Julianne Wimberly Guiterrez et al v. Jehovah's Witnesses — Court Documents (2012)

Download: PDF — Julianne Wimberly Guiterrez et al 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

Julianne Wimberly Guiterrez et al vs Jehovah's Witnesses

Secrets of Pedophilia in an American Religion

Jehovah’s Witnesses in Crisis

BARBARA ANDERSON

Court Documents

Julianne Wimberly Guiterrez et al

Jehovah’s Witnesses ENDORSED

Rudy Nolen, Esq., SBN 59808

Jonathan Saul, Esq., SBN 189271

William Brelsford, Esq., SBN 202839

NOLEN SAUL BRELSFORD

350 University Ave, Suite 280

Sacramento, California 95825

Telephone: (916) 564-9990

Facsimile: (916) 564-9991

Attorneys for Plaintiffs JULIANNE WIMBERLEY GUITERREZ and JOSHUA WIMBERLEY

ISRAELA SUPERIOR COURT

2003 JUL 24 PM 4:50

HENE ROURIGUEZ

CORPORATE EXECUTIVE OFFICER

B: VIRGINIA COMFORT DEPUTY

THIS MATTER IS SUBJECT TO THE TRIAL COUNT DELAY REDUCTION ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE 68600 ET SEQ. AND TEHAMA COUNTY RULES3.00 ET SEQ.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF TEHAMA

JULIANNE WIMBERLEY GUITERREZ and JOSHUA WIMBERLEY,

ROES 1 through 100, and DOES 110 through 120, inclusive,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs,

52598

CASE NO:

Jury Trial Demanded

Sexual Battery and Respondeat Superior

Common Law Negligence

Negligent Appointment, Retention, and Supervision

Gross Negligence Wilful Misconduct

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Negligence Per Se and Common Law Negligence: Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse

Fraud, Fraudulent Concealment, and Conspiracy

Ratification

Alter Ego and Single Business Enterprise

Negligent Usurpation of Investigatory Function

Violation of Penal Code \§ 182

Violation of Penal Code 32

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

COMES NOW JULIANNE WIMBERLEY GUTIERREZ and JOSHUA WIMBERLEY, Plaintiffs in the above entitled cause, and file this, their Original Complaint in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure \§ 340.1 , and allege as follows: I.

PARTIES

Plaintiff JULIANNE WIMBERLEY GUTIERREZ, born February 2, 1972, is and at all times mentioned herein, was a resident of Tehama County, California. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was also a child entrusted to the Defendants' care within the State of California. As a child, Plaintiff was sexually abused by an elder appointed by the Defendants' organization within the State of California.

Plaintiff JOSHUA WIMBERLEY, born June 20,1975, is and at all times mentioned herein, was a resident of Tehama County, California. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was also a child entrusted to the Defendants' care within the State of California. As a child, Plaintiff was sexually abused by an elder appointed by the Defendants' organization within the State of California

Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that at all relevant times, defendants ROES 1 through 100, inclusive are business or corporate entities incorporated in and/or doing business in California and DOES 110 through 120 inclusive, are individuals.

The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of defendants ROES 1 through 100 and DOES 110 through 120, inclusive, are known and unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue such defendants by such fictitious names in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§340.1(m) , and will amend the complaint to show the true names and capacities of each known ROE and DOE defendant pursuant to Court Order and to show the true names and capacities of each unknown ROE and DOE defendant when ascertained. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that each defendant designated as a ROE and DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the events, happenings, and/or tortuous, and unlawful conduct that caused the injuries and damages alleged in this complaint.

Defendant designated herein as ROE 1 is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, and has conducted business within the State of California through its agents and alter egos. ROE 1 is, based upon best information and belief, a corporate religious entity that has engaged in conduct, or a lack thereof, thereby allowing children affiliated with its entity to be victims of sexual abuse. The identity of ROE 1 is known by Plaintiffs and their attorneys, and an order will be sought in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§ 340.1 (m) to plead the true identity of ROE 1.

Defendant designated herein as ROE 2 a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, has conducted business within the State of California through its agents and alter egos. ROE 2 is, based upon best information and belief, a corporate religious entity that has engaged in conduct, or a lack thereof, thereby allowing children affiliated with its entity to be victims of sexual abuse. The identity of ROE 2 is known by Plaintiffs and their attorneys, and an order will be sought in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§340.1(m) to plead the true identity of ROE 2.

Defendant designated herein as ROE 3 is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, and has conducted business within the State of California through its agents and alter egos. ROE 3 is, based upon best information and belief, a corporate religious entity that has engaged in conduct, or a lack thereof, thereby allowing children affiliated with its entity to be victims of sexual abuse. The identity of ROE 3 is known by Plaintiffs and their attorneys, and an order will be sought in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§ 340.1 (m) to plead the true identity of ROE 3.

Defendant designated herein as ROE 4 is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, has conducted business within the State of California through its agents and alter egos. ROE 4 is, based upon best information and belief, a corporate religious entity that has engaged in conduct, or a lack thereof, thereby allowing children affiliated with its entity to be victims of sexual abuse. The identity of ROE 4 is known by Plaintiffs and their attorneys, and an order will be sought in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§340.1(m) to plead the true identity of ROE 4.

Defendant designated herein as ROE 5 is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, has conducted business within the State of California through its agents and alter egos. ROE 5 is, based upon best information and belief, a corporate religious entity that has engaged in conduct, or a lack thereof, thereby allowing children affiliated with its entity to be victims of sexual abuse. The identity of ROE 5 is known by Plaintiffs and their attorneys, and an order will be sought in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§ 340.1 (m) to plead the true identity of ROE 5.

Defendant designated herein as ROE 6 is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, has conducted business within the State of California through its agents and alter egos. ROE 6 is, based upon best information and belief, a corporate religious entity that has engaged in conduct, or a lack thereof, thereby allowing children affiliated with its entity to be victims of sexual abuse. The identity of ROE 6 is known by Plaintiffs and their attorneys, and an order will be sought in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§340.1(m) to plead the true identity of ROE 6.

Defendant designated herein as ROE 7 is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, has conducted business within the State of California through its agents and alter egos. ROE 7 is, based upon best information and belief, a corporate religious entity that has engaged in conduct, or a lack thereof, thereby allowing children affiliated with its entity to be victims of sexual abuse. The identity of ROE 7 is known by Plaintiffs and their attorneys, and an order will be sought in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§340.1(m) to plead the true identity of ROE 7.

Defendant designated herein as ROE 8 is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, has conducted business within the State of California through its agents and alter egos. ROE 8 is, based upon best information and belief, a corporate religious entity that has engaged in conduct, or a lack thereof, thereby allowing children affiliated with its entity to be victims of sexual abuse. The identity of ROE 8 is known by Plaintiffs and their attorneys, and an order will be sought in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§340.1(m) to plead the true identity of ROE 8.

Defendant designated herein as ROE 9 is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its place location in Tehama County, California. ROE 9 is, based upon best information and belief, a corporate religious entity that has engaged in conduct, or a lack thereof, thereby allowing children affiliated with its entity to be victims of sexual abuse. The identity of ROE 9 is known by Plaintiffs and their attorneys, and an order will be sought in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§340.1(m) to plead the true identity of ROE 9.

Defendant designated herein as DOE 110 is an individual whose whereabouts is uncertain, but is believed to be residing in Klamath Falls, Oregon. DOE 110 is and was, based upon best information and belief, an individual who sexually abused and molested children within the religious organization that he was an agent of, which engaged in conduct, or a lack thereof, thereby allowing children affiliated with its entity to be victims of sexual abuse. The identity of DOE 110 is known by Plaintiffs and their attorneys, and an order will be sought in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§340.1(m) to plead the true identity of DOE 110.

Defendant designated herein as DOE 111 is an individual who is located in Red Bluff, CA. DOE 111 is and was, based upon best information and belief, an individual who sexually abused and molested children within the religious organization that he was an agent of, which engaged in conduct, or a lack thereof, thereby allowing children affiliated with its entity to be victims of sexual abuse. The identity of DOE 111 is known by Plaintiffs and their attorneys, and an order will be sought in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure \§ 340.1 (m) to plead the true identity of DOE 111.

The Defendant entities are collectively referred to herein as "ROE DEFENDANTS" and each is the agent and alter ego of each other and operates as a single business enterprise. Each of the ROE DEFENDANTS was acting within the scope and course of his or its authority as an agent, servant, and/or alter ego of the other and each of them engaged in, joined in and conspired with the other wrongdoers in carrying out the unlawful activities alleged in this complaint.

II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Each Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount exceeding the minimum jurisdictional requirements of this Court.

Venue is proper in Tehama County, California because Defendant ROE 9 has its principal place of business in Tehama County and because some of the acts or omissions that give rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in Tehama County, California.

III.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

In the past, certain Elders, Ministerial Servants, Pioneers, Male Publishers, agents, volunteers and other leaders and representatives of ROE DEFENDANTS' organization, including DOE 110, have used their positions of authority within the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization to sexually abuse minors, including Plaintiffs. The ROE DEFENDANTS were notified of the abuse of these minors by their elders and other leaders, including DOE 110, but failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of Plaintiffs and other minor children entrusted to their care and to prevent future acts of molestation. This suit seeks compensation for Plaintiffs, victims of this sexual abuse.

All paragraphs of this Complaint are based on information and belief, except for those allegations, which pertain to the Plaintiffs and their counsel. Plaintiffs' information and belief are based upon, inter alia, the investigation conducted to date by Plaintiffs and their counsel. Each allegation in this Complaint either has, or is likely to have, evidentiary support upon further investigation and discovery.

The ROE DEFENDANTS' organization is a hierarchical structure in which the GOVERNING BODY, which is a small group of men who operate out of various entities within the hierarchical structure, sits at the top of a chain of command that extends over each individual and Defendant entity in the organization including its worldwide operations. These individuals and entities act as agents, servants and alter egos of each other. Authority for actions by the organization or its members derive from the GOVERNING BODY.

All of the ROE DEFENDANTS are the agents and servants of each other and are vicariously liable for each other's acts. The ROE DEFENDANTS are so organized and controlled and their affairs are so conducted that they are alter egos of each other and operate as a single business enterprise.

Through its hierarchical structure, the ROE DEFENDANTS assume responsibility for the development, protection and discipline of its membership, especially the children of members. All male members, whether Elders, Ministerial Servants, Pioneers and/or Publishers, are appointed and empowered by the GOVERNING BODY to carry out this responsibility.

To further their goals, the ROE DEFENDANTS authorize male members to develop relationships of trust with women, children and families and to assume a role of counselor and advocate for any problems that might arise, including claims of child abuse. It is the responsibility of the Elders and those higher up in the chain of command, including the GOVERNING BODY, to decide if abuse has occurred and how it should be handled.

Despite knowledge of a problem with sexual abuse of minors by leaders in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization, the ROE DEFENDANTS acted with willful indifference and/or reckless and/or intentional disregard for the interest and safety of the children entrusted to their care. Rather than implement measures to redress and prevent the sexual molestation of these children, the ROE DEFENDANTS engaged in a systematic pattern and practice of suppression of information to cover-up and hide incidents of child molestation from law enforcement and their membership in order to protect those within the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization who committed acts of sexual molestation against children. The ROE DEFENDANTS have likewise engaged in the routine practice of maintaining secret archival files regarding sexual abuse by Elders, Ministerial Servants, Pioneers, Male Publishers and other leaders in the organization. The existence of these files and the contents thereof were not disclosed to or made available to law enforcement authorities or others to investigate the crimes of these leaders in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization. The ROE DEFENDANTS furthered this conspiracy of concealment by, among other things, failing to properly report complaints of sexual misconduct to law enforcement authorities and failing to remove molesting leaders or prevent their access to children. Molesting leaders were allowed to remain as leaders in good standing in the organization and were allowed continued frequent and unsupervised access to children in the organization. At all material times, the ROE DEFENDANTS prohibited the victim and/or accuser from warning others or speaking about the matter to anyone under penalty of discipline. Victim/accusers were not permitted to report suspected abuse to outside authorities or to other Publishers within the organization, despite secular laws and duties regarding the reporting of sexual abuse. Violation of this policy would lead to severe sanctions. The ROE DEFENDANTS also failed to provide Plaintiffs and their families with any notice or warning regarding the past misconduct of, and abuse by, leaders in the organization, including Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111.

The ROE DEFENDANTS represented to Plaintiffs, members and the public that these leaders were fit to lead, when in fact they were predator pedophiles. The ROE DEFENDANTS knew or had reason to know that these leader molesters would continue to sexually molest children, using their leadership positions to gain access and control over their victims.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant DOE 110 was an appointed leader in good standing in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization. The ROE DEFENDANTS affirmatively placed him in positions with authority over women and children as a Publisher, Ministerial Servant and Elder.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant DOE 111 was also an appointed leader in good standing with the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization. The ROE DEFENDANTS affirmatively placed Defendant DOE 111 with authority over women and children in the congregation as an Elder.

By 1976, if not before, the ROE DEFENDANTS had received non-confidential notice that their appointed agent, Defendant DOE 110, had used his appointed leadership position of authority to sexually molest children entrusted to the care of the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization. Despite this information, the ROE DEFENDANTS took no action to report the abuse to authorities, discipline their agent, Defendant DOE 110, or warn members of the organization of the abuse by Defendant DOE 110. Instead, with knowledge of Defendant DOE 110's propensity to use his position of authority to abuse children in the organization, the ROE DEFENDANTS continued to appoint Defendant DOE 110 to positions of leadership in the organization with authority over women and children in the organization and even elevated him to positions of higher authority within the local congregation. This sexual predator used his position of authority within the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization to gain access to and abuse children in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization.

Beginning in 1976 or 1977 and continuing until 1981, ROE DEFENDANTS' agent, DOE 110 used his position of authority within the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization to gain access to and repeatedly sexually abuse Plaintiff JULIANNE WIMBERLY GUTIERREZ who was under the care of ROE DEFENDANTS.

She was four (4) or five (5) years old when the abuse began.

In 1980 and continuing until approximately 1982, the ROE DEFENDANTS' agent, Defendant DOE 110, used his position of authority to gain access to and repeatedly sexually abuse Plaintiff JOSHUA WIMBERLY. He was four (4) or five (5) years old when the abuse began.

Through non-confidential communications, the ROE DEFENDANTS were notified of the admitted ongoing abuse of Plaintiffs and others. Unknown to Plaintiffs, but well known to the ROE DEFENDANTS, one of their agents, to whom the abuse by Defendant DOE 110 was reported, was Defendant DOE 111. Defendant DOE 111 was himself a longtime child molester who had used his leadership position in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organizations to gain access to his victims. Despite their knowledge of Defendant DOE 111's sexual abuse, the ROE DEFENDANTS vested him with the authority to make decisions about the reporting and handling of reports of sexual abuse within the congregation, subject to their ultimate control and authority. Defendant DOE 111 and the ROE DEFENDANTS did not notify any authorities or take any steps to discipline Defendant DOE 110. Nor did they provide Plaintiffs with any assistance in dealing with the trauma or warn other members of Defendant ROE 9 that leaders appointed by the ROE DEFENDANTS were dangerous sexual predators. Instead, the ROE DEFENDANTS criticized Plaintiffs for reporting the abuse, thereby exacerbating their trauma.

For almost two decades, the ROE DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that their appointed agents, Defendants DOE 111 and DOE 110, were using their positions of authority in the organization to gain access to and sexually molest and physically abuse adolescents under the care of the organization. Nevertheless, the ROE DEFENDANTS continued to appoint Defendants DOE 111 and DOE 110 to leadership positions in their local congregations, entrusting them with the welfare of numerous adolescents in the ROE DEFENDANTS' local congregations. The ROE DEFENDANTS' agents then used their positions of authority in the organization to sexually molest children in the organization entrusted to their care. The ROE DEFENDANTS failed to notify anyone that Defendants DOE 111 and DOE 110 were molesting or had sexually molested adolescents. They further failed to take any steps to protect these young victims from their abuse.

Instead, they knowingly concealed this information from Plaintiffs and others. The ROE DEFENDANTS also aided, abetted and ratified the abuse by disciplining the victims who reported the abuse to the ROE DEFENDANTS, allowing Defendants DOE 111 and DOE 110 to exercise increased power over them and to further exacerbate the injuries they had suffered.

Plaintiffs and their families sought the advice and protection of the ROE DEFENDANTS and told them about the abuses perpetrated by Defendant DOE 110. The ROE DEFENDANTS assumed the role of advocate and counselor to Plaintiffs and their families and instructed them to keep the abuse matters within the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization and not to disclose the abuses to any other members or outside authorities. Thus, the ROE DEFENDANTS aided and abetted the perpetrators and ratified their conduct, causing further damage to Plaintiffs.

The ROE DEFENDANTS did not report the abuse to law enforcement authorities nor did they warn any other members of the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization that they had appointed dangerous sexual predators to teach and supervise their children. The ROE DEFENDANTS did not act to help Plaintiffs or their families deal with the trauma of abuse and actively prevented them from obtaining help from trained professionals and other available sources. They also took no steps to hold their agents, Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111, accountable for their conduct or to assist them in addressing their propensities until 1994, when DOE 111's conduct was reported to the police by one of his victims. Even then, the only step the ROE DEFENDANTS took was to remove Defendant DOE 111 from his position as an Elder. No steps were taken with respect to their agent DOE 110.

Defendant DOE 110 used the authority of his position in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization to sexually abuse Plaintiffs. The ROE DEFENDANTS directly and vicariously caused foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs by, among other things:

a. aiding, abetting and ratifying the abuse of children by their appointed agents;

b. blaming, humiliating, sanctioning and/or disciplining victims/accusers of sexual abuse instead of the perpetrator; c.

negligently failing to report such sexual abuse, including the abuse by Defendant DOE 110 to law enforcement and governmental child welfare agencies and requiring that members not make such reports;

d. negligently failing to warn Plaintiffs, their families, and others of the risk of Defendant DOE 110's abuse after they knew or should have known of Defendant DOE 110's propensities to use his positions of leadership to engage in acts of sexual abuse against children entrusted to the ROE DEFENDANTS' care;

e. negligently failing to train its Elders, Overseers, Ministerial Servants and other appointed leaders to prevent, identify, investigate, respond to or report child abuse;

f. negligently failing to adopt adequate policies and procedures for the protection of children and other members and/or to implement and comply with such procedures that did exist;

g. failing to properly investigate matters brought to the ROE DEFENDANTS' attention involving child sexual abuse and/or suspicions of child sexual abuse;

h. negligently failing to provide child abuse victims and their families with any assistance in coping with the trauma of abuse and preventing Plaintiffs and their families from reporting the abuse to outside authorities and obtaining outside help to deal with the trauma of abuse;

j. concealing from Plaintiffs and their families that the ROE DEFENDANTS had information that their agent, Defendant DOE 110 was using his position of authority to abuse young children entrusted to their care by the ROE DEFENDANTS;

k. negligently failing to undertake a sexual offender evaluation, provide sexual offender treatment and/or obtain psychiatric evaluation and treatment of Defendant DOE 110 after they knew or should have known of his propensities to use his position of leadership to engage in acts of sexual abuse;

negligently retaining and failing to properly supervise Defendants DOE 111 and DOE 110 leaders in the organization or to monitor their activities after they knew or should have known of their propensities to use their position of leadership to engage in acts of sexual abuse.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL BATTERY AND RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiffs allege that for a number of years, beginning in 1976, as agents and alter egos of the ROE DEFENDANTS, Defendant DOE 110 used his respective positions of authority to gain access to Plaintiffs and to engage in un-permitted, harmful, and offensive sexual contact upon the bodies of Plaintiffs and each of them, as described herein, without either Plaintiff's consent, committing sexual abuse upon the persons of Plaintiffs in the State of California in violation of Code of Civil Procedure \§ 340.1.

Plaintiffs further allege each of the ROE DEFENDANTS was in the chain of command and acted pursuant to the authority granted to them as agents and alter ego of the GOVERNING BODY and each other, utilized such leadership and authority to carry out and/or aid, abet and ratify the sexual abuse of Plaintiffs. In such capacity, the ROE DEFENDANTS are liable for the sexual abuse of Plaintiffs under the legal theory of respondeat superior.

As a legal result of Defendants' conduct as described hereinabove, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer great pain of mind, body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Further, Plaintiffs were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. Each Plaintiff has sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. Each Plaintiff has incurred and will incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiffs allege that at all times herein mentioned, ROE DEFENDANTS assumed a duty to protect Plaintiffs from sexual predators within the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization. The ROE DEFENDANTS further knew or should have known that Plaintiffs were at risk of foreseeable harm by their agents, Defendants DOE 111 and DOE 110, but failed to act to protect them from said harm. The ROE DEFENDANTS breached their duty to Plaintiffs, thereby causing great harm of Plaintiffs.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT APPOINTMENT, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION

Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 42 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiffs allege that at all times herein mentioned, the ROE DEFENDANTS knew or should have known of their agents, Defendants DOE 111 and DOE 110, propensities to use their positions as leaders in the local congregations to engage in and/or aid and abet acts of sexual abuse. The ROE DEFENDANTS failed to adequately investigate, evaluate, and otherwise research the background of their agents, Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111, prior to their appointing him to leadership positions and entrusting children to their care.

Plaintiffs further allege that after Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111 were retained by ROE DEFENDANTS acting on behalf of and under the supervision of the ROE DEFENDANTS, ROE DEFENDANTS failed to adequately investigate, evaluate and otherwise monitor the conduct of their agents, Defendants DOES 110 and DOES 111, during their interactions with children entrusted by ROE DEFENDANTS to their care, thereby also failing to adequately supervise, and discipline the conduct Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111.

Plaintiff's further allege that ROE DEFENDANTS failed to provide adequate warning to Plaintiffs and their families of their agents' dangerous propensities and unfitness to lead.

Plaintiffs further allege the ROE DEFENDANTS negligently investigated, appointed, retained and supervised Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111 in the organization at a time when they knew or should have known of their propensities to use their appointed positions to engage in acts of sexual abuse against Plaintiffs and other young children under the ROE DEFENDANTS' care.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION GROSS NEGLIGENCE/WILFUL MISCONDUCT

Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 48 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiffs allege the behavior of the ROE DEFENDANTS as described hereinabove demonstrates a conscious indifference to the safety and welfare of Plaintiffs, in that ROE DEFENDANTS knew or should have known of the dangerous propensities of their agents, Defendant DOE 110 and DOE 111, yet failed to act to protect the health, safety and welfare of children in the custody and care of ROE DEFENDANTS, thereby allowing Plaintiffs to be sexually abused, which could have been prevented but for ROE DEFENDANTS' wilful misconduct and gross negligence in failing to implement safeguards to protect Plaintiffs, in violation of ROE DEFENDANTS' duty to protect the children entrusted to Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111 care and custody.

Plaintiffs further allege that ROE DEFENDANTS' actions, constituting wilful misconduct and gross negligence described hereinabove, caused significant mental, emotional, and physical injuries as a result of the acts of sexual abuse described hereinabove.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 52 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiffs allege that by holding Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111 out as qualified leaders in the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization, and by undertaking the religious instruction and spiritual and emotional counseling of Plaintiffs, the ROE DEFENDANTS, created a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiffs. The ROE DEFENDANTS placed themselves in a position of trust and confidence with Plaintiffs and that such relationship imposed on the ROE DEFENDANTS a duty to act in Plaintiffs' best interests and protect Plaintiffs' best interests.

Plaintiff's further allege that because of this special relationship with the ROE DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs and their families placed their trust and confidence in the ROE DEFENDANTS that they would not allow harm to Plaintiffs or fail to warn Plaintiffs of potential harm. Further, Plaintiffs and their families placed their trust and confidence in the ROE DEFENDANTS that they would protect Plaintiffs from harm.

The above conduct, either independently or in conjunction with each other, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiffs by ROE DEFENDANTS.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE PER SE and COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE: FAILURE TO REPORT SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE

Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiffs allege that the ROE DEFENDANTS had a duty, under California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, California Penal Code \§ 11164 ,et.seq., (and predecessor provisions) and the common-laws, to report the abuse or suspected abuse of children.

Plaintiffs further allege the ROE DEFENDANTS failed to report to law enforcement the abusive and illegal acts of their agent, Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111, both prior to and after the abuse inflicted on Plaintiffs. By failing to report the actions Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111, the ROE DEFENDANTS violated the California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, which is intended to safeguard and enhance the welfare of abused children. Plaintiffs were members of the class of persons the California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act was designed to protect and each was injured as a result of the ROE DEFENDANTS' violation of the statutes. Such violation constitutes negligence per se.

Plaintiffs further allege that the ROE DEFENDANTS' failure to report constitutes common-law negligence. The ROE DEFENDANTS asserted their authority over both Plaintiffs and their abusers and agents, Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111, creating a special relationship of trust and confidence and power over Plaintiffs. In the context of this special relationship and the unequal relationship among the parties, the ROE DEFENDANTS assumed a duty to handle all reports of child abuse, and in so doing caused Plaintiffs and their families from reporting the abuse to, or seeking help from, sources and authorities outside the ROE DEFENDANTS' organization.

The ROE DEFENDANTS acted with conscious disregard for the safety and welfare of Plaintiffs and violated their duty to Plaintiffs' detriment.

As a legal result of the ROE DEFENDANTS' failure to report the illegal conduct of their agents, Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111, to law enforcement, Plaintiffs were deprived of the benefits provided by the State of California and other trained officials that could have decreased further harm to Plaintiffs and prevented further abuse. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer great pain of mind, body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Further, Plaintiffs were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. Each Plaintiff has sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. Each Plaintiff has incurred and will incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AND CONSPIRACY

Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 63 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiffs allege that after receiving reports that their agents, Defendants DOE 111 and DOE 110, were using their positions of authority in the organization to abuse adolescents, the ROE DEFENDANTS, willfully and intentionally kept the information from Plaintiffs, other victims similarly situated and the community-at-large. The ROE DEFENDANTS intentionally misrepresented to Plaintiffs and their families that Defendants DOE 111 and DOE 110 were leaders in good standing with authority to instruct Plaintiffs and other children in spiritual, ethical and moral matters and that these agents were to be obeyed. The ROE DEFENDANTS further intentionally misrepresented that they would act in the best interests of Plaintiffs and other children entrusted to their care. The ROE DEFENDANTS failed to disclose that they knew of their agents, Defendants DOE 111 and DOE 110, propensities to use their leadership positions to sexually abuse children and that they were doing nothing to protect the children under their care. Plaintiffs did not know of the falsity of the ROE DEFENDANTS' representations, were entitled to rely upon them and did in fact rely upon them causing each of them serious injury and harm.

Plaintiffs further allege that by holding out Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111 as leaders, qualified to provide religious instruction and counsel, and by undertaking the religious instruction and spiritual and emotional counseling and training of Plaintiffs, and by accepting, through their agents Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111 and other Elders and leaders, the control and responsibility of the Plaintiffs as minors, the ROE DEFENDANTS and each of them entered into a fiduciary relationship with the minor Plaintiffs.

Plaintiff further allege that as fiduciaries to Plaintiffs, the ROE DEFENDANTS, had a duty to obtain and disclose information relating to sexual misconduct by their agents, Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111. The ROE DEFENDANTS failed to disclose and later conspired to conceal such information from Plaintiffs.

The ROE DEFENDANTS, in concert with each other and with the intent to conceal and defraud, conspired whereby they would misrepresent, conceal or fail to disclose information relating to the misconduct of their agents, Defendants, DOE 110 and DOE 111. By concealing such information, the ROE DEFENDANTS and each of them committed at least one act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION RATIFICATION

Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs I through 68 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiffs allege that upon learning that their agent, Defendant DOE 110 had sexually abused Plaintiffs and others, the ROE DEFENDANTS failed to take any steps to hold DOE 110 accountable for his actions and continued to appoint or maintain Defendants DOE 111 and DOE 110 to leadership positions in the organization throughout the period of abuse. The ROE DEFENDANTS thereby ratified both their agent, Defendant DOE 111'S conduct in aiding and abetting the conduct of DOE 110 and their agent DOE 110'S conduct in using his appointed position of authority to sexually abuse Plaintiffs and other children.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION ALTER EGO AND SINGLE BUSINESS ENTERPRISE

Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 72 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiffs allege that the ROE DEFENDANTS are organized and controlled and their affairs are so conducted that they are in fact mere instrumentalities and alter egos of each other and liable for each other's acts. Alternatively, the ROE DEFENDANTS were all engaged, at all times hereinabove mentioned, in a single business enterprise and are liable for each other's acts.

Each Plaintiff has incurred and will incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT USURPATION OF INVESTIGATORY FUNCTION

Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs I through 75 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiffs allege that California Penal Code Section 11164, et seq., requires officials to perform specific responsibilities to carry out the policy of the statute described in the Act (and its predecessors). The ROE DEFENDANTS assumed these duties and responsibilities, but negligently failed to perform them.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 182

Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 78 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiffs allege that he ROE DEFENDANTS' acts described herein violate California Penal Code Section 182 in that the ROE DEFENDANTS conspired with one or more other persons to commit acts injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws.

Further, Plaintiffs were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. Each Plaintiff has sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity. Each Plaintiff has incurred and will incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 32

Plaintiffs incorporate herein by this reference and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 81 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiffs allege that the ROE DEFENDANTS' acts described herein violate California Penal Code Section 32 in that the ROE DEFENDANTS harbored, concealed and/or aided their agents, Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111 after their agents, Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111, had committed a felony, with the intent that their agents, Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111, might avoid or escape arrest, trial, conviction and/or punishment, and the ROE DEFENDANTS having knowledge that their agents, Defendants DOE 110 and DOE 111 had committed a felony.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the ROE DEFENDANTS individually, jointly and severally as follows:

For general damages according to proof;

For past and future medical expenses according to proof;

For past and future loss of earnings according to proof;

For prejudgment interest;

For costs of suit incurred herein; and

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: 7/24/03

NOLEN SAUL BRELSFORD

With BW

Rudy Nolen, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Refine Search

Index Downloading...

Julianne Wimberly Guiterrez et al v. Jehovah's Witnesses — Court Documents (2012)