BuSrm-IENshAssoaAms aw?onluubamwar ll?l??l?n?t ulti??W-Il-Imuu o.llIu-o InununLa-u-ugooum By: Dean I. mu) Attorney for lief-litout! or menu no? . 0t 3 Cera- lIo. ail-27167 moi-?1288. CDIPLAIIT ?Ipat uniiody) (on '91: W). all! a ti. natural 15 omit-.1 mod thereof: ADDICIIOI 0083081110. Arizona: ARC m, 1: Dela-In :orporntion autumn-I! to do business in the sac. of 19 Arizona: ABC Corporntions 1?20: DEF Partnerships: 631 Limited a) Partnership: 1-20: Partnerships: (Assigned to the Honorable Alan 5. Kanln) JOHN DOES 1-20: and am Dons 21 1-20, Defendants. 22 23L 24? 1. Plaintiff Richard Hinkle is a resident of Haricopa 25?County, Arizona. Plaintiff Ruth Hinkle is a resident of Maricopa 26 County, Arizona. Plaintiff Daniel Thor Hinkle is a 27 Macicopa County, Arizona. All acts hereinafter alleged ocguzral 2?8 1 Iinklo v. lollody . M. for have to Aland 2 Page 6 31a notion. m. .4 3. and hunt. ?fondant: Jun sh I 1! run. (on not W) llu'ioio lollody (aka Pia onto noun a: at on haul: at that: urital It ol?. til-o ?lava-It m. won intonation and a bond. ?at! Corporation on a Dolomite a located I ??111 Mar? . Arm. It .11 till! ?ovum: hot-eta. upon 1 if 8? ?11.1. no the m. Inc. and ARC ?out were 16 corporations undo: tn. 1mm of Delawaro. doing business T7FAI tho loodowu,' 'llc tho Inc.,' or "The Meadows," 13 [Juith its place of luminous in Arizona at Highway 39-93, 19 Il?icnnburq. Arizona 8535'. Any rota-once herein to defendants 20 mac Tho mm. loan. the Addiction Recovery 21 Corporation, ARC The Honda's? ?nc. and/or ARC West, or its agents. 22 4. Upon intonation and belief, defendants Pat and Pia 23 Hollody, Addiction Roman-y Corporation dba MC The Meadows, 2-.th 24 Thu: HIIGOHI, Inc. and ARC Wont, have caused acts and occurrence; 25 to occur in Haricopo County, Arizona which give rise Thi; 26 Complaint. The amount of dalaqea as alleged heron r-mw-t 2? mL..imal av. int. nocoulary to invoke the ti. 38 - . r: .401; y?f. Putz-ion? (on and htricio II-uody mu ?Pin CI. It?. on rum of Horicopa 1m. on ?to, defendant: Janos 1 llt?ll. UM lot. (?newton-end 2 Pogo? 3 s. Dot-Monte?: corporation. on runner-aloe, all Agni-ltd Pertnerehipo, John noee 1-30 and Jane Doe. 1-20 are s?tictitlouo dorm uhoee identitie- ore not known at this tine. Plaintitu emu-Ir reserve the rm on! oeek leave at {court to one! this no. their true identity is a alcertlimd. 10 C. Wmamutnineduoand 12 ninth. in ten. 13 1. we. int-cuticle and belief. at the the of 14 mloyunt at no the mam: all time pertinent to this 15\C?Q1eint. 6"th rot 8311001 no the tor of 15;. rhiniotretion of no the Hoodoo- ond a superior o! plaintiff Ruth Hinkle. Upon intonation and belief. at all tines pertinent 1, \to this Complaint. defendant Pie lellody no the Director of 19 Nurr' at ARC The and supervisor and superior to 20 plaintiff Ruth Hinkle. 21 a. On or about late-October. 1986, defendant Pat z? Mellody, while the Directnr'ot Ndninieti_-_on for*ARC'The Meadows, 23 engaged in a course of conduct which included sexual harassment of and sexual contact with plaintiff Ruth Hinkle The incidents of sexual Harassment and sexual contact occurred at the ARC The ,g Meadows facility. 9. ghortly after this sexual contact by deftnd$"r n" v. Hollody 2 not. for Leave to Aland Page 8 silently, plat-tit! ?all. reported his ninconduct to her Pin at that t1. believed to be the Director ?fondant Me lollody and otherinvention. plaintut Ruth 7 ma can Mt and ninconduct by a do.? m. In huh-nil and the Director at ?hut-m. II. t? ?101 to this Couplaint, the at nth-t ot the Dafendantn Jane: 1! minnow. ul In with? m, 1937, dormant Pat :4 ?11" me than into a roan in which were 15 cut! it an: m. Defendant Pat Hellody 1. ?Calm-I u- Ii". Bet. -1211. part. identified plaintiff ?7 Ruth linklc as n. in ?all m1 unconduct, and forced 1o unkind.? a unit that she had participated in sexual 1. :mntect with ht ?nod?- Later. on the same day at ARC 29111:. W, with [him Pat Hollody's encouragement and 21 monunt, Ruth Rintle was coated by three staff members of ARC The 22 ,Znoadows. to adult 11 front of the: and her son, Daniel Thor Hinkle 23 and her husband, Richard Hinkle. that the sexual contact with PM: 24 Hellody had occurred. 25 12. At all time material to this defendd".f.j 28 Pat Hellody and Pie Hellody and other staff members were act?V' 27 in their capacity as agents, representative: art-4 as; 28 Hinkle v. Nellody not. for leave to Aland 2 Page 9 3 .s deteMante Addiction my corporation the ARC The undone. in?? m. Inc? and/or no out. In addition to their 5? independent liability for phi-titte' injuriee and doe-gee herein alleged. corporation dba ARC 7 The me. no in?. We: ARC leet are liable for the acts. cannot. o! detendante Pet and Pie 9 Hello? we eta. our: use. 10 n. he a eireet and mu reeut or the state-ante, and action at me throughout thi- latter, ?2 plaintitte ?ve eel will onetime to utter eerioue and 13 perhap- m1. m1. pathological, paychiatric 14 and notional injurie- and ethr ?0 ee alleged herein. .5 -MOF "x 13 i. 14. Pleiatitte Waite herein each and every allegation in the preceding paragraph- ae it fully set forth herein. 19 . 15. kt all tines pertinent to this Complaint, .4 'ldefandante, and each of thee, intentionally inflicted emotional 21 fdiatreea upon plaintiffs. netendante' conduct was extreme and 22. outrageous: defendants intenJ-? cause such emotional distress 23 or recklessly disregarded the near certainty that such distress 24 would result tron defendante' conduct: and, defendants' conduct 25 in fact did proxieately result in severe and continuing emoruwhfi 26 distress and injury to plaintiffs. 27 2'8 ninklo v. hliody lot. tor Luv. to Aland 2 Page 10 3 4. 16. unintui- Wot. Main ?on and every I si allegation in tho ml .3 it fully set forth Git?horcin. 11. M, at and of tha, has a duty to Ol?plaintitto to W, and/or provant tho omm.mmwuuammcmapu I 1 all mint. sustained mult or 13 to 14 plaintittu. my 1? 1.. Plaintiff. is." -I each and every 1 1713a11ogation in the procuring paragraph- an it fully not forth 18 1 herein. 19 19. The injurieo rocoivod by plaintiffs wore the direct 20 rand proxinato result of a battery omitted against. plaintiff Ruth 21 Hinklo: that is, detondant Pat Hollody'a conduct constituted an 22 unauthorized touching ot the body of plaintiff Ruth Hinkle causing 23 intentional ano attentive which proximately resulted in 24 severe injuries and danagos to plaintiff Ruth Hinkle and to the 25 other plaintiffs. 2? QWWJ I 8113f: f3 20. Plaintiff: incorporate herein carp 1 ?tall. v. nellody 2 lot. for have to hand Page 11 an 'eiinetioe in the preceding an it fully set forth 4 nexein. 11. At an tile- pertinent to tnie Complaint, dM'endeIte' on? reunited in the negligent in?iction of eentionei hen dim-ea nee phi-titre. Defendants failed to It. *3 Ch aim alleqed herein 11mm 3. m. ?not. and injuries to - m. 1! "1 u. heroin each and every .4 alienati- in the yew-die. as it fully set forth lit-min. a 23. ?at mtituted an intentional and If: 1m with the of a valid contractual i Iszenilzntitallshit, between pumitt Ruth ?inkle and defendants 18. ?9'.Addictim new corporation dbe The meadows, ARC The (meadows, and/or anc Inst. by inducing or otherwise causing Jianc The not to pert..n the enploynent contract. A valid 21 contractual relationship and/or business expectancy existed 22 between tho plaintiff Ruth ?inkle and defendants. Defendants Pat 23 and Pia lie! "gm of the relationship or expectancy between the 2? partios. Defendants Pat and Pia Hellody intentionally and 254improperly interfered with and induced or caused a breach or termination of the relationsrip or expectancy mattered resultant injuries and damages as a grammar.? r: 28 llinhle v. llellody not. for Leave to Leena 2 heel: 3 the disruption of the relationdlip or expectancy. as alleged 4 herein. 51 24. Flam herein each and every 7Ealleqation in the it fully set torth 31 herein. 9 25. 1o that it resulted in 11 the m1 all/e: census-the tee-instinct of piaintitt Ruth 12 Ruth'- and mm discharge tron her 13 onloyeent at an: ?e m. is in contravention 14 of the public policy and less o: thle etete. which lav and policy 15 ?1 prohibit the acts ell! allusions o! defendants, including. without 1sI limitation, -ml hares-eat of ?lm, the collie-ion of 17 \?crieinal acts and the require-est that participate in 13 such acts, and th. required disclosure of private and confidential 19 -I intonation by an employee for no legitmte business purpose. 20 ll: 26. Defendants' conduct proximately caused injuries and 21 ?damage: to plaintiffs as the result of this wrongful discharge or 22 termination by defendants. As a direct and proximate result of 23 defendants? conduct, plahtifts have suffered damages as alleged 24 herein. 25 Wm 26 27. Plaintiffs incorporate herein each and every ".57 allegation in the preceding paragraph: as iv." rmay 78 aims v. Hellody 2 not. for leeve to mud Peqe l] 3 herein. 4 2.. II eet forth ehove constitutes 5? imeion of privecy of the pleietiffe. Defendente eede public e?dieeleenre of prints fem repaint letter which is highly 7 offeuive end We te per-nee of ordinery sensibilities end ummwmumim interest. I end et mv Al direct ectieminjuries end as mus-am. time of 1: triel. 13 14 as. new ineerp-ete herein eech end every 15 allegation in the ee if fully set forth 15 shes-..? 17 30. Defendantv cam es soi- forth above constitutes 135.11 breech cf the "loge-t eontrect betveen pleintiff Ruth Hinkle 1911mm defendants, including breech of the duty of good faith and i 20 fair telling hem pleintiff Ruth ?inkle and defendants. he a 21 result of defendente' breach, the plaintiffs have 22 ?euffered damages, as alleged herein. in an amount to be proven at 23 the tine of trial. 24 W?m 25 31. Plaintiff: incorporate herein each and every 26 Allegation in the preceding paragraphs as :f fully .90? .?zzrih 2? herein. :25 I 1 nun. v. lollody lot. for to 2 m- a 32. attendants Addiction my On an: 4 "rho Meadows, mm. W, Inc? Wat-mint tho 5 7? duty owed by an ?101.: to holding. without elimination, tho rolledat. riand suitable van: plan-t by vireo. at a. puttin- in such nimnduct and mun an annual tulodto Hallody alum-rm I 15?nanagor1a1 position: and. do!? In. var. 11 12 13 14 1611110911901?: ir- to all with}: Imitat- 17 (and/or suporvis. dorm an! 18 19 33. Plaintiff: hordn incorporat- uch and ovary 20 allegation from th. pron-ding paragraph: on is fully at forth 21 herein. 22 34. Starting at a tin approximatcly 12 months prior 23 to October 1986, the plaintiff Ruth Hinklc had a counselor/patient 24 relationship with defendant Jana ratrick Hellody, which ?5 relatLonship existed up to and including February 13, 1987. Ruth Hmkie was the patient of Jana Patrick Hullody, who was a r-m-mwlor for ARC The Meadows in tho Stat. of Arizona. Said 1 ainkle v. llellody 2 lot. for Leave to Asend Peqe 15 held himthe plsintiff ss being skillful. astute]. ding-t in the prectice as counselor. 0 7 Jsses I Wick Inn-Q. th- sense-st 1- setrict lollody acting ?dulym?mme??wemloyu of the m. M. hrisons, which subjects ?8 m- 1: a. II 1.6. tho period spproxiutely 14 "is! m. the pm?! ninkle subsitted 15 herself tc of an? Jus- Istrick Isllody end ARC 16 ?c .s ed sell m- would counsel. care for, 17 truest. sees-?ts. otherwise render advice to Ruth 13 Hinkle menu-g pa anal to her and to her family, 19?including but not lilitod to tho true of addiction. 20 v: 37. to said counselor/patient relationship between 21 {1 the pleintiff linkle end the defendants James Patrick Mellody zziland ARC The lie-don. said defendants had the duty to use care, 23 diligence and skill ordinarily used by competent counselors in 24 this Stat? :lssuhere. The defendants James Patrick Hellody 25 and ARC The Hendous'werd negligent and branched the aforesaid duty 23 owed to the plaintiff Ruth Hinklo in treatment of her as a patient 27 in the following, but not limited to particulars: 28 v. Iallody Hot. for loan to ?16 A. By allowing tho ?rst canal contact ham Jana .- Patrick thllody and Ruth ainkla to occur in 1m. 2. B. 1 Patrick lunacy and um. to occur. c. ?Lima Patrick Handy 9 into w. and by failing to 10" iucdiatcly into w. 11? D. QMummWWia?-ot men-m. ?mm-?Wyammunt aaxual contact m. I. By Fmum: ha: after tho canal cents? occurrw'. usa- tho mm - 131,0! good counseling H. '?ch a "feral. 171?. By failing to uloct and toll:- cathod- at 1 1a counaciinq and 19 .58. Subccqucnt to and as a diroct and proxinata raault -. .. 2? tho aforesaid acts of the defendants Jana Patrick xcllody and 21 me The Meadows. occurring udi'im the pariod on or: about October 2: 1, 1985 through and including February 13, 1987, the plaintiff 23 Ruth Hinkle has incurred ccvara personal injuries, pain, 24 disability, mental and onct5?' ctr-Ia, mental and emotional 2s injury and/or anxiety. ?6 39. The car. and traatnont randored to the plaintiff .1, Ruth Hinxle by the dotandant Jalo- Patrick Hollody and/or ARC west 1 2 3 . u? 1 s?tailodtocontontothommr mm. v. Miiody not. for have to Anna Pogo 17 The Meadows, acting its Inlay-cu. squats and/or servants. was nogligont, conic-I and ?111mm porter-0d and thus. ?conical by and a practiced by com-oint- in tan-tin (acuity mm 11:. mm 7 in Ikrioopo county. trio-I nth-t oi-iinr notropoiitan a with. th- mu m. 40. noWM?mu malt or the 10 noon?. mumumumazm Jun 11htrickh1M?n~w. at $2 plaintitt ht}; m. I. um: um. incurred 1: udimim?mlmm?uonw. 14? 15 u. In direct and maxi-t. vault of the conduct of 15 17 injured and was quota-radar - - min. plaintitt Ruth linkic was seriously mind *physicinns, hospitals ?in. 'uaother: in an effort 19 ?to be troatod tor and 1-011on of not injurics which upon 1 20 iintornaticn and bclint arc of naturo. 42. In. a (archer, direct and proximate result of the conduct of tho defendant: as horoin alleged, and the occurrences above-mentioned, plaintiff Ruth Hinkln and her marital community were :aquirod and to 10:0 wages, employment and other benefits and upon infatuation and belief, in the future will have a loss of earning capacity. 43. A: direct and prox1mate resuit -t ?inkle v. llellody 11012.10: have to 2 Peqe 3 detendente' conduct as herein alleged, plaintiffs, and each of 4 then, have been required to forego end in the future will be 5 'roquired to forego participation in eociel end recreational 6-.ectivitiee in which they pr?imly ?conduct at detendentl ee herein snag-e. phintittl. and ?all of 9 ?then. muttered e? Mimi injuriee. 10y ?5.uem.M?Wmltotthe 11?conduct of hM?mm Wt?. ?ood! of 12 then, mattered ed "1.1 m. mm It lent the following: min-It of m: lane of mtiom 14lloet tuture eel-nine: lone ct eened we.? pine W: lost 151? non-veqe benefits: Intel on.? end ?in! curtain: value 13 iiot ledicei servicee rendered: future esp-lee- for eedicel ml and uttering: future pain and suffering: end 1m Jo! enjoyment of life. 19 46. The conduct of the detendente ee heretofore alleged 20.13 conduct which will justify the intuition of punitive 21 damages under the lure of the state of Arieone. 22 23 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs prey judqnent against the 24 defendants, and each of then, ae fo?ilws: P5 1. For general daneqoe and special damages in a sum :5 which is reasonable and juet prover: by the evidence to be determined by the finder of [act at triei. - lotion-mum 2 no." 3 2. For tho voluo of alien moo 4 snout-rod to tho data of trial and noun-bl! probablo to Do 5 i incurrod in tho mm. 3. tor tho noon-?lo valao of of inncurx-od to tho dato at trial at My probablo to ho N?incurrod loos 9 A of oat-nun capoctty. 10.! 4. 12 plaintuto to no on. 0! trouttorod In tho m. 14 s. for tho #5093, annual om. aontal anguioh. sum and potion-t natal. national and 1 mudonuuoo and tho injurioo to th plot-tau in an ascent to bo 17 1? provou .. .Za til. at trial. 13.: 6. For punitivo dam. in a our. which is: ?it and .9 is [just as providod by tho of Lb. stat. of Arizona to punish tho 'atandanto and not on onaplo for othora. 21 1. For tho coota a! suit homoln incur-rod and accruing 22 costs. 23 8. For intoroat on the judgnont at the highest rate 24 allowod by law. 25 9. For attornoy'a tooa as allovod by Arizona statutes 26 includlnq A.R.S. 5 12-341.01. 10. For all othlr dosages allowed by law, including 1 Ilium. v. not. for no." to Anne! 2 Page 20 3 those quon ducrihod in 40 46 or this 4.fCOQ1aint. 5'1] 11. appear. just and equitable. 7 this day or W. 19?. 8 um. m. Incthe thinking 13 14 mm hand-.11? this day at . 1.09. 15 1? to: 1 nonorablo 1" Kai-1n hf $110 m. 3. 17q101 want Jotforson, ICE-614 iPhoonix. Arisonn .5003 1a? .1509? was mind this 19} day of Octobor, 1989, 'to: v. Mary B. wilson 21 CRAHPTON, BROINIG 05:36 1122 East Joftoroon 22 Post Office Box 20527 Phoenix, Arizona 85036 23 Attorney for Detondantn Hollody 24 Terrence E. ha.rison Law Offices 25 3443 North Central Avenu- PhoenLX, Arizona 85012 26 Attorney for Defendant ARC Halt. at a1. 2: 7