IN THE cmcurr court of the state of oregon 16CV00678 F O R M U LT N O M A H C O U N T Y Case No.: H . W. A . , PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Respondeat Stperior/Battscy, Common Law ST. MARY'S SCHOOL FOR BOYS, an Negligence Oregon Corporation; SPENCER BIDDLE Not subject to mandatory arbitration DICK, an individual; and BENCHMARK DESIGN, INC., an inactive Oregon corporation. Request for jury trial Amount in controvert: $5,100,000.00 Defendants. PLAINTIFF ALLEGES: rOMMON A L L E G AT I O N S Plaintiff is proceeding by a pseudonym approved by the presiding judge of Multnomah County on January 2016. Plaintiff has been an Oregon resident since age 3, and is now a resident of Polk County, Oregon. Plaintiff was bom in 1970, and spent most of his childhood and adolescent years as a foster child in various placements in the state of Oregon. 2. Defendant St. Mary's School for Boys ("St. Marys") was and is an Oregon corporation licensed to do and doing business as a nongovernmental agency providing residential services for pre-adolescent and adolescent boys. It is located at 16535 SW Tualatin Valley Highway, Beaverton, Washington County, Oregon, 97006. PA G E 1 - P L A I N T I F F ' S C O M P L A I N T VOGT ALONG PC 1314 NW bving Street, Suite 207 PORTLAND, OR 97209 (503)228-9858 FAX (503) 228-9860 Defendant Spencer Biddle Dick ("Dick") was and is a resident of Multnomah County, Oregon. At all material times, Defendant Dick was approximately 20 years older than Plaintiff. Dick was at all times material, the principal owner and general manager of Defendant Benchmark Design, Inc. ("Benchmark"), an inactive Oregon corporation which was active at the time of the tortious conduct alleged herein. Benchmadc was at all material times, a factory located in Portland, Multnomah County, Oregott 4. Plaintiff, from the age of about 12 and continuing until he was about age 14, was a resident of Defendant St Mary's School for Boys. St. Mary's provided closely supervised residential care for vulnerable and troubled boys, and also provided educational services, counseling services, and mental health counseling and guidance. The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant St. Mary's was a special relationship. 5. While a resident at St Mary's, Plaintiff was under the care and supervision of a certain management-level social worker and unit manager who was, at all times material, acting within the course and scope of her aufriority. This employee entrusted Plaintiff and other similarly situated boys to the supervision and guidance of Defendant Dick, who acted on behalf of St Mary's as a volunteer social worker, counselor, and provider of residential services. St. Mary's selected or accepted Defendant Dick for the position of volunteer counselor and mentor to Plaintiff and otiier similarly-situated residents of St. Mary's. Dick, acting with authority from Defendant St. Mary's, became Plaintiff's part-time guardian and guidance counselor, and within the scope of his authority, as granted by St. Mary's employees, Dick took Plaintiff, on many dozens of occasions, out of the physical premises of St. Mary's, and transported Plaintiff to Dick's residence, his place of employment at Defendant Benchmark, and FAGB2-PLAINTIFF'SCOMPLAirfr PORTLAND. OR 97209 (503)228-9858 FAX (503) 228-9860 many other locations in Multnomah County, Washington County, and other sites in Oregon, Washington, and California. These outings and field trips occurred with increasing firequency during Plaintiff's early teenage years, and continued until Plaintiff was about 15 years of age. 7. Defendant St Mary's empowered Dick to perform all the duties of a social worker, coimselor, and guardian, including providing instruction, counseling, moral guidance, and physical guidance. St. Mary's knew that Dick would be in a position of trust, confidence, and authority over Plaintiff. St. Mary's retained the right to control the means and methods of Dick's relationship with Plaintiff. 8. Dick, while acting within the course and scope of his authority as a guardian, counselor, and social worker, engaged in a course of conduct directed at Plaintiff herein referred to as "grooming," in which he gained the trust and confidence of Plaintiff as an instructor, guide, mentor, and authority figure. As a direct result of Dick's actions. Plaintiff was conditioned to trust Dick, to comply with his directions, and to respect Dick as a person of authority in, among odier things, moral and ethical matters. 9. Using his authority and position of trust as a social worker and guardian, Didc, through the process of grooming, induced and directed Plaintiff to engage in sexual acts with him, resulting in sexual abuse of Plaintiff. Dick's grooming actions were: a. Committed in direct connection with and for the purpose of fulfilling Dick's agen