2 4 5 E-FILED 1/28/2020 1:27 PM Superior Court of California County of Fresno By: A. Rodriguez, Deputy Paul Mones [SBN: 128329] Courtney Kiehl [SBN: 310577] PAUL MONES, P.C. 13101 Washington Blvd, Suite 103 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Phone: 310-566-7418 Attorneys for PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO 10 11 PLAINTIFF, 12 13 14 15 18 19 Case No.: 20CECG00354 JANE DOE, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES vs. 1. NEGLIGENCE; 2. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND ST. PAUL, TRANQUILITY ROMAN FAILURE TO WARN PLAINTIFF; CATHOLIC CHURCH; IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH; ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF FRESNO; and DOES I through 100. 3. NEGLIGENT HIRING AND DEFENDANTS. RETENTION; 4. NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN, TRAIN, OR EDUCATE PLAINTIFF; AND 5. SEXUAL BATTERY. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 20 21 22 Based upon information and belief available to PLAINTIFF, Jane Doe, at the time of 24 25 the filing of this Complaint for Damages, PLAINTIFF makes the following allegations: PARTIES 26 PLAINTIFF, Jane Doe is an adult female. PLAINTIFF was born on June 28, 1985 27 and was a minor at the time of the sexual abuse alleged herein. PLAINTIFF alleges 28 that she was the victim of sexual abuse, among other causes of action as set forth COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE herein. As such, for her privacy and security, she is entitled to protect her identity in this public court filing by not disclosing her full name. 2. DEFENDANT ST. PAUL, TRANQUILITY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ("ST. PAUL") is a parish located within DEFENDANT ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF FRESNO. 5 7 3. ST. PAUL is located in Tranquility, California, which is in Fresno County. 4. DEFENDANT IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (" IMMACULATE HEART") is a parish located within DEFENDANT ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF FRESNO. 9 10 5. IMMACULATE HEART is located in Hanford, California, which is in Kings County. 12 6. DEFENDANT ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF FRESNO (" DIOCESE) was 13 and is a not-for-profit religious corporation organized and existing around and 14 under by virtue of the laws of the State of California. 15 7. Upon information and belief, DEFENDANT DIOCESE'S principal headquarters 16 are located in Fresno, California, which is in Fresno County. 17 Miguel Flores (" Flores" ), is an individual who was employed, controlled and/or 18 supervised by DEFENDANTS ST. PAUL, IMMACULATE HEART, and 19 DIOCESE. Flores was, at the time of the sexual abuse of PLAINTIFF, an agent of 20 DEFENDANTS ST. PAUL, IMMACULATE HEART, and DIOCESE subject to 21 the direction, control and supervision of DEFENDANTS. 22 9. DEFENDANTS DOES I through 100, inclusive, are individuals and/or business or 23 corporate entities incorporated in and/or doing business in California whose true 24 names and capacities are unknown to PLAINTIFF who therefore sues such 25 defendants by such fictitious names, and who will amend the Complaint to show the 26 true names and capacities of each such DOE DEFENDANT when ascertained. 27 Each such DEFENDANT DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE events, happenings, and/or tortious and unlawful conduct that caused the injuries and damages alleged in this Complaint. 10. DEFENDANT ST. PAUL, IMMACULATE HEART, DEFENDANT DIOCESE, and DOES I through 100 are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "DEFENDANTS." 11. Each DEFENDANT is the agent, servant, and/or employee of other DEFENDANTS, and each DEFENDANT was acting within the course and scope of his, her or its authority as an agent, servant, and/or employee of the other DEFENDANTS. 10 12. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are individuals, corporations, partnerships, and other entities which engaged in, joined in, and conspired with the other wrongdoers in carrying out the tortious and unlawful activities described in this Complaint. 12 BACKGROUND FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS 13 14 13. forth herein. 15 16 14. 17 18 15. PLAINTIFF was baptized, confirmed, attended mass, and received her sacraments through the Roman Catholic Church. 16. Upon information and belief, Joseph V. Brennan (hereinafter "Brennan" ) is currently the Roman Catholic Bishop of DEFENDANT DIOCESE. 21 22 PLAINTIFF is a Roman Catholic and was a parishioner at DEFENDANT ST. PAUL. 19 20 PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs as if fully set 17. Upon information and belief, the Bishop is the Chief Executive Officer of all 23 parishes and parish schools in the DIOCESE and as part of said responsibilities 24 assigned the priests to work in the parishes and schools. 25 18. Upon information and belief, all of Brennan's predecessor(s) were the Chief 26 Executive Officer of all parishes and parish schools in the DIOCESE and as part of 27 said responsibilities assigned the priests to work in the parishes including, Flores, 28 this includes those Bishops who assigned Flores to his parish and school positions. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE 19. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Brennan and the above referenced predecessor Bishops in the Office of the Bishop along with DEFENDANT DIOCESE created the policies and procedures to be followed by priests within the DIOCESE. 20. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, the Office of the Bishop was also responsible for not just assigning but as well as removing and/or suspending parish clergy and priests from their duties in its sole discretion. 21. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, Flores was assigned as a priest by DEFENDANT DIOCESE to work at DEFENDANT ST. PAUL and later DEFENDANT IMMACULATE HEART having been assigned and otherwise 10 authorized to work there by the Office of the Bishop. 12 22. PLAINTIFF alleges that she trusted DEFENDANTS in all matters related to her 13 being a Roman Catholic parishioner within DEFENDANT DIOCESE and she 14 reasonably relied upon DEFENDANTS'epresentations that it said 15 DEFENDANTS would provide a safe, secure and moral place for PLAINTIFF 16 when she was a minor and all other similarly situated minors in the DIOCESE and 17 the respective above-mentioned parishes. 18 23. Upon information and belief, DEFENDANTS selected and approved Flores as an 19 employee, giving him the authority and power to do the following: to provide 20 instruction, counseling, and moral guidance, as well as to undertake other duties for 21 the benefit of minors attending and otherwise participating in DIOCESE and parish 22 related activities including but not limited to attending religious services, 23 counseling, and work. 24 24. Upon information and belief, DEFENDANTS knew that as part of his duties as a 25 priest, Flores would be in a position of trust, confidence, and authoriiy over the 26 minors such as PLAINTIFF participating or otherwise involved in parish programs, 27 including PLAINTIFF. 28 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE 25. There was a special relationship between PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANTS giving rise to a duty for DEFENDANTS to protect PLAINTIFF from harm. 26. PLAINTIFF first met Flores in his capacity as a priest at DEFENDANT ST. PAUL in or around 2001. 27. Sometime after PLAINTIFF first met Flores in or around 2001, Flores began a pattern of grooming PLAINTIFF for the specific purpose of sexually abusing her. 28. Flores'rooming of PLAINTIFF included but was not limited to taking PLAINTIFF and her younger sisters shopping for clothes, to an amusement park, and purchasing a car for PLAINTIFF. Flores paid his own money for these gifts and activities. 10 29. and DEFENDANT IMMACULATE HEART. 12 13 30. 14 15 31. Flores'exual abuse of PLAINTIFF began in or around the end of 2001 and continued through February of 2002. 32. 18 19 Flores exploited the trust and confidence that PLAINTIFF, as a minor child, placed in him as a Catholic priest. 16 17 Flores also offered PLAINTIFF work in the offices of DEFENDANT ST. PAUL PLAINTIFF was approximately 16 years old at the time of these alleged acts of sexual abuse. 33. Flores'exual abuse of PLAINTIFF included but was not limited to: 20 a. Flores kissing PLAINTIFF on the lips and neck; 21 b. Flores fondling PLAINTIFF'S breasts, genitals, and buttocks both 22 over her clothes and on her naked body; and 23 24 c. 34. Flores vaginally raping PLAINTIFF. Flores'exual abuse of PLAINTIFF was accompanied by relentless, intimidating 25 and unspeakable verbal and physical threats. These threats included Flores warning 26 PLAINTFF that no one would believe her if she reported his assaults. Flores also 27 threatened PLAINTIFF that he and/or his family would physically harm 28 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE PLAINTIFF'S family and her then-boyfriend, now husband if she revealed his abuse to any third person. 35. The sexual abuse occurred on the property owned and operated by the DEFENDANTS, to wit: the sexual abuse occurred in the rectory of DEFENDANT ST. PAUL and in the rectory of DEFENDANT IMMACULATE HEART where Flores had PLAINTIFF accompany him to stay overnight on at least one occasion. The sexual abuse also occurred in a cabin in a location unknown to PLAINTIFF. 36. 9 10 PLAINTIFF estimates the sexual abuse occurred on at least six occasions between 2001 and 2002. 37. In or around March of 2002, PLAINTIFF reported the sexual abuse to lawful civil authorities in Hanford, California. 12 38. charged with raping PLAINTIFF at DEFENDANT IMMACULATE HEART. 13 14 39. 40. Upon information and belief, employees and agents of DEFENDANT DIOCESE attended Flores'riminal trial in an effort to support Flores, not PLAINTIFF. 17 18 Upon information and belief, after a weeklong trial in August of 2002, a jury acquitted Flores of all charges. 15 16 Upon information and belief, in or around March of 2002, Flores was arrested and 41. Upon information and belief, at least one employee and/or agent of DEFENDANT 19 DIOCESE who attended Flores'riminal trial made statements to one of the 20 prosecution's witnesses, including asking her in a negative tone how she could 21 support PLAINTIFF over Flores. 22 42. 23 24 Upon information and belief, after his acquittal in August of 2002, DEFENDANT DIOCESE permitted Flores to return to active ministry in or around 2003. 43. Upon information and belief, in or around August of 2002, in a statement from Bill Lucido, an employee of DEFENDANT DIOCESE, DFFFNDANT DIOCESE said 26 Flores would undergo a spiritual renewal, where he would pray and receive 27 guidance from spiritual directors. 28 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE 44. Upon information and belief, Flores was not relieved of his pastoral duties nor did DEFENDANT DIOCESE seek his laicization. 45. The fact that DEFENDANT DIOCESE did not relieve Flores of his pastoral duties and did not seek his laicization was a condonation and ratification by DEFENDANT DIOCESE of Flores'exual abuse of PLAINTIFF. 46. Upon information and belief, in around the same period as stated in the above paragraph, August 2002, DEFENDANT DIOCESE also stated they would offer the victim and her family pastoral and professional counseling. 47. Upon information and belief, until June of 2019, DEFENDANT DIOCESE never offered pastoral or professional counseling to PLAINTIFF as they publicly stated 10 they would at the conclusion of Flores'riminal trial. 12 48. Upon information and belief, in or around March of 2019, DEFENDANT 13 DIOCESE announced Flores would be placed on leave after new allegations 14 surfaced about sexual assaults, he was alleged to have committed. 15 49. Upon information and belief, in the above-referenced March 2019 statement 16 DEFENDANT DIOCESE publicly admitted, "The current disclosure is considered 17 credible which gave cause to reopen a diocesan investigation into the matter." 50. In or around June of 2019, Teresa Dominguez, the Chancellor and Director of 19 Communications of DEFENDANT DIOCESE and thus an agent and employee of 20 DEFENDANT DIOCESE, contacted PLAINTIFF by telephone and verbally 21 apologized to PLAINTIFF for the sexual abuse she experienced at the hands of 22 Flores and subsequent criminal trial she endured as a child. 23 51. During the same phone call, Teresa Dominguez told PLAINTIFF that after a third- 24 party came forward, DEFENDANT DIOCESE determined PLAINTIFF'S 25 allegations of sexual abuse against Flores in vr around 2002 io bc crertible. 26 27 52. In the above-referenced conversation, Teresa Dominguez further expressed to PLAINTIFF that she regretted Flores couldn*t be re-tried in a criminal court, but 28 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE did offer to help PLAINTIFF access services, including counseling that they failed to offer her when she reported the sexual abuse in 2002. 53. The statements by Teresa Dominguez, an agent in a supervisory position within DEFENDANT DIOOCESE during the above-referenced phone call (f[ 50-52), constitutes an admission by DEFENDANT DIOCESE that Flores sexually abused PLAINTIFF when she was a minor. 54. Upon information and belief, at all tiines mentioned herein, DEFENDANT DIOCESE knew or should have known that children such as PLAINTIFF were present in parish rectories and offices for a variety of purposes, including counseling and work, such as PLAINTIFF. 10 55. Upon information and belief, prior to Flores'exual abuse of PLAINTIFF, rumors 12 had circulated in the surrounding community that Flores was having an 13 inappropriate relationship with an unidentified young female. 14 56. the unidentified young female on trips around the state of California. 15 16 Upon information and belief, these rumors included information about Flores taking 57. Upon information and belief, since at least 1950 through present, DEFENDANTS 17 knew the risk of sexual abuse of minor parishioners by priests and other staff 18 working in the DIOCESE. 19 58. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein and prior thereto, 20 DEFENDANTS knew that minors sexually abused in the Catholic Church would 21 suffer psychological and emotional injuries, as well as other damages. 22 59. Upon information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, DEFENDANTS aided 23 and abetted the concealment of criminal conduct by failing and refusing to report 24 allegations of child sexual abuse to appropriate California civil authorities. 25 60. employee of, and acting as an agent of DEFENDANTS. 26 27 28 Upon information and belief, at the time of the acts alleged herein, Flores was an 61. At all times relevant, Flores'exual abuse of PLAINTIFF was foreseeable to DEFENDANTS. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE 62. Despite this knowledge, DEFENDANTS failed to protect PLAINTIFF from sexual abuse, intimidation and harassment by Flores. 63. PLAINTIFF and her parents were not specifically and adequately warned by DEFENDANTS prior to PLAINTIFF'S sexual victimization about the dangers of being sexually abused in the Catholic Church by employees such as Flores. 64. PLAINTIFF and her parents were never informed by DEFENDANTS prior to PLAINTIFF'S sexual victimization about DEFENDANTS'ast knowledge of sexual abuse of clergy and staff within the Catholic Church. 