I {10 MANLY, 19100 You Karm_ STEWART 3; FINAL 3 an Ave. 3111:: Irvine, California S2512 (94919.51-99911 JOHN c. MANLY, Esq. (State Bar No. 149080) VINCE W. FINALDI, Esq. (State Bar No. 238279) ALEX CUNNY (State Bar No. 291567) MANLY, STEWART FINALDI 19100 V011 Kantian Ave, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 252-9990 Fax: (949) 252-9991 Attorneys of Record for Plaintiff, JANE JD DOE Supen'nr Court 'Df Ba! if Sacramento 09111312111 5 maeias 3! Cane Number: 34-201 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRABIIENTD ANE JD DOE, an individual, Plaintiff, V. DOE 1, an individual; DOE 2, an Indiana Business entity of form unknown; DOE 3, an individual; DOE 4, an individual; DOE 5, an individual; and DOES 6 through 500. efendants . COMES NOW, Plaintiff JANE JD DOE, who complains and alleges as follows: Case No.: Judge: Department: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FORSEXUAL SEXUAL CODE 1703.5); GENDER VIOLENCE (CML CODE 52.4); SEXUAL HARASSMENT (CIVIL CODE 51.9); UNEAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (BUSINESS a PROFESSIONS CODE 17200); INTENTIDNAL INFLICTION 0F EMOTIONAL CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD (CIVIL CODE 1573); NEGLIGENT 10) NEGLIGENT 11) NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. WARN, TRAIN OR EDUCATE. BY FAX GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE PARTIES n- 1. This action seeks to vindicate the rights of JANE JD DOE, a former worlduclass, medal-winning Olympic gymnast, who was sexually abused, harassed, violated, and molested, as -1- COMPLAINT FOR .Dan 5 Suite 800 (040) 252-9990 STEWART FINALDI Irvine, California 92612 19100 Von Karman Ave., Telenlmne' MANLYminor, by the very individual who was hired, retained, and supervised by DOE 2 to provide healing, therapy and treatment for JANE JD DOE: the perpetrator, DOE 1 (hereinafter referred to as 1? or ?the Perpetrator?, interchangeably). JANE JD DOE sacri?ced her youth, a normal childhood, and quite literally, her body, to obtain her world?class status as a gymnast and to represent the United States of America with honor, courage, commitment and pride. The values set forth by Defendant DOE 2, who had a legal, moral and ethical duty to protect JANE JD DOE, were compromised and ignored, in allowing the Perpetrator (DOE 1) to access JANE JD DOE (as well as other gymnasts) physically, sexually, and without abatement. Believing that her experience with DOE 2 would allow for personal growth and lifelong memories, JANE JD DOE placed her trust and con?dence in both Defendants (used collectively to refer to the Perpetrator (DOE 1and DOES 6 through 100 as ?Defendants?), to provide for her well?being and care. JANE JD trust was breached, and her aspirations for personal growth turned to fear, distress, and anxiety, for which she now seeks to recover in this action, and protect future gymnasts from undergoing the pain and suffering she has endured at the hands of the Perpetrator (DOE 1), through the programs offered by DOE 2 and the Defendants. THE PLAINTIFF, JANE JD DOE 2. Plaintiff JANE JD DOE (hereinafter ?Plaintiff used interchangeably with JD was born in the early 1980?s, and began gymnastics after watching Mary Lou Retton win a gold medal in gymnastics in 1984. After discovering her exceptional talent and prodigy early on in the sport, JANE JD DOE began competing and training at an elite level. This sacri?ce and dedication earned her participation and membership with Defendant DOE 2 from 1994 to 2000, where she would compete on the national level and the international level, representing her country. Plaintiff JANE JD DOE was proudly selected as a member of the United States Women?s Olympic Gymnastics team in 2000. She competed on behalf of the United States at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney and was awarded a medal. JANE JD DOE went on to become a NCAA Champion gymnast and was and is among the best America had to offer in the sport. She was and is a remarkable young girl (and now woman) who was and is -2- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI MANLY, Suite 800 19100 Von Karman Ave, Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' {940) 252-9990 .immensely proud to have represented her country. It is with her affiliation with DOE 2 where she came into contact with the Perpetrator (DOE 1), a team physician for DOE 2 who worked with DOE 2 gymnasts to, ostensibly, provide care, treatment, and athletic training. Under the auspices as team physician, the Perpetrator (DOE 1) used his position of trust and authority to gain access to minor, female gymnasts. The Perpetrator (DOE 1) systematically sexually groomed the minor JANE JD DOE and proceeded to repeatedly sexually abuse, harass and molest JANE JD DOE over a period of years. Plaintiff is informed and believes the childhood sexual abuse occurred in multiple locations in California, including but not limited to: Sacramento, California. Further, Plaintiff is informed. and believes the childhood sexual abuse occurred in Tianjin, China, and various other locations through the United States and internationally from 1994 to 2000. During the entire time period of the sexual abuse alleged herein, Plaintiff was a resident of the State of California. Plaintiff currently resides in the County of Sacramento. The name used by JANE JD DOE is not the true and correct name of the Plaintiff, but is a fictitious name utilized to protect the privacy of the Plaintiff, a victim of childhood sexual harassment, abuse, and molestation. JANE JD DOE brings her claims pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 340.1 and statutes listed herein. DEFENDANT, DOE PERPETRATOR 3. Defendant DOE 1, the Perpetrator, at all times mentioned herein was and is an adult male individual, who Plaintiff is informed and believes lived in the State of Michigan during the period of time during which the seXual abuse, harassment, andmolestation alleged herein took place and is currently a citizen of the State of Michigan. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Perpetrator (DOE l) was accepted onto the staff of DOE 2 as a trainer in 1986 and then as the National Medical Director and the National Team Physician for the women?s gymnastics team in 1996. The Perpetrator (DOE 1) was also responsible for coordinating the care for DOE 2 and for participants and members at every national and international competition, and has traveled with DOE 2 at the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships in 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003, and 2007. The Perpetrator (DOE 1) was also sent by DOE 2 to various international competitions including but not limited to: the 1987 Pan American Games, the 1996 Olympic -3- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI MANLY, Suite 800 19100 V911 Karman Ave., California 92612 Telenlmne' (949) 252-9900 Games, the 2000 Olympic Games, the 2007 Pan American Games, the 2008 Olympic Games, and the 2012 Olympic games. The Perpetrator (DOE 1) continued to function in this capacity at DOE 2 until in or around the middle of 2016. At all times herein alleged, the Perpetrator (DOE 1) was an employee, agent, and/or servant of Defendant DOE 2, and/or was under their complete control and/or active supervision. 4. The Perpetrator (DOE 1) was retained by DOE 2 as an Osteopathic Physician and certi?ed athletic trainer to provide care, treatment, and athletic training to the DOE 2 and its participants, many of which were minors while in his care. It was through this position of trust and con?dence, that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) exploited JANE JD DOE, in perpetrating his sexual abuse, molestation and harassment upon JANE JD DOE. All of the sexually abusive and harassing conduct alleged herein was done for the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) sexual grati?cation and was based upon the gender of JANE JD DOE. 5. It is on information and reasonable belief that the Perpetrator (DOE 1), using his apparent authority and position within DOE 2 over the minor participants in his charge, that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) sexually abused, molested, and harassed multiple other members of the United States Women?s Olympic Gymnastics Team and National teams, over the nearly 30 years in which the Perpetrator (DOE 1) has been affiliated with DOE 2. 6. In the event the Perpetrator (DOE 1) be prosecuted and convicted of a felony for the conducted alleged herein, the Plaintiff requests leave to amend the instant Complaint, such that?a request for attorneys? fees can be made against the Perpetrator (DOE 1) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1021.4. DEFENDANT, DOE 2 7. Defendant DOE 2 (hereinafter at all times mentioned herein was and is a business entity of form unknown, having its principal place of business in the State of Indiana. Plaintiff is informed and believes DOE 2 was incorporated in the state of Texas and/or Arizona. DOE 2 is the national governing body for gymnastics in the United States, and selects and trains the United States gymnastics teams for the Olympics and World Championships, promotes and develops gymnastics locally and nationally, and serves as a resource center for members, clubs, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI MANLY, Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' 19100 Von Karman Ave, (0493 252-9990 fans and gymnasts throughout the United States. Defendant DOE 2 has more than 174,000 athletes and professional members, more than 148,000 athletes registered in competitive programs, as well as more than 25,000 professional, instructor and club members. Approximately 4,000 competitions and events throughout the United States are sanctioned annually by DOE 2. DOE 2 was the primary entity owning, operating and controlling the activities and behavior of its employee agents, including, but not limited to the Perpetrator (DOE 1). DOE 2 is also the entity that selects gymnasts for the US National and Olympic Teams. 8. DOE 2 purposely conducts substantial educational business activities in the State of California, with regional af?liates in Northern California, Central California, and Southern California. DOE 2 currently sponsors and has scheduled over 75 competitions, meets, and/or invitationals throughout the entire state of California. DOE 2 has numerous athletes and professional members, professional, instructor and club members conducting substantial activity and purposefully availing itself of the laws and protections of California. The sexual abuse, harassment, and molestation alleged herein took place multiple times, in many locations, including locations in California, where DOE 2 was the primary entity owning, operating and controlling the activities and behavior of its employee agents, including, but not limited to the Perpetrator (DOE 9. As stated on its website through its Code of 1 Ethical Conduct, of 2] are expected to promote a safe environment for participants, coaches, of?cials, volunteers and staff in all gymnastics disciplines, which includes an environment free from sexual misconduct. It is inconsistent with this obligation for any Member to: l. Solicit or engage in sexual relations with any minor. 2. Engage in any behavior that utilizes the in?uence of a professional Member's position as coach, judge, of?cial or administrator to encourage sexual relations with an athlete or participant. 3. Engage in sexual harassment by making unwelcome advances, requests for sexual favors or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature where such conduct creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.? However, DOE 2?s policies and procedures then provide that, ?Professional Members of 2] must protect the integrity of the sport and the interests of the athletes they serve by avoiding sexual relationships -5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI MANLY, Suite 800 19100 Von Karman Ave, Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' (04017.52-0090 with athletes except Where the capacity and quality of the athlete's consent to enter that relationship is beyond question.? [Emphasis Added]. In enforcing this Code of Ethical Conduct, the published policies and procedures provide, ?Compliance with this Code depends primarily upon understanding and voluntary compliance, secondarily upon reinforcement by peers, and, when necessary, upon enforcement through disciplinary Member (?Complainant?) who believes that another Member of 2] has failed to meet such Member?s obligations under this Code is, under all but the most egregious circumstances, encOuraged to first address that concern directly to that Member.? 10. Under DOE 2?s policies and procedures for reporting abuse, it provides that, 2] will follow applicable law in reporting abusive situations to the proper authorities. If, in reasonable and good faith judgment, reporting to the proper authorities is necessary to protect a person from the possibility of further abuse, it may make such report even if not compelled by law to do so.? Further, the policies and procedures for ?Reporting Suspected Abuse? at DOE 2 provide that ?[a]ny person who reasonably and in good faith believes a member of 2] has abused another person, whether physical or sexual, such person may notify the 2] National Office pursuant to Articles 9 and/or 10 of the 2] Bylaws.? 11. Under California Penal Code 11165.7, DOE 2 is an organization whose employees, agents, and/or servants are legally ?mandated reporters?, considering that DOE 2 is a youth recreational program and DOE 2?s employees? duties require direct contact and supervision of children. 12. DOE 2 receives millions of dollars in private donations and corporate ?nancial support, on a yearly basis, according to its publicly available Form-990?s. It is on this basis, under information and therefore belief, that DOE 2 ignored and/or actively concealed the abuse that was being perpetrated by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), and other employees/agents of its organization, such that DOE 2 would not be subjected to public scrutiny, administrative, civil and/or criminal investigation and could maintain a false facade of high moral repute, and could maintain and grow this financial support for its programs. This attempt to conceal and/or ignore -6- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI MANLY, Suite 800 19100 Von Karman Ave, Irvrne, California 92612 Telenlmne' (94917.52-9900 the abuse being perpetrated under its control and supervision, was done at the expense of minor athletes and participants, including the Plaintiff, JANE JD DOE. DEFENDANT, DOE 3 13. Defendant DOE 3 (hereinafter at all times mentioned herein was and is an adult female individual, who Plaintiff is informed and believes lived in the State of Washington during the period of time during which the sexual abuse, harassment, and molestation alleged herein took place and is currently a citizen of the State of Washington. Defendant DOE 3 was the President of DOE 2 charged with the overall management and strategic planning for the organization. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendant DOE 3 oversaw a wide?ranging, calculated concealment of numerous instances, complaints, and allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct among the participants and members of DOE 2. Through this conduct, Defendant DOE 3?s actions and inactions enabled and ratified the sexual abuse by the Perpetrator (DOE 1) against Plaintiff and other participants and members of DOE 2 and fueled the ongoing concealment of abuse at DOE 2, making it more unlikely for victims (such as the Plaintiff) to obtain much needed medical and/or treatment. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant DOE 3 served as President of DOE 2 from 1994 to 1998. At all times herein alleged, Defendant DOE 3 was an employee, agent, and/or servant of Defendant DOE 2, and/or was under their complete control and/or active supervision. DEFENDANT, DOE 4 14. Defendant DOE 4 (hereinafter at all times mentioned herein was and is an adult male individual, who Plaintiff is informed and believes lived in the State of California during the period of time during which the sexual abuse, harassment, and molestation alleged herein took place and is currently a citizen of the State of California. Defendant DOE 4 was the President of DOE 2 charged with the overall management and strategic planning for the organization. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendant DOE 4 oversaw a wide?ranging, calculated concealment of numerous instances, complaints, and allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct among the participants and members of DOE 2. . -7- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 19100 Von Karman Ave, MANLY STEWART FINALDI Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' {940175249990 Through this conduct, Defendant DOE 4?s actions and inactions enabled and rati?ed the sexual abuse by the Perpetrator (DOE 1) against Plaintiff and other participants and members of DOE 2 and fueled the ongoing concealment of abuse at DOE 2, making it more unlikely for Victims (such as the Plaintiff) to obtain much needed medical and/or treatment. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant DOE 4 served as President of DOE 2 from 1998 to 2005. At all times herein alleged, Defendant DOE 4 was an employee, agent, and/or servant of Defendant DOE 2, and/or was under their complete control and/or active supervision. DEFENDANT, DOE 5 15. Defendant DOE 5 (hereinafter at all times mentioned herein was and is an adult male individual, who Plaintiff is informed and believes lived in the State of Indiana during the period of time during which the sexual abuse, harassment, and molestation alleged herein took place and is currently a citizen of the State of Indiana. Defendant DOE 5 was the President of DOE 2 charged with the overall management and strategic planning for the organization. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendant DOE 5 oversaw a wide?ranging, calculated concealment of numerous instances, complaints, and allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct among the participants and members of DOE 2. Through this conduct, Defendant DOE 5?s actions and inactions enabled and rati?ed the sexual abuse by the Perpetrator (DOE 1) against Plaintiff and other participants and members of DOE 2 and fueled the'ongoing concealment of abuse at DOE 2, making it more unlikely for victims (such as the Plaintiff) to obtain much needed medical and/or treatment. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant DOE 5 served as President of DOE 2 from 2005 to present. At all times herein alleged, Defendant DOE 5 was an employee, agent, and/or servant of Defendant DOE 2, and/or was under their complete control and/or active supervision. DOE DEFENDANTS 6 THROUGH 500 16. Defendants DOES 6 through 500, inclusive, and each of them, are sued herein under said ?ctitious names. Plaintiff is ignorant as to the true names and capacities of DOES 6 through 500, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, and therefore sue said Defendants by such ?ctitious names. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, -8- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI MANLY, Suite 800 19100 Von Karman Ave, Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' (94017.52?9990 Plaintiff will request leave of Court to amend this Complaint to state their true names and capacities herein. 17. The Perpetrator (DOE DOE and DOES 6 through 500, inclusive, are sometimes collectively referred to herein as "Defendants" and/or as "All Defendants"; such collective reference refers to all speci?cally named Defendants as well as those ?ctitiously named herein. . 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that at all times mentioned herein, each Defendant was responsible in some manner or capacity for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs damages, as herein alleged, were proximately caused by all said Defendants. 19. At all times mentioned herein, each and every Defendant was an employee, agent, and/or servant of the Perpetrator (DOE DOE and DOES 6 through 500, inclusive, and/or was under their complete control and/or active supervision. Defendants and each of them are individuals, corporations, partnerships and/or other entities that engaged in, joined in, and conspired with other Defendants and wrongdoers in carrying out the tortuous and unlawful activities described in this Complaint. 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that at all times mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of them such that any individuality and separateness between Defendants, and each of them, ceased to exist. Defendants and each of them were the successors-in?interest and/or alter egos of the other Defendants, and each of them, in that they purchased, controlled, dominated and operated each other without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or other manner of division. To continue maintaining the facade of a separate and individual eXistence between and among- Defendants, and each of them, would serve to perpetrate a fraud and injustice. 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that at all times mentioned herein, The Perpetrator (DOE 1and DOES 6 through 500 were the agents, representatives and/or employees of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things hereinafter alleged, Defendants and each of them were acting -9- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES MANLY, STEWART FINALDI Suite 800 19100 Von Karman Ave., Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne? (040) 252-0000 within the course and scope of said alternative personality, 2 capacity, identity, agency, representation and/or employment and were within the scope of their authority, whether actual or apparent. 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on'that basis alleges that at all times mentioned herein, the Perpetrator (DOE DOE and DOES 6 through 500 were the trustees, partners, servants, joint venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other Defendant, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and consent of each and every other Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by each and every other Defendant, and that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS BY JANE JD DOE 23. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a minor participant and member of DOE 2, and was under their complete control, dominion, and supervision. The Perpetrator (DOE 1) worked for, was employed by, and an agent/servant of DOE 2 when the Perpetrator (DOE 1) came into contact with the Plaintiff. 24. At all times material hereto, the Perpetrator (DOE 1) was under the direct supervision, management, agency and control of Defendants DOE 2, DOE 3, DOE 4, and DOES 6 through 500., inclusive. The Perpetrator (DOE 1) was the team physician of Defendant DOE 2. While a team physician at DOE 2, the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) employment duties included coordinating the care for DOE 2 at every national and international competition, providing individual care and providing for the physical needs and well?being of participants and members of DOE 2, and care including but not limited to osteopathic adjustments and kinesiology treatment to participants and members of DOE 2, which included Plaintiff. Plaintiff was a participant and member of DOE 2 and it is under these circumstances that Plaintiff came to be under the direction and control of the Perpetrator (DOE 1), who used his position of authority and trust to molest and sexually abuse Plaintiff. 1 0- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI MANLY, Suite 800 19100 Von Karman Ave., Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' (949) 252-0900 member and participant of DOE 2 while the Perpetrator (DOE l) was a team physician, the minor Plaintiff was under the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) direct supervision, control and care, which created a special, con?dential, and ?duciary relationship between Plaintiff and the Perpetrator (DOE 1). Because of such relationship, the Perpetrator (DOE l) owed Plaintiff a duty of care. Additionally, as the employers and supervisors of the Perpetrator (DOE with knowledge that he was in contact with and providing care to children, Defendants DOE 2 and DOES 3 through 500 were also in a special, con?dential, and ?duciary relationship with Plaintiff, owing the Plaintiff JANE JD DOE a duty of care. i 26. By assigning the Perpetrator (DOE 1) as team physician of DOE 2, DOE 2 represented to the community and participants and members of DOE 2 that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) was safe, trustworthy, and of high moral and ethical repute, such that parents of participants and members need not worry about having the Perpetrator (DOE 1) interact with, and provide care to their minor children. Defendants did so in order to preserve their own public image and reputation, so they could retain past participants and members and recruit new participants and members, thus allowing donations and other ?nancial support to continue ?owing into their coffers for ?nancial gain. 27. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants knew or had reason to know that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) had engaged in unlawful sexually?related conduct in the past, and/or was continuing to engage in such conduct. Defendants had a duty to disclose these facts to Plaintiff, her parents and others, but negligently and/or intentionally suppressed, concealed or failed to disclose this information. The duty to disclose this information arose by the special, trusting, con?dential, ?duciary relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff. 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that while Plaintiff was a participant and member of DOE 2, Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of employing other staff, coaches, and volunteers and retaining members known to be a danger to participants and members in their care, including the Perpetrator (DOE Defendants employed multiple other professionals, staff, and agents who were known to be sexually abusive and/or -11- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 (949) 7.52-9990 STEWART FINALDI Irvine, California 92612 19100 Von Karman Aye, Telenhnne' MANLYwere continuing to be abusive. DOE 2?s own website catalogues a list of over twenty (20) individuals, nationwide, who are ?Permanently Ineligible Members? at DOE 2 for violation of Bylaw That Bylaw section, promulgated by DOE 2, provides for ?Special Categories of Misconduct?; speci?cally, the category of misconduct under states: ?Has been convicted of or has entered a plea of guilty or no contest to a criminal charge or indictment issued by an applicable City, County, State or Federal jurisdiction, and such charge or indictment directly" or indirectly involved or related to sexual misconduct, child abuse or conduct that is a violation of any law or regulation that is speci?cally designed to protect minors.? It is upon information, and therefore belief, that the prevalence of sexually abusive members of DOE 2 evidences the knowledge of DOE 2 of the risk that minor gymnastics participants were placed at, while participating in DOE 2?s programs. Furthermore, it is upon information, and therefore belief, that this evidences a widespread and systemic problem at DOE 2, of allowing sexually abusive members to participate in DOE 2?s programs. 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges Defendants knew of, or had reason to know of, the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) propensity and disposition to engage in sexual misconduct with minors before he sexually abused and molested Plaintiff, and knew of the probability that he would molest minors with whom he came into contact, such as Plaintiff. 30. Defendants failed to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by the Perpetrator (DOE 1) in the future, including avoiding placement of the Perpetrator (DOE 1) in a position where contact and interaction with children is an inherent function. Defendants ignored and suppressed the past sexual misconduct the Perpetrator (DOE 1) had engaged in. 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges, that Defendants were apprised, knew or had reason to know and/or were put on notice of the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) past sexual abuse of children, past claims and/or investigations, and his propensity and disposition to engage in such unlawful activity and unlawful sexual activity with minor participants and members such that Defendants knew or had reason to know that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) would commit wrongful sexual acts with participants and members, including Plaintiff. -1 2- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 252-0000 STEWART FINALDI Irvine, California 92612 19100 Von Karman Ave, Telenlmne' MANLYPlaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that personnel and/or employment records and other records of Defendants? re?ect numerous incidents of inappropriate sexual contact and conduct with minor participants and members by the Perpetrator (DOE l) and other professionals, employees, assistants, agents, supervisors and others, including incidents occurring both on and off the physical premises of such Defendants and at national and international meets. Based on these records, Defendants knew and/or had reason to know of the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) history of sexual abuse, past claims and/0r past investigations, and his propensity and disposition to engage in unlawful activity and unlawful sexual activity with participants and members such that Defendants knew or had reason to know that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) would commit wrongful sexual acts with those minor participants and members, including Plaintiff. 32. Because of the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants, Defendants had an obligation and duty under the law not to hide material facts and information about the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) past, and his deviant sexual behavior and propensities. Additionally, Defendants had an af?rmative duty to inform, warn, and institute appropriate protective measures to safeguard minors who were reasonably likely to come in contact with the Perpetrator (DOE 1). Defendants willfully refused to notify, give adequate warning and implement appropriate safeguards, thereby creating the peril that ultimately damaged Plaintiff. 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that prior to Plaintiffs sexual abuse by the Perpetrator (DOE Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of employing sexual abusers at the Perpetrator (DOE Defendants concealed these facts from participants and members, their parents, the Sacramento County community, the gymnastics community, the public at large, the United States goverrnnent, various local governments, and law enforcement agencies. 34. Furthermore, Defendant DOE 2 violated its own policies in allowing the Perpetrator (DOE 1) to come into contact with the Plaintiff. DOE 2?s policies, entitled ?Standards of Behavior? provide that, ?Avoid Being Alone with a Minor. Gymnastics is a sport that lends itself to one?on?one situations between a coach and a gymnast. Avoid being alone with -13- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 {040) 252-9990 FINALDI 3 California 92612 19100 Von Karman Aye, Telenhnne' MANLY child or any group of children in a private setting locker room, bathroom, of?ce, vehicle or residence), and avoid being alone with a child or any group of children in any place that is inappropriate to the coach?athlete relationship. When a one-on?one situation is necessary, such as private coaching lessons or conversations, conduct the activity within the view of another adult.? Some of the abuse perpetrated by the Perpetrator (DOE 1) against the Plaintiff, was perpetrated in the living quarters of JANE JD DOE, outside of the View of any adults and in direct violation of DOE 2?s policies implemented for the safety of participants. 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that as part of Defendants' conspiratorial and fraudulent attempt to hide the Perpetrator?s (DOE l) propensity to sexually abuse children, and prior sexual misconduct with children, from public scrutiny and criminal investigation, Defendants implemented various measures designed to make the Perpetrator?s (DOE l) conduct harder to detect and ensure minors with whom he came into contact, such as Plaintiff, would be sexually abused, including: a. Permitting the Perpetrator (DOE 1) to remain in a position of authority and trust after Defendants knew or had reason to know that he was a molester of children; b. Placing the Perpetrator (DOE l) in a separate and secluded environment, at DOE 2, including assigning him unfettered access and control over minor participants and members that included individual and private examinations, private osteopathic adjustments without a chaperone, and allowing the Perpetrator (DOE 1) to physically and sexually interact with the children, including Plaintiff; c. Failing to disclose the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) prior record of misconduct, sexual abuse, harassment and molestation and his propensity to commit such acts towards participants and members in DOE 2?s program, the public at large, and law enforcement; d. Allowing the Perpetrator (DOE l) unsupervised and un?controlled access to minors, including the Plaintiff JANE JD e. Holding out the Perpetrator (DOE l) to Plaintiff, her parents, other participants and members of DOE 2, and the public at large as a trustworthy and honest person of high ethical and moral repute who was capable and worthy of being granted unsupervised access to the children of DOE 2; f. Failing to investigate or otherwise con?rm or deny such facts about the Perpetrator (DOE 1), including prior arrests, charges, claims and investigations for sexual abuse; g. Failing to inform, or concealing from Plaintiffs parents and law enforcement officials the fact that Plaintiff and others were or may have been sexually abused, harassed and molested, after Defendants knew or had reason to know that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) may have sexually abused Plaintiff or others, thereby enabling Plaintiff to continue to be endangered and sexually abused, harassed, 1 4- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI MANLY, Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' 19100 Von Karman Ave., (949) 252-9000 molested, and/or creating the circumstance where Plaintiff and others were less likely to receive proper medical treatment, thus exacerbating the harm to Plaintiff; Holding out the Perpetrator (DOE 1) to Plaintiff, her parents, and to the community as being in good standing and trustworthy; i. Cloaking the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) prior sexual misconduct with children within the facade of normalcy, thereby disguising the nature of his sexual abuse and contact with minors; j. Failing to take reasonable steps and to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by the Perpetrator (DOE 1) such as avoiding placement of the Perpetrator (DOE 1) in functions or environments in which his solitary contact with children was inherent; Failing to put in place a system or procedure to supervise or monitor physicians, athletic trainers, and agents to insure they do not molest or abuse minors in Defendants' care. 36. By his position within the Defendants' institutions, the Perpetrator (DOE l) attained a position of in?uence over Plaintiff, and others. Defendants' conduct created a situation of peril that was not, and could not" be appreciated by Plaintiff. By virtue of Defendants' conspiratorial and fraudulent conduct, and in keeping with their intent to fail to disclose and hide the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) past and present conduct from the community, the public at large and law enforcement, Defendants allowed the Perpetrator (DOE 1) to remain in a position of in?uence where his unsupervised or negligently supervised conduct with minor participants and members made the molestation and abuse of minor participants and members possible. 37. By his position within the Defendants' institutions, Defendants and the Perpetrator (DOE 1) demanded and required that Plaintiff respect the Perpetrator (DOE in his position as team physician for DOE 2. .38. The sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiff by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), outlined below, took place while Defendant the Perpetrator (DOE 1) was the team physician of Defendant DOE 2 and Plaintiff was a participant and member of DOE 2, while the Perpetrator (DOE 1) was serving as an agent and employee of Defendants in his capacity as team physician: a. In his capacity as a team physician with DOE 2, the Perpetrator (DOE 1) was given custody and supervision of minors, including Plaintiff. The Perpetrator (DOE 1) used this position to coerce children to concede to his sexual suggestions, using his authority and position of trust to exploit them physically, sexually, and emotionally; b. Plaintiff became a member and participant of DOE 2 starting in 1994. Plaintiff soon formed a relationship with the Perpetrator (DOE DOE 2?s team -1 5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI MANLY, Suite 800 19100 Von Karman Ave, Irvine, California 92612 Telemhnne? (040) 252-9000 physician. At this time, in or around late 1994, the Perpetrator (DOE 1) commenced the process of "grooming" Plaintiff for later physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Plaintiff is informed and believes the Perpetrator (DOE 1) would use the guise of care, athletic training, osteopathy, and kinesiology to normalize intimate, inappropriate, and sexually abusive contact with Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes the Perpetrator (DOE 1) would fondle and grope Plaintiffs feet, ankles, thighs, buttocks, hips, waist, breasts, arms, shoulders, and neck, placing Plaintiff under the impression this inappropriate contact was part of treatment. Plaintiff is informed and believes the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) grooming process also included engaging in sexual talk and innuendo, and openly discussing adult, inappropriate topics. The Perpetrator (DOE 1) would tell the minor Plaintiff that other gymnasts would give ?blowj obs? and described in detail the process of oral sex and other bizarre, explicit sexual innuendo. During this period, Plaintiff was a patient under the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) direct supervision and control. Plaintiff is informed and belieVes the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) physical sexual abuse of Plaintiff commenced after the grooming of Plaintiff began, and occurred multiple times while the team was traveling and before and after competitive meets up until in and around August 2000. During this period, Plaintiff was a participant, member, and patient under the Perpetrator?s (DOE l) and DOE 2?s direct supervision and control. Using his position as team physician, the Perpetrator (DOE 1) would interact with Plaintiff under the guise of providing her care and treatments necessary for her to compete as a world-class, Olympic medal?winning gymnast. Under these circumstances, the Perpetrator (DOE 1) introduced his bare hand to Plaintiff vagina and anus, on multiple locations, in Plaintiff assigned sleeping quarters, as she lay on the edge of her bed, alone and without any supervision or a chaperone. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) sexual abuse, molestation, and harassment of Plaintiff occurred on the premises of DOE 2, in sleeping quarters, in training facilities, in gyms, et cetera. During these occurrences, the Perpetrator (DOE 1) told Plaintiff about the need for osteopathic adjustments to correct issues Plaintiff was having with her hips from training and performing for DOE 2. The Perpetrator (DOE 1) told Plaintiff about the need to do an ?intravaginal adjustment,? a ?ctitious guise where the Perpetrator (DOE 1) would digitally penetrate Plaintiffs vagina in order to adjust the bones in her hips. The Perpetrator (DOE 1) told Plaintiff she should feel a ?pop? after inserting his fingers into her vagina and forcibly gyrating his hand. This ?intravaginal adjustment? was done without gloves, lubricant, and/or a chaperone, and was done for the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) own sexual grati?cation. In addition, the Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) would do anal and vaginal examinations of Plaintiff and other gymnasts in the care of DOE 2, without gloves, a chaperone, and/or any form of lubricant. These anal and vaginal examinations were well outside any recognized and/or accepted technique and were done for the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) own sexual grati?cation. The Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) sexual abuse and harassment of Plaintiff was done for the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1)personal sexual grati?cation, and it annoyed, disturbed, irritated, and offended Plaintiff as it would have a reasonable person. Plaintiff did not consent to the sexual abuse and harassment by the Perpetrator (DOE 1) and further, was incapable of consenting to such because she was a minor at the time of the sexual abuse. Subsequent to her sexual abuse and harassment at the hands of the Perpetrator (DOE 1), on or around July of 2016, the Plaintiff, for the ?rst time, began making -16- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 STEWART FINALDI MANLY, 19100 Von Karman Ave., Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' (040) 252-9000 mental connection between her present physical, mental and emotional problems and the sexual abuse she experienced as a minor and participant at DOE 2. It was only upon discovery of this that the Plaintiff reasonably determined and discovered that the injury, illness, and suffering that she has endured following the abuse by the Perpetrator (DOE 1) were actually caused by the childhood sexual harassment, molestation and abuse she suffered at the hands of Defendants, and each of them. It was at this point in or around July of 2016 when the Plaintiff first spoke to another individual at DOE 2. 39. As set forth more fully herein above, the Perpetrator (DOE 1) did sexually abuse, harass and molest Plaintiff, who was a minor child at the time of the acts at?issue. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that such conduct by the Perpetrator (DOE l) was based upon Plaintiff?s gender, and was done for his sexual gratification. These actions upon Plaintiff were performed by the Perpetrator (DOE 1) without the free consent of Plaintiff, who was a young child, and could therefore not give valid legal consent. 40. During the period Plaintiff was being sexually abused and harassed by the Perpetrator (DOE Defendants had the authority and ability to prevent such abuse by removing the Perpetrator (DOE 1) from his position as team physician at DOE 2. They failed to do so, allowing the abuse to occur and to continue unabated. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that this failure was a part of Defendants' conspiratorial plan and arrangement to conceal the Perpetrator?s (DOE l) wrongful acts, to avoid and inhibit detection, to block public disclosure, to avoid scandal, to avoid the disclosure of their tolerance of child sexual molestation and abuse, to preserve a false appearance of propriety, and to avoid investigation and action by public authority including law enforcement. Such actions were motivated by a desire to protect the reputation of Defendants and protect the monetary support of Defendants, while fostering an environment where such abuse could continue to occur. 41. As a direct result of the sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiff by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), Plaintiff has had difficulty in meaningfully interacting with others, including those in positions of authority over Plaintiff including physicians, athletic supervisors, and agents. Plaintiff has been limited in her ability to meaningfully interact with others due to the trauma of childhood sexual abuse. This inability to interact creates con?ict with Plaintiff?s values of trust and con?dence in others, and has caused Plaintiff substantial emotional distress, anxiety, 1 7 COMPLAINT OR DAMAGES Suite 800 (9491252-9090 STEWART FINALDI Irvine, California 92612 19100 Von Karman Ave, Telenhnne? MANLYnervousness and fear. As a direct result of the sexual abuse and molestation by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), Plaintiff suffered immensely, including, but not limited to, encountering issues with a lack of trust, various negative and emotional sequelae, depressive anxiety, nervousness, and self?medicating behavior. 42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' tortuous acts, omissions, wrongful conduct and breaches of their duties, Plaintiff?s employment and professional development has been adversely affected. Plaintiff has lost wages and will continue to lose wages in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiff has suffered substantial economic injury, all to Plaintiff?s general, special and consequential damage in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court. 43. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants? wrongful actions, as herein alleged, Plaintiff has been hurt in her health, strength and activity. Plaintiff has sustained permanent and continuing injury to her nervous system and person, which has caused and continues to cause great mental, physical and nervous pain, suffering, fright, upset, grief, worry and shock in an amount according to proof at trial but in no event less than the jurisdictional minimum requirements of this Court. 44. As is set forth herein, Defendants and each of them have failed to uphold numerous mandatory duties required of them by state and federal law, as well as their own internal written policies and procedures, including: '0 Duty to use reasonable care to protect participants and members from known or foreseeable dangers - Duty to enact policies and procedures that are not in contravention of the Federal Civil Rights Act, section 1983 and the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution; Duty to protect participants and members and staff, and provide adequate supervision; - Duty to ensure that any direction given to participants and members is lawful, and that adults act fairly, responsible and respectfully towards participants and members; 0 Duty to properly train staff so that they are aware of their individual responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe environment; - Duty to review the criminal history of applicants and current employees; 0 Duty to provide diligent supervision over minors; 1 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI 3 MANLY Suite 800 19100 V911 Karman Ave, 1rv1ne, California 92612 Telenlmne' {94917.57.-0990 Duty to act and diligently and not ignore or minimize problems. a Duty to report suspected incidents of child abuse and more speci?cally childhood sexual abuse (Penal Code sections 11166, 1 1167). 45. Defendants and each of them had and have a duty to protect participants and members, including Plaintiff. Defendants were required to, and failed, to provide adequate supervision, and failed to be properly vigilant in seeing that supervision was suf?cient at DOE 2 to ensure the safety of Plaintiff and others. 46. Despite having a duty to do so, Defendants failed to adequately train and supervise all staff to create a positive and safe environment, speci?cally including training to perceive,-report and stop inappropriate sexual conduct by other members of the staff, speci?cally including the Perpetrator (DOE with children. 47. Defendants failed to enforce their own rules and regulations designed to protect the health and safety of the participants and members. Further, they failed to adopt and implement safety measures, policies and procedures designed to protect minor children such as Plaintiff from the sexually exploitive and abusive acts of their agents and employees such as the Perpetrator (DOE 48. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants the Perpetrator (DOE DOE and DOES 6 through 500 acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff?s rights, so as to constitute malice and/or oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiff is informed, and on that basis alleges, that speci?cally, the Defendants acted in concert, and under their authority as child care providers, with reckless disregard for the concern of the minor participants in its charge, in order to further ?nancially bene?t its business?s growth. The Defendants acted intentionally in creating an environment that harbored molesters, put the vulnerable minor participants at?risk of harm, ignored clear warning signs and their duties to report sexual abusers and molesters in their ranks, to maintain a facade of normalcy, in order to maintain its funding and provide further ?nancial growth of DOE 2, on the international level. The safety of the minor participants that were entrusted to DOE 2 was compromised due to Defendants desire to maintain the status quo of the DOE 2 organization, and avoid any public -19- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI MANLY, Suite 800 19100 Von Karmau Ave, Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne? (949) 252-9990 scrutiny for its misconduct. Plaintiff is informed, and on that basis alleges, that these willful, malicious, and/or oppressive acts, as alleged herein above, were rati?ed by the officers, directors, and/or managing agents of the Defendants. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against Defendants the Perpetrator (DOE 1and DOES 6 through 500. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL ASSAULT (Against Defendant the Perpetrator (DOE 49. Plaintiff re?alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 50. The?Perpetrator (DOE 1), in doing the things herein alleged, including intending to subject Plaintiff to numerous instances of sexual abuse and molestation by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), during Plaintiffs time with DOE 2, beginning on or around 1994, and lasting for the duration of Plaintiff?s tenure with DOE 2, in or around August of 2000, including but not limited to instances of the Perpetrator (DOE 1) groping and fondling the Plaintiff?s vagina and anus all while the Perpetrator (DOE I) acted in the course and scope of his agency/ employment with Defendants, and each of them and were intended to cause harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff?s person, or intended to put Plaintiff in imminent apprehension of such contact. 51. In doing the things herein alleged, Plaintiff was put in imminent apprehension of a harmful or v?offensive contact by the Perpetrator (DOE and actually believed the Perpetrator (DOE 1) had the ability to make harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff person. I 52. Plaintiff did not consent to the Perpetrator?s (DOE l)intended harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff 3 person, or intent to put Plaintiff in imminent apprehension of such contact. Additionally, because Plaintiff was a minor during the time herein alleged, she lacked the ability to consent to sexual contact with any person, especially with a team physician at DOE 2. 53. In doing the things herein alleged, the Perpetrator (DOE l) violated Plaintiffs right, pursuant to Civil Code section 43, of protection from bodily restraint or harm, and from personal insult. In doing the things herein alleged, the Perpetrator (DOE 1) violated his duty, -20- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES MANLY, STEWART FINALDI Suite 800 19100 Von Karman Ave., Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne? (949) 252-9990 .pursuant to Civil Code section 1708, to abstain from injuring the person of Plaintiff or infringing upon his rights. 54. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress including embarrassment, loss of self?esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. 55. Plaintiff is informed and based thereon alleges that the conduct of Defendants was oppressive, malicious and despicable in that it was intentional and done in conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others, and were carried out with a conscious disregard of her right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against Defendants in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of Defendants. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL BATTERY: Civil Code 1708.5 (Against the Perpetrator (DOE 56. Plaintiff re?alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 57. During Plaintiffs time as team member and participant with DOE 2, the Perpetrator (DOE 1) intentionally, recklessly and wantonly did acts which were intended to, and did result in harmful and offensive contact with intimate parts of Plaintiff?s person, including but not limited to being subjected to numerous instances of sexual abuse by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), during Plaintiff?s time with DOE 2, beginning on or around 1994, and lasting for the duration of Plaintiff?s tenure with DOE 2, in or around August of 2000, including but not limited to instances of the Perpetrator (DOE 1) groping and fondling the Plaintiff vagina and anus all while the Perpetrator (DOE 1) acted in the course and scope of his agency/employment with Defendants, and each of them. -21- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI Snite 800 (049) 252-9990 19100 Von Karman Ave, Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' MANLY 58. The Perpetrator (DOE 1) did the aforementioned acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of Plaintiffs person, and would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity. Further, said acts did cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of Plaintiff?s person that would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity. 59. Because of the Perpetrator (DOE 1)?s position of authority over Plaintiff, and Plaintiffs mental and emotional state, and Plaintiffs young age under the age of consent, Plaintiff was unable to, and did not, give meaningful consent to such acts. 60. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the acts of the Perpetrator (DOE 1), Plaintiff sustained serious and permanent injuries to her person, all of his damage in an amount to be shown according to proof and within the jurisdiction of the Court. 61. As a direct result of the sexual abuse by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), Plaintiff has difficulty in reasonably or meaningfully interacting with others, including those in positions of authority over Plaintiff including teachers, and supervisors, and in intimate, con?dential and familial relationships, due to the trauma of childhood sexual abuse in?icted upon her by Defendants. This inability to interact creates con?ict with Plaintiffs values of trust and confidence in others, and has caused Plaintiff substantial emotional distress, anxiety, nervousness and fear. As a direct result of the sexual abuse and molestation by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), Plaintiff suffered immensely, including, but not limited to, encountering issues with a lack of trust, various sequelae, depressive anxiety, nervousness, and self? medicatin behavior. 62. Plaintiff is informed and based thereon alleges that the conduct of the Perpetrator (DOE 1) was oppressive, malicious and despicable in that it was intentional and done in conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others, and were carried out with a conscious disregard of her right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against the Perpetrator (DOE 1) in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of the Perpetrator (DOE -22- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhmie' STEWART FINALDI Karman Ave., (040) 757,-0990 MANLY, 19100 Von THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION GENDER VIOLENCE (Against the Perpetrator (DOE 63. Plaintiff re?alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 64. The Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) acts committed against Plaintiff, as alleged herein, including the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of the Plaintiff constitutes gender violence and a form of sex discrimination in that one or more of the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) acts would constitute a criminal offense under state law thathas as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, committed at least in part based on the gender of the victim, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction. 65. The Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) acts committed against Plaintiff, as alleged herein, including the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of the Plaintiff constitutes gender violence and a form of sex discrimination in that the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) conduct caused a physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature upon Plaintiff under coercive conditions, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction. 66. As a proximate result of the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) acts, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, any combination of those, or any other appropriate relief. Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code 52.4, against the Perpetrator (DOE 1). FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL HARASSMENT (CIVIL CODE ?51.9) (Against All Defendants) 67. Plaintiff re?alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 68. During Plaintiff time as a team member and participant at DOE 2, the Perpetrator (DOE I) intentionally, recklessly and wantonly made sexual advances, solicitations, requests, demands for sexual compliance of a hostile nature based on Plaintiff?s gender that were unwelcome, pervasive and severe, including but not limited to the Perpetrator (DOE 1) groping -23- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI NIANLY, Suite 800 19100 Von Karman Ave., Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' {949) 252-9990 and fondling the Plaintiffs vagina and anus, all under the supervision of Defendants, who were acting in the course and scope of their agency with Defendants and each of them. 69. The incidents of abuse outlined herein above took place while Plaintiff was under the control of Perpetrator (DOE 1) and DOE 2, as well as the staff of DOE 2, in their capacity and position as team physicians, athletic trainers, and staff at DOE 2 and while acting speci?cally on behalf of Defendants. 70. During Plaintiffs time as a team member and participant at DOE 2, the Perpetrator (DOE 1) intentionally, recklessly and wantonly did acts which resulted in harmful and offensive contact with intimate parts of Plaintiffs person, including but not limited to, using his position of authority and age to force Plaintiff to give into the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) sexual suggestions. 71. Because of Plaintiffs relationship with the Perpetrator (DOE 1) and DOE 2, and Plaintiffs young age as a minor team member and participant, Plaintiff was unable to easily terminate the relationship she had with the Defendants. 72. Because of the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) age and position of authority, physical seclusion of the Plaintiff, Plaintiffs mental and emotional state, and Plaintiffs young age under the age of consent, Plaintiff was unable to, and did not and could not, give consent to such acts. 73. Even though the Defendants knew or had reason to know of these activities by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), Defendants did nothing to investigate, supervise or monitor the Perpetrator (DOE 1) to ensure the safety of the minor participants and members. 74. Because of Plaintiffs relationship with Defendants, as a team member and participant of Defendants, and Plaintiffs young age as a minor team member and participant, Plaintiff was unable to easily terminate the doctor?patient relationship she had with Defendants. 75. A corporation is a "person" within meaning of Civil Code section 51.9, which subjects persons to liability for sexual harassment within a business, service or professional relationship, and such an entity defendant may be held liable under this statute for the acts of its employees. CR. 12. Tenet Healthcare Corp, (2009) 169 Ca1.App.4th 1094. Further, principles of -24- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 9 19100 Von Karman Aye, MANLY STEWART FINALDI Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 (940) 252-9990 Telenlmnerati?cation a 1y when the rinci al rati?es the a ent's originall unauthorized harassment, as is PP alleged to have occurred herein. 76. Defendants' conduct (and the conduct of their agents) was a breach of their duties to Plaintiff. 77. As a result of the above?described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress including embarrassment, loss of self?esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (BUSINESS PROFESSIONS CODE ?17200) (Against All Defendants) 78. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 79. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that the Perpetrator (DOE l) and DOE 2 have engaged in unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices including allowing DOE to engage in repeated harassment of participants and members, including Plaintiff, and failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment and abuse from occurring. The unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices also included failing to adequately investigate, vet, and evaluate individuals for employment with DOE 2, refusing to design, implement, and oversee policies regarding sexual harassment and abuse of children in a reasonable manner that is customary in similar educational environments. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that the Perpetrator (DOE l) and DOE 2 have engaged in unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices including concealing sexual harassment, abuse and/or molestation claims by participants and members, such as Plaintiff, so as to retain other participants and members within DOE 2 who were not apprised of such illicit sexual misconduct by the Perpetrator (DOE 1). -25- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 (040125249990 (arman Ave, Irvine, California 92612 STEWART FINALDI Telenhnne? 19100 Von I MANLY80. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants engaged in a common scheme, arrangement or plan to actively conceal allegations against sexual abusers who were employees, agents, members, and/or participants at DOE 2, including DOE 1, such that DOE 2 could maintain its public image, and avoid detection of such abuse and abusers. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants actively concealed these allegations, such that Defendants would be insulated from public scrutiny, governmental oversight, and/or investigation from various law enforcement agencies, all done in order to maintain the false sense of safety for participants and their families and to perpetuate the program finanCially. 81. By engaging in unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices, the Perpetrator (DOE l) and DOE 2 bene?tted financially to the detriment of its competitors, who had to comply with the law. 82. Unless restrained, DOE 2 will continue to engage in the unfair acts and business practices described above, resulting in great and irreparable harm to Plaintiff and/or other similarly situated participants and members. 83. Plaintiff seeks restitution for all amounts improperly obtained by the Perpetrator (DOE 1) and DOE 2 through the use of the above?mentioned unlawful business practices, as well as the disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains and restitution on behalf of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated participants and members who were also subjected to the Perpetrator (DOE 1) and DOE 2?s illegal and unfair business practices. 84. Pursuant to section 17203 of the California Business and Professions Code and available equitable powers, Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining the Perpetrator (DOE l) and DOE 2 from continuing the unlawful and unfair business practices described above. Further, Plaintiff seeks the appointment of a court monitor to enforce its orders regarding client safety. In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code and section 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. -25- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 {940) 252-9990 Karman Ave, Irvine, California 92612 STEWART FINALDI Telenhnne' 19100 Von MANLYSIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Against All Defendants) 85. Plaintiff re~alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 86. The Perpetrator (DOE 1), DOE 2, and DOES 3 through 500?s conduct toward Plaintiff, as described herein, was outrageous and extreme. 87. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of Plaintiff by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), and Defendants? knowledge and callous indifference thereof. Plaintiff had great trust, faith and confidence in in Defendants, which, by virtue of the Perpetrator?s (DOE l) and Defendants' wrongful conduct, turned to fear. 88. Defendants? conduct toward Plaintiff, as described herein, was outrageous and extreme. 89. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate Defendants putting the Perpetrator (DOE 1), who was known to Defendants to have physically and sexually abused other participants and members, in a position of care of Plaintiff and other minor participants and members, which enabled the Perpetrator (DOE l) to have access to minor participants and members so that he could commit wrongful sexual acts, including the conduct described herein, with minors, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff had great trust, faith and confidence in Defendants, which, by virtue of Defendants' wrongful conduct, turned to fear. 90. reasonable person would not expect or tolerate the Defendants and their agents to be incapable of supervising and/or stopping participants and members of Defendants, including the Perpetrator (DOE 1), from committing wrongful sexual acts with minors, including Plaintiff, or to supervise the Perpetrator (DOE 1). Plaintiff had great trust, faith and confidence in Defendants, which, by virtue of Defendants' wrongful conduct, turned to fear. 91. Defendants' conduct described herein was intentional and malicious and done for the purpose of causing or with the substantial certainty that Plaintiff would suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress. -27- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' (9401252-9090 STEWART FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave, MANLYresult of the above?described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress including embarrassment, loss of self?esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. 93. I In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, the Perpetrator (DOE 1and DOES 6 through 500 acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, so as to constitute malice and/or oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiff is informed, and on that basis alleges, that these willful, malicious, and/or oppressive acts, as alleged herein above, were ratified by the of?cers, directors, and/or managing agents of the Defendants. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against the Perpetrator (DOE 1and DOES 6 through 500. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD (Against All Defendants) 94. Plaintiff re?alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 95. By holding the Perpetrator (DOE 1) out as an agent of Defendants, and by allowing him to undertake the physical care and athletic training of minor children such as Plaintiff, Defendants entered into a confidential, fiduciary, and special relationship with Plaintiff. 96. By holding themselves out as the national program for woman?s gymnastics, undertaking to select and train national gymnastics teams, and facilitating competition both nationally and internationally of Plaintiff and other minor team participants and members, Defendants entered into a con?dential, ?duciary and special relationship with Plaintiff. -28- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI 3 19100 Von Karman Ave, MANLY Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 (9403 757-9990 Telenhnne97. Defendants breached their con?dential, ?duciary duty and special duties to Plaintiff by the wrongful and negligent conduct described above and incorporated into this cause of action, and in so doing, gained an advantage over Plaintiff in matters relating to Plaintiffs safety, security and health. In particular, in breaching such duties as alleged, Defendants were able to sustain their status as an institution of high moral repute, and preserve their reputation, all at the expense of Plaintiffs further injury and in violation of Defendants' mandatory duties. 98. By Virtue of their con?dential, ?duciary and special relationship with Plaintiff, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to: a. b. 99. Investigate or otherwise con?rm or deny such claims of sexual abuse; Reveal such facts to Plaintiff, Plaintiffs family and caretakers, the gymnastics community, the community at large, the US Olympic Committee, and law enforcement agencies; Refuse to place the Perpetrator (DOE 1) and other molesters in positions of trust and authority within Defendants' institutions; Refuse to hold out the Perpetrator (DOE l) and other molesters to the public, the community, minors, parents and law enforcement agencies as being in good standing and, trustworthy in keeping with him and his position as a team physician and authority ?gure; Refuse to assign the Perpetrator (DOE 1) and other molesters to positions of power within DOE 2 and over minors; and Disclose to Plaintiff, her family, the public, the school community, minors, and law enforcement agencies the wrongful, tortious, and sexually exploitive acts that the Perpetrator (DOE I) had engaged in with children. Defendants' breach of their respective duties included: Not making reasonable investigations of the Perpetrator (DOE Issuing no warnings about the Perpetrator (DOE Permitting the Perpetrator (DOE 1) to routinely be alone with and in control of minors, unsupervised; Not adopting a policy to prevent the Perpetrator (DOE I) from routinely having minors and participants and members in his unsupervised control; Making no reports of any allegations of the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) abuse of participants and members, or of minors prior to or during his employment at DOE 2; and Assigning and continuing to assign the Perpetrator (DOE l) to duties which placed him in positions of authority and trust over minors, positions in which the Perpetrator (DOE 1) could easily isolate and sexually abuse minors. -29- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI MANLY, Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhmm' 19100 Von Karman Ave, (949) 252-9000 100. At the time that Defendants engaged in such suppression and concealment of acts, such acts were done for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to forbear on Plaintiffs rights. 101. Defendants' misconduct did reasonably cause Plaintiff to forbear on Plaintiffs rights. 102. The misrepresentations, suppressions and concealment of facts by Defendants were intended to and were likely to mislead Plaintiff and others to believe that Defendants had no knowledge of any charges against the Perpetrator (DOE 1), or that there were no other charges of unlawful or sexual misconduct against the Perpetrator (DOE 1) or others and that there was no need for them to take further action or precaution. 103. The misrepresentations, suppressions and concealment of facts by Defendants was likely to mislead Plaintiff and others to believe that Defendants had no knowledge of the fact that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) was a molester, and was known to commit wrongful sexual acts with minors, including Plaintiff. 104. Defendants knew or had reason to know at the time they suppressed and concealed the true facts regarding others' sexual molestations, that the resulting impressions were misleading. 105. Defendants suppressed and concealed the true facts regarding the Perpetrator (DOE 1) with the purpose of: preventing Plaintiff, Plaintiffs parents family, and others, from learning that the Perpetrator (DOE 1), and others had been and were continuing to sexually harass, molest and abuse minors and others under the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) and Defendants' control, direction, and guidance, with complete impunity; inducing people, including Plaintiff and other benefactors and donors to participate and ?nancially support Defendants' program and other enterprises of Defendants; preventing further reports and outside investigations into the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) and Defendants' conduct; preventing discovery of Defendants' own conduct; avoiding damage to the reputations of Defendants; protecting Defendants' power and status in the community and the gymnastics community; avoiding damage to the reputation of Defendants, or Defendants' institutions; and avoiding the civil and criminal liability of Defendants, of the Perpetrator (DOE 1), and of others. -30- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI 3 19100 Von Karman Ave., MANLY Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' (040) 252-0090 106. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and in particular the Perpetrator (DOE l) and DOE 2, with knowledge of the tortious nature of their own and the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) conduct, knowingly conspired and gave each other substantial assistance to perpetrate the misrepresentations, fraud and deceit alleged hereinmcovering up the past allegations of sexual misconduct lodged against DOE l, and allowing DOE 1 to remain in his position as a team physician so they could maintain their reputations and continue with their positions within the organization. 107. Plaintiff and others were misled by Defendants' suppressions and concealment of facts, and in reliance thereon, were induced to act or induced not to act, exactly as intended by Defendants. Speci?cally, Plaintiff and Plaintiff?s family were induced to believe that there were no allegations of criminal or sexual abuse against the Perpetrator (DOE 1) and that he was safe to be around children. Had Plaintiff and her family, and others, known the true facts about the Perpetrator (DOE 1), they would have not participated further in activities of the Perpetrator (DOE 1), or continued to ?nancially support Defendants' activities. They would have reported the matters to the proper authorities, to other minor participants and members and their parents so as to prevent future recurrences; they would not have allowed children, including Plaintiff, to be alone with, or have any relationship with the Perpetrator (DOE they would not have allowed children, including Plaintiff, to attend or be under the control of Defendants; they would have undertaken their own investigations which would have led to discovery of the true facts; and they would have sought counseling for Plaintiff, and for other children molested and abused by the Perpetrator (DOE 1). 108. By giving the Perpetrator (DOE l) the position of team physician, Defendants impliedly represented that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) was safe and morally fit to give children care and provide osteopathic adjustments. 109. When Defendants made these affirmative or implied representations and non- disclosures of material facts, Defendants knew or had reason to know that the facts were otherwise. Defendants knowingly and intentionally suppressed the material facts that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) had on numerous, prior occasions sexually, physically, and mentally abused -31- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 STEWART FINALDI MANLY, 19100 Von Karman Ave, Irvine, California 92612 Telenhone' (04917.52-0900 4; \lO?xUminors and participants and members of Defendants, including Plaintiff, and knew of or learned of conduct, or had reason to know of conduct by the Perpetrator (DOE 1) which placed Defendants on notice that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) had previously been suspected of felonies, including unlawful sexual conduct with minors, and was likely abusing children. 110. Because of Plaintiffs young age, and because of the status of the Perpetrator (DOE l) as a trusted, authority ?gure to Plaintiff, Plaintiff was vulnerable to the Perpetrator (DOE 1). The Perpetrator (DOE I) sought Plaintiff out, and was empowered by and accepted Plaintiffs vulnerability. Plaintiffs vulnerability also prevented Plaintiff from effectively protecting herself from the sexual advances of the Perpetrator (DOE 111. Defendants had the duty to obtain and disclose information relating to sexual misconduct of the Perpetrator (DOE 1). 112. Defendants misrepresented, concealed or failed to disclose information relating to sexual misconduct of the Perpetrator (DOE 113. Defendants knew that they had misrepresented, concealed or failed to disclose information related to sexual misconduct of the Perpetrator (DOE 1). 114. Plaintiff justifiably relied upon Defendants for information relating to sexual misconduct of the Perpetrator (DOE 115. The Perpetrator (DOE 1)and DOE and DOES 1 through 500, in concert with each other and with the intent to conceal and defraud, conspired and came to a meeting of the minds whereby they would misrepresent, conceal or fail to disclose information relating to the sexual misconduct of the Perpetrator (DOE the inability of Defendants to supervise or stop the Perpetrator (DOE 1) from sexually harassing, molesting and abusing Plaintiff, and their own failure to properly investigate, supervise and monitor his conduct with minor participants and members. 116. By so concealing, Defendants committed at least one act in furtherance of the conspiracy. 117. As a result of the above?described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of -3 2- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI 5 19100 Von Karman Ave., MANLY Suite 800 1rv1ne, California 92612 (94917.52-9990 Telenhnneemotional distress including embarrassment, loss of self?esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. 118. In addition, when Plaintiff ?nally discovered the fraud of Defendants, and continuing thereafter, Plaintiff experienced recurrences of the above?described injuries. Plaintiff experienced extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress that Plaintiff had been the Victim of Defendants' fraud; that Plaintiff had not been able to help other minors being molested because of the fraud, and that Plaintiff had not been able because of the fraud to receive timely medical treatment needed to deal with the problems Plaintiff had suffered and continues to suffer as a result of the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse. 119. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants the Perpetrator (DOE and DOES 6 through 500 acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff?s rights, so as to constitute malice and/or oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiff is informed, and on that basis alleges, that these willful, malicious, and/or oppressive acts, as alleged herein above, were rati?ed by the officers, directors, and/or managing agents of the Defendants. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against Defendants the Perpetrator (DOE and DOES 6 through 500. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE (Against Defendants DOE and DOES 6 through 500) 120. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 121. Prior to and after the ?rst incident of the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of Plaintiff, through the present, Defendants, knew and/or had -33- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 (949) 252-9990 STEWART FINALDI Irvine, California 92612 19100 Von Karman Ave, Telenhone? MANLYreason to know that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) had and was capable of sexually, physically, and mentally abusing and harassing Plaintiff or other victims. 122. Defendants and each of them had special duties to protect the minor Plaintiff and the other participants and members, when such minors were entrusted to Defendants' care by their parents. Plaintiffs care, welfare and physical custody was entrusted to Defendants. Defendants voluntarily accepted the entrusted care of Plaintiff. As such, Defendants owed Plaintiff, a minor child, a special duty of care that adults dealing with children owe to protect them from harm. The duty to protect and warn arose from the special, trusting, con?dential, and ?duciary relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff. 123. Defendants breached their duties of care to the minor Plaintiff by allowing the I Perpetrator (DOE l) to come into contact with the minor Plaintiff and other participants and members, without supervision; by failing to adequately hire, supervise and retain the Perpetrator (DOE 1) whom they permitted and enabled to have access to Plaintiff; by concealing from Plaintiff, her family, and law enforcement that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) was sexually harassing, molesting and abusing minors; and by holding the Perpetrator (DOE 1) out to Plaintiff and her family as being of high moral and ethical repute, in good standing and trustworthy. 124. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiff by failing to investigate or otherwise con?rm or deny such facts of sexual abuse by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), failing to reveal such facts to Plaintiff, her parents, the community and law enforcement agencies, and by placing the Perpetrator (DOE 1) into a position of trust and authority, holding him out to Plaintiff, her parents, and the public as being in good standing and trustworthy. 125. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by failing to adequately monitor and supervise the Perpetrator (DOE l) and failing to prevent the Perpetrator (DOE 1) from committing wrongful sexual acts with minors including Plaintiff. Defendants? voluminous past records of sexual misconduct by the Perpetrator (DOE 1) caused Defendants to know, or gave them reason to know, of the Perpetrator?s (DOE l) incapacity to serve as a team physician, providing for the physical care of minor females. -34- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES LDI Suite 800 STEWART FINA Karman Ave, Irvine, California 92612 MANLY, 19100 Von (949) 252-9090 Telenhnne126. As a result of the above?described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress including embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (Against Defendants DOE and DOES 6 through 500) 127. Plaintiff re?alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 128. By virtue of Plaintiffs special relationship with Defendants, and Defendants' relation to the Perpetrator (DOE 1), Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to provide reasonable supervision of the Perpetrator (DOE 1), to use reasonable care in investigating the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) background, and to provide adequate warning to Plaintiff, Plaintiffs family, and minor participants and members of the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) dangerous propensities and un?tness. As an organization responsible for, and entrusted with, the welfare of minor children, DOE 2 had a duty to protect, supervise, and monitor both the Plaintiff from being preyed upon by sexual predators, and to supervise and monitor the Perpetrator (DOE 1) such that he would not be placed in seclusion with minor children, including the Plaintiff. 129. As representatives of DOE 2, where many of the participants and members thereof are vulnerable minors entrusted to DOE 2, Defendants? agents expressly and implicitly represented that team physicians and staff, including the Perpetrator (DOE 1), were not a sexual threat to children and others who would fall under the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) influence, control, direction, and care. 130. Defendants, by and through their respective agents, servants and employees, knew or had reason to know of the Perpetrator?s (DOE l) dangerous and exploitive propensities and that the Perpetrator (DOE l)was an un?t agent. Despite such knowledge, Defendants negligently -3 5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI MANLY, Suite 800 2612 '91 Irvine, California 19100 Von Karin'an Ave (949) 252-9900 Telenhnnefailed to supervise the Perpetrator (DOE 1) in his position of trust and authority as a team physician and authority ?gure over children, where he was able to commit wrongful acts of sexual misconduct against Plaintiff. Defendants failed to provide reasonable supervision of the Perpetrator (DOE 1), failed to use reasonable care in investigating the Perpetrator (DOE and failed to provide adequate warning to Plaintiff and Plaintiffs family of the Perpetrator?s (DOE 1) dangerous propensities and unfitness. Defendants further failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of minors, including Plaintiff, from sexual harassment, molestation, and abuse. 131. At no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in place a reasonable system or procedure to investigate, supervise and monitor the team. physician or staff, including the Perpetrator (DOE to prevent pre?sexual grooming and sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of children, nor did they implement a system or procedure to oversee or monitor conduct toward minors and others in Defendants' care. 132. Defendants were aware or had reason to be aware of how vulnerable children were to sexual harassment, molestation and abuse by teachers and other persons of authority within Defendants? entities. 133. Defendants were put on notice, knew and had reason to know that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) had previously engaged and was continuing to engage in unlawful sexual conduct with minors, and had committed other felonies, for his own personal sexual gratification, and that it was foreseeable that he was engaging, or would engage in illicit sexual activities with Plaintiff, and others, under the cloak of the authority, con?dence, and trust, bestowed upon him through Defendants. 134. Defendants were placed on actual or constructive notice that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) had molested other minors and participants and members during his employment with Defendants. Defendants were informed of molestations of minors committed by the Perpetrator (DOE 1) prior to Plaintiffs sexual abuse, and of conduct by the Perpetrator (DOE 1) that would put a reasonable person on notice of such propensity to molest and abuse children. -36- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 {049) STEWART FINALDI Irvine, California 92612 19100 Von Karm_an Ave, Telenhnne? MANLY 135. Even though Defendants knew or had reason to know of these illicit sexual activities by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), Defendants did not reasonably investigate, supervise or monitor the Perpetrator (DOE 1) to ensure the safety of the minor participants and members. 136. Defendants' conduct was a breach of their duties to Plaintiff. 137. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty to Plaintiff by, inter alia, by failing to adequately monitor and supervise the Perpetrator (DOE 1) and stop the Perpetrator (DOE 1) from committing wrongful sexual acts with minors including Plaintiff. 138. As a result of the above?described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress including embarrassment, loss of self?esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. NEGLIGENCE PER IN VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE 811166., ET. SEQ 139. Under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, Defendants, by and through their employees and agents, were child care custodians and were under a statutory duty to report known or suspected incidents of sexual molestation or abuse of minors to a child protective agency, pursuant to California Penal Code section 11166, and not to impede the filing of any such report. 140. Defendants knew or had reason to know that their team physician, the Perpetrator (DOE 1), and other staff of Defendants, had sexually molested, abused or caused touching, battery, harm, and/or other injuries to minors, including Plaintiff, giving rise to a duty to report such conduct under California Penal Code section 11166. 141. Defendants knew, or had reason to know, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that an undue risk to minors, including Plaintiff, existed because Defendants did not comply with California's mandatory reporting requirements. -37- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 (040) 757-0900 STEWART FINALDI Irvine, California 92612 19100 Von Karman Aye, Telenhone?.? MANLY142. By failing to report the continuing molestations and abuse by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), which Defendants knew or had reason to know about, and by ignoring the ful?llment of the mandated compliance with the reporting requirements provided under California Penal Code section 11166, Defendants created the risk and danger contemplated by the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, and as a result, unreasonably and wrongfully exposed Plaintiff and other minors to sexual molestation and abuse. 143. Plaintiff was a member of the class of persons for whose protection California Penal Code section 11166 was speci?cally adopted to protect. 144. Had Defendants adequately reported the molestation of Plaintiff and other minors as required by California Penal Code section 11166, further harm to Plaintiff and other minors would have been avoided. 145. As a proximate result of Defendants' failure to follow the mandatory reporting requirements of California Penal Code section 11166, Defendants wrongfully denied Plaintiff and other minors the intervention of child protection services. Such public agencies would have changed the then?existing arrangements and conditions that provided the access and opportunities for the molestation of Plaintiff by the Perpetrator (DOE 1). 146. The physical, mental, and emotional damages and injuries resulting from the sexual molestation of Plaintiff by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), were the type of occurrence and injuries that the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act was designed to prevent. 147; As a result, Defendants' failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements of California Penal Code section 11166 also constituted a per se breach of Defendants' duties to Plaintiff. 148. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty to Plaintiff by, inter alia, by failing to adequately monitor and supervise the Perpetrator (DOE 1) and stop the Perpetrator (DOE 1) from committing wrongful sexual acts with minors including Plaintiff. 149. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress including embarrassment, loss of self?esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss -38- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI 9 19100 Von Karman Ave, MANLY Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnnex (04917.52-0090 enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT (Against Defendants DOE and DOES 6 through 500) 150. Plaintiff re?alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 151. By virtue of Plaintiffs Special relationship with Defendants, and Defendants' relation to the Perpetrator (DOE Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to not hire or retain the Perpetrator (DOE 1), given his dangerous and exploitive propensities, which Defendants knew or had reason to know about had they engaged in a reasonable, meaningful and adequate investigation of her background prior to her hiring or retaining her in subsequent positions of employment. 152. DOE 2 and Defendants, expressly and implicitly represented that the team staff, trainers, and team physicians, including the Perpetrator (DOE 1), were not a sexual threat to children and others who would fall under the Perpetrator?s (DOE l) in?uence, control, direction, and guidance. 153. At no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in place a reasonable system or procedure to investigate, supervise and monitor team staff, trainers, and team physicians, including the Perpetrator (DOE 1), to prevent pre?sexual grooming or sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of children, nor did they implement a system or procedure to oversee or monitor conduct toward minors, participants and members and others in Defendants' care. 154. Defendants were aware or had reason to be aware and understand how vulnerable children were to sexual harassment, molestation and abuse by teachers and other persons of authority within the control of Defendants prior to Plaintiff?s sexual abuse by the Perpetrator (DOE -3 9- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne? {049125249900 STEWART FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave, MANLY155. Defendants were put on notice, and had reason to know that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) had previously engaged and continued to engage in unlawful sexual conduct with minors and was committing other felonies, for his own personal grati?cation, and that it was, or had reason to know it would have been foreseeable that he was engaging, or would engage in illicit sexual activities with Plaintiff, and others, under the cloak of his authority, con?dence, and trust, bestowed upon her through Defendants. 156. Defendants were placed on actual or constructive notice that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) had molested or was molesting minors and participants and members, both before his employment within Defendants, and during that employment. Defendants had knowledge of inappropriate conduct and molestations committed by the Perpetrator (DOE 1) before and during his employment, yet chose to allow him to remain unsupervised where she sexually abused Plaintiff. 157. Even though Defendants knew or had reason to know of these sexually illicit activities by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), Defendants failed to use reasonable care in investigating the Perpetrator (DOE l) and did nothing to reasonably investigate, supervise or monitor the Perpetrator (DOE 1) to ensure the safety of the minor participants and members. 158. Defendants' conduct was a breach of their duties to Plaintiff. 159. As a result of the above?described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress including embarrassment, loss of self?esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN, TRAIN, or EDUCATE (Against Defendants DOE and DOES 6 through 500) 160. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. -40- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI Suite 800 (940) 9 19100 Von Karman Ave, Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' MANLY 161. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect Plaintiff and other minor participants and members from the risk of childhood sexual harassment, molestation and abuse by the Perpetrator (DOE 1) by properly warning, training or educating Plaintiff and other about how to avoid such a risk. 162. Defendants breached their duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect Plaintiff and other minor participants and members from the risk of childhood sexual harassment, molestation and abuse by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), such as the failure to properly warn, train or educate Plaintiff and other minor participants and members about how to avoid such a particular risk that the Perpetrator (DOE 1) posedwof sexual misconduct. 163. Defendants breached their duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect Plaintiff and other minor participants and members from the risk of childhood sexual harassment, molestation and abuse by the Perpetrator (DOE 1), by failing to supervise and stop employees of Defendants, including the Perpetrator (DOE 1), from committing wrongful sexual acts with minors, including Plaintiff. 164. As a result of the above?described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress including embarrassment, loss of self?esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment .of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy, and counseling. AU AV -41- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Sulte 800 (040)252-0990 STEWART FINALDI Irvine, California 92612 19100 Von Karman Ave., Telenhnne' MANLYWHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a jury trial and for judgment against Defendants as follows: FOR ALL CAUSES OFACTION 1. For past, present and future non?economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 2. For past, present and future special damages, including but not limited to past, present and future lost earnings, economic damages and others, in an amount to be determined at trial; 3. Any appropriate statutory damages; 4. For costs of suit; 6. Punitive damages, according to proof, though not as to the Negligence Causes of Action (Causes of Action 8 through 11); 7. For interest based on damages, as well as pre?judgment and post?judgment interest as allowed by law; 8. For attomey?s fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5, et seq, 52, et seq., 51, et seq., or as otherwise allowable by law; 9. For declaratory and injunctive relief, including but not, limited to court supervision of DOE 2; and '10. For such other and further relief as the Court may deemproper. Dated: September 2016 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI 2 By: J6HN C. MANLY, Esq?.? Attorneys for Plaintiff, JANE JD DOB -42- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES STEWART FINALDI 3 19100 Von Karmoan Ave, MANLY Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telenhnne' (04917523900 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff JANE JD DOE hereby demands a trial by jury. Dated: September 2016 MANLY, STEWART FINALDI 9,922 a. C. MANLY, Escf/ Attomeys for Plaintiff, JANE JD DOE By: -1- JANE JD DOE DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL