FILED



KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK

CASE NUMBER: 15-2-14184-8 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

FOR KING COUNTY
B.S. and S.M.,

Plaintiffs,

v_ DAMAGES

CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC
ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE. a sole
corporation,

Defendant.

 

 

 

 

NO. 15-2-14184?8 SEA

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

Plaintiffs B.S. and S.M., by and through their attorneys, MICHAEL T. PFAU of

PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC, JOHN MURPHY, and RAND JACK,

hereby states and alleges as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1. This claim arises from childhood sexual abuse that Plaintiffs B.S. and S.M.

suffered at the hands of Seattle Arehdiocesan priest Father Michael John Cody.

if


FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - of 13

PFAU COCHRAN AMALA PLLC

403 Columbia St. Sle. 50f}
Seattle, WA 93104

Phone: [206} 462-4334 Facsimile {20:5} 623?3624

 

 

I.2. At the time B.S. and SM. were sexually abused by Father Cody, the Seattle
Archdiocese knew or should have known that he posed a threat of foreseeable harm to BS.

and S.M., but it failed to take reasonable steps to protect 3.8. and SM. from that harm.

II. PARTIES

2.1 Plaintiff BS. is a woman who resides in Whatcom County, Washington.
When she was young girl, 13.3. was sexually abused by Father Cody, a priest of the Seattle
Archdiocese. In the interest of privacy, this complaint identifies B.S. by her initials, only.

2.2 Plaintiff SM. is a woman who resides in Skagit County, Washington. When
she was young girl, SM. was sexually abused by Father Cody, a priest of the Seattle
Archdiocese. In the interest of privacy, this complaint identifies SM. by her initials, only.

2.3 At all times material hereto, defendant Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop
of Seattle (?Seattle Archdiocese? or ?Archdiocese?) was a sole, nonprofit Washington
corporation that owned, operated, managed andi?or controlled local parishes, camps,
monasteries, hospitals, and schools throughout the Western Washington area, including the
Assumption Parish in Whatcom County, Washington, and the Assumption Grade School in
Whatcom County, Washington, and the St. Charles Parish in Burlington, Skagit County,
Washington, and Sacred Heart Parish in La Conner, Skagit County, Washington. At all times
material hereto, the Archdiocese?s headquarters and its principal place of business were, and
are, located in Seattle, King County, Washington.

2.4 At all relevant times herein, including during the abuse of BS. and S.M.,

Father Cody was a pastor employed by the Seattle Archdiocese.

PFAU AMALA PLLC
403 Columbia St. Sle. 50f}
Seattle, WA 93104
Phone: [206} 462-4334 Facsimile (20ft) 623?3624
htlp:wawpwalaweom

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 2 of !3

 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3.1 The principal place of business of defendant Seattle Archdiocese was, and is,
Seattle, King County, Washington, and at the time this cause of action arose, the Seattle
Archdiocese transacted business in King and Whatcoin Counties, Washington.

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 4.12.025.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

4.1 During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs B.S. and S.M. and their family were
residents of Burlington, Washington, and BS, S.M., and their siblings were parishioners of
St. Charles Parish. At the time, St. Charles Parish was owned and operated by the Seattle
Archdiocese.

4.2 Starting in approximately 1968, B.S. and S.M. were sexually abused by Father
Michael John Cody, a priest of the Seattle Archdiocese. Father Cody was assigned to Skagit
County from approximately 1968 through 1972. At that time, Father Cody provided pastoral
services in Skagit County, including at Sacred Heart Parish in La Conner, Washington, and
St. Charles Parish, in Burlington, Washington. For a part of that time, Father Cody lived at
the rectory on Peterson Road procured for him by the Archdiocese in a relatively isolated
location.

4.3 Father Cody invited and encouraged neighborhood and parish children,
including B.S. and S.M., to visit the Peterson Road rectory. Over the course of approximately
two years, Father Cody sexually abused B.S. and S.M. at the Peterson Road rectory. B.S. was
PFAU vuarcns AMALA PLLC



Phone: [206} 462-4334 Facsimile (20ft) 623?3624
htlp:wawpcyulawcom

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 3 of 13

 

somewhere between 10 and I3 years old at the time, and SM. was somewhere between 8 and
11 years old at the time.

4.4 Prior to Father Cody?s sexual abuse of 3.8. and S.M., the Archdiocese knew
that Father Cody had a history of sexually abusing children, that he was mentally ill, that he
was a danger to children, and that he was virtually certain to continue sexually abusing
children.

4.5 Prior to Father Cody?s sexual abuse of 3.5. and S.M., the Archdiocese knew
that Father Cody had been diagnosed by competent medical authority as a pedophile; knew
that Father Cody had a history of sexually abusing children; knew or should have known that
Father Cody had not been successfully treated for his pedophilia; was repeatedly warned,
including warnings by priests with supervisory responsibility for Father Cody and medical
personnel that Father Cody suffered from serious mental illness and sexual deviancy; and
knew or should have known that Father Cody was virtually certain to continue to sexually
abuse children if given the opportunity to do so.

4.6 The Archdiocese responded to its knowledge regarding Father Cody by
assigning him to Skagit County where he would have ready access to young people with no
supervising priest or other restrictions, and the Archdiocese did nothing to prevent Father

Cody from sexually abusing 3.5. and S.M.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

5.1 Upon information and belief, the Seattle Archdiocese deliberately disregarded

the gravity of the danger when it ignored numerous complaints that Father Cody was a

PFAU AMALA PLLC
403 Columbia St. Ste. 501')
Seattle, WA 93104
Phone: [206} 462-4334 Facsimile (20ft) 623?3624
htlp:waw.pt:valaw.con1

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 4 of l3

 

pedophile who sexually abused children. Rather than take any steps to prevent Father Cody
from sexually abusing more children, including B.S. and S.M., it did virtually nothing. This
misconduct gives rise to legal claims for intentional in?iction of emotional distress, outrage,
willful and wanton misconduct, and recklessness, as well as gross negligence and negligence.
Moreover, the Seattle Archdiocese should be held directly responsible for Father Cody?s
sexual abuse of 3.8. and S.M. given its extensive knowledge of his prior misconduct and its
ratification of his actions.

5.2 Upon information and belief, the Seattle Archdiocese knew that Father Cody
could not be andfor had not been ?cured? or successfully ?treated.? To the contrary, it knew it
was certain that he would continue molesting children, including B.S. and S.M., but it did
nothing to stop him.

A. Outrage and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

5.3 Plaintiffs B.S. and SM. re-allege the paragraphs set forth above and below.

5.4 The Seattle Archdiocese engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct by
providing Father Cody. a known serial sexual child predator, with direct access to children
and by refusing to report his sexual abuses. It did so in order to conceal its own bad acts, to
protect its reputation, and to prevent victims from coming forward, despite knowing that
Father Cody would continue to molest children.

5.5 As a result of this extreme and outrageous conduct, Father Cody gained access
to BS. and SM. and sexually abused them many times.

5.6 The Seattle Archdiocese knew that this extreme and outrageous conduct would

in?ict severe emotional and distress on othersfact

PFAU AMALA PLLC
403 Columbia St. Sle. 50f}
Seattle, WA 93104
Phone: [206} 462-4334 Facsimile {20:5} 623?3624


FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 5 of !3

 

suffer severe emotional and distress as a result. Their emotional damages
include severe mental anguish, humiliation and emotional and physical distress.
B. Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against the Seattle Archdiocese

5.7 Plaintiffs BS. and S.M. re-allege the paragraphs set forth above and below.

5.8 The Archdiocese of Seattle had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect B.S.
and S.M. from foreseeable harm. The Archdiocese also had a duty to take reasonable steps to
prevent others from harming BS. and SM. to the extent it knew or should have known that
such individuals, including Father Cody, posed a danger to BS. and SM.

5.9 The Archdiocese breached the foregoing duties by allowing BS. and SM. to
be sexually abused despite the fact that it knew or should have known of that danger.

5.10 As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions of the
Archdiocese. BS. and S.M. were sexually abused and suffered physical. and
emotional harm.

5.11 Despite knowing that Father Cody was a serial sexual predator, the Seattle
Archdiocese enabled him to physically and sexually abuse BS. and SM. through a number of
wrongful acts and omissions, including:

failing to properly investigate Cody's background to ascertain whether he was
suitable to be a pastor and administrator who was in a position of trust and
confidence among children at its parishes and within its custody and care;

failing to timely adopt policies and procedures to identify potential and actual
sexual offenders and abusers, and to prevent their placement where they had

access to children, including Father Cody;

PFAU AMALA PLLC
403 Columbia St. Sle. 50H
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: [206} 462-4334 Facsimile (20f!) 623?3624
:waw. walawcom

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 6 of 13

 

 

failing to properly supervise Father Cody by providing him with access to
children, failing to take any meaningful steps to prevent him from physically
and sexually abusing children, including BS. and S.M., and failing to report
his sexual misconduct to the authorities;

failing to warn parents, BS. and S.M., or others of the danger that Father Cody
posed to children as a serial sexual predator;

concealing the abuse of children by Father Cody, including his prior acts of
sexual abuse; and,

failing to report Father Cody to law enforcement and governmental child
welfare agencies, and, upon information and belief, by discouraging church
members and others from making such reports.

C. Negligent Misrepresentation

5.12 Plaintiffs 8.8. and S.M. re?allege the paragraphs set forth above and below.

5.13 The Archdiocese had a duty to protect Plaintiff from foreseeable harm by
Father Cody because it assigned him to St. Charles, it employed him there as priest, chaplain,
counselor, andl'or teacher, it paid for his services, and it paid for his living expenses. This
special relationship between the Archdiocese and Father Cody created a duty on the
Archdiocese?s part to protect his foreseeable sexual abuse victims, including Plaintiffs, from
being sexually abused by him.

5.14 The Archdiocese also had a duty to protect Plaintiff from foreseeable harm by

Father Cody because it held Father Cody out to the public, including Plaintiff and their
parents, as a competent, safe, and trustworthy employee, agent, representative, priest,

chaplain, counselor, and/or teacher who could be trusted with the care and custody of

PFAU (TUCHRAN AMALA PLLC
403 Columbia St. Sle. .?i?fl
Seattle, WA 93104
Phone: [206} 462-4334 Facsimile (20ft) 623?3624

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 7 of 13

 

 

Plaintiffs. This special relationship between the Archdiocese and Father Cody created a duty
on their part to protect his foreseeable sexual abuse victims, including Plaintiffs, from being
sexually abused by him.

5.15 The Archdiocese also had a duty to protect Plaintiffs from foreseeable harm by
Father Cody because it assigned Father Cody to serve as a priest, chaplain, counselor, andfor
teacher at St. Charles, and it knew that those positions would allow Father Cody to take
custody and control of youth parishioners, including Plaintiffs. This special relationship
between the Archdiocese and Plaintiffs created a duty on its part to protect Plaintiffs from
foreseeable harm, including sexual abuse by Father Cody.

5.16 Moreover, the Archdiocese had a duty to disclose material facts about Father
Cody to Plaintiffs and their parents, including his prior abuse of children and the danger he
posed to Plaintiffs, because the Archdiocese encouraged, authorized, and approved Father
Cody to work closely with Plaintiffs and other young girls and boys at St. Charles as a priest,
chaplain, counselor, andfor teacher; the Archdiocese knew or should have known that Father
Cody would have access to children, including Plaintiffs, and would take them into his
custody and control; the Archdiocese knew or should have known that Father Cody was a
danger to children, including Plaintiffs; and, the Archdiocese knew or should have known that
Plaintiffs and their parents would place the utmost trust in Father Cody, particularly when
Father Cody was allowed to take custody and control of Plaintiffs.

5.17 The Archdiocese affirmatively represented to Plaintiffs and their parents that
Father Cody did not have a history of molesting children. and that Father Cody could be
trusted with the care and custody of Plaintiffs. For example, the Archdiocese announced

verbally and in writing to Plaintiffs and their parents that Father Cody was fit to serve as a

PFAU (TUCHRAN AMALA PLLC
403 Columbia St. Sle. .?i?fi
Seattle, WA 93104
Phone: [206} 462-4334 Facsimile (20s) 623?3624

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 8 of 13

 

 

priest, priest, chaplain, counselor, andfor teacher at St. Charles, and could be trusted with the
custody and care of children, including Plaintiffs.

5.18 As discussed above, by the time he started sexually abusing Plaintiffs, Father
Cody did have a history of molesting children and he could not be trusted with the care and
custody of Plaintiffs.

5.19 The Archdiocese, in acts separate from and before their representations, failed
to use ordinary care in making the representations or in ascertaining facts related to Cody.
The Archdiocese reasonably should have foreseen that its representations would subject
Plaintiffs to an unreasonable risk of harm; namely, sexually abuse by Father Cody.

5.20 Plaintiffs and their parents believed and justi?any relied upon the
Archdiocese's representations, which caused his to be sexually molested by Father Cody.

5.21 As a result of the above~described conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries
and damages described herein.

D. Fraudulent Concealment

5.22 Plaintiffs BS. and S.M. re?allege the paragraphs set forth above and below.

5.23 Plaintiffs were prevented from effectively protecting themselves from Fr. Cody
because they were minors at the time the Archdiocese assigned Father Cody to St. Charles,
and as described above, Plaintiffs and their parents relied upon the Archdiocese to assign
priests who were qualified and ?t for that assignment and who could be trusted with the
custody and care of Plaintiffs.

5.24 Given that relationship, the Archdiocese held a position of empowerment over
Plaintiffs to such an extent that Plaintiffs were prevented from effectively protecting

themselves from Father Cody, absent the disclosure of the material facts described herein.

PFAU (TUCHRAN AMALA PLLC
403 Columbia St. Sle. .?i?fl
Seattle, WA 93104
Phone: [206} 462-4334 Facsimile (20ft) 623?3624

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 9 of 13

 

 

This same relationship also gave rise to a duty on behalf of the Archdiocese to disclose to
Plaintiffs the material facts described herein, including the fact that Father Cody had a history
of sexually abusing children and could not be trusted with the custody and control of
Plaintiffs.

5.25 Moreover, the Archdiocese had special knowledge of the material fact that
priests regularly participated in sexual activity. The Archdiocese also had special knowledge,
or should have known, of the material facts that a number of its priests, and Father Cody in
particular, participated in sexual activity with minors. Plaintiffs did not have access to these
material facts, which prevented Plaintiffs from effectively protecting themselves from Father
Cody.

5.26 The Archdiocese also had special knowledge, or should have known, of the
material fact that Father Cody participated in sexual activity with minors prior to Father Cody
having sexual contact with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not have access to these material facts,
which prevented them from effectively protecting themselves from Father Cody.

5.27 As discussed above, by the time the Archdiocese assigned Father Cody to St.
Charles, it knew that Father Cody had a history of molesting children, it knew that Father
Cody could not be trusted with the care and custody of Plaintiffs, and it knew that Father
Cody was a danger to Plaintiffs.

5.28 Despite that knowledge, the Archdiocese continued to represent to Plaintiffs
and their parents that Father Cody did not have a history of molesting children, that the
Archdiocese did not know that Father Cody had a history of molesting children, that the

Archdiocese did not know that Father Cody could not be trusted with the care and custody of

PFAU AMALA PLLC
403 Columbia St. Ste. 
Seattle, WA 93104
Phone: [206} 462-4334 Facsimile (20ft) 623?3624

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - ll} of 13

 

 

Plaintiffs, and/or that the Archdiocese did not know that Father Cody was a danger to
Plaintiffs.

5.29 These representations were made to Plaintiffs and their parents when the
Archdiocese announced verbally and in writing to Plaintiffs and their parents that Father Cody
was fit to serve as a priest, priest, chaplain, counselor, andi'or teacher, and could be trusted
with the custody and care of children, including Plaintiffs.

5.30 By doing so, the Archdiocese ensured that a material fact and risk regarding
Father Cody remained hidden and concealed from Plaintiffs and their parents; namely, that
Father Cody could not be trusted with custody and control of Plaintiffs because he would
groom and sexually abuse them. That risk endangered children like Plaintiffs, but it was not
apparent to Plaintiffs or their parents because of the Archdiocese?s representations and
because the Archdiocese did nothing to warn Plaintiffs or their parents about it.

5.31 Rather than disclose that vital and material risk to Plaintiffs or their parents,
the Archdiocese concealed the risk in order to draw Plaintiffs and their parents into a
relationship with it so that it couid continue to materially benefit from Father Cody?s services
as an Archdiocesan priest, and so the Archdiocese could avoid civil liability for his sexual
abuse of Plaintiffs and other children. Moreover, the Archdiocese knew that if it revealed this
material risk and fact about Father Cody, Plaintiffs and their parents would not allow Father
Cody to remain at St. Charles, and they knew Plaintiffs and their parents would not allow
Father Cody to take custody and control of Plaintiffs.

5.32 The representations of the Archdiocese, the reliance of Plaintiffs and their
parents, and the superior and unique knowledge possessed by the Archdiocese regarding

Father Cody and the danger he posed to Plaintiffs, created a fiduciary relationship wherein the

PFAU (TUCHRAN AMALA PLLC
403 Columbia St. Sle. 
Seattle, WA 93104
Phone: [206} 462-4334 Facsimile {20:5} 623?3624

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - of 13

 

 

Archdiocese had a duty to disclose to Plaintiffs and their parents the vital and material facts
and risks described above.

5.33 However, the Archdiocese did not disclose those vital and material facts and
risks to Plaintiffs or their parents, including the fact that they knew that (1) Father Cody had a
history of molesting children, (2) Father Cody could not be trusted with the care and custody
of Plaintiffs, and (3) Father Cody was a danger to Plaintiffs.

5.34 As a result of the above?described conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries
and damages described herein.

E. Ratification

5.35 Plaintiffs B.S. and S.M. re?allege the paragraphs set forth above and below.

5.36 At all relevant times, the Seattle Archdiocese maintained complete authority
and control over Father Cody, and the Archdiocese was empowered with an obligation to
prevent his abuses.

5.3? The Seattle Archdiocese is liable for Father Cody?s conduct because it ratified
his conduct over many, many years, reaping the benefits of his cheap labor while later trying
to repudiate its consequences. Despite knowledge that Father Cody was sexually abusing
children, the Archdiocese continued to give him access to children, and he continued to abuse
them. The Seattle Archdiocese maintained a rich financial motive by keeping Father Cody in
its employ; for one, it profited by keeping him quiet and moving him away from potential
lawsuits; and two, it pro?ted from the cheap labor Cody provided under his ?vow of poverty.?
Given these circumstances, the Seattle Archdiocese should be held liable for ratifying Father
Cody?s actions.



PFAU (TUCHRAN AMALA PLLC
403 Columbia St. Sle. 50f}
Seattle, WA 93104
Phone: [206} 462-4334 Facsimile (20s) 623?3624

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 12 of 13

 

 

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs BS. and SM. pray forjudgment against the Seattle Archdiocese for general
and special damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, for their reasonable
attorneys? fees and costs, for statutory interest, prejudgment interest, and for such other and
further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Plaintiffs B.S. and SM. specifically reserve the right to pursue additional causes of
action, other than those speci?cally outlined above, that are supported by the facts pleaded
herein or that may be supported by other facts that emerge during discovery.

DATED this 20th day of August, 2015.

PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA
PLLC

   

By: By: /s/John W. Murphv
John W. Murphy, WSBA No. 6079
Rand Jack, WSBA No. 1437

Attorneys for Plaintiff

 

Michael T. Pfau, WSBA 
Jason P. Amala, WSBA No. 37'054
Jessica M. Erickson, WSBA No. 43024
Attorneys for Plaintiff

4835-2524-TTHE. v. 1

PFAU (TUCHRAN AMALA PLLC
403 Columbia St. Sle. 501')
Seattle, WA 93104
Phone: [206} 462-4334 Facsimile {20:5} 623?3624

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 13 of 13