SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR WHATCOM COUNTY M.T. and M.S., NO. 15-2?01122?3 Plaintiffs, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation, Defendant. Plaintiffs M.T. and M.S., by and through their attorneys, MICHAEL T. PFAU of PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC, JOHN MURPHY, and RAND JACK, hereby state and allege as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1.1. This claim arises from childhood sexual abuse that Plaintiffs M.T. and MS. suffered at the hands of Seattle Archdiocesan priest Father Michael John Cody. m? Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 462-4334 Facsimile (206) 623-3624 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - of13 61 A 1.2. At the time M.T. and M.S. were sexually abused by Father Cody, the Seattle Archdiocese knew or should have known that he posed a threat of foreseeable harm to M.T. and M.S., but it failed to take reasonable steps to protect M.T. and M.S. from that harm. II. PARTIES 2.1 Plaintiff M.T. is a woman who resides in Whatcom County, Washington. When she was young girl, M.T. was sexually abused by Father Cody, a priest of the Seattle Archdiocese. In the interest of privacy, this complaint identi?es M.T. by her initials, only. 2.2 Plaintiff M.S. is a woman who resides in Whatcom County, Washington. When she was young girl, M.S. was sexually abused by Father Cody, a priest of the Seattle Archdiocese. In the interest of privacy, this complaint identi?es M.S. 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, nonpro?t Washington corporation that owned, operated, managed and/or controlled local parishes, camps, monasteries, hospitals, and schools throughout the Western Washington area, including the Church of the Assumption in Whatcom County, Washington, and the Assumption Catholic School in Whatcom 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 M.T. and M.S., Father Cody was a pastor employed by the Seattle Archdiocese. PFAU AMALA PLLC 403 Columbia St. Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 462-4334 Facsimile (206) 623-3624 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 2 of I3 24. 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 Whatcorn 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 periods, Plaintiffs MT. and MS. and their families were residents of Bellingham, Washington and parishioners at Church of the Assumption. (hereinafter ?Assumption?). MT and MS. were also students at Assumption School. At the time, the Assumption Parish and School were owned and operated by the Seattle Archdiocese. 4.2 Father Cody was assigned to and provided pastoral services for Assumption Parish from approximately 1972 to 1975. 4.3 Starting in approximately 1972 or 1973, Father Michael Cody, a priest of the Seattle Archdiocese, sexually abused M.T. at the rectory on the Assumption School grounds between 4th and 6th grade school years when she was approximately 10 to 12 years old. The abuse occurred multiple times. 4.4 Starting in approximately 1972, Father Michael Cody, a priest of the Seattle Archdiocese, sexually abused M.S. at the rectory on the Assumption School grounds between 4th and 6th grade school years when she was approximately 10 to 12 years old. The abuse occurred multiple times. coii?g?i?iiluliilsii?i?gtLA PM Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 462-4334 Facsimile (206) 623?3624 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 3 of 13 4.5 Prior to Father Cody?s sexual abuse of MT. and MS, 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. 4.6 Prior to Father Cody?s sexual abuse of MT. and MS, 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. 4.7 The Archdiocese responded to its knowledge regarding Father Cody by assigning him to Whatcom 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 MT. and MS. 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 pedophile who sexually abused children. Rather than take any steps to prevent Father Cody from sexually abusing more children, including MT. and MS, it did virtually nothing. This PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC 403 Columbia St. Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 462-4334 Facsimile (206) 623-3624 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 4 of 13 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 MT. and M.S. given its extensive knowledge of his prior misconduct and its rati?cation of his actions. 5.2 Upon information and belief, the Seattle Archdiocese knew that Father Cody could not be and/or had not been ?cured? or successfully ?treated.? To the contrary, it knew it was certain that he would continue molesting children, including MT. and M.S., but it did nothing to stOp him. A. Outrage and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 5.3 Plaintiffs MT. and M.S. 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 MT. and M.S. 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 others, and MT. and M.S. did in fact suffer severe emotional and distress as a result. Their emotional damages include severe mental anguish, humiliation and emotional and physical distress. PFAU COCHRAN AMALA PLLC 403 Columbia St. Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 462-4334 Facsimile (206) 623-3624 littp FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5 of 13 Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against the Seattle Archdiocese 5.7 Plaintiffs MT and MS. re~allege the paragraphs set forth above and below. 5.8 The Archdiocese of Seattle had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect MT and MS from foreseeable harm. The Archdiocese also had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent others from harming M.T. and MS. to the extent it knew or should have known that such individuals, including Father Cody, posed a danger to M.T. and MS. 5.9 The Archdiocese breached the foregoing duties by allowing MT. and MS. 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, MT. and MS. 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 MT. and MS. through a number of wrongful acts and omissions, including: failing to properly investigate Cody?s background to ascertainwhether he was suitable to be a pastor and administrator who was in a position of trust and con?dence 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; failing to properly supervise Father Cody by providing him with access to children, failing to take any meaningful steps to prevent him from physically PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC 403 Columbia St. Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 462-4334 Facsimile (206) 623-3624 com FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 6 of 13 and sexually abusing children, including MT. and M.S., and failing to report his sexual misconduct to the authorities; failing to warn parents, MT. and M.S., and 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 MT. and MS. re?alleges the paragraphs set forth above and below. 5.13 The Archdiocese had a duty to protect Plaintiffs from foreseeable harm by Father Cody because it assigned him to Assumption, it employed him there as priest, chaplain, counselor, and/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 Plaintiffs from foreseeable harm by Father Cody because it held Father Cody out to the public, including Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs. This special relationship between the Archdiocese and Father Cody created a duty PFAU VERTETIS AMALA PLLC 403 Columbia St. Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 462-4334 Facsimile (206) 623-3624 aw. com FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 7 of 13 its 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, and/or teacher at Assumption, 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 Assumption as a priest, chaplain, counselor, and/or 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 COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC 403 Columbia St. Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 462-4334 Facsimile (206) 623-3624 aw.com FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 8 0f13 priest, priest, chaplain, counselor, and/0r teacher at Assumption, 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?ably relied upon the Archdiocese?s representations which caused them 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 M.T. and MS. re?allege the paragraphs set forth above and below. 5.23 Plaintiffs were prevented from effectively protecting themselves from Father Cody because they were minors at the time the Archdiocese assigned Father Cody to Assumption, and as described above, Plaintiffs and their parents relied upon the Archdiocese to assign priests who were qualified and fit 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 COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC 403 Columbia St. Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 462-4334 Facsimile (206) 623-3624 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 9 01?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 Assumption, 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 COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC 403 Columbia St. Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 462-4334 Facsimile (206) 623-3624 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 10 01?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 ?t to serve as a priest, priest, chaplain, counselor, and/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 could 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 Assumption, 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 ?duciary relationship wherein the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 11 of 13 PFAU COCHRAN AMALA PLLC 403 Columbia St. Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 4624334 Facsimile (206) 6238624 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 it 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 MT. and M.S. 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. 5.37 The Seattle Archdiocese is liable for Father Cody?s conduct because it rati?ed his conduct over many, many years, reaping the bene?ts 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 COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC 403 Columbia St. Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 462-4334 Facsimile (206) 623-3624 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 12 of 13 VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs M.T. and MS. pray for judgment against the Seattle Archdiocese for general and special damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial, for her reasonable attorneys? fees and costs, for statutory interest, prejudgment interest, punitive damages, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Plaintiffs M.T. and MS. speci?cally 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 of September, 2015. PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA By: By: John w. Murphy, WSBA No. 6079 Rand Jack, WSBA No. 1437 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael T. Pfau, WSBA No. 24649 Jason P. Arnala, WSBA No. 37054 Jessica M. Erickson, WSBA No. 43024 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 4847-8198-6088, v. 1 PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC 403 Columbia St. Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 462-4334 Facsimile (206} 623*3624 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 13 of 13