65. As a direct result of the DEFENDANTS'onduct described herein, PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer immense pain of mind and body, shock, 10 emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, 12 loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; was 13 prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and 14 obtaining full enjoyment of life; and has incurred and will continue to incur 15 expenses for medical psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. 16 PLAINTIFF'S LAWSUIT IS TIMELY PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL 17 PROCEDURE 8 340.1 18 66. PLAINTIFF was a victim of childhood sexual assault perpetrated by an adult in a 19 position of authority and trust, Miguel Flores. PLAINTIFF'S lawsuit is timely 20 pursuant to the provision of Code of Civil Procedure 21 extended period of time for victims of childhood sexual assault to pursue their civil 22 claims against the perpetrator of the abuse as well as the perpetrator's employer. 23 67. Procedure 25 2019. 68. 340.1, which provides an PLAINTIFF'S lawsuit is timely pursuant to the amendment to the Code of Civil 24 26 tj tj 340.1 signed by the Governor of the state of California on October 13, Effective January 1, 2020, the amendment provides victims of childhood sexual 27 assault additional time to file a civil lawsuit. As of January I, 2020, Plaintiffs have 28 22 years from the date they reach the age of majority or within 5 years of the date COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE they discover or reasonably should have discovered that the psychological injury and illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual assault, whichever is later. 69. Further, the amendment provides for a three-year revival window beginning on January I, 2020 for expired claims against perpetrators, private organizations, and the government. 70. PLAINTIFF as alleged herein is under the age of 40 years old and as such is exempt from filing any certificates of merit. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE 10 (Against All DEFENDANTS) 12 71. forth herein. 13 14 72. 73. PLAINTIFF'S care, welfare, and/or physical custody was temporarily entrusted to DEFENDANTS during parish related activities while she was a minor. 17 18 DEFENDANTS owed minor PLAINTIFF a duty to protect her when she was entrusted to their care by PLAINTIFF'S parents. 15 16 PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs as if fully set 74. Upon information and belief, DEFENDANTS owed PLAINTIFF, a minor child, a 19 special duty of care, in addition to a duty of ordinary care, and owed PLAINTIFF 20 the higher duty of care that adults dealing with children owe to protect them from 21 harm. 22 75. DEFENDANTS by and through their agents, volunteers, servants, and employees, 23 knew or reasonably should have known of Flores'angerous and exploitive 24 propensities and/or that Flores was an unfit agent. 25 76. Upon intormation and belief, it was toreseeable that if DFFFNDANTs did not 26 adequately exercise or provide the duty of care owed to children in their care, 27 including but not limited to PLAINTIFF, the children entrusted in DEFENDANTS'are 28 would be vulnerable to sexual abuse by adults, Flores. 10 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM CHILDHOOD SEXUAL AIIUSE 77. DEFENDANTS breached their duty of care to the minor PLAINTIFF by allowing Flores to come into contact with PLAINTIFF without supervision; by failing to adequately hire, supervise, or retain Flores who they permitted and enabled to have access to PLAINTIFF; and by failing to appropriately investigate or otherwise confirm or deny such facts about Flores. 78. Thereby, DEFENDANTS enabled PLAINTIFF to continue to be endangered and sexually abused, and/or created the circumstances where PLAINTIFF was less likely to receive medical/mental health care and treatment, thus exacerbating the harm done to PLAINTIFF; and/or by holding out Flores to the PLAINTIFF and her parents as being in good standing and trustworthy. 10 79. DEFENDANTS cloaked within the fa9ade of normalcy DEFENDANTS'nd/or 12 Flores'ontact and/or actions with PLAINTIFF, and/or disguised the nature of the 13 sexual abuse and contact. 14 80. As a result of the above-described conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues 15 to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical 16 manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, 17 humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; was prevented and will continue to be 18 prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining full enjoyment of life; and 19 has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical psychological 20 treatment, therapy, and counseling. 21 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 22 NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND FAILURE TO WARN PLAINTIFF 23 (Against All DEFENDANTS) 24 81. 25 26 27 PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 82. DEFENDANTS had a duty to provide reasonable supervision of Flores; to use reasonable care in investigating Flores; and to provide adequate warning to 28 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF'S family, and minor parishioners of Flores'angerous propensities and unfitness. 83. DEFENDANTS, by and through their agents, volunteers, servants, and employees, knew or reasonably should have known that Flores was an unfit agent. 84. Despite such knowledge, DEFENDANTS negligently failed to supervise Flores in his position of trust and authority over minor parishioners, where he was able to commit the sexual abuse of PLAINTIFF. 85. Upon information and belief, DEFENDANTS failed to provide reasonable supervision of Flores, failed to use reasonable care in investigating Flores, and failed to provide adequate warning to PLAINTIFF and PLAINTIFF'S parents of 10 Flores'angerous propensities and unfitness. 12 86. abuse by Flores. 13 14 DEFENDANTS further failed to take reasonable measures to prevent future sexual 87. As a result of the above-described conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues 15 to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical 16 manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, 17 humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; was prevented and will continue to be 18 prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining full enjoyment of life; and 19 has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical psychological 20 treatment, therapy, and counseling. 21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 22 NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION 23 (Against All DEFENDANTS) 24 88. 25 26 27 PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 89. DEFENDANTS had a duty to not hire and/or retain Flores given his dangerous and exploitive propensities. 12 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE 90. DEFENDANTS, by and through their agents, volunteers, servants, and employees, knew or reasonably should have known of Flores'angerous and exploitive propensities and/or that he was an unfit agent. 91. Despite such knowledge, DEFENDANTS negligently hired and/or retained Flores in a position of trust and authority over minors, where he was able to commit the sexual abuse of PLAINTIFF. 92. DEFENDANTS failed to use reasonable care in investigating Flores and failed to provide adequate warning to PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF'S parents, and law enforcement of Flores'angerous propensities and unfitness. 10 93. DEFENDANTS further failed to take reasonable measures to prevent future sexual abuse. 12 94. As a result of the above-described conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues 13 to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical 14 manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, 15 humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; was prevented and will continue to be 16 prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining full enjoyment of life; and 17 has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical psychological 18 treatment, therapy, and counseling. 19 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 20 NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN. TRAIN. OR EDUCATE PLAINTIFF 21 (Against All DEFENDANTS) 22 95. 23 24 PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 96. DEFENDANTS breached their duty to take reasonable protective measures to 25 protect PLAINTIFF and other minor parishioners from the risk of childhood sexual 26 abuse by Flores, such as the failure to properly warn, train, or educate PLAINTIFF 27 and other minor parishioners about how to avoid such a risk, pursuant to Juarez v. 28 Boy Scouts ofAmerica, Inc., 97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 12, 81 Cal. App. 4'" 377 (2000). 13 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE 97. As a result of the above-described conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining full enjoyment of life; and has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION SEXUAL BATTERY (Against All DEFENDANTS) 10 98. forth herein. 12 13 PLAINTIFF hereby incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs as if fully set 99. On at least six occasions between approximately 2001 and 2002, Flores perpetrated 14 unpermitted, harmful, and offensive sexual abuse upon PLAINTIFF, and 15 DEFENDANTS ratified and/or approved of that sexual abuse. 16 100. As a result of the above-described conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered, and continues 17 to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical 18 manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, 19 humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life; was prevented and will continue to be 20 prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining full enjoyment of life; and 21 has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical psychological 22 treatment, therapy, and counseling. 23 24 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for damages; treble damages; costs; interest; 25 statutory and civil penalties according to Iaw; and such other relief as the court deems 26 appropriate and just. 27 28 I4 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE JURY DEMAND PLAINTIFF demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. PAUL MONES, P.C. Dated: January 28, 2020 By: i~ATones / Courtney Kiehl f Attorneys for PLAINTIFF 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES ARISING FROM CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE