it is the client's duty to keep the court informed at all times of the client's current address.

NOTICE TO CLIENT WHO WILL BE UNREPRESENTED

The court needs to know how to contact you. If you do not keep the court and other parties informed of your current address and telephone number, they will not be able to send you notices of actions that may affect you, including actions that may adversely affect your interests or result in your losing the case.

The court further orders (specify):

Date: 5/12/16

JUDGE OR JUDICIAL OFFICER CASE NAME: Danielle A., et al.

v. Roes, et al.

COURT: Sonoma County Superior Court

CASE NO.: 234168

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am a citizen of the United States, employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California. My business address is 350 University Avenue, Suite 280, Sacramento, California 95825. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the above-entitled action.

On April 11,2005, I caused the within ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL - CIVIL, the originals of which were produced on recycled paper, to be served as follows:

xxxx MAIL-I am readily familiar with the Nolen Saul Brelsford's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Services. Pursuant to said practice, each document is placed in an envelope, the envelope is sealed, the appropriate postage is placed thereon and the sealed envelope is placed in the office mail receptacle. Each day's mail is collected and deposited in a U.S. mailbox at Sacramento, California at or before the close of each day's business. (CCP Section 1013a(3).)ss

FACSIMILE - On April 8, 2005 at a.m./p.m., by use of facsimile machine telephone number (916) 564-9991, I served a true copy of the aforementioned document(s) on the parties in said action by transmitting by facsimile machine to the numbers as set forth above. The facsimile machine I used complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 2003(3) and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2008(e), I caused the machine to print a transmission record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to this Declaration.

PERSONAL SERVICE - Delivered by hand to the addressee addressed as set forth below.

OVERNIGHT COURIER - By causing a true copy and/or original thereof to be personally delivered via the following overnight courier service:

Robert J. Schnack

BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY

11335 Gold Express Drive, Suite

Gold River, CA 95670 6310

Adrian L. Randolph

RANDOLPH, CREGGER & CHALFANT, LLP

1030 G Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Danielle A.

2281 Peachtree Drive, Apt. 11

Fairfield, CA 94533

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on April 11, 2005, at Sacramento, California.

ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY(Name,state bar number,and address):William Brelsford,SBN 202839William L. Brelsford,SBN 202839NOLEN SAUL BRELSFORD350 University Avenue, Suite 280Sacramento,CA 95825TELEPHONE NO.:(916)564-9990FAX NO.(optional):(916)564-9991E-MAIL ADDRESS(optional):ATTORNEY FOR(Name):FRED F. ONLY

FILEDMAY 16 2005Clerk of the Napa Superior CourtBy:Jona O'ShettyDeputyJudicial CouncilCoordination ProceedingNo.4374Coordinated with Napa County Superior CourtCase No.-26-22191

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF SonomaSTREET ADDRESS:Hall of JusticeMAILING ADDRESS:600 Administration Drive,Rm 107-JCITY AND ZIP CODE:Santa Rosa,CA 95403BRANCH NAME:

CASE NAME:DENNIS S.,et al.v.Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York,Inc.,et al.

CASE NUMBER:234168

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL—CIVIL

The motion of (name of attorney): William Brelsford, SBN 202839 to be relieved as counsel of record for (name of client): FRED F. ONLY a party to this action or proceeding, came on regularly for hearing at the date, time, and place indicated above.

The following persons were present at the hearing: William Brelsford of NOLEN SAUL BRELSFORD

FINDINGS

Attorney has

a. \Box personally served the client with papers in support of this motion.

b. X served client by mail and submitted a declaration establishing that the service requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 376, have been satisfied.

ORDER

Attorney is relieved as counsel of record for client

a. X effective upon the filing of the proof of service of this signed order upon the client.

b. effective on (specify date):

The client's current X last known address and telephone number: Fred F., P.O.Box 1055 Clearlake, CA 95422 Last known telephone number: (707) 995-1219

a. The next scheduled hearing in this action or proceeding is set for (date, time, and place):

b. The hearing will concern (subject matter):

NOTICE TO CLIENT

You or your new attorney, if any, must prepare for and attend this hearing.

Page 1 of 2

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California MC-053 [Rev. January 1, 2003]

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL — CIVI

Legal Solutions Plus

Code of Civil Procedure, \textcircled{2} 284; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 376 CASE NAME: DENNIS S., et al.

v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al.

CASE NUMBER:

234168

The following additional hearings and other proceedings (including discovery matters) are set in this action (describe the date, time, place, and subject matter of each):

The trial in this action or proceeding:

a. \Box X is not yet set.

b. \Box is set for (specify date, time, and place):

Client is hereby notified of the following effects this order may have upon parties.

NOTICE TO CLIENT

Your present attorney will no longer be representing you. You may not in most cases represent yourself if you are one of the parties on the following list:

A guardian

A personal representative

A guardian ad litem

A conservator

A probate fiduciary

A trustee

An unincorporated association

A corporation

Client is notified that, if the client will be representing himself or herself, the client shall be solely responsible for the case.

NOTICE TO CLIENT WHO WILL BE UNREPRESENTED

Client is notified that it is the client's duty to keep the court informed at all times of the client's current address.

NOTICE TO CLIENT WHO WILL BE UNREPRESENTED

The court further orders (specify):

Date: 3,16,19 CASE NAME: Dennis S., et al.

v. Roes, et al.

COURT: Sonoma County Superior Court

CASE NO.: 234168

PROOF OF SERVICE

On April 11,2005, I caused the within [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL, the original of which was produced on recycled paper, to be served as follows:

FACSIMILE - On April 8,2005 at a.m./p.m., by use of facsimile machine telephone number (916) 564-9991, I served a true copy of the aforementioned document(s) on the parties in said action by transmitting by facsimile machine to the numbers as set forth above. The facsimile machine I used complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 2003(3) and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2008(e), I caused the machine to print a transmission record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to this Declaration.

OVERNIGHT COURIER - By causing a true copy and/or original thereof to be personally delivered via the following overnight courier service:

PERSONAL SERVICE - Delivered by hand to the addressee addressed as set forth below.

Attorney for Watchtower Defendants

Attorney for Watchtower Defence Robert J. Schnack Bullivant Houser Bailey 11335 Gold Express Drive Suite 105 Gold River, CA 95670

In Pro Per Donald Glew P.O. Box 424245 San Francisco, CA 94142

Fred F.

P.O. Box 1055

Clearlake, CA 95422

Susan Gilbert

Susan Gilbert Robert J.

Schnack, SBN 191987

Tiffany P. Scarborough SBN 180981

Bullivant Houser Bailey PC

11335 Gold Express Drive, Suite 105

Gold River, CA 95670-4491

Telephone: (916) 852-9100

Facsimile: (916) 852-5777

E-Mail: bob.schnack@bullivant.com

FILED

MAY 52005

Clerk of the Napa Superior Court

By: Jora O'Keefe

Deputy

Attorneys for Church Defendants WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC. et al.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF NAPA

CHARISSA W. and NICOLE D., Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 26-22191 (lead case)

WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., et al.,

JCCP No.4374

Defendants.

AND COORDINATED CASES

DEFENDANT CCJW'S NOTICE OF MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION IN ALL COORDINATED CASES

Date: August 16,2005

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept: B

Trial Dates: Not yet set

TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 16,2005, at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable W. Scott Snowden in Dept. B of the above-entitled Court, defendant CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ("CCJW") will and hereby does seek an order granting it summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against each cause of action alleged against it by each plaintiff in each of these coordinated cases.

These motions are brought pursuant to CCP \§ 437c on grounds that there is no dispute as to any material fact and CCJW is entitled to summary judgment or summary adjudication as a matter of law.

The basis for CCJW's motions for summary judgment or alternative motions for summary adjudication is that CCJW did not exist as a legal entity at any time period relevant to these coordinated cases, i.e., during the periods in which plaintiffs each contend they were abused and, therefore, CCJW cannot be liable under any legal theory alleged by plaintiffs in these coordinated cases.

These motions are based on this notice and the concurrently filed memorandum of points and authorities, the separate statement of undisputed material facts, the Affidavit of William H. Nonkes, and all other papers and pleadings on file in these coordinated cases. DATED: May 3,2005

BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC

Wilhelm

Robert J. Schnack

Attorneys for CCJW

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in Sacramento County, where this mailing occurs. My business address is 11335 Gold Express Drive, Suite 105, Gold River, California 95670. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this within cause.

On May 3,2005,the following ordinary business practice,I served the foregoing document(s) described as:

DEFENDANT CCJW'S NOTICE OF MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION IN ALL COORDINATED CASES

in the following manner, by placing a true copy(ies) thereof in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:

Attorneys for PlaintiffsRudy NolenNOLEN SAUL BRELSFORD350 University Ave., Suite 280Sacramento, CA 95825Fax:916-564-9991

Attorneys for defendant HarrimanCraig DiamondDiamond,Baker,Phillips&Walters LLPPO Box 1147Cedar Ridge,CA 95924Fax:530-272-8463

Attorneys for PlaintiffsGregory S.LoveLOVE&NORRIS314 Main St.,Ste 300Fort Worth,TX 76102Fax:817-335-2912

Defendant in pro perDonald GlewPO Box 424245San Francisco,CA 94142

Attorneys for defendant HarrimanCraig DiamondDiamond,Baker,Phillips&Walters LLPPO Box 1147Cedar Ridge,CA 95924Fax:530-272-8463

Attorneys for Defendant Carlos VasquezWilliam E.Bernard1624 Santa Clara Dr.,#210Roseville,CA 95661Fax:916-789-7557

In Pro PerJames Henderson25 Gilmore Rd.,#17Red Bluff,CA 96080

XXX (BY MAIL) I caused such envelope(s) with First Class postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the U.S. Mail in Gold River, California. I am readily familiar with my employer's normal business practice for collection and processing of correspondence and other material for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service, and that practice is that said material is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service the same day as the day of collection in the ordinary course of business.

___ (BY MESSENGER) I caused such envelope(s) to be hand delivered to

___ (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I caused such envelope(s) to be hand-delivered by an authorized Federal Express agent, this date to.

(BY FACSIMILE) I caused to be transmitted the aforementioned document, via facsimile machine, to each of the above-listed parties' FAX numbers between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on ___ and received verification of each complete transmission.

[X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

[ ] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.

Executed on May 3, 2005, at Gold River, California.

Robert J.

Schnack, SBN 191987

Tiffany P. Scarborough SBN 180981

Bullivant Houser Bailey PC

11335 Gold Express Drive, Suite 105

Gold River, CA 95670-4491

Telephone: (916) 852-9100

Facsimile: (916) 852-5777

E-Mail: bob.schnack@bullivant.com

MAY 52005

Clerk of the Napa Superior Court

Attorneys for Church Defendants WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC. et al.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF NAPA

Case No.: 26-22191 (lead case)

CHARISSA W. and NICOLE D.,

Plaintiffs,

WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

AND COORDINATED CASES

DEFENDANT CCJW'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION IN ALL COORDINATED CASES

Date: August 16,2005 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: B Trial Dates: Not yet set

Introduction

The alleged facts in these coordinated cases relevant to these motions for summary judgment or alternative motions for summary adjudication are straightforward. All causes of action alleged by each plaintiff in each of these coordinated cases arise from alleged sexual abuse committed by an individual or an individual defendant against each plaintiff. (Each plaintiff alleges that only one person allegedly abused him or her, and each individual defendant has been sued in only one or two cases.) The complaints in these coordinated cases generally

DEFENDANT CCJW'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 allege that the alleged abusers were each in an appointed position with a local congregation when the abuse occurred.

Each plaintiff alleges eight causes of action against CCJW, as follows: (a) Common law negligence; (b) negligent appointment, retention, and/or supervision of the alleged abuser; (c) gross negligence - willful misconduct; (d) breach of fiduciary duty; (e) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (f) fraud - misrepresentation; (g) fraud - concealment; and (h) conspiracy. 1

However, in view of the indisputable fact that CCJW was not incorporated and thus did not come into existence until August 21, 2000, which was well after the dates of the alleged abuse in each of the coordinated cases, it was legally impossible for CCJW to have acted negligently at any relevant time period, to have owed and/or breached any legally cognizable duty to any plaintiff at any relevant time period, to have committed fraud at any relevant time period, to have conspired with any person or entity at any relevant time period, etc. As a result, CCJW is entitled to summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as to each plaintiff's causes of action alleged in each of the coordinated cases.

Undisputed Material Facts

CCJW's required separate statement of undisputed material facts establishes the following: The moving defendant, CCJW, was incorporated as a non-profit corporation in Putnam County, New York on August 21, 2000. (Undisputed Material Fact ("UMF") No.1) The address of CCJW is 2821 Route 22, Patterson, New York, 12563-2237. (UMF No.2) CCJW is a not-for-profit corporation and exists as a separate corporate entity that is distinct from all other corporations and entities. (UMF No.3)

No other corporation or entity controls CCJW by reason of interlocking directorates or other reasons. (UMF No.4) CCJW is not financially accountable to or financially responsible for any other corporation or entity. (UMF No.5). Upon incorporation, CCJW did not purchase or otherwise acquire, and has not since purchased or otherwise acquired, any other corporation or entity that existed prior to August 21, 2000.

(UMF No.6) When CCJW was incorporated it did not assume any liabilities, contingent or otherwise, of any other defendant named in these coordinated cases, nor has CCJW assumed any such liabilities since incorporation. (UMF No.7)

Plaintiffs in the coordinated cases have alleged that their abuse took place during the following years:

Charissa W. v. Watchtower et al.

Napa County Superior Court no. 26-22191

Alleged abuse: 1972 to 1985, Amended Complaint, 27,29

Tabitha H. v. Watchtower et al.

Napa County Superior Court no. 26-23929

Alleged abuse: 1977-1980, Amended Complaint, \textcircled{2} 24

Javier C. v. Watchtower New York, et al. Placer County Superior Court no. SCV16723 Alleged abuse: 1986-1998, Complaint, \textcircled{2} 23

Ken L.v. Watchtower New York, et al.

Placer County Superior Court no. SCV16600

Alleged abuse: 1984-1987, Amended Complaint, \textcircled{2} 24

Daniel West, Shane Pence, et al. v. Watchtower New York, et al Yolo County Superior Court no. CV03-1439 Alleged abuse: 1990-1997, Complaint, 28, 29, 31

Jocelyn A., et al. v. Watchtower New York, et al Sonoma County Superior Court no. 234320 Alleged abuse: 1982-1989, Complaint, 28-31

Danielle A. v. Watchtower New York, et al.

Sonoma County Superior Court no. 234140

Alleged abuse: 1977-1985, Second Amended Complaint, \textcircled{2} 24

Dennis S., et al. v. Watchtower New York, et al.

Sonoma County Superior Court no. 234168

Alleged abuse: 1980-1988, First Amended Complaint, 27-29

Julianne Wimberly Gutierrez, et al. v. Watchtower New York, et al. Tehama County Superior Court no. 52598 Alleged abuse: 1976-1982, Second Amended Complaint, 24-25

Tim W. v. Watchtower New York, et al.

Tehama County Superior Court no. 52594

Alleged abuse: 1994, First Amended Complaint, 21-22

(UMF No.8)

In sum, the earliest abuse is alleged to have taken place in Charissa W. v. Watchtower et al. (Napa County Superior Court no. 26-22191) in the year 1972, which was 28 years before CCJW was formed as a corporation. On the other hand, the most recent incident of abuse is alleged to have taken place in Javier C. v. Watchtower et al. (Placer County Superior Court no. SCV16723) in the year 1998, which still was two years before CCJW was formed as a corporation.

CCJW brings these motions for summary judgment or alternative motions for summary adjudication on the grounds that, because CCJW did not exist as a corporation or other legal entity until August 21, 2000, CCJW cannot be held liable or responsible under any legal theory alleged by plaintiffs for their alleged abuse which, as detailed above, plaintiffs variously allege occurred in the years 1972 to 1998.

Discussion

Standard for summary judgment. The standard for summary judgment is set forth at the Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") \§ 437c(a) , which provides in pertinent part: "Any party may move for summary judgment in any motion or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding." CCP \§ 437c(c) provides, in part:

The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining whether the papers show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the court shall consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except that to which objections have been made and sustained by the court, and all inferences reasonably deductible from the evidence...

The purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to protect the rights of the parties from spurious or meritless complaints or answers and to expedite litigation by avoiding needless trials. McCreery v. Eli Lilly and Co. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 77, 81. The primary duty of the court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether there are any material issues of fact to be tried. Blair v. Pitchess (1971) 5 Cal.App.3d 268, 284. If examination of the affidavits and other evidence filed in connection with a motion for summary judgment reveals that no triable issue of fact exists, summary judgment is appropriate. Conde v. Union Oil Co. (1945) 129 Cal.App.2d 558, 562.

When the defendant is the moving party, the defendant has the initial burden of putting forth evidence that one or more of the plaintiff's causes of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. CCP \§ 4 3 7 c (c) (1), (2). Once the defendant meets this burden, the burden then shifts to plaintiff to show that a triable issue on one or more material facts exists to the action or defense. Id. If plaintiff fails to carry this burden, summary judgment must be granted.

The plaintiffs cannot prevail on any claim against CCJW, because there is no actual case or controversy between plaintiffs and CCJW. It is well settled that California courts may only render judgments in actual controversies between parties. As the California Supreme Court has stated:

It is settled that "the duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal, is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it."

Paul v. Milk Depots, Inc. (1964) 62 Cal.App.2d 129, 132, 41 Cal.Rptr. 468, 470 (citation omitted); see also National Ass'n of Wine Bottlers v. Paul (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 741, 746, 74 Cal.Rptr. 303, 306. The controversy itself must be "definite" and "concrete" and affect the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.

Alameda County Land Use Ass'n v. City of Hayward (1995) 38 Cal.App. 4th 1716, 1722, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 752, 755.

The case or controversy principle "is a tenet of common law jurisprudence, the precise content of which is difficult to define and hard to apply. ... A controversy is 'ripe' when it has reached, but has not passed, the point that the facts have sufficiently congealed to permit an intelligent and useful decision to be made." Id. (citing California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16, 22, 61 Cal.Rptr. 618). Thus, a court has no jurisdiction over a matter where there is no actual controversy between two parties, and such matters must be dismissed.

With respect to each of the coordinated cases, CCJW was not incorporated until August 21, 2000, which was some two years after the last alleged incident abuse in all of the coordinated cases. (See UMF Nos. 1 and 8) Because CCJW did not exist at any time during the various time periods of alleged abuse of plaintiffs, it was legally impossible for CCJW to have acted negligently at any relevant time period, to have owed and/or breached any legally cognizable duty to any plaintiff at any relevant time period, to have committed fraud at any relevant time period, to have conspired with any person or entity at any relevant time period, etc. Simply stated, CCJW could not have been legally responsible or liable for the welfare of the various plaintiffs during the time periods in which plaintiffs each allege they were abused.

Although plaintiffs may argue that CCJW is somehow an alter ego of one of the other corporate defendants, Mr. Nonkes' affidavit establishes that CCJW was incorporated as a notfor-profit corporation in 2000 and exists as a separate corporate entity that is distinct from all other corporations and entities. (UMF Nos.1 and 3). Additionally, CCJW is not controlled by any other corporation or entity, is not financially accountable to or financially responsible for any other corporation or entity, and did not purchase or otherwise acquire any other corporation or entity that existed prior to CCJW's incorporation on August 21, 2000.

(UMF Nos.4-6) In addition, CCJW did not and has not assumed or acquired any liabilities, contingent or otherwise, of any other defendant named in these coordinated cases. (UMF No.7)

Thus, as a matter of law, CCJW could not have been an alter ego of any other corporation or entity prior to the time CCJW came into existence. It necessarily follows that any such alter ego argument by plaintiffs here would be disingenuous at best and, indeed, as a matter of law would lack all merit.

Conclusion

Defendant CCJW, a corporation, was formed and came into existence only after the alleged abuse of each plaintiff had occurred in all of the coordinated cases. Plaintiffs thus fail to allege any viable causes of action against CCJW, because CCJW could not have had any connection whatsoever to the alleged liability producing conduct in each of the coordinated cases. It follows that the Court should grant CCJW's motions for summary judgment or alternative motions for summary adjudication as to each and every one of plaintiffs' causes of action alleged in each of the coordinated cases. CCJW should be dismissed with prejudice from all of the coordinated cases and awarded its costs herein.

Dated: May 3,2005

BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC

M Schwarz

Robert J. Schnack, Esq.

Attorney for CCJW PROOF OF SERVICE

On May 3,2005,the following ordinary business practice,I served the foregoing document(s) described as:

DEFENDANT CCJW'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION IN ALL COORDINATED CASES

in the following manner, by placing a true copy(ies) thereof in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:

Attorneys for PlaintiffsRudy NolenNOLEN SAUL BRELSFORD350 University Ave., Suite 280Sacramento, CA 95825Fax:916-564-9991

Attorneys for defendant HarrimanCraig DiamondDiamond,Baker,Phillips&Walters LLPPO Box 1147Cedar Ridge,CA 95924Fax:530-272-8463

Attorneys for PlaintiffsGregory S. LoveLOVE&NORRIS314 Main St.,Ste 300Fort Worth,TX 76102Fax:817-335-2912

Defendant in pro perDonald GlewPO Box 424245San Francisco,CA 94142

Attorneys for defendant HarrimanCraig DiamondDiamond,Baker,Phillips&Walters LLPPO Box 1147Cedar Ridge,CA 95924Fax:530-272-8463

Attorneys for Defendant Carlos VasquezWilliam E.Bernard1624 Santa Clara Dr.,#210Roseville,CA 95661Fax:916-789-7557

In Pro PerJames Henderson25 Gilmore Rd.,#17Red Bluff,CA 96080

___ (BY MESSENGER) I caused such envelope(s) to be hand delivered to

an authorized Federal Express agent, this date to.

[X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

[ ] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.

Executed on May 3, 2005, at Gold River, California.

Claudia Pohlman Robert J.

Schnack, SBN 191987

Tiffany P. Scarborough SBN 180981

Bullivant Houser Bailey PC

11335 Gold Express Drive, Suite 105

Gold River, CA 95670-4491

Telephone: (916) 852-9100

Facsimile: (916) 852-5777

E-Mail: bob.schnack@bullivant.com

FILED

MAY 52005

Clerk of the Napa Superior Court

By: Lora O'Keeffe

Deputy

Attorneys for Church Defendants WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC. et al.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF NAPA

CHARISSA W. and NICOLE D., Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 26-22191 (lead case)

WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., et al.,

JCCP No.4374

Defendants.

DEFENDANT CCJW'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION IN ALL COORDINATED CASES

Date: August 16,2005

AND COORDINATED CASES

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept: B

Trial Dates: Not yet set

Undisputed Material Facts Applicable to All Causes of Action Alleged Against Defendant CCJW

Undisputed Material Facts

Supporting Evidence

Defendant Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses("CCJW"), was incorporated as a non-profit corporation on August 21, 2000, in Putnam County, New York.

Affidavit of William H. Nonkes, attached hereto as Exhibit A, at ¥3.

The address of CCJW is 2821 Route 22, Patterson, New York, 12563-2237.

Affidavit of William H. Nonkes at ¥3.

Supporting Evidence

DEFENDANT CCJW'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 23

CCJW is a not-for-profit corporation and exists as a separate corporate entity distinct from all other corporations and entities.

Affidavit of William H. Nonkes at 4,6.

CCJW is not controlled by any other corporation or entity by reason of interlocking directorates or other reasons.

Affidavit of William H. Nonkes at 4.

CCJW is not financially accountable to, or financially responsible for, any other corporation or entity.

Affidavit of William H. Nonkes at 4.

CCJW did not purchase or otherwise acquire any other corporation or entity that existed prior to August 21,2000,nor has CCJW done so since then.

Affidavit of William H. Nonkes at 5.

At the time of its incorporation,CCJW did not assume or acquire,nor has it since then assumed or acquired,any liabilities,contingent or otherwise,of any defendant named as a party in any of these coordinated cases.

Affidavit of William H. Nonkes at 5.

The time periods of alleged abuse as alleged in the complaints in each of the coordinated cases are,in sum,from 1972-98.

Charissa W.v.Watchtower et al.Napa County Superior Court no.26-22191Alleged abuse:1972 to 1985,Amended Complaint,27,29Tabitha H.v.Watchtower et al.Napa County Superior Court no.26-23929Alleged abuse:1977-1980,Amended Complaint,24Javier C.v.Watchtower New York,et al.Placer County Superior Court no.SCV16723Alleged abuse:1986-1998,Complaint,23Ken L.v.Watchtower New York,et al.Placer County Superior Court no.SCV16600Alleged abuse:1984-1987,Amended Complaint,24Daniel West,Shane Pence,et al.v.Watchtower New York,et al.

Yolo County Superior Court no. CV03-1439

Alleged abuse: 1990-1997, Complaint,28,29,31

Jocelyn A., et al.v.Watchtower New York,et al

Sonoma County Superior Court no.234320

Alleged abuse:1982-1989,Complaint,28-31

Danielle A.v.Watchtower New York,et al.

Sonoma County Superior Court no.234140

Alleged abuse:1977-1985,Second Amended Complaint,24

Dennis S.,et al.v.Watchtower New York,et al.

Sonoma County Superior Court no.234168

Alleged abuse:1980-1988,First Amended Complaint,27-29

Julianne Wimberly Gutierrez,et al.v.Watchtower New York,et al.

Tehama County Superior Court no.52598

Alleged abuse:1976-1982,Second Amended Complaint,24-25

Tim W.v.Watchtower New York,et al.

Tehama County Superior Court no.52594

Alleged abuse:1994,First Amended Complaint,21-22

Dated: May 3,2005

BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC

Schwach

Robert J. Schnack, Esq.

Attorney for CCJW

1 PROOF OF SERVICE

DEFENDANT CCJW'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION IN ALL COORDINATED CASES

On May 3,2005,the following ordinary business practice, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: