Fill and Sign the Museum Loan Agreement Template 30155855 Form

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING NO. 10-2-30752-4 J.H., L.B., and D.P. SEA Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS) Plaintiff(s) vs CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation, et al. Defendant(s) ASSIGNED JUDGE Heavey 20 FILE DATE: 08/26/2010 TRIAL DATE: 02/13/2012 A civil case has been filed in the King County Superior Court and will be managed by the Case Schedule on Page 3 as ordered by the King County Superior Court Presiding Judge. I. NOTICES NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF: The Plaintiff may serve a copy of this Order Setting Case Schedule (Schedule) on the Defendant(s) along with the Summons and Complaint/Petition. Otherwise, the Plaintiff shall serve the Schedule on the Defendant(s) within 10 days after the later of: (1) the filing of the Summons and Complaint/Petition or (2) service of the Defendant's first response to the Complaint/Petition, whether that response is a Notice of Appearance, a response, or a Civil Rule 12 (CR 12) motion. The Schedule may be served by regular mail, with proof of mailing to be filed promptly in the form required by Civil Rule 5 (CR 5). "I understand that I am required to give a copy of these documents to all parties in this case." Print Name Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS) Sign Name REV. 12/08 1 I. NOTICES (continued) NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES: All attorneys and parties should make themselves familiar with the King County Local Rules [KCLR] -especially those referred to in this Schedule. In order to comply with the Schedule, it will be necessary for attorneys and parties to pursue their cases vigorously from the day the case is filed. For example, discovery must be undertaken promptly in order to comply with the deadlines for joining additional parties, claims, and defenses, for disclosing possible witnesses [See KCLCR 26], and for meeting the discovery cutoff date [See KCLCR 37(g)]. CROSSCLAIMS, COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD PARTY COMPLAINTS: A filing fee of $230 must be paid when any answer that includes additional claims is filed in an existing case. KCLCR 4.2(a)(2) A Confirmation of Joinder, Claims and Defenses or a Statement of Arbitrability must be filed by the deadline in the schedule. The court will review the confirmation of joinder document to determine if a hearing is required. If a Show Cause order is issued, all parties cited in the order must appear before their Chief Civil Judge. PENDING DUE DATES CANCELED BY FILING PAPERS THAT RESOLVE THE CASE: When a final decree, judgment, or order of dismissal of all parties and claims is filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office, and a courtesy copy delivered to the assigned judge, all pending due dates in this Schedule are automatically canceled, including the scheduled Trial Date. It is the responsibility of the parties to 1) file such dispositive documents within 45 days of the resolution of the case, and 2) strike any pending motions by notifying the bailiff to the assigned judge. Parties may also authorize the Superior Court to strike all pending due dates and the Trial Date by filing a Notice of Settlement pursuant to KCLCR 41, and forwarding a courtesy copy to the assigned judge. If a final decree, judgment or order of dismissal of all parties and claims is not filed by 45 days after a Notice of Settlement, the case may be dismissed with notice. If you miss your scheduled Trial Date, the Superior Court Clerk is authorized by KCLCR 41(b)(2)(A) to present an Order of Dismissal, without notice, for failure to appear at the scheduled Trial Date. NOTICES OF APPEARANCE OR WITHDRAWAL AND ADDRESS CHANGES: All parties to this action must keep the court informed of their addresses. When a Notice of Appearance/Withdrawal or Notice of Change of Address is filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office, parties must provide the assigned judge with a courtesy copy. ARBITRATION FILING AND TRIAL DE NOVO POST ARBITRATION FEE: A Statement of Arbitrability must be filed by the deadline on the schedule if the case is subject to mandatory arbitration and service of the original complaint and all answers to claims, counterclaims and cross-claims have been filed. If mandatory arbitration is required after the deadline, parties must obtain an order from the assigned judge transferring the case to arbitration. Any party filing a Statement must pay a $220 arbitration fee. If a party seeks a trial de novo when an arbitration award is appealed, a fee of $250 and the request for trial de novo must be filed with the Clerk’s Office Cashiers. NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE FEES: All parties will be assessed a fee authorized by King County Code 4.71.050 whenever the Superior Court Clerk must send notice of non-compliance of schedule requirements and/or Local Civil Rule 41. King County Local Rules are available for viewing at www.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk. Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS) REV. 12/08 2 II. CASE SCHEDULE CASE EVENT Case Filed and Schedule Issued. Last Day for Filing Statement of Arbitrability without a Showing of Good Cause for Late Filing [See KCLMAR 2.1(a) and Notices on Page 2]. $220 arbitration fee must be paid DEADLINE to file Confirmation of Joinder if not subject to Arbitration. [See KCLCR 4.2(a) and Notices on Page 2]. DEADLINE for Hearing Motions to Change Case Assignment Area. [See KCLCR 82(e)] DEADLINE for Disclosure of Possible Primary Witnesses [See KCLCR 26(b)]. DEADLINE for Disclosure of Possible Additional Witnesses [See KCLCR 26(b)]. DEADLINE for Jury Demand [See KCLCR 38(b)(2)]. DEADLINE for Setting Motion for a Change in Trial Date [See KCLCR 40(d)(2)]. DEADLINE for Discovery Cutoff [See KCLCR 37(g)]. DEADLINE for Engaging in Alternative Dispute Resolution [See KCLCR 16(b)]. DEADLINE for Exchange Witness & Exhibit Lists & Documentary Exhibits [See KCLCR 4(j)]. DEADLINE to file Joint Confirmation of Trial Readiness [See KCLCR 16] DEADLINE for Hearing Dispositive Pretrial Motions [See KCLCR 56; CR 56]. Joint Statement of Evidence [See KCLCR (4)(k)]. DEADLINE for filing Trial Briefs, Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Jury Instructions (Do not file Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with the Clerk) Trial Date [See KCLCR 40]. DEADLINE or Filing EVENT DATE Needed Thu 08/26/2010 Thu 02/03/2011 * * Thu 02/03/2011 * Thu 02/17/2011 Mon 09/12/2011 Mon 10/24/2011 Mon 11/07/2011 Mon 11/07/2011 * * Tue 12/27/2011 Tue 01/17/2012 Mon 01/23/2012 Mon 01/23/2012 * Mon 01/30/2012 Mon 02/06/2012 Mon 02/06/2012 * * Mon 02/13/2012 III. ORDER Pursuant to King County Local Civil Rule 4 [KCLCR 4], IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the schedule listed above. Penalties, including but not limited to sanctions set forth in Local Civil Rule 4(g) and Rule 37 of the Superior Court Civil Rules, may be imposed for non-compliance. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the party filing this action must serve this Order Setting Civil Case Schedule and attachment on all other parties. DATED: 08/26/2010 PRESIDING JUDGE Order Setting Civil Case Schedule (*ORSCS) REV. 12/08 3 IV. ORDER ON CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO JUDGE READ THIS ORDER BEFORE CONTACTING YOUR ASSIGNED JUDGE This case is assigned to the Superior Court Judge whose name appears in the caption of this case schedule. The assigned Superior Court Judge will preside over and manage this case for all pretrial matters. COMPLEX LITIGATION: If you anticipate an unusually complex or lengthy trial, please notify the assigned court as soon as possible. APPLICABLE RULES: Except as specifically modified below, all the provisions of King County Local Civil Rules 4 through 26 shall apply to the processing of civil cases before Superior Court Judges. The local civil rules can be found at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx . CASE SCHEDULE AND REQUIREMENTS Deadlines are set by the case schedule, issued pursuant to Local Civil Rule 4. THE PARTIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING AND COMPLYING WITH ALL DEADLINES IMPOSED BY THE COURT’S LOCAL CIVIL RULES. A. Joint Confirmation regarding Trial Readiness Report: No later than twenty one (21) days before the trial date, parties shall complete and file (with a copy to the assigned judge) a joint confirmation report setting forth whether a jury demand has been filed, the expected duration of the trial, whether a settlement conference has been held, and special problems and needs (e.g. interpreters, equipment, etc.). The form is available at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt.aspx . If parties wish to request a CR 16 conference, they must contact the assigned court. Plaintiff’s/petitioner’s counsel is responsible for contacting the other parties regarding said report. B. Settlement/Mediation/ADR a. Forty five (45) days before the trial date, counsel for plaintiff/petitioner shall submit a written settlement demand. Ten (10) days after receiving plaintiff’s/petitioner’s written demand, counsel for defendant/respondent shall respond (with a counter offer, if appropriate). b. Twenty eight (28) days before the trial date, a Settlement/Mediation/ADR conference shall have been held. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REQUIREMENT MAY RESULT IN SANCTIONS. C. Trial: Trial is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on the date on the case schedule or as soon thereafter as convened by the court. The Friday before trial, the parties should access the King County Superior Court website http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt.aspx to confirm trial judge assignment. Information can also be obtained by calling (206) 205-5984. MOTIONS PROCEDURES A. Noting of Motions Dispositive Motions: All summary judgment or other dispositive motions will be heard with oral argument before the assigned judge. The moving party must arrange with the hearing judge a date and time for the hearing, consistent with the court rules. Local Civil Rule 7 and Local Civil Rule 56 govern procedures for summary judgment or other motions that dispose of the case in whole or in part. The local civil rules can be found at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx. Nondispositive Motions: These motions, which include discovery motions, will be ruled on by the assigned judge without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered. All such motions must be noted for a date by which the ruling is requested; this date must likewise conform to the applicable notice requirements. Rather than noting a time of day, the Note for Motion should state “Without Oral Argument.” Local Civil Rule 7 governs these motions, which include discovery motions. The local civil rules can be found at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx. Motions in Family Law Cases not involving children: Discovery motions to compel, motions in limine, motions relating to trial dates and motions to vacate judgments/dismissals shall be brought before the assigned judge. All other motions should be noted and heard on the Family Law Motions calendar. Local Civil Rule 7 and King County Family Law Local Rules govern these procedures. The local rules can be found at http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/superiorcourt/civil.aspx. Emergency Motions: Under the court’s local civil rules, emergency motions will be allowed only upon entry of an Order Shortening Time. However, emergency discovery disputes may be addressed by telephone call and without written motion, if the judge approves. B. Original Documents/Working Copies/ Filing of Documents All original documents must be filed with the Clerk’s Office. Please see information on the Clerk’s Office website at www.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk regarding the new requirement outlined in LGR 30 that attorneys must e-file documents in King County Superior Court. The exceptions to the e-filing requirement are also available on the Clerk’s Office website. The working copies of all documents in support or opposition must be marked on the upper right corner of the first page with the date of consideration or hearing and the name of the assigned judge. The assigned judge’s working copies must be delivered to his/her courtroom or the Judges’ mailroom. Working copies of motions to be heard on the Family Law Motions Calendar should be filed with the Family Law Motions Coordinator. On June 1, 2009 you will be able to submit working copies through the Clerk’s office E-Filing application at www.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk. Service of documents. E-filed documents may be electronically served on parties who opt in to E-Service within the E-Filing application. The filer must still serve any others who are entitled to service but who have not opted in. E-Service generates a record of service document that can be e-filed. Please see information on the Clerk’s office website at www.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk regarding E-Service. Original Proposed Order: Each of the parties must include an original proposed order granting requested relief with the working copy materials submitted on any motion. Do not file the original of the proposed order with the Clerk of the Court. Should any party desire a copy of the order as signed and filed by the judge, a pre-addressed, stamped envelope shall accompany the proposed order. Presentation of Orders: All orders, agreed or otherwise, must be presented to the assigned judge. If that judge is absent, contact the assigned court for further instructions. If another judge enters an order on the case, counsel is responsible for providing the assigned judge with a copy. Proposed orders finalizing settlement and/or dismissal by agreement of all parties shall be presented to the assigned judge or in the Ex Parte Department. Formal proof in Family Law cases must be scheduled before the assigned judge by contacting the bailiff, or formal proof may be entered in the Ex Parte Department. If final order and/or formal proof are entered in the Ex Parte Department, counsel is responsible for providing the assigned judge with a copy. C. Form Memoranda/briefs for matters heard by the assigned judge may not exceed twenty four (24) pages for dispositive motions and twelve (12) pages for nondispositive motions, unless the assigned judge permits over-length memoranda/briefs in advance of filing. Over-length memoranda/briefs and motions supported by such memoranda/briefs may be stricken. IT IS SO ORDERED. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OR OTHER SANCTIONS. PLAINTIFF/PEITITONER SHALL FORWARD A COPY OF THIS ORDER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE TO ANY PARTY WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED THIS ORDER. PRESIDING JUDGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 8 9 J.H., L.B., and D.P., NO. Plaintiffs, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES v. CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF THE BROTHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS OF IRELAND; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS OF IRELAND; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE, a New York corporation; and, THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS OF IRELAND, INC., an Illinois corporation, Defendants. 21 22 Plaintiffs J.H., L.B., and D.P., by and through their attorneys, Michael T. Pfau, Darrell 23 L. Cochran, Jason P. Amala, and Pfau Cochran Vertetis Kosnoff, PLLC, hereby state and 24 25 allege as follows: 26 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 1 of 15 LAW OFFICES PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS & KOSNOFF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4730 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 462-4334 - FACSIMILE (206) 623-3624 I. 1 2 3 4 1.1. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs J.H., L.B., and D.P. were sexually abused while they were students at Briscoe Memorial School (“Briscoe”) in King County, Washington, and while they were under the care, control, and supervision of the Christian Brothers and the Seattle Archdiocese. 5 1.2. J.H., L.B., and D.P. were sexually abused by various Christian Brothers and 6 7 8 others who taught, administered, resided, or otherwise served at Briscoe. 1.3. When J.H., L.B., and D.P. were sexually abused at Briscoe, the school was 9 owned by defendant Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (“Seattle 10 Archdiocese”) and was jointly operated by the Seattle Archdiocese and defendants 11 Congregation of the Brothers of the Christian Schools of Ireland, Congregation of Christian 12 Brothers, Congregation of Christian Brothers of Ireland, Congregation of Christian Brothers – 13 North American Province, also known as the Western Province, Christian Brothers Institute, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 and The Christian Brothers of Ireland, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Christian Brothers”). 1.4. By the time J.H., L.B., and D.P. were physically and sexually abused at Briscoe, the defendants knew, or should have known, that the school was a dumping ground for Christian Brothers and others who sexually and physically abused children, but they failed to take reasonable steps to protect J.H., L.B. and D.P. from being abused. 21 22 23 24 II. 2.1. PARTIES Plaintiff J.H. resides in Washington. While he was a minor, J.H. attended Briscoe Memorial School in King County, Washington, where he was physically and sexually 25 abused. In the interests of privacy, this complaint identifies plaintiff J.H. only by his initials. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 2 of 15 LAW OFFICES PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS & KOSNOFF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4730 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 462-4334 - FACSIMILE (206) 623-3624 1 2.2. Plaintiff L.B. resides in Washington. While he was a minor, L.B. attended 2 Briscoe Memorial School in King County, Washington, where he was physically and sexually 3 abused. In the interests of privacy, this complaint identifies plaintiff L.B. only by his initials. 4 2.3. Plaintiff D.P. resides in Washington. While he was a minor, J.H. attended 5 Briscoe Memorial School in King County, Washington, where he was physically and sexually 6 7 8 abused. In the interests of privacy, this complaint identifies plaintiff J.H. only by his initials. 2.4. Between 1955 until the school closed, defendant Seattle Archdiocese was a 9 Washington sole corporation that owned, operated, managed and controlled Briscoe Memorial 10 School, including the Christian Brothers, priests, and others who taught, administered, 11 resided, or otherwise served at the school. At that time, as now, the Seattle Archdiocese’s 12 headquarters and its principal place of business were located in Seattle, King County, 13 14 15 Washington. 2.5. From 1955 until the school closed, defendant Congregation of the Brothers of 16 the Christian Schools of Ireland operated Briscoe and supervised the Christian Brothers, 17 priests, and others who taught, administered, resided, or otherwise served at the school. 18 19 2.6. From 1955 until the school closed, defendant Congregation of Christian Brothers operated Briscoe and supervised the Christian Brothers, priests, and others who 20 taught, administered, resided, or otherwise served at the school. 21 22 2.7. From 1955 until the school closed, defendant Congregation of Christian 23 Brothers of Ireland operated Briscoe and supervised the Christian Brothers, priests, and others 24 who taught, administered, resided, or otherwise served at the school. 25 26 2.8. From 1955 until the school closed, defendant Congregation of Christian Brothers – North American Province, also known as the “Western Province,” operated COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 3 of 15 LAW OFFICES PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS & KOSNOFF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4730 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 462-4334 - FACSIMILE (206) 623-3624 1 Briscoe and supervised the Christian Brothers, priests, and others who taught, administered, 2 resided, or otherwise served at the school. 3 4 2.9. From 1955 until the school closed, defendant Christian Brothers Institute, a New York corporation, operated Briscoe and supervised the Christian Brothers, priests, and 5 others who taught, administered, resided, or otherwise served at the school. 6 7 2.10. From 1955 until the school closed, defendant Christian Brothers Institute, a 8 New York corporation, received compensation for the Christian Brothers who served at 9 Briscoe. 10 11 2.11. From 1955 until the school closed, defendant The Christian Brothers of Ireland, Inc., an Illinois corporation, operated Briscoe and supervised the Christian Brothers, 12 priests, and others who taught, administered, resided, or otherwise served at the school. 13 14 15 16 2.12. From 1955 until the school closed, defendant The Christian Brothers of Ireland, Inc., an Illinois corporation, received compensation for the Christian Brothers who served at Briscoe. 17 III. JURISDICTION & VENUE 18 19 3.1. As discussed more fully herein, many of the acts and omissions giving rise to 20 this action occurred in King County, Washington. Moreover, the principal place of business 21 of defendant Seattle Archdiocese was, and is, Seattle, King County, Washington, and at the 22 time this cause of action arose, the Seattle Archdiocese transacted business in Seattle, King 23 County, Washington. Similarly, at the time this cause of action arose, the Christian Brothers 24 defendants transacted business in Seattle, King County, Washington. 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 4 of 15 LAW OFFICES PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS & KOSNOFF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4730 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 462-4334 - FACSIMILE (206) 623-3624 1 2 3.2. As such, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to RCW 2.08.010, and venue is proper in this Court pursuant to RCW 4.12.020. 3 IV. 4 5 4.1. STATEMENT OF FACTS Briscoe Memorial School (“Briscoe”) was opened and established by the 6 Corporation of the Catholic Bishop of Nisqually in the Territory of Washington in 7 approximately 1908 to care for needy and troubled orphans. 8 9 4.2. The Corporation of the Catholic Bishop of Nisqually in the Territory of Washington would eventually become the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle 10 (“Seattle Archdiocese” or “Archdiocese”). 11 12 4.3. In approximately 1914, the Corporation of the Catholic Bishop of Nisqually in 13 the Territory of Washington entered into a contract with the Christian Brothers regarding the 14 day-to-day operations of Briscoe. While the Christian Brothers were charged with the day-to- 15 day operations of Briscoe, the Archdiocese maintained full control over the school: 16 17 18 19 20 2. Possession of said property is hereby delivered to second party as a Foundation for second party for the undertaking and management of benevolence and charities, and particularly for taking and having the care, custody, control and education of orphan and needy boys, the furnishing of homes for such boys, the education and training of youth, and the promotion of the physical, moral and educational and religious interests of orphan and needy boys, the same to be conducted by the religious order of the Catholic Church known as the Christian Brothers of Ireland. … 21 22 23 24 25 3. The title and ownership of all of said real property shall remain as it now exists, namely, in the Corporation of the Catholic Bishop of Nisqually in the Territory of Washington .... 6. Second party agrees to conduct the Foundation aforesaid in matters temporal and spiritual in accordance with the canon laws of the Catholic Church, and shall always provide a sufficient number of the members of said order and employees to care for the inmates of the orphanage and schools. … 26 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 5 of 15 LAW OFFICES PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS & KOSNOFF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4730 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 462-4334 - FACSIMILE (206) 623-3624 15. In case second party shall fail at any time to conduct and maintain on said premises a charitable school for orphan and needy boys in accordance with the true intent of this agreement, this agreement shall become void, and all rights of second party shall there-upon terminate, and first parties may re-enter said premises and rescue possession thereof, and this agreement shall be at an end. 1 2 3 4 4.4. As a result of its joint operation of Briscoe with the Christian Brothers, the 5 Archdiocese collected taxes and fees from Briscoe and its students; financed the school’s 6 7 operations; maintained academic files on its students; included Briscoe in its annual reports of 8 Archdiocesan schools; supervised and monitored Briscoe’s operations; dictated textbooks to 9 be used at the school; monitored health testing of the students; issued Briscoe report cards on 10 Archdiocesan stationary; established policies for the school, including the requirement that 11 12 the teachers be certified; appointed chaplains for Briscoe who lived at the school; provided Briscoe’s students with social workers and caseworkers, including such services through the 13 14 15 Archdiocese’s Catholic Charities program; obtained insurance for Briscoe, including policies that listed both Briscoe and the Archdiocese as insureds; and owned the the Briscoe buildings 16 and property. As reflected in its contract with the Christian Brothers, the Archdiocese also 17 retained ultimate authority to appoint and remove teachers and to enforce good morals in the 18 school. 19 4.5. Regrettably, unfit Christian Brothers and other school personnel were not 20 removed. The defendants were careless, at least in part, because of a shortage of Christian 21 22 Brothers, priests, and other Catholic personnel. Yet they also concealed the sexual and 23 physical abusers at Briscoe in order to protect state and community funding for the school and 24 presumably to avoid a scandal that would hurt their image and their continuing efforts to raise 25 money for other Archdiocese and Christian Brothers endeavors. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 6 of 15 LAW OFFICES PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS & KOSNOFF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4730 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 462-4334 - FACSIMILE (206) 623-3624 4.6. 1 Numerous complaints by parents and students of physical and sexual abuse 2 were ignored by the Archdiocese and the Christian Brothers. For example, in approximately 3 the spring of 1944, a young boy ran away from Briscoe and went to the local Chancery, where 4 he informed his caseworker and representatives of the Archdiocese that he was being abused 5 at Briscoe. In the late 1940s, a boy was repeatedly molested by the Archdiocesan priest at 6 7 Briscoe, Father Toner. Despite being ridiculed by the Christian Brothers for the abuse, they 8 did nothing to prevent it. In the early 1950s, a boy told another Archdiocesan priest at 9 Briscoe that he was sexually abused by Christian Brother D.P. Ryan, but nothing was done to 10 prevent Ryan from abusing more children. In the mid-1950s, a boy told the Christian Brother 11 supervisors at the school that he was being sexually abused by the cook; instead of helping 12 him, they physically beat him. Around the same time, numerous other boys told other 13 14 15 Christian Brothers and the school nurse that they were being sexually abused, but nothing was done. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, a boy informed Father Edmund Boyle, the 16 Archdiocese’s assistant pastor of St. James Cathedral, and other priests that he had been 17 sexually abused at Briscoe, but nothing was done. In the early and mid-1960s, other boys told 18 various school employees that they were being sexually abused, including the school nurse 19 and an Archdiocesan caseworker, but nothing was done. 20 4.7. The personal accounts of dozens of boys who were sexually abused at Briscoe 21 22 is not the only direct evidence of the abuse and notice to the defendants. For example, in the 23 late 1940s and early 1950s, two of the eight Christian Brothers who were assigned to Briscoe 24 were removed after admitting to molesting children at the school. In 1950, the General 25 Superior of the Christian Brothers, who was responsible for its worldwide operations, wrote to 26 his subordinate in the United States regarding one of those two Brothers, acknowledged the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 7 of 15 LAW OFFICES PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS & KOSNOFF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4730 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 462-4334 - FACSIMILE (206) 623-3624 1 danger of pedophilia, and chastised his subordinate for failing to do more to admonish the 2 Brother and protect the children. 3 4 4.8. A few years later, in 1954, another Christian Brother was allowed to remain at Briscoe despite a letter stating “he definitely should not be sent here . . . The man certainly 5 does not belong in a boarding school.” Nevertheless, ten years down the road, the same 6 7 Brother was still a problem for the Briscoe superior: “Under no condition should Brother be 8 permitted to return . . . [He] keeps certain boys with himself. These are the very ones who 9 should not be kept apart. If we are to help these boys, we cannot afford a period when our 10 work will be undone . . . Another reason is his inability to control his temper when with the 11 boys . . .” 12 4.9. Similarly, after a boy was severely abused in 1958 or 1959, the head of Briscoe 13 14 15 16 17 wrote to his regional superior and noted that “nearly all of them [students] are delinquent, criminal, and disturbed to a degree. You can see why Briscoe is no place for a Brother who is a problem. The blind can hardly lead the blind.” 4.10. The defendants were well aware of Briscoe’s abusive environment and the 18 emotional impact that environment had on its students. For example, in approximately 1950, 19 a “Briscoe Study” was conducted for the express purpose of “appraising the needs of the 20 children now being served at Briscoe.” The issues addressed by the Briscoe Study were: (1) 21 22 the reasons for the placement of the child at Briscoe; (2) the child’s adjustment and the 23 effectiveness of the placement; and, (3) recommendations regarding the type of care needed 24 by the boys. Not surprisingly, the study revealed that the boys at Briscoe were suffering 25 severely with unexplained – yet explainable – emotional disturbances, and mandated that the 26 boys receive immediate psychological counseling and care. The mandate was ignored. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 8 of 15 LAW OFFICES PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS & KOSNOFF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4730 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 462-4334 - FACSIMILE (206) 623-3624 1 4.11. A decade later, the problems remained and were still being documented by the 2 defendants. For example, in the early 1960s, the Christian Brother responsible for Briscoe 3 reported that the children were “emotionally, physically, and socially mistreated, mistrusted, 4 and mishandled. Their needs are not only unmet but definite injury and harm are being done 5 to them. . . . Parents are often taken to Court for the very same neglect and abuse for which 6 7 8 9 10 11 this school and the American Province have been guilty.” 4.12. Plaintiff J.H., L.B., and D.P. were among the many victims of physical and sexually abuse at Briscoe. 4.13. Plaintiff J.H. was placed at Briscoe in approximately 1955, when he was about nine years old. While at Briscoe, Christian Brother Casale would get J.H. out of bed at night 12 and eventually persuaded J.H. to perform oral sex on him, partly through Casale telling J.H. 13 14 15 16 that he could become a priest if he did so. Plaintiff J.H. was also made to perform oral sex on others, including Brother Croke, as a result of being groomed and sexually abused by Casale. 4.14. Plaintiff L.B. was placed at Briscoe in approximately 1962, when he was about 17 ten years old. In his second and third years at Briscoe, Christian Brother O’Sullivan would 18 get L.B. out of his bed at night, take him downstairs, and sexually abuse him in O’Sullivan’s 19 room at Briscoe. The sexual abuse happened a number of times and escalated over time, 20 starting with fondling and masturbation and leading to attempted oral sex and anal sex. L.B. 21 22 23 24 25 26 was also sexually abused by Brother Croke while at Briscoe. 4.15. L.B. told Brother C.P. Ryan and his caseworker about the sexual abuse he endured at Briscoe, but nothing was done. 4.16. Plaintiff D.P. was placed at Briscoe in approximately 1966, when he was about eleven years old. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 9 of 15 LAW OFFICES PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS & KOSNOFF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4730 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 462-4334 - FACSIMILE (206) 623-3624 4.17. 1 While at Briscoe, D.P. was sexually abused numerous times by Christian 2 Brother C.P. Ryan, who forced D.P. to engage in mutual masturbation until C.P. Ryan 3 ejaculated. 4 V. 5 CAUSES OF ACTION 6 A. Outrage and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 7 8 9 5.1 Plaintiffs J.H., L.B., and D.P. re-allege the paragraphs set forth above and 5.2 The Christian Brothers and the Seattle Archdiocese engaged in extreme and below. 10 11 outrageous conduct by ignoring the rampant sexual abuse of children that occurred at Briscoe 12 Memorial School and allowing J.H., L.B., and D.P. to be sexually abused. They did so in 13 order to conceal their own bad acts, to protect their reputation, and to prevent victims from 14 coming forward, despite knowing that Briscoe students would continue to be abused. 5.3 15 16 As a result of this extreme and outrageous conduct, Plaintiffs were sexually abused. 5.4 17 The Christian Brothers and the Seattle Archdiocese knew that this extreme and 18 outrageous conduct would inflict severe emotional and psychological distress on others, and 19 J.H., L.B., and D.P. did in fact suffer severe emotional and psychological distress as a result. 20 Their emotional damages include severe mental anguish, humiliation and emotional and 21 physical distress. 22 B. Willful Misconduct and Wanton Misconduct 23 5.5 Plaintiffs J.H., L.B., and D.P. re-allege the paragraphs set forth above and 24 below. 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 10 of 15 LAW OFFICES PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS & KOSNOFF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4730 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 462-4334 - FACSIMILE (206) 623-3624 1 2 3 5.6 Archdiocese engaged in egregious conduct that reflects their intent to harm, and plaintiffs J.H., L.B., and D.P. were severely damaged as a result. 4 5 6 7 8 9 The conduct described above shows that the Christian Brothers and the Seattle 5.7 At the very least, the Christian Brothers and the Seattle Archdiocese were recklessly indifferent to injury that would likely result from their acts and omissions. They knew Briscoe was a dumping ground for serial sexual predators, they knew those predators would continue to molest children at Briscoe if given access to do so, and they knew that those children would suffer severe damage from being sexually abused. J.H., L.B., and D.P. were the victims of their reckless indifference and their willful and wanton misconduct. 10 C. Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty 11 12 13 14 5.8 Plaintiffs J.H., L.B., and D.P. re-allege the paragraphs set forth above and 5.9 Even if one gave the Archdiocese and the Christian Brothers every possible below. 15 benefit of the doubt, they failed to exercise the reasonable care one would expect from school 16 owners and operators – they negligently and grossly negligently hired, retained, supervised, 17 and monitored the Christian Brothers and others who were given access to plaintiffs and the 18 other children at Briscoe. 19 5.10 More specifically, the Christian Brothers and the Seattle Archdiocese enabled 20 the physical and sexual abuse of J.H., L.B., and D.P. through a number of wrongful acts and 21 omissions, including: 22 (a) failing to conduct proper background checks to ascertain whether their abusers 23 were suitable to be a school teacher, school administrator, or otherwise have 24 access to plaintiffs and the other children at Briscoe; 25 26 (b) failing to timely adopt policies and procedures to identify potential and actual sexual offenders and abusers, and to prevent their placement at Briscoe; COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 11 of 15 LAW OFFICES PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS & KOSNOFF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4730 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 462-4334 - FACSIMILE (206) 623-3624 1 (c) failing to properly supervise their abusers by providing them with access to 2 students at Briscoe, failing to take any meaningful steps to prevent their 3 abusers from physically and sexually abusing plaintiffs and the other students 4 at Briscoe, and failing to report the sexual misconduct of their abusers at 5 Briscoe and other schools to the authorities; 6 7 (d) abusers posed to students; and, 8 9 failing to warn parents, students, or others at Briscoe of the danger that their (e) concealing the abuse of children at Briscoe. 5.11 The Christian Brothers and the Seattle Archdiocese knew, or certainly should 10 11 have known, that certain individuals possess an uncontrollable urge to sexually molest young 12 boys and that there existed in the mental health community ample knowledge that the 13 treatment of that condition included at the very least two essential elements (1) keeping them 14 away from young boys, and (2) telling those who needed to know about their condition. 15 Defendants did neither. 16 5.12 As a direct and proximate result of the negligent and grossly negligent acts and 17 omissions of the Christian Brothers and the Seattle Archdiocese, plaintiffs J.H., L.B., and D.P. 18 were physically, psychologically and emotionally damaged. 19 5.13 The Seattle Archdiocese and the Christian Brothers also knew or should have 20 known that their attempts to cover-up the sexual abuse of children at Briscoe would, if 21 discovered, likely cause increased emotional suffering to his victims and their families. 22 5.14 Notwithstanding that knowledge, the Christian Brothers and the Seattle 23 Archdiocese hid the nature and the extent of the sexual abuse at Briscoe from the victims, 24 their families, and other parish or school members. Those attempts were successful, and not 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 12 of 15 LAW OFFICES PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS & KOSNOFF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4730 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 462-4334 - FACSIMILE (206) 623-3624 1 2 discovered until many years later, thereby causing increased emotional suffering to his victims and their families, including J.H., L.B., and D.P. 3 D. Respondeat Superior and Ratification 4 5 6 7 5.15 Plaintiffs J.H., L.B., and D.P. re-allege the paragraphs set forth above and 5.16 At all relevant times, the Christian Brothers and the Seattle Archdiocese below. 8 maintained complete authority and control over those who taught and served at Briscoe, 9 including the Christian Brothers, priests, and caseworkers who provided services to its 10 students. As such, the Seattle Archdiocese and the Christian Brothers were empowered with 11 an obligation to prevent the abuses that were occurring at Briscoe. 12 5.17 The Christian Brothers, by and through their operation of Briscoe as an 13 Archdiocesan school, were the actual and apparent agents of the Seattle Archdiocese during 14 the times relevant to the allegations contained herein. 15 5.18 The abuse of minors by priests and Christian Brothers within the Seattle 16 Archdiocese was so pervasive that it cannot be said that such conduct by the priests and 17 Christian Brothers was unforeseen or so far outside their predictable behavior to prevent the 18 Seattle Archdiocese and the Christian Brothers from being vicariously liable for such conduct. 19 The Seattle Archdiocese and the Christian Brothers are therefore vicariously liable on the 20 basis of respondeat superior for the conduct of those who perpetrated the abuse and allowed it 21 to occur. This is particularly true where the Christian Brothers and the Seattle Archdiocese 22 ratified this misconduct over many, many years, reaping the benefits of their cheap labor 23 while later trying to repudiate its consequences. Despite knowledge that abuses at Briscoe 24 were rampant, they did nothing. 25 maintained a rich financial motive for doing so: for one, they profited by keeping abusers and 26 enablers quiet and moving them away from potential lawsuits; and two, they profited from the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 13 of 15 The Christian Brothers and the Seattle Archdiocese LAW OFFICES PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS & KOSNOFF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4730 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 462-4334 - FACSIMILE (206) 623-3624 1 2 3 cheap labor the abusers and enablers provided under the “vow of poverty.” Given these circumstances, the Christian Brothers and the Seattle Archdiocese should be held vicariously liable for their acts and omissions. 4 5 E. 6 7 10 13 14 15 Plaintiffs J.H., L.B., and D.P. re-allege the paragraphs set forth above and 5.20 The sexually assaults and exploitation that J.H., L.B., and D.P. suffered at Briscoe violated Chapter 9.68A RCW, the Sexual Exploitation of Children Act, including RCW 9.68A.040, 9.68A.070, and 9.68A.090. 11 12 5.19 below. 8 9 Violation of RCW 9.68A: Sexual Exploitation of Children 5.21 These violations of Chapter 9.68A RCW were done with the knowledge and the acquiescence of the Seattle Archdiocese and the Christian Brothers, and the claims of J.H., L.B., and D.P. against the Seattle Archdiocese and the Christian Brothers arise from those violations. Therefore, J.H., L.B., and D.P. are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs against the Seattle Archdiocese and the Christian Brothers pursuant to RCW 9.68A.130. 16 17 F. Equitable Estoppel, Fraudulent Concealment, and Civil Conspiracy 18 5.22 Plaintiffs J.H., L.B., and D.P. re-allege the paragraphs set forth above and 5.23 The Seattle Archdiocese and the Christian Brothers engaged in a plan or 19 below. 20 21 conspiracy to cover-up incidents of sexual and physical abuse of minors at Briscoe, efforts 22 intended to prevent disclosure, prosecution, and/or civil litigation related to that abuse of 23 children. Their efforts included, but were not limited to: failure to report incidents of abuse 24 to law enforcement or child protection agencies; denial of abuse when it was brought to their 25 attention; transfer of abusive personnel; failure to seek out and redress the injuries of victims; 26 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 14 of 15 LAW OFFICES PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS & KOSNOFF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4730 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 462-4334 - FACSIMILE (206) 623-3624 1 2 3 4 5 destruction of documents related to complaints of abuse; and, a refusal to fully document complaints of abuse. 5.24 Based on these actions, the Christian Brothers and the Seattle Archdiocese engaged in fraudulent concealment and are equitably estopped from asserting the defense of statute of limitations or laches. They are also liable for civil conspiracy. 6 VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 7 6.1. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs J.H., L.B., and D.P. pray for judgment against the 8 9 defendants for general and special damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, for 10 their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, for statutory interest, prejudgment interest, punitive 11 damages, exemplary damages as allowed by RCW 9.68A.130, and for such other and further 12 relief as the Court deems just and equitable. 13 14 6.2. Plaintiffs J.H., L.B., and D.P. specifically reserve the right to pursue additional causes of action, other than those specifically outlined above, that are supported by the facts 15 pleaded herein or that may be supported by other facts that emerge during discovery. 16 17 DATED this 26th day of August, 2010. 18 PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS KOSNOFF PLLC 19 20 By: Michael T. Pfau, WSBA No. 24649 michael@pcvklaw.com Darrell L. Cochran, WSBA No. 22851 darrel@pcvklaw.com Jason P. Amala, WSBA No. 37054 jason@pcvklaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 21 22 23 24 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 15 of 15 LAW OFFICES PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS & KOSNOFF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4730 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 462-4334 - FACSIMILE (206) 623-3624