Morley et al v. Jehovah's Witnesses — Court Documents (2012)
Download: PDF — Morley et al v. Jehovah's Witnesses — Court Documents (2012)
Court Documents
Morley et al vs Jehovah's Witnesses
Secrets of Pedophilia in an American Religion
Jehovah’s Witnesses in Crisis
BARBARA ANDERSON
Court Documents
Morley et al
vs
Jehovah’s Witnesses CONTENTS
CASE # 030431 CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF LINN Filed: February 20, 2003
LEANNA MORLEY, JESSICA SCHROEDER and CHRISTINA VIZENOR Plaintiffs,
NORTH ALBANY OREGON CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESS, INC., NORTH BOTHELL CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., ET AL. Defendants.
COMPLAINT, Filed 2/20/03 5
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, Filed 4/24/03 25
DEFENDANTS’ ORCP 21 MOTIONS & SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW,
Filed 5/22/03 45
Attachment:
BRYAN R. v. WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY 75
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ ORCP 21A (8) MOTIONS TO DISMISS,
Filed 6-16-03 81
Exhibits:
Two (2) Body of Elders’ letters, 7/20/98, 3/14/97 120
One (1) WATCHTOWER Deletion Of An Elder Letter 125
Edward Burke Deposition, 3/18/99 128
Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, Unit 1 (b) 601-604 134
ERICKSON Case Law 138
LOURIM Case Law 143
MORMON NEWS 9/10/01, see page 4 149
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ORCP 21 MOTIONS,
Filed 7/9/03 158
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ORCP 21 MOTIONS, Filed 9/4/03 192
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND TO FILE PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND
AMENDED PETITION, Filed 9/19/03 199 CONTENTS
CONTENTS
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, Filed 4/22/05 286
Letter to Attorneys Nelson and Kaempf from Judge John McCormick, 4/27/05 290
Letter to Judge John McCormick from Attorney James G. Nelson, 5/4/05 291
Letter to Judge John McCormick from Attorney James G. Nelson, 6/22/05 292
NOTICE OF SCHEDULED COURT PROCEEDING, 8/10/05 293
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW, Filed 9/26/05 294
DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER REINMUELLER, Filed 9/26/05 296
DECLARATION OF PATRICK J. LAFRANCA, Filed 9/26/05 299
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM NONKES, Filed 9/26/05 301
Letter to Judge John McCormick from Attorney James G. Nelson, 12/12/05 303
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, Filed 12/13/05 304
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO RESET TRIAL DATE, Filed 12/21/05 314
E-mail to Laura Grant from Tracy G. Krug, 1/12/06 316
NOTICE OF SCHEDULED COURT PROCEEDING, 1/20/06 317
E-mail to Attorney Gregory Love from Tracy G. Krug, 1/23/06 318
E-mail to Tracy Krug from Laura Grant, 1/24/06 319
NOTICE OF SCHEDULED COURT PROCEEDING, 1/24/06 321
Letter to Attorneys Nelson and Kaempf from Judge John A. McCormick, 2/7/06 322
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, Filed 3/20/06 323
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW, Filed 4/5/06 328
DECLARATION OF JOHN KAEMPF, Filed 4/5/06 341
Exhibit:
Plaintiff’s Deposition Transcript, 11/30/05 343
NOTICE OF SCHEDULED COURT PROCEEDING, 4/20/06 348 CONTENTS
E-mail to Attorney John Kaempf from Tracy G. Krug, 4/20/06 349
Letter to Tracy K. from Attorney James G. Nelson, 5/15/06 350
STIPULATED GENERAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT COSTS, Filed 7/19/06 351 LEANNA MORLEY, JESSICA SCHROEDER and CHRISTINA VIZENOR,
Plaintiffs,
V.
NORTH ALBANY OREGON )
CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S )
WITNESSES, INC., f/k/a ALBANY )
OREGON COMPANY OF JEHOVAH'S )
J WITNESSES, INC., WATCHTOWER )
BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW )
YORK, INC., WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND )
TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
WATCHTOWER ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.,
WATCHTOWER FOUNDATION, INC.,
WATCHTOWER ASSOCIATES, LTD.,
KINGDOM SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.
CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF )
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, RELIGIOUS )
ORDER OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES,
THE WATCHTOWER GROUP, INC. )
AND NORTH BOTHELL CONGREGATION )
OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC.,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs allege
CASE NO.
COMPLAINT
(Sexual Battery of a Child; Vicarious Liability; Negligence; Fraud; Ratification; and Alter Ego
Not subject to Mandatory Arbitration
Jury Trial Requested
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
I.
PARTIES
Plaintiff LEANNA MORLEY is a resident of Albany, Oregon.
2.
Plaintiff JESSICA SCHROEDER. is a resident of Eddyville, Oregon.
Plaintiff CHRISTINA VIZENOR is a resident of South Dakota.
4.
Defendant NORTH ALBANY OREGON CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC. f/k/a ALBANY OREGON COMPANY OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon. At all material times, it maintained its offices at Kingdom Hall Building, 303 Grand Prairie Road SE, Albany, Linn County, Oregon 97321.
5.
Defendant WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with offices at 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, New York 11201-2483, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
6.
Defendant WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with offices at 1630 Spring Run Road Extension, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania 15108, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
7.
Defendant WATCHTOWER ENTERPRISES, INC., a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with offices at 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, New York 11201, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
8.
Defendant WATCHTOWER FOUNDATION, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with offices at 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, New York 11201, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
9.
Defendant WATCHTOWER ASSOCIATES, LTD., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with offices at 147 Holiday Drive, Westbury, New York 11797, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
10.
Defendant KINGDOM SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with offices at 98 Montague Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
11.
Defendant CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with offices at 100 Watchtower Drive, Patterson, New York 12563-9204, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
12.
Defendant RELIGIOUS ORDER OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with offices at 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, New York 11201-2483, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
13.
Defendant THE WATCHTOWER GROUP, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania with offices at 196 E. Butler Avenue, Chalfont, PA 18914, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
14.
Defendant NORTH BOTHELL CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
15.
The Defendant entities are collectively referred to herein as the "WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS" because each is the alter ego of each other and operate as a single business enterprise.
II.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16.
Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount exceeding the minimum jurisdictional levels of this court.
17.
Venue is proper in Linn County, Oregon because Defendant NORTH ALBANY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC. has its principal place of business in Linn County and because some of the acts or omissions that give rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in Linn County.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
A. WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' ORGANIZATION AND CHAIN OF COMMAND
18.
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' organization has a hierarchical structure in which the GOVERNING BODY sits at the top of a strict chain of command that extends over each individual and Defendant entity in the organization. These individuals and entities act as agents, servants and alter egos of each other. Authority for any actions by the organization or its members must derive from the GOVERNING BODY, which has absolute authority over every person and all matters in the organization and its worldwide operations. The GOVERNING BODY is a small group of men who operate out of various entities within the hierarchical structure.
19.
All of the Defendants are the agents and servants of each other and are vicariously liable for each other's acts. The WATCHTOWER 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.
B. VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF THE WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS
20.
Through its hierarchical structure, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS assume complete 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 WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS authorize male members to develop relationships of trust with women, children and families and to assume the 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, all the way up to the GOVERNING BODY, to decide if abuse has occurred and how it should be handled.
22.
At all material times, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS have prohibited the above victim and/or accuser from warning others or speaking about the matter to anyone under penalty of discipline. Victim/accusers are 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 can lead to severe sanctions.
C. DON SERJEANT
23.
From at least 1955 until the date of his death, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS vested Don Serjeant with the leadership authority of a male Publisher within the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' organization and at all times held him out to be in good standing.
24.
As early as 1962, if not before, Don Serjeant began sexually molesting and physically abusing his daughter, Suzan. Suzan finally complained to the Elders of Defendant BOTHELL CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, where Don Serjeant was a Publisher in good standing and Suzan was a participant as a member of his family.
Suzan described to the Elders of Defendant BOTHELL CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES the repeated sexual and physical abuse by Don Serjeant and asked for their help. The Elders of Defendant BOTHELL CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES told Suzan not to discuss the matter with anyone else and that they would take any and all necessary action. The Elders of Defendant BOTHELL CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES reported Suzan's complaint to Don Serjeant whereupon Don Serjeant beat her for talking to the Elders. Despite their knowledge and representations, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS did nothing to assist Suzan, to protect Suzan or other young girls from further abuse, to discipline Don Serjeant or to warn others of the threat he posed. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS made no report to law enforcement authorities or others. Instead, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS continued to promote Don Serjeant as a Publisher in good standing in the organization, aiding, abetting and ratifying the abuse of Suzan and other young victims within the organization.
At some time prior to 1984, Don Serjeant moved to Albany, Oregon and joined Defendant NORTH ALBANY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, where the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS continued to promote Don Serjeant as a Publisher in good standing, despite the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS knowledge that he was sexually and physically abusing young children. The WATCH TOWER DEFENDANTS made no effort to warn families of Defendant NORTH ALBANY CONGREGATION that a sexual predator was in their midst and that their children were at risk. Beginning sometime after 1978 for a number of years until 1989, Don Serjeant repeatedly sexually abused his granddaughter, Plaintiff CHRISTINA VIZENOR who was born on September 3, 1977.
From 1984 through 1989, Don Serjeant repeatedly sexually abused Plaintiff LEANNA MORLEY, a participant in Defendant NORTH ALBANY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. Plaintiff LEANNA MORLEY was approximately 9 years old when the abuse began. Beginning in 1986, Don Sergeant also began repeatedly sexually assaulting Plaintiff JESSICA SCHROEDER who was also a participant in Defendant NORTH ALBANY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. Plaintiff JESSICA SCHROEDER was approximately 6 years old when the abuse began.
In about 1989, Plaintiff LEANNA MORLEY'S father found a journal which graphically depicted Don Serjeant's sexual abuse of his daughter. He gave the journal to the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS through the Elders of Defendant NORTH ALBANY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS did nothing about the sexual abuse described in the journal except to punish Plaintiff LEANNA MORLEY. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS told Plaintiff LEANNA MORLEY'S family that they were not to report the abuse to anyone, not even law enforcement authorities or other Publishers.
For three decades, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that Don Serjeant was sexually molesting and physically abusing young children. Nevertheless, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS allowed Don Serjeant to continue as a Publisher in good standing, entrusting him with the welfare of numerous young girls in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' local congregations, whom he sexually molested.
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS failed to notify anyone that Don Serjeant was molesting or had sexually molested young children. They further failed to take any steps to protect these young victims from his abuse. Instead, they knowingly concealed this information from Plaintiffs and others. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS also aided, abetted and ratified the abuse by disciplining the victims who dared to report the abuse to the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, further increasing Don Serjeant's power over them.
Plaintiffs and their families sought the advice and protection of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS and told them about the abuses perpetrated by Don Serjeant. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS assumed the role of advocate and counselor to Plaintiffs and their families and instructed Plaintiffs and their families to keep the abuse matters within the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' organization and not to disclose the abuses to any other publishers or outside authorities. They even punished those who dared to complain. Thus, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS aided and abetted the perpetrator and ratified his conduct, causing further damage to Plaintiffs.
29.
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS did not report the abuse to law enforcement authorities nor did they warn any other members of the NORTH ALBANY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC. or any other congregation, that a dangerous sexual predator was in their midst. They did not act to help Plaintiffs or their families deal with the trauma and actively prevented them from obtaining help from trained and appropriate resources. They also took no steps to discipline or otherwise hold Don Serjeant accountable for his conduct or to assist him in addressing his propensities.
30.
Don Serjeant used the authority of his position in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' organization to sexually abuse Plaintiffs. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS directly and vicariously caused foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs by, among other things:
a. aiding, abetting and ratifying the abuse of children by Publishers and Elders;
b. blaming, humiliating, sanctioning and/or disciplining victims/accusers of sexual abuse instead of the perpetrators
c. negligently failing to report such sexual abuse, including the abuse by Don Serjeant, to law enforcement and governmental child welfare agencies and requiring that Publishers not make such reports.
d. negligently failing to warn Plaintiffs, their families, and others of the risk of Don Serjeant's abuse after they knew or should have known of Don Serjeant's propensities to use his position of leadership to engage in acts of sexual abuse.
e. negligently failing to train its Elders, volunteers, appointed overseers and other associated individuals 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 publishers and/or to implement and comply with such procedures that did exist.
g. failing to properly investigate matters brought to the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' attention involving child sexual abuse and/or suspicions of child sexual abuse.
h. negligently allowing Don Serjeant to move between congregations as a Publisher in good standing after the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS knew or should have known of his propensities to use his position of leadership to engage in acts of sexual abuse of children.
i. 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 WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS had information that Don Serjeant was abusing young children.
k. negligently failing to undertake a sexual offender evaluation, provide sexual offender treatment and/or obtain psychiatric evaluation and treatment of Don Serjeant after they knew or should have known of his propensities to use his position of leadership to engage in acts of sexual abuse.
negligently failing to properly supervise Don Serjeant as a Publisher in the organization or to monitor his activities after they knew or should have known of his propensities to use his position of leadership to engage in acts of sexual abuse.
Plaintiffs did not discover and could not have discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence their injuries that resulted from the abuse or the causal connection between their injuries and the wrongful conduct of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS until less than three years before the filing of this lawsuit.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
32.
For a number of years, beginning in 1984, as an agent and alter ego of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, Don Sergeant repeatedly committed sexual battery upon the persons of the Plaintiffs in the State of Oregon. Each of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS was in the chain of command and acted pursuant to the authority granted to them as agents and the alter ego of the GOVERNING BODY and each other, utilizing such leadership and authority to carry out and/or aid, abet and ratify the sexual abuse of Plaintiffs. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS are therefore liable for the sexual battery of Plaintiffs under the legal theory of respondeat superior.
COUNT II
COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE
33.
At all material times, WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS assumed a duty to protect Plaintiffs from sexual predators within the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' organization. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS further knew or should have known that Plaintiffs were at risk of foreseeable harm by Don Serjeant, but failed to act to protect them from said harm.
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS breached their duty to the great harm of Plaintiffs.
34.
As a direct result of the negligent conduct of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and damages described herein.
COUNT III
NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION
35.
At all material times, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS knew or should have known of Don Serjeant's propensities to use his position as a male publisher to engage in acts of sexual abuse. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS failed to adequately investigate, discipline, evaluate, treat, supervise and otherwise monitor the conduct of Don Serjeant who was under their control. They therefore negligently hired, retained and supervised Don Serjeant in the organization at a time when they knew or should have known of his propensities to engage in acts of sexual abuse against Plaintiffs and other young children. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS also failed to adequately train and supervise the Elders of the local congregations to whom they had entrusted the responsibility of investigating, evaluating and handling all reports or suspicions of child abuse. Plaintiffs have suffered grave harm due to Defendants' negligent hiring, retention and supervision COUNT IV AGGRAVATED NEGLIGENCE
36.
The behavior of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS set forth above demonstrated a conscious indifference to the safety and welfare of Plaintiffs entitling Plaintiffs to amend and seek damages under O.R.S. 18.535.
37.
As a direct result of the aggravated negligent conduct of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and damages described herein.
COUNT V BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
38.
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS placed themselves in a position of trust and confidence with Plaintiffs. The relationship between Plaintiffs and the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' organization was fiduciary in nature and imposed on the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS a duty to act in Plaintiffs' best interest.
39.
Because of this special relationship between the Plaintiffs and the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs and their families placed their trust and confidence in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS that they would not harm Plaintiffs or fail to warn Plaintiffs of potential harm. Further, Plaintiffs and their families placed their trust and confidence in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS that they would protect Plaintiffs from harm.
40.
The above acts and/or omissions by the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, either independently or in conjunction with each other constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiffs by WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS.
41.
As a direct result of the conduct of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and damages described herein.
COUNT VI NEGLIGENCE PER SE and COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE: FAILURE TO REPORT SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE
42.
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS had a duty, under Section 419B of the Oregon Revised Statutes and the common-law, to report the abuse or suspected abuse of children.
43.
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS deliberately and negligently failed to report to law enforcement the abusive conduct of Don Serjeant prior to the abuse of Plaintiff. Further, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS failed to report abuse of Plaintiffs by Don Serjeant to law enforcement. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS thereby violated Section 419B of the Oregon Revised Statutes intended to safeguard and enhance the welfare of abused children. Plaintiffs were members of the class of persons Section 419B was designed to protect and were injured as a result of The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' violation of the statute. Such violation constitutes negligence per se. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' failure to report also constitutes common-law negligence. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS asserted their authority over both Plaintiffs and their abuser, Don Serjeant, creating a special relationship of trust and confidence and power over Plaintiffs.
In the context of this special relationship and the uneven balance of power, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS assumed a duty to handle all reports of child abuse and prevented Plaintiffs and their families from reporting the abuse to, or seeking help from, sources and authorities outside the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' organization. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, with conscious disregard for the welfare of Plaintiffs, violated that duty to Plaintiffs' detriment.
44.
As a direct result of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' failure to report Don Serjeant's abuse to law enforcement, Plaintiffs were deprived of Oregon's victim assistance program that would have provided for counseling and care that would have decreased the harm to the Plaintiffs from the effects of the abuse.
COUNT VII FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
45.
After receiving reports that Don Serjeant was abusing young girls, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, with the intent to keep the information from Plaintiffs, other victims similarly situated and the community-at-large, willfully concealed that information. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS materially misrepresented to Plaintiffs and their families that Don Serjeant was a Publisher in good standing with authority to instruct Plaintiffs in spiritual, ethical and moral matters and that he was to be obeyed. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS further materially misrepresented that they would act in their best interest.
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS failed to disclose that they knew of Don Serjeant's propensities to use his leadership position to sexually abuse Plaintiffs and others and that they were doing nothing to protect them. Plaintiffs did not know of the falsity of Defendants' representations, were entitled to rely upon them and did in fact rely upon them to their serious injury and harm.
COUNT VIII RATIFICATION
46.
Upon learning that its agent, Don Serjeant had sexually abused Plaintiffs and others, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS failed to take any steps to discipline or otherwise hold Don Serjeant accountable for his actions and continued to maintain that Don Serjeant was a Publisher in good standing with the organization until his death. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS have thereby ratified Don Serjeant's conduct in sexually abusing Plaintiffs and others. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS are thus liable in damages to Plaintiffs.
COUNT IX ALTER EGO AND SINGLE BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
47.
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS are organized and controlled and their affairs are so conducted that they are in fact mere instrumentalities and alter egos for each other and liable for each other's acts. Alternatively, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS were all engaged, at all material times, in a single business enterprise and are liable for each other's acts.
COUNT X NEGLIGENT USURPATION OF INVESTIGATORY FUNCTION
48.
Section 419B of the Oregon Revised Civil Statutes (and predecessor provisions) requires officials to perform specific responsibilities to carry out the policy of the statute described in Section 419.005 (and its predecessors). The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS assumed these duties and responsibilities, but negligently failed to perform them.
49.
As a direct result of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' negligent conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and damages described herein.
DAMAGES
50.
As a result of Defendants' acts, Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur costs for medical expenses, counseling and psychological treatment, have lost earning capacity and have suffered and will continue to suffer extreme, permanent emotional distress and psychological harm with accompanying physical manifestations, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and economic damages of (amount to be inserted prior to trial) and non-economic damages of4,000,000 as to each Plaintiff.
///
///
///
/// WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants individually, jointly and severally in an amount for economic damages of (amount to be inserted prior to trial) and non-economic damages of 8,000,000, plus costs, disbursements, and whatever relief the court deems just and equitable.
NELSON & MacNEIL, P.C.
By. James Q. Nelson OSB #74230 Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUBMITTED BY:
James G. Nelson OSB #74230
Nelson & MacNeil, P.C.
P.O. Box 946
Albany, OR 97321
(541) 928-9147 - Office
LOVE & NORRIS
Gregory S. Love (Pro hac vice to be submitted)
Kimberlee D. Norris
314 Main Street, Suite 300
Fort Worth, Texas 76102-7423
Telephone: 817/335-2800
FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON & GARTH
Tommy Fibich, Esq.
Hartley Hampton, Esq. (Pro hac vice to be submitted)
Mike Leebron, Esq.
1401 McKinney, Suite 1800
Five Houston Center
Houston, Texas 77010
Telephone 713-751-0025
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF LINN
LEANNA MORLEY, JESSICA SCHROEDER and CHRISTINA VIZENOR Plaintiffs,
V.
NORTH ALBANY OREGON
CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES, INC., f/k/a ALBANY
OREGON COMPANY OF JEHOVAH'S
J WITNESSES, INC., WATCHTOWER
BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW
YORK, INC., WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND
TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
WATCHTOWER ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.,
WATCHTOWER FOUNDATION, INC.,
WATCHTOWER ASSOCIATES, LTD.,
KINGDOM SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.
CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, RELIGIOUS
ORDER OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES,
THE WATCHTOWER GROUP, INC.
AND NORTH BOTHELL CONGREGATION
OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC.,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs allege:
CASE NO. 030431
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Sexual Battery of a Child; Vicarious Liability; Negligence; Fraud; Ratification; and Alter Ego
Not subject to Mandatory Arbitration
Jury Trial Requested
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
I.
PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff LEANNA MORLEY is a resident of Albany, Oregon.
PAGE 1. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
2.
Plaintiff JESSICA SCHROEDER is a resident of Eddyville, Oregon.
3.
Plaintiff CHRISTINA VIZENOR is a resident of South Dakota.
4.
Defendant NORTH ALBANY OREGON CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC. f/k/a ALBANY OREGON COMPANY OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon. At all material times, it maintained its offices at Kingdom Hall Building, 303 Grand Prairie Road SE, Albany, Linn County, Oregon 97321.
5.
Defendant WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with offices at 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, New York 11201-2483, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
6.
Defendant WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with offices at 1630 Spring Run Road Extension, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania 15108, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
7.
Defendant WATCHTOWER ENTERPRISES, INC., a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with
PAGE 2. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
offices at 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, New York 11201, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
8.
Defendant WATCHTOWER FOUNDATION, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with offices at 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, New York 11201, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
9.
Defendant WATCHTOWER ASSOCIATES, LTD., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with offices at 147 Holiday Drive, Westbury, New York 11797, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
10.
Defendant KINGDOM SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with offices at 98 Montague Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
11.
Defendant CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with offices at 100 Watchtower Drive, Patterson, New York 12563-9204, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
12.
Defendant RELIGIOUS ORDER OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with offices at 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, New York 11201-2483, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
13.
Defendant THE WATCHTOWER GROUP, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania with offices at 196 E. Butler Avenue, Chalfont, PA 18914, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
14.
Defendant NORTH BOTHELL CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, has conducted business within the State of Oregon through its agents and alter egos.
15.
The Defendant entities are collectively referred to herein as the "WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS" because each is the alter ego of each other and operate as a single business enterprise.
II.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16.
Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount exceeding the minimum jurisdictional levels of this court.
17.
Venue is proper in Linn County, Oregon because Defendant NORTH ALBANY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC. has its principal place of business in Linn County and because some of the acts or omissions that give rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in Linn County.
PAGE 4. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
III.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
A. WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' ORGANIZATION AND CHAIN OF COMMAND
18.
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' organization has a hierarchical structure in which the GOVERNING BODY sits at the top of a strict chain of command that extends over each individual and Defendant entity in the organization. These individuals and entities act as agents, servants and alter egos of each other. Authority for any actions by the organization or its members must derive from the GOVERNING BODY, which has absolute authority over every person and all matters in the organization and its worldwide operations. The GOVERNING BODY is a small group of men who operate out of various entities within the hierarchical structure.
19.
All of the Defendants are the agents and servants of each other and are vicariously liable for each other's acts. The WATCHTOWER 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.
B. VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF THE WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS
20.
Through its hierarchical structure, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS assume complete 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.
PAGE 5. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
To further their goals, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS authorize male members to develop relationships of trust with women, children and families and to assume the 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, all the way up to the GOVERNING BODY, to decide if abuse has occurred and how it should be handled.
22.
At all material times, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS have prohibited the above victim and/or accuser from warning others or speaking about the matter to anyone under penalty of discipline. Victim/accusers are 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 can lead to severe sanctions.
C. DON SERJEANT
23.
From at least 1955 until the date of his death, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS vested Don Serjeant with leadership authority within the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' organization and at all times held him out to be in good standing.
24.
As early as 1962, if not before, Don Serjeant began sexually molesting and physically abusing his daughter, Suzan, who was seven years old at the time. Suzan finally complained to the Elders of Defendant BOTHELL CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, where Don Serjeant was a PAGE 6. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
leader in good standing and Suzan was a participant as a member of his family. Suzan described to the Elders of Defendant BOTHELL CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES the repeated sexual and physical abuse by Don Serjeant and asked for their help. The Elders of Defendant BOTHELL CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES told Suzan not to discuss the matter with anyone else and that they would take any and all necessary action. The Elders of Defendant BOTHELL CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES reported Suzan's complaint to Don Serjeant whereupon Don Serjeant beat her for talking to the Elders. The Elders were informed of this and other beatings. Despite their knowledge and representations, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS did nothing to assist Suzan, to protect Suzan or other young girls from further abuse, to discipline Don Serjeant or to warn others of the threat he posed. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS made no report to law enforcement authorities or others. Instead, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS continued to promote Don Serjeant as a leader in good standing in the organization, placing him in positions of control and supervision over children and they thereby aided, abetted and ratified the abuse of Suzan and other young victims within the organization.
25.
At some time prior to 1984, Don Serjeant moved to Albany, Oregon and joined Defendant NORTH ALBANY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, where the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS continued to promote Don Serjeant as a leader in good standing, and placed him in positions of authority with supervision and control of children, despite the WATCHTOWER
PAGE 7. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
DEFENDANTS' knowledge that he was sexually and physically abusing young children. The WATCH TOWER DEFENDANTS made no effort to warn families of Defendant NORTH ALBANY CONGREGATION that a sexual predator was in their midst and that their children were at risk. Beginning sometime after 1978 for a number of years until 1989, Don Serjeant repeatedly sexually abused his granddaughter, Plaintiff CHRISTINA VIZENOR who was born on September 3, 1977. From 1984 through 1989, Don Serjeant repeatedly sexually abused Plaintiff LEANNA MORLEY, a participant in Defendant NORTH ALBANY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. Plaintiff LEANNA MORLEY was approximately 9 years old when the abuse began. Beginning in 1986, Don Sergeant also began repeatedly sexually assaulting Plaintiff JESSICA SCHROEDER who was also a participant in Defendant NORTH ALBANY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. Plaintiff JESSICA SCHROEDER was approximately 6 years old when the abuse began. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' agent, Don Schroeder, had access to each of the Plaintiffs due to his leadership position in the organization.
26.
In about 1989, Plaintiff LEANNA MORLEY'S father found a journal which graphically depicted Don Serjeant's sexual abuse of his daughter. He gave the journal to the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS through the Elders of Defendant NORTH ALBANY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES and asked the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS to address this abuse by their agent, Don Serjeant, who was a leader in the organization. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS did nothing about the sexual abuse described in the journal
PAGE 8. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
except to punish Plaintiff LEANNA MORLEY. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS told Plaintiff LEANNA MORLEY'S family that they were not to report the abuse to anyone, not even law enforcement authorities or other Publishers. The abuse of Plaintiff Jessica Schroeder continued after 1989.
27.
For three decades, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that Don Serjeant was sexually molesting and physically abusing young children. Nevertheless, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS allowed Don Serjeant to continue as a leader in good standing, entrusting him with the authority to supervise and control children in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' local congregations, many of whom he sexually molested. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS failed to notify anyone that Don Serjeant was molesting or had sexually molested young children. They further failed to take any steps to protect these young victims from his abuse, but instead continued to place their agent, Don Serjeant, in positions of supervision and control over children. They also knowingly concealed this information from Plaintiffs and others. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS also aided, abetted and ratified the abuse by disciplining the victims who dared to report the abuse to the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, further increasing Don Serjeant's power over them.
28.
Plaintiffs and their families sought the advice and protection of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS and told them about the abuses perpetrated by their agent, Don Serjeant. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS assumed the
PAGE 9. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
role of advocate and counselor to Plaintiffs and their families and instructed Plaintiffs and their families to keep the abuse matters within the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' organization and not to disclose the abuses to any other publishers or outside authorities. They even punished those who dared to complain. Thus, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS aided and abetted the perpetrator and ratified his conduct, causing further damage to Plaintiffs.
29.
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS did not report the abuse to law enforcement authorities nor did they warn any other members of the NORTH ALBANY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC., or any other congregation, that a dangerous sexual predator was in their midst. They did not act to help Plaintiffs or their families deal with the trauma and actively prevented them from obtaining help from trained and appropriate resources. They also took no steps to discipline or otherwise hold Don Serjeant accountable for his conduct or to assist him in addressing his propensities. Instead, they continued to allow him to act as their agent, with control and supervision over children.
30.
Don Serjeant used the authority of his position in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' organization to sexually abuse Plaintiffs. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS directly and vicariously caused foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs by, among other things:
a. aiding, abetting and ratifying the abuse of children by leaders in the organization;
PAGE 10. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
b. blaming, humiliating, sanctioning and/or disciplining victims/accusers of sexual abuse instead of the perpetrators
c. negligently failing to report such sexual abuse, including the abuse by Don Serjeant, to law enforcement and governmental child welfare agencies and requiring that Publishers not make such reports.
d. negligently failing to warn Plaintiffs, their families, and others of the risk of Don Serjeant's abuse after they knew or should have known of Don Serjeant's propensities to use his position of leadership to engage in acts of sexual abuse.
e. negligently failing to train its Elders, volunteers, appointed overseers and other associated individuals 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 publishers and/or to implement and comply with such procedures that did exist.
g. failing to properly investigate matters brought to the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' attention involving child sexual abuse and/or suspicions of child sexual abuse.
h. negligently allowing Don Serjeant to move between congregations as a leader in good standing and placing him in leadership positions with authority over children after the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS knew or should have known of his propensities to use his position of leadership to engage in acts of sexual abuse of children.
j. concealing from Plaintiffs and their families that the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS had information that Don Serjeant was abusing young children.
i. 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.
k. negligently failing to undertake a sexual offender evaluation, provide sexual offender treatment and/or obtain psychiatric evaluation and treatment of Don Serjeant after they knew or should have known of his propensities to use his position of leadership to engage in acts of sexual abuse.
negligently failing to properly supervise Don Serjeant as a leader in the organization or to monitor his activities after they knew or should have known of his propensities to use his position of leadership to engage in acts of sexual abuse.
31.
Plaintiffs did not discover and could not have discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence their injuries that resulted from the abuse or the causal connection between their injuries and the wrongful conduct of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS until less than three years before the filing of this lawsuit.
PAGE 12. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
32.
For a number of years, beginning in 1984, as an agent and alter ego of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, Don Sergeant repeatedly committed sexual battery upon the persons of the Plaintiffs in the State of Oregon. Each of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS was in the chain of command and acted pursuant to the authority granted to them as agents and the alter ego of the GOVERNING BODY and each other, utilizing such leadership and authority to carry out and/or aid, abet and ratify the sexual abuse of Plaintiffs. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS are therefore liable for the sexual battery of Plaintiffs under the legal theory of respondeat superior.
COUNT II COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE
33.
At all material times, WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS assumed a duty to protect Plaintiffs from sexual predators within the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' organization. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS further knew or should have known that Plaintiffs were at risk of foreseeable harm by their agent, Don Serjeant, whom the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS had placed in leadership positions with supervision and control over children, but failed to act to protect them from said harm. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS breached their duty to the great harm of Plaintiffs.
PAGE 13. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
As a direct result of the negligent conduct of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and damages described herein.
COUNT III NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION 35.
At all material times, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS knew or should have known of Don Serjeant's propensities to use his position as a leader in the organization to engage in acts of sexual abuse. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS failed to adequately investigate, discipline, evaluate, treat, supervise and otherwise monitor the conduct of Don Serjeant who was under their control. They therefore negligently hired, retained and supervised Don Serjeant in the organization at a time when they knew or should have known of his propensities to engage in acts of sexual abuse against Plaintiffs and other young children. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS also failed to adequately train and supervise the Elders of the local congregations to whom they had entrusted the responsibility of investigating, evaluating and handling all reports or suspicions of child abuse. Plaintiffs have suffered grave harm due to WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' negligent hiring, retention and supervision of their agent, Don Serjeant, and Elders of the local congregations.
///
///
///
PAGE 14. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
COUNT IV AGGRAVATED NEGLIGENCE
36.
The behavior of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS set forth above demonstrated a conscious indifference to the safety and welfare of Plaintiffs, entitling Plaintiffs to amend and seek damages under O.R.S. 18.535.
37.
As a direct result of the aggravated negligent conduct of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and damages described herein.
COUNT V
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
38.
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS placed themselves in a position of trust and confidence with Plaintiffs. The relationship between Plaintiffs and the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' organization was fiduciary in nature and imposed on the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS a duty to act in Plaintiffs' best interests.
39.
Because of this special relationship between the Plaintiffs and the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs and their families placed their trust and confidence in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS that they would not harm Plaintiffs or fail to warn Plaintiffs of potential harm. Further, Plaintiffs and their families placed their trust and confidence in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS that they would protect Plaintiffs from harm.
PAGE 15. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
40.
The above acts and/or omissions by the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, either independently or in conjunction with each other, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiffs by WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS.
41.
As a direct result of the conduct of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and damages described herein.
COUNT VI
NEGLIGENCE PER SE and COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE: FAILURE TO REPORT SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE
42.
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS had a duty, under Section 419B of the Oregon Revised Statutes and the common-law, to report the abuse or suspected abuse of children.
43.
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS deliberately and negligently failed to report to law enforcement the abusive conduct of Don Serjeant prior to the abuse of Plaintiff. Further, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS failed to report abuse of Plaintiffs by Don Serjeant to law enforcement. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS thereby violated Section 419B of the Oregon Revised Statutes intended to safeguard and enhance the welfare of abused children. Plaintiffs were members of the class of persons Section 419B was designed to protect and were injured as a result of The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' violation of the statute. Such violation constitutes negligence per se. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' failure to report also constitutes common-law negligence. The
PAGE 16. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS asserted their authority over both Plaintiffs and their abuser, Don Serjeant, creating a special relationship of trust and confidence and power over Plaintiffs. In the context of this special relationship and the uneven balance of power, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS assumed a duty to handle all reports of child abuse and prevented Plaintiffs and their families from reporting the abuse to, or seeking help from, sources and authorities outside the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' organization. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, with conscious disregard for the welfare of Plaintiffs, violated that duty to Plaintiffs' detriment.
44.
As a direct result of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' failure to report Don Serjeant's abuse to law enforcement, Plaintiffs were deprived of Oregon's victim assistance program that would have provided for counseling and care that would have decreased the harm to the Plaintiffs from the effects of the abuse.
COUNT VII FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
45.
After receiving reports that Don Serjeant was abusing young girls, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, with the intent to keep the information from Plaintiffs, other victims similarly situated and the community-at-large, willfully concealed that information. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS materially misrepresented to Plaintiffs and their families that Don Serjeant was a leader in good standing with authority to instruct Plaintiffs in spiritual, ethical and moral matters and that he was to be obeyed as an agent of the organization with
PAGE 17. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
supervisory authority over children. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS further materially misrepresented that they would act in their best interest. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS failed to disclose that they knew of Don Serjeant's propensities to use his leadership position to sexually abuse Plaintiffs and others and that they were doing nothing to protect them. Plaintiffs did not know of the falsity of Defendants' representations, were entitled to rely upon them and did, in fact, rely upon them to their serious injury and harm.
COUNT VIII RATIFICATION
46.
Upon learning that its agent, Don Serjeant had sexually abused Plaintiffs and others, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS failed to take any steps to discipline or otherwise hold Don Serjeant accountable for his actions and continued to maintain that Don Serjeant was a leader in good standing with the organization, with authority to supervise and control children, until his death. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS have thereby ratified Don Serjeant's conduct in sexually abusing Plaintiffs and others. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS are thus liable in damages to Plaintiffs.
COUNT IX
ALTER EGO AND SINGLE BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
47.
The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS are organized and controlled and their affairs are so conducted that they are, in fact, mere instrumentalities and alter egos for each other and liable for each other's acts. Alternatively, the
PAGE 18. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS were all engaged, at all material times, in a single business enterprise and are liable for each other's acts.
COUNT X NEGLIGENT USURPATION OF INVESTIGATORY FUNCTION
48.
Section 419B of the Oregon Revised Civil Statutes (and predecessor provisions) requires officials to perform specific responsibilities to carry out the policy of the statute described in Section 419.005 (and its predecessors). The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS assumed these duties and responsibilities, but negligently failed to perform them.
49.
As a direct result of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS' negligent conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and damages described herein.
DAMAGES
50.
As a result of Defendants' acts, Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur costs for medical expenses, counseling and psychological treatment, have lost earning capacity and have suffered and will continue to suffer extreme, permanent emotional distress and psychological harm with accompanying physical manifestations, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and economic damages of (amount to be inserted prior to trial) and non-economic damages of 4,000,000 as to each Plaintiff.
///
PAGE 19. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Morley et al., v. North Albany Congregation et al.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants individually, jointly and severally in an amount for economic damages of (amount to be inserted prior to trial) and non-economic damages of 12,000,000, plus costs, disbursements, and whatever relief the court deems just and equitable.
DATED this 23rd day of April, 2003.
By James G. Nelson OSB #74230 Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NELSON & MacNEIL, P.C.
SUBMITTED BY:
James G. Nelson OSB #74230
Nelson & MacNeil, P.C.
P.O. Box 946
Albany, OR 97321
(541) 928-9147 - Office
LOVE & NORRIS
Gregory S. Love (Pro hac vice to be submitted)
314 Main Street, Suite 300
Fort Worth, Texas 76102-7423
Telephone: 817/335-2800
FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON & GARTH Tommy Fibich, Esq. (Pro hac vice to be submitted) Hartley Hampton, Esq. (Pro hac vice to be submitted) Diane McGehee, Esq. (Pro hac vice to be submitted) 1401 McKinney, Suite 1800 Five Houston Center Houston, Texas 77010 Telephone 713-751-0025
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF LINN
LEANNA MORLEY, JESSICA SCHROEDER, and CHRISTINA VIZENOR,
Plaintiffs,
NORTH ALBANY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC., et al.,
Case No. 03-0431
DEFENDANTS' ORCP 21 MOTIONS AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Defendants.
(ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED)
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH UTCR 5.010(1)
Pursuant to UTCR 5.010(1), counsel for defendants conferred with counsel for plaintiff in good faith concerning the issues in dispute herein, but the parties were unable to resolve their disputes. 1
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Defendants request oral argument of these Motions and estimate that 1 hour will be required. Official court reporting services are requested.
1 The term "defendants" as used in these Motions refers only to the defendants for whom defense counsel has accepted service.
(1) Pursuant to ORCP 21A(8), defendants move to dismiss this action with prejudice because it fails to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute any claim for relief. Plaintiffs (who are all now adults) allege that when they were minors and members of a local Jehovah's Witnesses' congregation, a religious entity, they were sexually abused by another member of the congregation, Don Serjeant. Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew that Mr. Serjeant had allegedly abused other persons before plaintiffs, but failed to warn them about it or report it to the secular authorities. As a matter of law, however, organizations (including churches) do not have a duty to protect their members from each other, even assuming they had prior notice of a member's alleged propensity to sexually abuse minors. Also, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the "free exercise of religion" clauses of the Oregon Constitution, prohibit this type of inquiry by a secular court into the "correctness" of a church's beliefs, policies, and disciplinary practices.
(2) Pursuant to ORCP 21A(8), defendants move to dismiss with prejudice plaintiffs' sixth claim for relief, a claim for "Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse" as required by ORS Chapter 419B, because it fails to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief. ORS 419B.010, which requires certain persons to report suspected child abuse, does not provide for a civil cause of action when it is allegedly violated. Also, it does not apply to defendants because of its clergy privilege exception.
(3) Pursuant to ORCP 21A(8), defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' tenth claim for relief, entitled "Negligent Usurpation of Investigatory Function," which is also based on defendants' alleged violation
Page 2 - DEFENDANTS' ORCP 21 MOTIONS AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW of ORS 419B.010.
No such claim for relief is recognized in Oregon.
(4) Pursuant to ORCP 21A(8), defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' first claim for relief, entitled "Respondeat Superior," because "Respondeat Superior" is not an independent cause of action.
(5) Pursuant to ORCP 21A(8), defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' eighth claim for relief, entitled "Ratification," because "Ratification" is also not an independent cause of action.
(6) Pursuant to ORCP 21A(8), defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' ninth claim for relief, entitled "Alter Ego and Single Business Enterprise," because this is also not an independent cause of action.
(7) Pursuant to ORCP 21E and 18B, defendants move to strike plaintiffs' request for unspecified economic damages from the First Amended Complaint because a specific amount of alleged economic damages is not stated in violation of ORCP 18B, which provides that such an amount "shall" be stated in the operative Complaint.
These Motions are based on ORCP 21 and 18B, the Court's file, and the following Memorandum of Law.
A. Introduction and Summary of Allegations
This is a childhood sex abuse action arising from the alleged sexual abuse of plaintiffs, members of a Jehovah's Witnesses' congregation, by an alleged member of the congregation, Don Serjeant (who is deceased). Plaintiffs have associated two sets of Texas lawyers who specialize in suing the Jehovah's Witnesses' church around the country, and who drafted the 20- page First Amended Complaint asserting 10 claims against 11 defendants. See First Amended Complaint at p. 20.
…