1 2 3 4 5 6 JOHN C. MANLY, Esq. (State Bar No. 149080) VINCE W. FINALDI, Esq. (State Bar No. 238279) ALEX E. CUNNY, Esq. (State Bar No. 291567) MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 252-9990 Fax: (949) 252-9991 Attorneys for John SA Doe 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 10 11 JOHN SA DOE, an individual, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 Case No.: __________________________ Judge: _________________________ Department: _________________________ v. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: DOE 1; a Colorado business entity of form unknown; DOE 2, a Michigan business entity of form unknown; DOE 3, an individual; and DOES 4 through 100. 1) SEXUAL HARASSMENT (CIVIL CODE §51.9); 2) SEXUAL BATTERY (CIVIL CODE § 1708.5); 3) ASSAULT; 4) GENDER VIOLENCE (CIVIL CODE § 52.4); 5) NEGLIGENCE; 6) NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION; 7) NEGLIGENT HIRING/ RETENTION; 8) NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN, TRAIN OR EDUCATE; 9) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 10) CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD (CIVIL CODE § 1573); Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. 24 25 [Filed Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1] 26 27 28 /// -1COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 COMES NOW, Plaintiff JOHN SA DOE, who complains and alleges as follows: 2 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE PARTIES MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 3 1. Plaintiff JOHN SA DOE (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), an aspiring figure skater, first 4 met DOE 3 when DOE 3 was coaching Team USA and the Plaintiff observed a practice. In awe 5 of DOE 3, and his prominence in the sport, the Plaintiff was starstruck when DOE 3 offered him 6 an impromptu lesson at this first meeting. After a brief coaching session, DOE 3 told the Plaintiff 7 and his parents that the Plaintiff had a natural talent in the sport, and that if he ever moved to 8 Michigan (where DOE 3 coached full-time, at the time), DOE 3 would be willing to coach the 9 Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, feeling lucky to be training with a coach of DOE 3’s stature in the sport, 10 made arrangements with his parents to move to Michigan to live with his grandmother, and begin 11 training with DOE 3. Little did the Plaintiff know, that this invitation to train with DOE 3 was the 12 first step for DOE 3 to begin secluding the Plaintiff, sexually groom the Plaintiff and ultimately, 13 sexually abuse him. After moving to Michigan in or around 1998, the Plaintiff began training with 14 DOE 3, and the sexual abuse of the Plaintiff by DOE 3 began in or around 1999 during the time 15 the Plaintiff was skating with DOE 3 at the Detroit Skating Club and continued to in or around 16 2001, when the Plaintiff stopped training at DOE 2 (and occurred again in 2001 at the Masters of 17 Figure Skating competition in San Diego, California). In 1999, after DOE 1, DOE 2 and DOES 4 18 through 100 were directly informed that DOE 3 had sexually abused a famous figure skater; an 19 allegation that was made public in the New York Times, DOE 3 continued to be in contact with 20 children and a member in good-standing with DOE 2, DOE 1, and DOES 4 through 100. Despite 21 having actual knowledge of this abuse being perpetrated by DOE 3, DOE 1, DOE 2 and DOES 4 22 through 100 concealed these allegations from the public, from the Plaintiff, and from the Plaintiff’s 23 guardians. The Plaintiff continued to get sexually abused by DOE 3, as DOE 3 had moved from 24 one DOE 1 member club to another; now skating for DOE 2. DOE 3 remained in good-standing 25 with DOE 1, DOE 2, and was permitted to coach and be in contact with minors through that 26 membership, employment and agency. 27 28 2. After the Plaintiff had stopped being coached by DOE 3 in or around 2001, the Plaintiff continued to train as a figure skater, began training with a new coach and moved to -2COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 California. In 2001, while attending the Masters of Figure Skating competition in California (a 2 DOE 1-sanctioned and sponsored event), the Plaintiff, only approximately 16 years old at the time, 3 saw DOE 3 at the event; DOE 3 was coaching another skater. At that time, DOE 3 was still a DOE 4 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100 member, agent, employee, and/or servant. DOE 3 recognized 5 the Plaintiff, secluded the Plaintiff at the event, and proceeded to sexually abuse him. Pursuant to 6 DOE 1’s failure to censure, discipline or otherwise ban DOE 3 from DOE 1 membership and DOE 7 2’s decision to employ DOE 3 regardless of the known sexual abuse allegations about DOE 3, 8 DOE 3 was allowed contact and access to minor skaters, such as the Plaintiff, even after being 9 reported for child molestation in 1999. MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 10 3. For years after the numerous sexual assaults the Plaintiff suffered at the hands of 11 DOE 3, and into the Plaintiff’s adulthood, Plaintiff suffered (and continues to suffer) from 12 psychological sequelae resulting from the sexual abuse, including but not limited to anxiety, 13 depression, fear, grief, and stress. Plaintiff began to form a mental connection between the sexual 14 abuse he suffered at the hands of Defendant DOE 3 and his resulting psychological injuries or 15 illnesses he was suffering as an adult, in January of 2017. It was only in, or around, January of 16 2017, after the Plaintiff suffered a psychological breakdown and was hospitalized, that the Plaintiff 17 first disclosed his sexual abuse at the hands of DOE 3 to a mental health professional. It was at 18 this point, that the Plaintiff, for the very first time, discovered, or reasonably should have or could 19 have discovered that the psychological injury or illness that he had suffered after the age of 20 majority, had been caused by the sexual abuse that the Plaintiff had suffered as a child. As such, 21 the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is timely, as he has filed within three (3) years of making this mental nexus 22 between the adult onset symptoms he has suffered since the abuse and his sexual abuse as a child. 23 Code of Civil Procedure §340.1(a). 24 THE PARTIES 25 THE PLAINTIFF, JOHN SA DOE 26 4. Plaintiff JOHN SA DOE (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is presently a resident of the State 27 of Michigan. The name used by JOHN SA DOE is not the true and correct name of the Plaintiff, 28 but is a fictitious named utilized to protect the privacy of the Plaintiff, a victim of childhood sexual -3COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 1 harassment, abuse, and molestation. Plaintiff JOHN SA DOE is a male, born on January 12, 1985, 2 and was a minor during the entire time of the sexual misconduct alleged herein. Beginning in or 3 around 1999 when the plaintiff was approximately 14 years old, the Plaintiff was sexually harassed 4 and abused by his figure skating coach, Defendant DOE 3, who was a member, employee, servant, 5 and agent of Defendant DOE 1, DOE 2 and DOES 4 through 100. Plaintiff was approximately 14 6 years old when the abuse began. JOHN SA DOE brings his claims pursuant to California Code of 7 Civil Procedure § 340.1(a), which permits him to file his lawsuit against DOE 1, DOE 2, DOE 3, 8 and DOES 4 through 100 within three (3) years from which the “plaintiff discovers or reasonably 9 should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was 10 caused by the sexual abuse…” 11 5. At all times relevant herein, the Plaintiff was a member of DOE 1, thus, afforded 12 the protections provided for under the rules of DOE 1, specifically, as a minor under the 13 supervision of other DOE 1 members. 14 DEFENDANTS 15 DEFENDANT, DOE 1 16 6. Defendant DOE 1 was and is, at all times mentioned herein, a corporation, 17 organized under the laws of the State of Colorado, having its principal place of business in the 18 Colorado Springs, Colorado. DOE 1 is the National Governing Body (“NGB”) of Figure Skating, 19 under its charter given by the United States Olympic Committee under the Ted Stevens Amateur 20 Sports Act (“TSASA”). As the NGB for Figure Skating, and as a condition of maintaining its 21 charter with the USOC, DOE 1 is mandated to provide adequate training, supervision, and security 22 in order to protect the thousands of minor and young-adult member-athletes from the ravages of 23 sexual abuse. Specifically, DOE 1 is required to provide supervision, safety, and security at its 24 events, including at the 2001 Masters of Figure Skating held in San Diego, California (where the 25 Plaintiff was sexually abused by DOE 3), as well as ensure that individuals it permits to be 26 members of its organization, are safe and have no allegations of sexual abuse, which DOE 1 did 27 for DOE 3, prior to the final act of sexual abuse suffered by the Plaintiff. 28 /// -4COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 1 7. DOE 1 purposefully conducts substantial, continuous, and purposely conducts 2 substantial business activities in the State of California, routinely holding regional, national and 3 international events throughout the State of California. DOE 1 has over two (2) dozen member 4 clubs in the State of California, all of whom were mandated by DOE 1 policy to adopt and enforce 5 SafeSport policies and procedures. DOE 1 has a Chairman mandated to ensure compliance of 6 member clubs, with the SafeSport safety guidelines it promulgates. DOE 1 actively recruits young 7 figure skaters from the State of California and receives a constant flow of funding from the State 8 of California, including funding from membership dues, as well as periodic regional, state-wide, 9 and national events held in the State of California. DOE 1 derives substantial economic benefit 10 from the State of California, and enters into repeated and successive transactions of its business in 11 California. 12 8. As the NGB for figure skating in the United States, DOE 1 adopted a membership 13 program, whereby individuals register with DOE 1, undergo training from DOE 1, and agree to 14 abide by the DOE 1 rules, in order to compete or otherwise participate in DOE 1-sanctioned events. 15 The general term “member” at DOE 1 includes several classes of membership, including coaches, 16 and figure skaters. DOE 1, in enforcing these rules, has a hearing panel composed of DOE 1 17 management agents that reviews complaints made to the board. Through its powers under the DOE 18 1 rulebook, the hearing panel is permitted to impose discipline against the offending DOE 1 19 member, including but not limited to admonishment, suspension, permanent life ban, and other 20 reasonable conditions. 21 9. DOE 1 is an entity that employs and retains agents, servants, volunteers, and 22 members that interact directly with minor children as an ordinary course of their responsibilities. 23 As such, all such employees, agents, volunteers, servants and members at DOE 1 are mandated 24 reporters under Penal Code §11166, et seq. Moreover, under DOE 1 policy, specifically, General 25 Rule (“GR”) 1.03 requires members of DOE 1 to report suspected instances of abuse. 26 10. DOE 1 is named as a “Doe” in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure 27 §340.1(m). At such time is proper, Plaintiff shall move the Court with a declaration of 28 corroborative fact to name these defendants in this pleading, and other pleadings in the case. -5COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 2 DEFENDANT, DOE 2 11. Defendant DOE 2 is believed, based upon information and therefore belief, to be a 3 Michigan entity of form unknown. Defendant DOE 2 operates an ice rink located Rochester, 4 Michigan, which is where the Plaintiff was sexually abused in or around 2000 through in or around 5 2001, and which is where DOE 3 was employed after he had been publicly accused of molesting 6 a minor (an allegation that was in the New York Times in or around 1999). Defendant DOE 2’s 7 mission statement, as advertised on its website, is “[t]o cultivate a safe and supportive environment 8 that provides for the advancement of our members in all disciplines and levels of figure skating.” 9 DOE 2 represents, and had previously represented, that its programs for minor figure skaters were 10 to ensure the safety of those minors, while providing the opportunity to learn and advance in the 11 sport. Despite this representation, DOE 2 permitted DOE 3, whom it had known had been accused 12 of sexual abuse, to continue to work with children at DOE 2, after it had been aware of the 1999 13 complaint against DOE 3 for molesting a minor child. Moreover, DOE 2 permitted DOE 3 to attend 14 DOE 1-sanctioned events (including but not limited to the 2001 Masters of Figure Skating, where 15 DOE 3 further sexually abused the Plaintiff) as its representative, servant and/or agent. 16 12. Defendant DOE 2 is an entity that employs and retains agents, servants, volunteers, 17 and coaches that interact directly with minor children as an ordinary course of their responsibilities. 18 Moreover, Defendant DOE 2 expressly permits coaching of minor figure skaters to occur on its 19 premises. As such, all of Defendant DOE 2’s employees, agents, volunteers, coaches, servants and 20 members are mandated reporters under Penal Code §11166, et seq. and have a legal obligation to 21 report suspected emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of minors. Specifically, DOE 2 employed 22 members of DOE 1, who were required to report suspected abuse under Rule GR 1.03 to both law 23 enforcement, as well as DOE 1. In the event such employees at DOE 2 failed to report such 24 suspected abuse, they would be subject to discipline by DOE 1. 25 13. As an entity that employed DOE 1 members, DOE 2’s employees were required to 26 follow DOE 1 policies. Because of this membership, DOE 2’s employees would be subjected to 27 discipline by DOE 1 if they hired a DOE 1 member whose membership had been suspended or 28 who had been permanently banned from DOE 1. At all relevant times herein, the employees and -6COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 coaches of Defendant DOE 2, were advertised as, and were in fact, members of Defendant DOE 1 2 and were required to abide by Defendant DOE 1’s policies and procedures in protecting minors, 3 like the Plaintiff, from known and foreseeable risks of harm and danger. 4 14. 5 §340.1(m). At such time is proper, Plaintiff shall move the Court with a declaration of 6 corroborative fact to name these defendants in this pleading, and other pleadings in the case. 7 8 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 DOE 2 is named as a “Doe” in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure DEFENDANT, DOE 3 15. Defendant DOE 3is an individual that Plaintiff is informed and believes currently 9 resides in the State of Florida. At all times herein alleged, DOE 3, was a coach, mentor, member, 10 employee and advisor at DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100. The last act of sexual abuse 11 perpetrated by DOE 3 against the Plaintiff, occurred in the County of San Diego, State of 12 California, at the 2001 Masters of Figure Skating event. 13 16. During the entire time that the Plaintiff was being sexually abused and harassed by 14 DOE 3, DOE 3 was a member of DOE 1, subject to DOE 1’s rules, and required to comply with 15 such rules, and the Plaintiff was a minor member of DOE 1, subject to the protection of those DOE 16 1 rules. In the event DOE 3 did not comply with such DOE 1 rules, his membership at DOE 1 17 could be suspended or other disciplinary action would be taken against DOE 3. Furthermore, as 18 discussed infra, DOE 1, at all relevant times herein, was able to, and mandated to, investigate 19 allegations of sexual abuse by DOE 3 and render discipline against DOE 3 for such abuse and 20 misconduct. 21 17. DOE 3 is named as a “Doe” in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure 22 §340.1(m). At such time is proper, Plaintiff shall move the Court with a declaration of 23 corroborative fact to name these defendants in this pleading, and other pleadings in the case. 24 25 DEFENDANTS, DOES 4 THROUGH 100 18. Defendants DOES 4 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, are sued herein 26 under said fictitious names. Plaintiff is ignorant as to the true names and capacities of DOES 4 27 through 100, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, and therefore sue said 28 Defendants by such fictitious names. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, -7COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Plaintiff will request leave of Court to amend this Complaint to state their true names and capacities 2 herein. 3 19. 4 sometimes collectively referred to herein as "Defendants" and/or as "All Defendants"; such 5 collective reference refers to all specifically named Defendants as well as those fictitiously named 6 herein. 7 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 Defendants DOE 3, DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100, inclusive, are 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that at all times 8 mentioned herein, each Defendant was responsible in some manner or capacity for the occurrences 9 herein alleged, and that Plaintiff’s damages, as herein alleged, were proximately caused by all said 10 Defendants. 11 21. At all times mentioned herein, each and every Defendant was an employee, agent, 12 and/or servant of DOE 3, DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100, inclusive, and/or was under 13 their complete control and/or active supervision. Defendants and each of them are individuals, 14 corporations, partnerships and/or other entities that engaged in, joined in, and conspired with other 15 Defendants and wrongdoers in carrying out the tortious and unlawful activities described in this 16 Complaint. 17 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that at all times 18 mentioned herein, Defendants DOE 3, DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100 were the agents, 19 representatives and/or employees of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things 20 hereinafter alleged, Defendants and each of them were acting within the course and scope of said 21 alternative personality, capacity, identity, agency, representation and/or employment and were 22 within the scope of their authority, whether actual or apparent. 23 23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that at all times 24 mentioned herein, Defendants DOE 3, DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100 were the trustees, 25 partners, servants, joint venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every 26 other Defendant, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, 27 through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and consent 28 /// -8COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 of each and every other Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by each and every 2 other Defendant, and that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff. 3 24. 4 mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them were the trustees, partners, servants, joint 5 venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other Defendant, and the 6 acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, through such capacity 7 and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and consent of each and every 8 other Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by each and every other Defendant, 9 and that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff. 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times 11 THE HISTORY OF SEXUAL ABUSE PERPETRATED BY DOE 3 25. In 1996, Defendant DOE 3 first came into contact with the Plaintiff JOHN SA 12 DOE, after Plaintiff watched a Team USA figure skating practice coached by Defendant DOE 3. 13 Defendant DOE 3 offered plaintiff an impromptu skating lesson at that first meeting and told 14 Plaintiff if he moved to Michigan, he would be his figure skating coach. 15 26. In or around 1998, Plaintiff made arrangements with his family to move from New 16 York to Riverview, Michigan to live with his grandmother. At that time, the Plaintiff began skating 17 under the tutelage of DOE 3. Two years after their initial meeting, Defendant DOE 3 began 18 coaching Plaintiff at the Detroit Skating Club in Bloomfield, Michigan, which conferred upon 19 DOE 3 a position of trust, authority and reverence, in or around 1998. 20 27. The Plaintiff, from in or around 1999 (when he was approximately 14 years old) 21 until in or around 2001 (when he was approximately 16 years old), was repeatedly sexually abused 22 by DOE 3 (and again, after he was no longer DOE 3’s student at the 2001 Masters of Figure 23 Skating competition). The Plaintiff was sexually abused on numerous occasions, during this 24 period, including while he was a minor skater at Detroit Skating Club and DOE 2. 25 28. DOE 3 had moved from one DOE 1-member club, the Detroit Skating Club, to 26 another DOE 1 member club, DOE 2, after the allegations of his sexual abuse of a former skater 27 became public. The Plaintiff continued to train with DOE 3 and continued to get sexually abused 28 by DOE 3 both before and after this report was made to DOE 1 and publicly. -9COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 1 29. In or around April of 1999, the New York Times, an international publication, 2 published a story regarding sexual misconduct allegations made against DOE 3. Specifically, the 3 story detailed a former elite figure skating student of DOE 3, having been sexually abused by DOE 4 3 at the age of 15 years old. Specifically, the article provides that this victim of DOE 3: “… has 5 said in a series of interviews in recent weeks that [DOE 3] engaged in inappropriate sexual 6 conduct with him when he was 15, and later abused his position of authority to initiate a full 7 sexual relationship when [the victim] was 18 and barely out of high school.” As indicated in the 8 article, this individual’s concerns were relayed to DOE 1 and its highest-ranking employee, “but 9 added that the [DOE 1] would not act until it received a formal written grievance.” The article 10 went on to detail several other incidents of DOE 3 abusing his position of power with his figure 11 skaters, and engaging in sexual misconduct with them, including DOE 3 reportedly kissing one of 12 his adult students in 1991, former employers of DOE 3 receiving complaints from skaters about 13 DOE 3 making sexual advances towards them or others, DOE 3 exposing himself to his former 14 student in a hotel room in 1992, and DOE 3 making inappropriate sexual remarks to another skater 15 in 1994. The allegations contained in this New York Times article were publicly available, well- 16 known information in the figure skating community, and were actually known by DOE 1, DOE 2 17 and DOES 4 through 100. 18 30. After this allegation came forward, and after the publication of this article in the 19 New York Times, the DOE 1 claimed to have brought the allegation up for review through its 20 internal discipline processes for members. Upon bringing this allegation of sexual abuse of a minor 21 up through its internal discipline procedures, DOE 1 summarily dismissed the allegation as it 22 claimed the victim had not filed a formal written grievance within 60 days of the sexual misconduct 23 being perpetrated by DOE 3. It is upon information, and therefore belief, that the DOE 1 purposely 24 implemented this system which made it nearly impossible for sexual abuse claimants to bring 25 effective complaints forward against perpetrators of sexual abuse and misconduct. It was with 26 knowledge that sexual abuse survivors have difficult disclosing their sexual abuse, that DOE 1 27 implemented this rule to discourage reports of abuse, discourage action being taken upon reports 28 /// -10COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 of abuse being made, and to present a façade of safety, security, and lack of impropriety within its 2 organization. MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 3 31. Subsequent to this allegation being made public in 1999, DOE 3 left Detroit Skating 4 Club, and began his employment and/or agency with DOE 2. DOE 3 brought the Plaintiff with 5 him from the Detroit Skating Club, where DOE 3 continued to sexually abuse the Plaintiff. DOE 6 1, knowing full-well of the allegations of sexual misconduct, failed to investigate, failed to warn 7 the Plaintiff of these prior bad acts, and did nothing to inhibit DOE 3’s access to minor children 8 under his tutelage or those who were present at the events he attended. Despite this litany of sexual 9 abuse and misconduct complaints made against DOE 3, DOE 3 remained in good-standing with 10 DOE 1 until 2018; long after the Plaintiff’s abuse ended, and only upon the amateur athletic sports 11 community being publicly examined for its systemic mishandling of sexual abuse allegations in 12 the wake of the Larry Nassar scandal at USA Gymnastics. 13 32. After the DOE 3’s victim who made the 1999 report of abuse and the New York 14 Times article was published (which contained numerous other reports of sexual misconduct against 15 DOE 3) DOE 3 remained in good-standing with DOE 1 and DOE 2, and was permitted to coach 16 and be in contact with minors through that membership, employment and agency. 17 33. In 2001, the Plaintiff attended the Masters of Figure Skating competition, on 18 information and belief, a DOE 1 sanctioned and sponsored event, in San Diego, California. DOE 19 3, still an agent, employee, and/or servant of DOE 2 and DOE 1, was sponsored by DOE 2 and 20 DOE 1, and as an agent, employee, and/or servant of DOE 2 and DOE 1, attended this 2001 DOE 21 1 Masters of Figure Skating competition in San Diego, California. At this event, DOE 3 saw the 22 Plaintiff (who was still a minor of approximately 16 years old) and then secluded and sexually 23 abused him on the premises of where this event took place in San Diego, California. At this time, 24 DOE 3 was still a DOE 1, DOE 2 and DOES 4 through 100 member, agent, employee, and/or 25 servant. It is upon information and therefore belief that Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2 and DOES 4 26 through 100 sent DOE 3 to this San Diego, California competition, knowing of his past acts of 27 sexual abuse, and other prior reports of sexual misconduct by DOE 3. 28 /// -11COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Pursuant to DOE 1’s, DOE 2’s and DOES 4 through 100’s failure to censure, 2 discipline or otherwise ban DOE 3 from DOE 1 membership (and therefore, DOE 1 events), and 3 DOE 2’s decision to employ DOE 3 regardless of the known sexual abuse and misconduct 4 complaints, DOE 3 was allowed contact and access to minor skaters, such as the Plaintiff. These 5 failures by DOE 2, DOE 1 and DOES 4 through 100 caused the Plaintiff to get molested by DOE 6 3, who should have never been a member of DOE 1 after the New York Times article (and 7 allegations being reported to DOE 1 in 1999), should have never been permitted access to the 2001 8 Masters of Figure Skating event in San Diego, California, and should have never been employed 9 by DOE 2 to be in contact with minors, by attending events where minors were present. 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 34. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS AND SEXUAL ABUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF JOHN SA DOE 35. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a minor figure skater with Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2 and DOES 4 through 100, and was under their complete control, dominion, and supervision. Defendant DOE 3 worked with Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2 and DOES 4 through 100 and came into contact with Plaintiff through this agency, employment, servitude and/or relationship with Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2 and DOES 4 through 100. 36. From 2000 until in or around 2001, Plaintiff was a minor figure skater with Defendant DOE 2 and was under their complete control, dominion, and supervision. Defendant DOE 3 worked with Defendant DOE 2 during this period, and came into contact with Plaintiff though his agency, employment, servitude and/or volunteer relationship with Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100. Due to this relationship with the Plaintiff, Defendants DOE 2 and DOE 1 stood in loco parentis with the Plaintiff, were in a confidential and trusting relationship with the Plaintiff, and owed him a special duty of care. 37. At all times material hereto, Defendant DOE 3 was under the direct supervision, management, agency and control of Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100, inclusive. 38. Defendant DOE 3 was a coach, trainer, counselor, and confidant for minor children, while at Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100. While a coach at Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100, Defendant DOE 3 was responsible for the training, -12COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 conditioning, technique, encouragement, and development of minor children, including the 2 Plaintiff, who were being groomed for success at the elite levels of figure skating. While 3 performing these duties, Defendant DOE 3 violated his role as a coach, sexually violated the 4 Plaintiff, and used his position of authority and power over the Plaintiff. MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 5 39. As a minor athlete at Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100, while 6 Defendant DOE 3 was a coach at those facilities, the minor Plaintiff was under Defendant DOE 7 3’s direct supervision, control and care, which created a special, confidential and fiduciary 8 relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant DOE 3. Because of such relationship, Defendant 9 DOE 3 owed Plaintiff a duty of care. Additionally, as the employers and supervisors of Defendant 10 DOE 3, with knowledge that he was in contact with and supervising children, Defendants DOE 1, 11 DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100 were also in a special, confidential and fiduciary relationship 12 with Plaintiff, owing him a duty of care. 13 40. By assigning Defendant DOE 3 as a coach, trainer and confidant at the Defendants 14 DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100, the Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 15 100 represented to the community that Defendant DOE 3 was safe, trustworthy, and of high moral 16 and ethical repute, such that parents of minor-athletes need not worry about having Defendant 17 DOE 3 interact with, and supervise their minor children. Defendants DOE 3, DOE 1, DOE 2, and 18 DOES 4 through 100 did so in order to preserve their own public image and reputation, so they 19 could retain past minor athletes, recruit new minor athletes and, thus allowing donations and tuition 20 to continue flowing into their coffers for financial gain. 21 41. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants knew 22 or had reason to know that Defendant DOE 3 had engaged in unlawful sexually-related conduct in 23 the past, and/or was continuing to engage in such conduct. Defendants had a duty to disclose these 24 facts to Plaintiff, his parents and others, but negligently and/or intentionally suppressed, concealed 25 or failed to disclose this information. The duty to disclose this information arose by the special, 26 trusting, confidential, fiduciary relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff. 27 /// 28 /// -13COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 42. 2 sexual misconduct with minors before he sexually abused and molested Plaintiff, and knew of the 3 probability that he would molest minors with whom he came into contact, such as Plaintiff. 4 43. Defendants failed to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful 5 sexual conduct by Defendant DOE 3 in the future, including avoiding placement of Defendant 6 DOE 3 in a position where contact and interaction with children is an inherent function. Defendants 7 ignored and suppressed the past sexual misconduct Defendant DOE 3 had engaged in. 8 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 Defendants knew of Defendant DOE 3’s propensity and disposition to engage in 44. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges, that Defendants were 9 apprised, knew or had reason to know and/or were put on notice of Defendant DOE 3’s past sexual 10 abuse of children, past claims and/or investigations, and his propensity and disposition to engage 11 in such unlawful activity and unlawful sexual activity with minor athletes such that Defendants 12 knew or had reason to know that Defendant DOE 3 would commit wrongful sexual acts with these 13 minor athletes, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that 14 personnel and/or employment records and other records of Defendants’ reflect numerous incidents 15 of inappropriate sexual contact and conduct with minor athletes by Defendant DOE 3 and other 16 professionals, employees, assistants, agents, supervisors and others, including incidents occurring 17 both on and off the physical premises of such Defendants. Based on these records, Defendants 18 knew and/or had reason to know of Defendant DOE 3’s history of sexual abuse, past claims and 19 past investigations, and his propensity and disposition to engage in unlawful activity and unlawful 20 sexual activity with minor athletes such that Defendants knew or had reason to know that 21 Defendant DOE 3 would commit wrongful sexual acts with those minor athletes, including 22 Plaintiff. 23 45. Because of the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants, Defendants had an 24 obligation and duty under the law not to hide material facts and information about Defendant DOE 25 3’s past, and his deviant sexual behavior and propensities. Additionally, Defendants had an 26 affirmative duty to inform, warn, and institute appropriate protective measures to safeguard minors 27 who were reasonably likely to come in contact with Defendant DOE 3. Defendants willfully 28 /// -14COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 refused to notify, give adequate warning and implement appropriate safeguards, thereby creating 2 the peril that ultimately damaged Plaintiff. 3 46. 4 DOE 3S’s propensity to sexually abuse children, and prior sexual misconduct with children, from 5 public scrutiny and criminal investigation, Defendants implemented various measures designed to 6 make Defendant DOE 3’s conduct harder to detect and ensure minors with whom he came into 7 contact, such as Plaintiff, would be sexually abused, including: 8 a. Permitting Defendant DOE 3 to remain in a position of authority and trust after Defendants knew or had reason to know he was a molester of children; b. Placing Defendant DOE 3 in a separate and secluded environment, at Defendants’ premises and events, including assigning his to duties that included coaching, training, and supervising minors and allowing Defendant DOE 3 to physically and sexually interact with the children, including Plaintiff; c. Failing to disclose Defendant DOE 3’s prior record of sexual abuse, harassment and molestation and his propensity to commit such acts towards students and/or athletes in Defendants’ program, the public at large, and law enforcement; d. Allowing Defendant DOE 3 unsupervised and un-controlled access to minors; e. Holding out Defendant DOE 3 to Plaintiff, his parents, and minors in the Defendants’ programs, as a trustworthy and honest person of high ethical and moral repute who was capable and worthy of being granted unsupervised access to the minor athletes of Defendants; f. Failing to investigate or otherwise confirm or deny such facts about Defendant DOE 3, including prior arrests, charges, claims and investigations for sexual abuse; g. Failing to inform, or concealing from Plaintiff's 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 Defendant DOE 3 may have sexually abused Plaintiff or others, thereby enabling Plaintiff to continue to be endangered and sexually abused, harassed, molested, and/or creating the circumstance where Plaintiff and others were less likely to receive medical treatment, thus exacerbating the harm to Plaintiff; h. Holding out Defendant DOE 3 to Plaintiff, his parents, and to the community as being in good standing and trustworthy; i. Cloaking Defendant DOE 3’s prior sexual misconduct with children within the facade of normalcy, thereby disguising the nature of his sexual abuse and contact with minors; 9 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 As part of Defendants' conspiratorial and fraudulent attempt to hide Defendant 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -15COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 j. Failing to take reasonable steps and to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by Defendant DOE 3 such as avoiding placement of Defendant DOE 3 in functions or environments in which his solitary contact with children was inherent; k. Failing to put in place a system or procedure to supervise or monitor employees, volunteers, and agents to insure they do not molest or abuse minors in Defendants' care. 47. By his position within the Defendants' institutions, Defendant DOE 3 attained a 2 3 4 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 5 6 position of influence over Plaintiff, and others. Defendants' conduct created a situation of peril that 7 was not, and could not be appreciated by Plaintiff. By virtue of Defendants' conspiratorial and 8 fraudulent conduct, and in keeping with their intent to fail to disclose and hide Defendant DOE 9 3’s past and present conduct from the community, the public at large and law enforcement, 10 Defendants allowed molester Defendant DOE 3 to remain in a position of influence where him 11 unsupervised or negligently supervised conduct with minor athletes made the molestation and 12 abuse of minor athletes possible. 13 48. By his position within the Defendants' institutions, Defendants and Defendant DOE 14 3 demanded and required that Plaintiff respect Defendant DOE 3 in his position as a coach, trainer, 15 and mentor, at Defendants’ programs and facilities. 16 49. During the period Plaintiff was being sexually abused and harassed by Defendant 17 DOE 3, Defendants had the authority and ability to prevent such abuse by removing Defendant 18 DOE 3 from his position a coach, counselor, and trainer at Defendants. They failed to do so, 19 allowing the abuse to occur and to continue unabated. This failure was a part of Defendants' 20 conspiratorial plan and arrangement to conceal Defendant DOE 3 wrongful acts, to avoid and 21 inhibit detection, to block public disclosure, to avoid scandal, to avoid the disclosure of their 22 tolerance of child sexual molestation and abuse, to preserve a false appearance of propriety, and 23 to avoid investigation and action by public authority including law enforcement. Such actions were 24 motivated by a desire to protect the reputation of Defendants and protect the monetary support of 25 Defendants, while fostering an environment where such abuse could continue to occur. 26 50. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 27 suffer from psychological sequelae, including but not limited to anxiety, depression, fear, grief, 28 and stress. Plaintiff will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity due to the negative effect on -16COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 his skating career, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and 2 psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. 3 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' tortious acts, omissions, wrongful 4 conduct and breaches of their duties, Plaintiff's skating career has been adversely affected, and the 5 ability for him to obtain employment, educational opportunities and personal development have 6 been severally damaged and impacted. The Plaintiff has lost, and continues to lose income due to 7 the damage that Defendants have caused him, and will continue to lose such income into the future. 8 Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s future earning potential has been severely impacted by the tortious 9 conduct of Defendants, for which he continues to suffer economic harm. 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 51. 52. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful actions, as herein 11 alleged, Plaintiff has been hurt in his health, strength and activity. Plaintiff began to form a mental 12 connection between the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of Defendant DOE 3 and his resulting 13 psychological injuries or illnesses he was suffering as an adult, in January of 2017. As a result of 14 the sexual abuse that the Plaintiff suffered as a child, the Plaintiff suffered a mental breakdown, 15 and in January of 2017 the Plaintiff discovered, or reasonably should have, or could have, 16 discovered that the psychological injury or illness that he had suffered after the age of majority, 17 had been caused by the sexual abuse that the Plaintiff had suffered as a child, when he disclosed, 18 for the first time, his sexual abuse as a child to a mental health professional. 19 53. As is set forth herein, Defendants and each of them have failed to uphold numerous 20 mandatory duties required of them by state and federal law, as well as their own internal written 21 policies and procedures, including, but not limited to: 22 • Duty to refrain from taking official action that contradicts the provisions of Article 1, section 28(c) of the California Constitution; • 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 athletes and staff, and provide adequate supervision; • Duty to ensure that any direction given to minor athletes is lawful, and that adults act fairly, responsible and respectfully towards minor athletes; • Duty to properly train staff so that they are aware of their individual responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe environment; 23 24 25 26 27 28 -17COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 • Duty to review the criminal history of applicants and current employees; 2 • Duty to supervise minor athletes and enforce rules and regulations prescribed for Defendants, exercise reasonable control over minor athletes as is reasonably necessary to maintain order, protect property, or protect the health and safety of pupils or to maintain proper and appropriate conditions conducive to learning; • Duty to exercise careful supervision of the moral conditions in the Defendants’ organizations and facilities; • • Duty to provide diligent supervision over minors; Duty to act promptly and diligently and not ignore or minimize problems. • Duty to report suspected incidents of child abuse and more specifically childhood sexual abuse (Penal Code sections 11166, 11167, as well as corollary mandated reporting laws in the States of Michigan and Colorado). 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 54. Defendants and each of them had and have a duty to protect minor athletes, 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 including Plaintiff. Defendants were required to, and failed, to provide adequate supervision, and 11 failed to be properly vigilant in seeing that supervision was sufficient at the Defendants to ensure 12 the safety of the Plaintiff and others. 13 55. Despite having a duty to do so, Defendants failed to adequately train and supervise 14 all staff to create a positive and safe environment, specifically including training to perceive, report 15 and stop inappropriate sexual conduct by other members of the staff, specifically including 16 Defendant DOE 3, with children. 17 56. Defendants failed to enforce their own rules and regulations designed to protect the 18 health and safety of the minor athletes. Further, they failed to adopt and implement safety 19 measures, policies and procedures designed to protect minor children such as Plaintiff from the 20 sexually exploitive and abusive acts of their agents and employees such as Defendant DOE 3. 21 57. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants DOE 22 3, DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100 acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to 23 harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, so as to constitute malice and/or 24 oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiff is informed, and on that basis 25 alleges, that these willful, malicious, and/or oppressive acts, as alleged herein above, were ratified 26 by the officers, directors, and/or managing agents of the Defendants. Plaintiff is therefore entitled 27 to recover punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against Defendants DOE 28 3, DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100. -18COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL HARASSMENT (CIVIL CODE §51.9) (Against All Defendants) 1 2 58. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation 3 contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 4 59. During Plaintiff’s time as a minor athlete at Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 5 4 through 100, Defendant DOE 3 intentionally, recklessly and wantonly made sexual advances, 6 solicitations, requests, demands for sexual compliance of a hostile nature based on Plaintiff’s 7 gender that were unwelcome, pervasive and severe, all under the supervision of Defendants, who 8 were acting in the course and scope of their agency with Defendants and each of them. 9 60. This sexual abuse and harassment took place while Plaintiff was under the control 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 of Defendants, as well as the staff of Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100, in 11 their capacity and position as coaches, trainers, counselors, supervisors and administrators at DOE 12 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100 and while acting specifically on behalf of Defendants. 13 61. During Plaintiff's time as a minor athlete at Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 14 4 through 100, Defendant DOE 3 intentionally, recklessly and wantonly did acts which resulted in 15 harmful and offensive contact with intimate parts of Plaintiff's person, including but not limited 16 to, using his position of authority and age to force Plaintiff to give into Defendant DOE 3’s sexual 17 suggestions. 18 62. 19 Because of Plaintiff’s relationship with Defendants DOE 3, DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100, and Plaintiff’s young age as a minor athlete, Plaintiff was unable to easily 20 terminate the relationship he had with the Defendants. 21 63. Because of Defendant DOE 3 ‘s age and position of authority, physical seclusion 22 of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff's mental and emotional state, and Plaintiff's young age under the age of 23 consent, Plaintiff was unable to, and did not, give meaningful consent to such acts. 24 64. Even though the Defendants knew or had reason to know of these activities by 25 Defendant DOE 3, Defendants did nothing to investigate, supervise or monitor Defendant DOE 3 26 to ensure the safety of the minor athletes. 27 /// 28 /// -19COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 65. 2 Defendants, and Plaintiff's young age as a minor athlete, Plaintiff was unable to easily terminate 3 the coach-athlete relationship he had with Defendants. 4 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 Because of Plaintiff's relationship with Defendants, as a minor athlete training at 66. A corporation is a "person" within meaning of Civil Code section 51.9, which 5 subjects persons to liability for sexual harassment within a business, service or professional 6 relationship, and such an entity defendant may be held liable under this statute for the acts of its 7 employees. C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1094. Further, principles of 8 ratification apply when the principal ratifies the agent's originally unauthorized harassment, as is 9 alleged to have occurred herein. As such, when DOE 1, DOE 2 and DOES 4 through 100 were 10 made aware of sexual abuse and sexual misconduct allegations in 1999 against DOE 3, and 11 continued to employ, and continued to have DOE 3 as an agent, representative, employee and/or 12 servant of DOE 1, DOE 2 and DOES 4 through 100, these Defendants ratified DOE 3’s sexually 13 abusive conduct. 14 67. 15 Defendants' conduct (and the conduct of their agents) was a breach of their duties to Plaintiff. 16 68. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 17 suffer from psychological sequelae, including but not limited to anxiety, depression, fear, grief, 18 and stress. Plaintiff will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity due to the negative effect on 19 his skating career, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and 20 psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. 21 69. The conduct of Defendants was oppressive, malicious and despicable in that it was 22 intentional and done in conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others, and were carried 23 out with a conscious disregard of his right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to 24 constitute oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294, entitling 25 Plaintiff to punitive damages against Defendants in an amount appropriate to punish and set an 26 example of Defendants. Moreover, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages and attorney’s fees 27 pursuant to Civil Code section 52. 28 /// -20COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL BATTERY: CIVIL CODE § 1708.5 (Against Defendant DOE 3) 1 2 70. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation 3 contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 4 71. During Plaintiff's time as an athlete at Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 5 through 100, Defendant DOE 3 intentionally, recklessly and wantonly did acts which were 6 intended to, and did result in harmful and offensive contact with intimate parts of Plaintiff's person, 7 including but not limited to being subjected to numerous instances of sexual abuse by Defendant 8 DOE 3, during Plaintiff’s time as a minor athlete Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 9 100, beginning in around 1999 and continuing until in or around 2001. 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 72. 11 Defendant DOE 3 did the aforementioned acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of Plaintiff’s person, and would offend a reasonable sense 12 of personal dignity. Further, said acts did cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate 13 part of Plaintiff’s person that would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity. 14 73. Because of Defendant DOE 3’s position of authority over Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's 15 mental and emotional state, and Plaintiff's young age under the age of consent, Plaintiff was unable 16 to, and did not, give meaningful consent to such acts. 17 74. As a direct, legal, and proximate result of the acts of Defendant DOE 3, Plaintiff 18 sustained serious and permanent injuries to his person, all of his damage in an amount to be shown 19 according to proof and within the jurisdiction of the Court. 20 75. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 21 suffer from psychological sequelae, including but not limited to anxiety, depression, fear, grief, 22 and stress. Plaintiff will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity due to the negative effect on 23 his skating career, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and 24 psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. 25 76. The conduct of Defendants was oppressive, malicious and despicable in that it was 26 intentional and done in conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others, and were carried 27 out with a conscious disregard of his right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to 28 constitute oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294, entitling -21COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Plaintiff to punitive damages against Defendants in an amount appropriate to punish and set an 2 example of Defendants. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION ASSAULT (Against Defendant DOE 3) 3 4 77. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation 5 contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 6 78. Defendant DOE 3, in doing the things herein alleged, including intending to subject 7 Plaintiff to numerous instances of sexual abuse and molestation by Defendant DOE 3, during 8 Plaintiff’s time at Defendants, beginning in or around 1999 and lasting until in or around 2001, all 9 while Defendant DOE 3 acted in the course and scope of his agency/employment with Defendants, MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 10 and each of them, and were intended to cause harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff’s person, 11 or intended to put Plaintiff in imminent apprehension of such contact. 12 79. In doing the things herein alleged, Plaintiff was put in imminent apprehension of a 13 harmful or offensive contact by Defendant DOE 3, and actually believed Defendant DOE 3 had 14 the ability to make harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff’s person. 15 80. 16 Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant DOE 3’s intended harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff’s person, or intent to put Plaintiff in imminent apprehension of such contact. 17 Additionally, because Plaintiff was a minor during the time herein alleged, he lacked the ability to 18 consent to sexual contact with any person, especially with a supervisory coach, mentor, director, 19 advisor, or counselor at Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100. 20 81. In doing the things herein alleged, Defendant DOE 3 violated Plaintiff’s right, 21 pursuant to Civil Code section 43, of protection from bodily restraint or harm, and from personal 22 insult. In doing the things herein alleged, Defendant DOE 3 violated his duty, pursuant to Civil 23 Code section 1708, to abstain from injuring the person of Plaintiff or infringing upon his rights. 24 82. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 25 suffer from psychological sequelae, including but not limited to anxiety, depression, fear, grief, 26 and stress. Plaintiff will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity due to the negative effect on 27 his skating career, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and 28 psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. -22COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 83. 2 intentional and done in conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others, and were carried 3 out with a conscious disregard of his right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to 4 constitute oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294, entitling 5 Plaintiff to punitive damages against Defendants in an amount appropriate to punish and set an 6 example of Defendants. 7 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION GENDER VIOLENCE: CIVIL CODE § 52.4 (Against Defendant DOE 3 Only) 8 9 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 The conduct of Defendants was oppressive, malicious and despicable in that it was 84. 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. 11 85. Defendants’ acts committed against Plaintiff, as alleged herein, including the sexual 12 harassment, molestation and abuse of the minor Plaintiff constitute gender violence and a form of 13 sex discrimination in that one or more of Defendants’ acts would constitute a criminal offense 14 under state law that has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force 15 against the person of another, committed at least in part based on the gender of the victim, whether 16 or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or convictions. 17 86. Defendants’ acts committed against Plaintiff, as alleged herein, including the sexual 18 harassment, molestation and abuse of the minor Plaintiff constitute gender violence and a form of 19 sex discrimination in that Defendants’ conduct caused a physical intrusion or physical invasion of 20 a sexual nature upon Plaintiff under coercive conditions, whether or not those acts have resulted 21 in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction. 22 87. As a proximate result of Defendant DOE 3’s acts, Plaintiff is entitled to actual 23 damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, any combination of those, 24 or any other appropriate relief. Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs 25 pursuant to Civil Code § 52.4, against Defendant DOE 3. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// -23COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE (Against All Defendants EXCEPT Defendant DOE 3) 1 2 88. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation 3 contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 4 89. Prior to and after the first incident of Defendant DOE 3’s sexual harassment, 5 molestation and abuse of Plaintiff, through the present, Defendants, knew or had reason to know 6 that Defendant DOE 3 had and was capable of sexually, physically, and mentally abusing and 7 harassing Plaintiff or other victims. 8 90. Defendants and each of them had special duties to protect the Plaintiff and the other 9 minor athletes, when such minors were entrusted to Defendants' care by their parents. Plaintiff's 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 care, welfare and physical custody was entrusted to Defendants. Defendants voluntarily accepted 11 the entrusted care of Plaintiff. As such, Defendants owed Plaintiff, a minor child, a special duty of 12 care that adults dealing with children owe to protect them from harm. The duty to protect and warn 13 arose from the special, trusting, confidential, and fiduciary relationship between Defendants and 14 Plaintiff. 15 91. Defendants breached their duties of care to the minor Plaintiff by allowing 16 Defendant DOE 3 to come into contact with the minor Plaintiff and other minor athletes, without 17 supervision; by failing to adequately hire, supervise and retain Defendant DOE 3 who they 18 permitted and enabled to have access to Plaintiff; by concealing from Plaintiff, his family, and law 19 enforcement that Defendant DOE 3 was sexually harassing, molesting and abusing minors; and by 20 holding Defendant DOE 3 out to Plaintiff and his family as being of high moral and ethical repute, 21 in good standing and trustworthy. 22 92. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiff by failing to investigate or otherwise 23 confirm or deny such facts of sexual abuse by Defendant DOE 3, failing to reveal such facts to 24 Plaintiff, his parents, the community and law enforcement agencies, and by placing Defendant 25 DOE 3 into a position of trust and authority, holding his out to Plaintiff, his parents, and the public 26 as being in good standing and trustworthy. 27 93. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by failing to adequately monitor and 28 supervise Defendant DOE 3 and failing to prevent Defendant DOE 3 from committing wrongful -24COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 sexual acts with minors including Plaintiff. Defendants’ voluminous past records of sexual 2 misconduct by Defendant DOE 3 caused Defendants to know, or gave them reason to know, of 3 Defendant DOE 3 ‘s incapacity to serve as a teacher, counselor, coach and confidant, charged with 4 teaching, tutoring, mentoring, and supervising children while with Defendants. 5 Under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (and corollary child protection 6 laws in the States of Michigan and Colorado), Defendants, by and through their employees and 7 agents, were child care custodians and were under a statutory duty to report known or suspected 8 incidents of sexual harassment, molestation or abuse of minors to a child protective agency, 9 pursuant to California Penal Code § 11166, and not to impede the filing of any such report. 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 94. 95. Defendants knew or had reason to know that Defendant DOE 3, their coach, 11 counselor, and trainer, had sexually molested, abused, or caused touching, battery, harm, and other 12 injuries to minors, including Plaintiff, giving rise to a duty to report such conduct under California 13 Penal Code § 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the States of Michigan and Colorado). 14 Defendants also knew, or had reason to know that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that an 15 undue risk to minors, including Plaintiff, existed because Defendants did not comply with 16 California's mandatory reporting requirements. 17 96. By failing to report the continuing molestations and abuse, and by ignoring the 18 fulfillment of the mandated compliance with the reporting requirements provided under California 19 Penal Code § 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the States of Michigan and Colorado), 20 Defendants created the risk and danger contemplated by the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting 21 Act, and as a result, unreasonably and wrongfully exposed Plaintiff and other minors to sexual 22 molestation and abuse. 23 97. Plaintiff was a member of the class of persons for whose protection California 24 Penal Code § 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the States of Michigan and Colorado) 25 was specifically adopted to protect. 26 98. Had Defendants adequately reported the molestation of Plaintiff and other minors 27 as required by California Penal Code § 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the States of 28 Michigan and Colorado), further harm to Plaintiff and other minors would have been avoided. -25COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 As a proximate result of Defendants' failure to follow the mandatory reporting 2 requirements of California Penal Code § 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the States 3 of Michigan and Colorado), Defendants wrongfully denied Plaintiff and other minors the 4 intervention of child protection services. Such public agencies would have changed the then- 5 existing arrangements and conditions that provided the access and opportunities for the 6 molestation of Plaintiff by Defendant DOE 3. 7 100. The physical, mental, and emotional damages and injuries resulting from the sexual 8 molestation of Plaintiff by Defendant DOE 3, were the type of occurrence and injuries that the 9 Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act was designed to prevent. 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 99. 101. As a result, Defendants' failure to comply with the mandatory reporting 11 requirements of California Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the 12 States of Michigan and Colorado) also constituted a per se breach of Defendants' duties to Plaintiff. 13 102. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 14 suffer from psychological sequelae, including but not limited to anxiety, depression, fear, grief, 15 and stress. Plaintiff will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity due to the negative effect on 16 his skating career, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and 17 psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. 18 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (Against All Defendants EXCEPT Defendant DOE 3) 19 20 21 22 103. 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. 104. By virtue of Plaintiff's special relationship with Defendants, and Defendants' 23 relation to Defendant DOE 3, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to provide reasonable supervision 24 of Defendant DOE 3, to use reasonable care in investigating Defendant DOE 3 ‘s background, and 25 to provide adequate warning to Plaintiff, Plaintiff's family, and minor athletes of Defendant DOE 26 3 ‘s dangerous propensities and unfitness. 27 28 105. As representatives of Defendant DOE 3, where many of the athletes thereof are vulnerable minors entrusted to Defendant DOE 3, Defendants’ coaches, mentors, managing -26COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 administrators and agents expressly and implicitly represented that their coaches, counselors, and 2 trainers, including Defendant DOE 3, were not a sexual threat to children and others who would 3 fall under Defendant DOE 3 ‘s influence, control, direction, and guidance. MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 4 106. Defendants, by and through their respective agents, servants and employees, knew 5 or had reason to know of Defendant DOE 3 ‘s dangerous and exploitive propensities and that 6 Defendant DOE 3 was an unfit agent. Despite such knowledge, Defendants negligently failed to 7 supervise Defendant DOE 3 in his position of trust and authority as a coach, counselor, trainer, 8 and authority figure over children, where he was able to commit wrongful acts of sexual 9 misconduct against the Plaintiff. Defendants failed to provide reasonable supervision of Defendant 10 DOE 3, failed to use reasonable care in investigating Defendant DOE 3, and failed to provide 11 adequate warning to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's family of Defendant DOE 3 dangerous propensities 12 and unfitness. Defendants further failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of minors, 13 including Plaintiff, from sexual harassment, molestation and abuse. 14 107. At no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in place a 15 reasonable system or procedure to investigate, supervise and monitor coaches, counselors, and 16 trainers, including Defendant DOE 3, to prevent pre-sexual grooming and sexual harassment, 17 molestation and abuse of children, nor did they implement a system or procedure to oversee or 18 monitor conduct toward minors and others in Defendants' care. 19 108. Defendants were aware or had reason to know of how vulnerable children were to 20 sexual harassment, molestation and abuse by staff members and other persons of authority within 21 Defendants’ entities. 22 109. Defendants were put on notice, knew or had reason to know that Defendant DOE 3 23 had previously engaged and was continuing to engage in unlawful sexual conduct with minors, 24 and had committed other felonies, for his own personal sexual gratification, and that it was 25 foreseeable that he was engaging, or would engage in illicit sexual activities with Plaintiff, and 26 others, under the cloak of the authority, confidence, and trust, bestowed upon his through 27 Defendants. 28 /// -27COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Defendants were placed on actual or constructive notice that Defendant DOE 3 had 2 molested other minors and athletes during his employment with Defendants. Defendants were 3 informed of molestations of minors committed by Defendant DOE 3 prior to Plaintiff’s sexual 4 abuse, and of conduct by Defendant DOE 3 that would put a reasonable person on notice of such 5 propensity to molest and abuse children. 6 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 110. 111. Even though Defendants knew or had reason to know of these illicit sexual 7 activities by Defendant DOE 3, Defendants did not reasonably investigate, supervise or monitor 8 Defendant DOE 3 to ensure the safety of the minor athletes. 9 112. Defendants' conduct was a breach of their duties to Plaintiff. 10 113. Under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, Defendants, by and through 11 their employees and agents, were child care custodians and were under a statutory duty to report 12 known or suspected incidents of sexual molestation or abuse of minors to a child protective agency, 13 pursuant to California Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the States 14 of Michigan and Colorado), and not to impede the filing of any such report. 15 114. Defendants knew or had reason to know that their coach and trainer, Defendant 16 DOE 3, had sexually molested, abused or caused touching, battery, harm, and other injuries to 17 minors, including Plaintiff, giving rise to a duty to report such conduct under California Penal 18 Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the States of Michigan and Colorado). 19 115. Defendants knew, or had reason to know, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, 20 that an undue risk to minors, including Plaintiff, existed because Defendants did not comply with 21 California's mandatory reporting requirements. 22 116. By failing to report the continuing molestations and abuse of Defendant DOE 3, 23 which Defendants knew or had reason to know about, and by ignoring the fulfillment of the 24 mandated compliance with the reporting requirements provided under California Penal Code 25 section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the States of Michigan and Colorado), 26 Defendants created the risk and danger contemplated by the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting 27 Act, and as a result, unreasonably and wrongfully exposed Plaintiff and other minors to sexual 28 molestation and abuse. -28COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 117. 2 Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the States of Michigan and 3 Colorado) was specifically adopted to protect. 4 118. Had Defendants adequately reported the molestation of Plaintiff and other minors 5 as required by California Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the 6 States of Michigan and Colorado), further harm to Plaintiff and other minors would have been 7 avoided. 8 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 Plaintiff was a member of the class of persons for whose protection California 119. As a proximate result of Defendants' failure to follow the mandatory reporting 9 requirements of California Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the 10 States of Michigan and Colorado), Defendants wrongfully denied Plaintiff and other minors the 11 intervention of child protection services. Such public agencies would have changed the then- 12 existing arrangements and conditions that provided the access and opportunities for the 13 molestation of Plaintiff by Defendant DOE 3. 14 120. The physical, mental, and emotional damages and injuries resulting from the sexual 15 molestation of Plaintiff by Defendant DOE 3, were the type of occurrence and injuries that the 16 Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act was designed to prevent. 17 121. As a result, Defendants' failure to comply with the mandatory reporting 18 requirements of California Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the 19 States of Michigan and Colorado) also constituted a per se breach of Defendants' duties to Plaintiff. 20 122. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty to Plaintiff by, inter alia, by 21 failing to adequately monitor and supervise Defendant DOE 3 and stop Defendant DOE 3 from 22 committing wrongful sexual acts with minors including Plaintiff. 23 123. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 24 suffer from psychological sequelae, including but not limited to anxiety, depression, fear, grief, 25 and stress. Plaintiff will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity due to the negative effect on 26 his skating career, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and 27 psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. 28 /// -29COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT HIRING/RETENTION (Against All Defendants) 1 2 124. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation 3 contained herein above as though fully set forth and brought in this cause of action. 4 125. By virtue of Plaintiff's special relationship with Defendants, and Defendants' 5 relation to Defendant DOE 3, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to not hire or retain Defendant 6 DOE 3, given his dangerous and exploitive propensities, which Defendants knew or had reason to 7 know about had they engaged in a reasonable, meaningful, and adequate investigation of his 8 background prior to his hiring or retaining his in subsequent positions of employment. 9 126. Defendants expressly and implicitly represented that the coaches, trainers, and 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 mentors, including Defendant DOE 3, were not a sexual threat to children and others who would 11 fall under Defendant DOE 3’s influence, control, direction, and guidance. 12 127. At no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in place a 13 reasonable system or procedure to investigate, supervise and monitor teachers, counselors, and 14 managing administrators, including Defendant DOE 3, to prevent pre-sexual grooming or sexual 15 harassment, molestation and abuse of children, nor did they implement a system or procedure to 16 oversee or monitor conduct toward minors, athletes and others in Defendants' care. 17 128. Defendants were aware or had reason to be aware and understand how vulnerable 18 children were to sexual harassment, molestation and abuse by teachers and other persons of 19 authority within the control of Defendants prior to Plaintiff’s sexual abuse by Defendant DOE 3. 20 129. Defendants were put on-notice, and had reason to know that Defendant DOE 3 had 21 previously engaged and continued to engage in unlawful sexual conduct with minors and was 22 committing other felonies, for his own personal gratification, and that it was, or should have been 23 foreseeable that he was engaging, or would engage in illicit sexual activities with Plaintiff, and 24 others, under the cloak of his authority, confidence, and trust, bestowed upon his through 25 Defendants. 26 130. Defendants were placed on actual or constructive notice that Defendant DOE 3 had 27 molested or was molesting minors and athletes, both before his employment within Defendants, 28 and during that employment. Defendants had knowledge of inappropriate conduct and -30COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 molestations committed by Defendant DOE 3 before and during his employment, yet chose to 2 allow his to remain unsupervised where he sexually abused Plaintiff. MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 3 131. Even though Defendants knew or had reason to know of these sexually illicit 4 activities by Defendant DOE 3, Defendants failed to use reasonable care in investigating 5 Defendant DOE 3 and did nothing to reasonably investigate, supervise or monitor Defendant DOE 6 3 to ensure the safety of the minor athletes. 7 132. Defendants' conduct was a breach of their duties to Plaintiff. 8 133. Under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (and corollary child protection 9 laws in the States of Michigan and Colorado), Defendants, by and through their employees and 10 agents, were child care custodians and were under a statutory duty to report known or suspected 11 incidents of sexual molestation or abuse of minors to a child protective agency, pursuant to 12 California Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the States of Michigan 13 and Colorado), and not to impede the filing of any such report. 14 134. Defendants knew or had reason to know that their teacher, counselor, and managing 15 administrator, Defendant DOE 3, had sexually molested, abused or caused touching, battery, harm, 16 and other injuries to minors, including Plaintiff, giving rise to a duty to report such conduct under 17 California Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the States of Michigan 18 and Colorado). 19 135. Defendants knew, or had reason to know in the exercise of reasonable diligence, 20 that an undue risk to minors, including Plaintiff, existed because Defendants did not comply with 21 California's mandatory reporting requirements. 22 136. By failing to report the continuing molestations and abuse, which Defendants and 23 each of them knew or had reason to know about, and by ignoring the fulfillment of the mandated 24 compliance with the reporting requirements provided under California Penal Code section 11166 25 (and corollary child protection laws in the States of Michigan and Colorado), Defendants created 26 the risk and danger contemplated by the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, and as a result, 27 unreasonably and wrongfully exposed Plaintiff and other minors to sexual molestation and abuse. 28 /// -31COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Plaintiff was a member of the class of persons for whose protection California 2 Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the States of Michigan and 3 Colorado) was specifically adopted to protect. 4 138. Had Defendants adequately reported the molestation of Plaintiff and other minors 5 as required by California Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the 6 States of Michigan and Colorado), further harm to Plaintiff and other minors would have been 7 avoided. 8 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 137. 139. As a proximate result of Defendants' failure to follow the mandatory reporting 9 requirements of California Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the 10 States of Michigan and Colorado), Defendants wrongfully denied Plaintiff and other minors the 11 intervention of child protection services. Such public agencies would have changed the then- 12 existing arrangements and conditions that provided the access and opportunities for the 13 molestation of Plaintiff by Defendant DOE 3. 14 140. The physical, mental, and emotional damages and injuries resulting from the sexual 15 molestation of Plaintiff by Defendant DOE 3, were the type of occurrence and injuries that the 16 Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act was designed to prevent. 17 141. As a result, Defendants' failure to comply with the mandatory reporting 18 requirements of California Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the 19 States of Michigan and Colorado) also constituted a per se breach of Defendants' duties to Plaintiff. 20 142. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 21 suffer from psychological sequelae, including but not limited to anxiety, depression, fear, grief, 22 and stress. Plaintiff will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity due to the negative effect on 23 his skating career, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and 24 psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. 25 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN, TRAIN, or EDUCATE (Against All Defendants) 26 27 28 143. 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. -32COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 144. 2 Plaintiff and other minor athletes from the risk of childhood sexual harassment, molestation and 3 abuse by Defendant DOE 3 by properly warning, training or educating Plaintiff and other athletes 4 about how to avoid such a risk. 5 145. Defendants breached their duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect 6 Plaintiff and other minor athletes from the risk of childhood sexual harassment, molestation and 7 abuse by Defendant DOE 3, such as the failure to properly warn, train or educate Plaintiff and 8 other athletes about how to avoid such a particular risk that Defendant DOE 3 posed—of sexual 9 misconduct. 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect 146. Defendants breached their duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect 11 Plaintiff and other minor athletes from the risk of childhood sexual harassment, molestation and 12 abuse by Defendant DOE 3, by failing to supervise and stop employees of Defendants, including 13 Defendant DOE 3, from committing wrongful sexual acts with minors, including Plaintiff. 14 147. Under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (and corollary child protection 15 laws in the States of Michigan and Colorado), Defendants, by and through their employees and 16 agents, were child care custodians and were under a statutory duty to report known or suspected 17 incidents of sexual molestation or abuse of minors to a child protective agency, pursuant to 18 California Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the States of Michigan 19 and Colorado), and not to impede the filing of any such report. 20 148. Defendants knew or had reason to know that their teacher, counselor, and managing 21 administrator, Defendant DOE 3, had sexually molested, abused or caused touching, battery, harm, 22 and other injuries to minors, including Plaintiff, giving rise to a duty to report such conduct under 23 California Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the States of Michigan 24 and Colorado). 25 149. Defendants knew, or had reason to know in the exercise of reasonable diligence, 26 that an undue risk to minors, including Plaintiff, existed because Defendants did not comply with 27 California's mandatory reporting requirements. 28 /// -33COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 By failing to report the continuing molestations and abuse, which Defendants knew 2 or had reason to know about, and by ignoring the fulfillment of the mandated compliance with the 3 reporting requirements provided under California Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child 4 protection laws in the States of Michigan and Colorado), Defendants created the risk and danger 5 contemplated by the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, and as a result, unreasonably and 6 wrongfully exposed Plaintiff and other minors to sexual molestation and abuse. 7 151. Plaintiff was a member of the class of persons for whose protection California 8 Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the States of Michigan and 9 Colorado) was specifically adopted to protect. 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 150. 152. Had Defendants adequately reported the molestation of Plaintiff and other minors 11 as required by California Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the 12 States of Michigan and Colorado), further harm to Plaintiff and other minors would have been 13 avoided. 14 153. As a proximate result of Defendants' failure to follow the mandatory reporting 15 requirements of California Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the 16 States of Michigan and Colorado), Defendants wrongfully denied Plaintiff and other minors the 17 intervention of child protection services. Such public agencies would have changed the then- 18 existing arrangements and conditions that provided the access and opportunities for the 19 molestation of Plaintiff by Defendant DOE 3. 20 154. The physical, mental, and emotional damages and injuries resulting from the sexual 21 molestation of Plaintiff by Defendant DOE 3, were the type of occurrence and injuries that the 22 Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act was designed to prevent. 23 155. As a result, Defendants' failure to comply with the mandatory reporting 24 requirements of California Penal Code section 11166 (and corollary child protection laws in the 25 States of Michigan and Colorado) also constituted a per se breach of Defendants' duties to Plaintiff. 26 156. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 27 suffer from psychological sequelae, including but not limited to anxiety, depression, fear, grief, 28 and stress. Plaintiff will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity due to the negative effect on -34COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 his skating career, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and 2 psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. 3 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Against All Defendants) 4 5 6 7 8 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 9 157. 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. 158. Defendants DOE 3, DOE 2, DOE 1, and DOES 4 through 100’s conduct toward Plaintiff, as described herein, was outrageous and extreme. 159. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate the sexual harassment, 10 molestation and abuse of Plaintiff by DOE 3, and Defendants’ knowledge and callous indifference 11 thereof. Plaintiff had great trust, faith and confidence in in Defendants, which, by virtue of DOE 12 3’s and Defendants' wrongful conduct, turned to fear. 13 14 15 160. Defendants’ conduct toward Plaintiff, as described herein, was outrageous and extreme. 161. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate Defendants putting Defendant 16 DOE 3, who was known to Defendants to have physically and sexually abused other minors, in 17 charge of Plaintiff, which enabled DOE 3 to have access to minor athletes so that he could commit 18 wrongful sexual acts, including the conduct described herein, with minors, including Plaintiff. 19 Plaintiff had great trust, faith and confidence in Defendants, which, by virtue of Defendants' 20 wrongful conduct, turned to fear. 21 162. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate the Defendants and their agents 22 to be incapable of supervising and/or stopping coaches of Defendants, including Defendant DOE 23 3, from committing wrongful sexual acts with minors, including Plaintiff, or to supervise 24 Defendant DOE 3. Plaintiff had great trust, faith and confidence in Defendants, which, by virtue 25 of Defendants' wrongful conduct, turned to fear. 26 163. Defendants' conduct described herein was intentional and malicious and done for 27 the purpose of causing or with the substantial certainty that Plaintiff would suffer humiliation, 28 mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress. -35COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 2 suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, 3 disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was 4 prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full 5 enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will 6 continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. 7 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 164. 165. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants DOE 8 3, DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100 acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to 9 harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, so as to constitute malice and/or 10 oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiff is informed, and on that basis 11 alleges, that these willful, malicious, and/or oppressive acts, as alleged herein above, were ratified 12 by the officers, directors, and/or managing agents of the Defendants. Plaintiff is therefore entitled 13 to recover punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against Defendants DOE 14 3, DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD (Against All Defendants) 15 16 17 18 19 166. 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. 167. By holding Defendant DOE 3 out as an agent of Defendants, and by allowing him 20 to undertake the educational instruction of minor children such as Plaintiff, Defendants entered 21 into a confidential, fiduciary and special relationship with Plaintiff. 22 168. By holding themselves out as qualified institutions for the safety and supervision 23 of children, and by undertaking to provide athletic instruction and training of Plaintiff and other 24 minor athletes, Defendants entered into a confidential, fiduciary and special relationship with 25 Plaintiff. 26 169. Defendants breached their confidential, fiduciary duty and special duties to Plaintiff 27 by the wrongful and negligent conduct described above and incorporated into this cause of action, 28 and in so doing, gained an advantage over Plaintiff in matters relating to Plaintiff's safety, security -36COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 and health. In particular, in breaching such duties as alleged, Defendants were able to sustain their 2 status as institutions of high moral repute, and preserve their reputation, all at the expense of 3 Plaintiff's further injury and in violation of Defendants' mandatory duties. 4 5 170. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to: 6 a. Investigate or otherwise confirm or deny such claims of sexual abuse; 7 b. Reveal such facts to Plaintiff, Plaintiff's family and caretakers, the figure skating community, the community at large, and law enforcement agencies; c. Refuse to place Defendant DOE 3 and other molesters in positions of trust and authority within Defendants' institutions; d. Refuse to hold out Defendant DOE 3 and other molesters to the public, the community, minors, parents and law enforcement agencies as being in good standing and, trustworthy in keeping with his and their position as a teacher, counselor, managing administrator and authority figure; e. Refuse to assign Defendant DOE 3 and other molesters to positions of power within the Defendants’ institutions and over minors; and f. Disclose to Plaintiff, his family, the public, the Defendants’ community, minors, and law enforcement agencies the wrongful, tortious, and sexually exploitive acts that Defendant DOE 3 had engaged in with children 16 171. Defendants' breach of their respective duties included: 17 a. Not making reasonable investigations of Defendant DOE 3; 18 b. Issuing no warnings about Defendant DOE 3; 19 c. Permitting Defendant DOE 3 to routinely be alone with and in control of minors, unsupervised; d. Not adopting a policy to prevent Defendant DOE 3 from routinely having minors and athletes in his unsupervised control; e. Making no reports of any allegations of Defendant DOE 3’s abuse of athletes, or of minors prior to or during his employment at Defendants; and f. Assigning and continuing to assign Defendant DOE 3 to duties which placed him in positions of authority and trust over minors, positions in which Defendant DOE 3 could easily isolate and sexually abuse minors. 172. At the time that Defendants engaged in such suppression and concealment of acts, 8 9 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 By virtue of their confidential, fiduciary and special relationship with Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 such acts were done for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to forbear on Plaintiff's rights. 27 173. Defendants' misconduct did reasonably cause Plaintiff to forbear on Plaintiff's 28 rights. -37COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 174. 2 intended to and were likely to mislead Plaintiff and others to believe that Defendants had no 3 knowledge of any charges against Defendant DOE 3, or that there were no other charges of 4 unlawful or sexual misconduct against Defendant DOE 3 or others and that there was no need for 5 them to take further action or precaution. 6 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 The misrepresentations, suppressions and concealment of facts by Defendants were 175. The misrepresentations, suppressions and concealment of facts by Defendants was 7 likely to mislead Plaintiff and others to believe that Defendants had no knowledge of the fact that 8 Defendant DOE 3 was a molester, and was known to commit wrongful sexual acts with minors, 9 including Plaintiff. 10 176. 11 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. 12 177. Defendants suppressed and concealed the true facts regarding Defendant DOE 3 13 with the purpose of: preventing Plaintiff, Plaintiff's parents & family, and others, from learning 14 that Defendant DOE 3 and others had been and were continuing to sexually harass, molest and 15 abuse minors and others under Defendant DOE 3’s and Defendants' control, direction, and 16 guidance, with complete impunity; inducing people, including Plaintiff and other benefactors and 17 donors to participate and financially support Defendants' and other enterprises of Defendants; 18 preventing further reports and outside investigations into Defendant DOE 3’s and Defendants' 19 conduct; preventing discovery of Defendants' own conduct; avoiding damage to the reputations of 20 Defendants; protecting Defendants' power and status in the community and the academic 21 community; avoiding damage to the reputation of Defendants, or Defendants' institutions; and 22 avoiding the civil and criminal liability of Defendants, of Defendant DOE 3, and of others. 23 178. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and in particular Defendant DOE 3 and 24 Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2 and DOES 4 through 100, with knowledge of the tortious nature of 25 their own and Defendant DOE 3’s conduct, knowingly conspired and gave each other substantial 26 assistance to perpetrate the misrepresentations, fraud and deceit alleged herein—covering up the 27 past allegations of sexual misconduct lodged against Defendant DOE 3, and allowing Defendant 28 /// -38COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 DOE 3 to remain in his position as a teacher, counselor, and managing administrator so they could 2 maintain their reputations and continue to make a profit. MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 3 179. Plaintiff and others were misled by Defendants' suppressions and concealment of 4 facts, and in reliance thereon, were induced to act or induced not to act, exactly as intended by 5 Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's family were induced to believe that there were 6 no allegations of criminal or sexual abuse against Defendant DOE 3 and that he was safe to be 7 around children. Had Plaintiff and his family, and others, known the true facts about Defendant 8 DOE 3, they would have not participated further in activities of Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2, and 9 DOES 4 through 100, or continued to financially support Defendants' activities. They would have 10 reported the matters to the proper authorities, to other minor athletes and their parents so as to 11 prevent future recurrences; they would not have allowed children, including Plaintiff, to be alone 12 with, or have any relationship with Defendant DOE 3; they would not have allowed children, 13 including Plaintiff, to attend or be under the control of Defendants; they would have undertaken 14 their own investigations which would have led to discovery of the true facts; and they would have 15 sought psychological counseling for Plaintiff, and for other children molested and abused by 16 Defendant DOE 3. 17 180. By giving Defendant DOE 3 the position of coach, counselor, and trainer, 18 Defendants impliedly represented that Defendant DOE 3 was safe and morally fit to give children 19 direction and guidance. 20 181. When Defendants made these affirmative or implied representations and non- 21 disclosures of material facts, Defendants knew or had reason to know that the facts were otherwise. 22 Defendants knowingly and intentionally suppressed the material facts that Defendant DOE 3 had 23 on numerous, prior occasions sexually, physically, and mentally abused minors and athletes of 24 Defendants, including Plaintiff, and knew of or learned of conduct, or had reason to know of 25 conduct by Defendant DOE 3 which placed Defendants on notice that Defendant DOE 3 had 26 previously been suspected of felonies, including unlawful sexual conduct with minors, and was 27 likely abusing children. 28 /// -39COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Because of Plaintiff's young age, and because of the status of Defendant DOE 3 as 2 an authority figure to Plaintiff, Plaintiff was vulnerable to Defendant DOE 3. Defendant DOE 3 3 sought Plaintiff out, and was empowered by and accepted Plaintiff's vulnerability. Plaintiff's 4 vulnerability also prevented Plaintiff from effectively protecting himself from the sexual advances 5 of Defendant DOE 3. 6 7 8 9 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 182. 11 12 13 14 183. Defendants had the duty to obtain and disclose information relating to sexual misconduct of Defendant DOE 3. 184. Defendants misrepresented, concealed or failed to disclose information relating to sexual misconduct of Defendant DOE 3. 185. Defendants knew that they had misrepresented, concealed or failed to disclose information related to sexual misconduct of Defendant DOE 3. 186. Plaintiff justifiably relied upon Defendants for information relating to sexual misconduct of Defendant DOE 3. 187. Defendants DOE 1, DOE 2 and DOES 4 through 100, and Defendant DOE 3, in 15 concert with each other and with the intent to conceal and defraud, conspired and came to a meeting 16 of the minds whereby they would misrepresent, conceal or fail to disclose information relating to 17 the sexual misconduct of Defendant DOE 3, the inability of Defendants to supervise or stop 18 Defendant DOE 3 from sexually harassing, molesting and abusing Plaintiff, and their own failure 19 to properly investigate, supervise and monitor his conduct with minor athletes. 20 188. 21 conspiracy. 22 189. By so concealing, Defendants committed at least one act in furtherance of the As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 23 suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional 24 distress including embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of 25 enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be 26 prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain 27 loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for 28 medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. -40COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 190. 2 continuing thereafter, Plaintiff experienced recurrences of the above-described injuries. In 3 addition, when Plaintiff finally discovered the fraud of Defendants, and continuing thereafter, 4 Plaintiff experienced extreme and severe mental anguish and emotional distress that Plaintiff had 5 been the victim of Defendants' fraud; that Plaintiff had not been able to help other minors being 6 molested because of the fraud, and that Plaintiff had not been able because of the fraud to receive 7 timely medical treatment needed to deal with the problems Plaintiff had suffered and continues to 8 suffer as a result of the sexual harassment, molestation and abuse. 9 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 In addition, when Plaintiff finally discovered the fraud of Defendants, and 191. In subjecting Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants DOE 10 3, DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100, acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to 11 harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, so as to constitute malice and/or 12 oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiff is informed, and on that basis 13 alleges, that these willful, malicious, and/or oppressive acts, as alleged herein above, were ratified 14 by the officers, directors, and/or managing agents of the Defendants. Plaintiff is therefore entitled 15 to recover punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against Defendants DOE 16 3, DOE 1, DOE 2, and DOES 4 through 100. 17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a jury trial and for judgment against Defendants, and 18 each of them, as follows: 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// -41COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 1. For past, present and future damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 3 2. For past, present and future special damages, including but not limited to past, 4 present and future lost earnings, economic damages and others, in an amount to be determined at 5 trial; 6 3. Any appropriate statutory damages; 7 4. For costs of suit; 8 5. For interest based on damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment 9 10 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 11 12 13 interest as allowed by law; 6. For attorney’s fees pursuant to California Civil Code 52, et seq., 51, et seq., or as otherwise allowable by law; 8. Any appropriate punitive or exemplary damages against Defendant DOE 3, DOE 1, DOE 2 and DOES 4 through 100; 14 9. For declaratory and injunctive relief; and 15 10. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. 16 17 Dated: August 2, 2019 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 18 19 By: 20 _______________________________ JOHN C. MANLY, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, JOHN SA DOE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -42COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 2 3 Plaintiff JOHN SA DOE HEREBY demands a trial by jury. Dated: August 2, 2019 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 4 5 By: 6 _______________________________ JOHN C. MANLY, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, JOHN SA DOE 7 8 9 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL