20STCV06040
Assigned for all purposes to: Spring Street Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Laura Seigle

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/13/2020 02:25 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Barel,Deputy Clerk

1 Anthony M. De Marco, [SBN: 189153]
anthony@demarcolawfirm.com
2 LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY DEMARCO
650 Sierra Madre Villa Avenue
3
Suite 203
4 Pasadena, California 91107
Tel: 626-844-7700
5
Attorney for Plaintiff,
6

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY M. DEMARCO
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

7
8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

10
11 JOHN NS DOE. an Individual,
12
13

Case No.:

Plaintiff,
v.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

14 DEFENDANT DOE 1; AND DOES 2 through
100, inclusive,
15
Defendants.
16

1. CHILDHOOD SEXUAL
ABUSE/SEXUAL ASSAULT
2. NEGLIGENCE

17
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

18
19
20
21
22

Based upon information and belief available to Plaintiffs at the time of the filing of this
Complaint, Plaintiff makes the following allegations:

23
24
25
26
27
28

1.

Plaintiff was sexually molested as a child by Father Jeffrey Newell. Father Newell

began sexually molesting Plaintiff in approximately 1993, when Plaintiff was approximately 13
years old. The abuse continued for years and included the priest routinely sodomizing the boy.
DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) allowed Father Jeffrey Newell to work as a parish priest
in both Mexico and the Santa Barbara region after purporting to remove Newell from ministry
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1 because of his sexual abuse of a minor. It was through this work that he abused the trust and
2 reverence of Plaintiff and his family and repeatedly sexually assaulted him.
3

2.

In 1990, Jeffrey David Newell was ordained a priest of DEFENDANT DOE 1

4 (ARCHDIOCESE). In September of 1991, the Vicar for Clergy of DEFENDANT DOE 1 met
5 with a young man who complained that when he was a minor, and Jeffrey Newell was a Seminary
6 student, that Newell had sexually abused him. The Vicar for Clergy discouraged the victim from
7 reporting the crime to law enforcement and instead promised the victim that Newell would be
8 removed from the priesthood. Father Newell was removed from his assignment at St Raphael’s

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY M. DEMARCO
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

9 Catholic Church in Goleta and sent to St. Luke’s Institute in Maryland for treatment; a step
10 DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) has historically taken when it finds allegations of sexual
11 assault of a minor by a priest are credible. DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE), however,
12 placed Father Newell back in parish ministry at St. Raphael’s in 1992. Upon his return to St.
13 Raphael’s, Father Newell, again, put great emphasis on his ministry to minors and especially to
14 children of nearby Spanish-speaking farmworkers.
15

3.

In 1993, Father Jeffrey Newell created a California religious non-profit corporation

16 called “A Few Minutes of Prayer in the Home.” Newell has operated this religious business
17 continuously since 1993. Newell has served as the director of this company and is designated as
18 the registered agent for service of process; the address for that service is a home in Simi Valley.
19 Newell also established and continues to operate Pith Press which publishes and distributes
20 liturgical readings. Since 1994, Father Newell has published a newsletter called “The Prayer
21 Times,” in addition to maintaining a website for his Catholic business and distribution. The Prayer
22 Times receives its mail in San Ysidro, California, through his California corporation. To this day,
23 Newell remains a priest of DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE); he remains incardinated in
24 DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE). As such, pursuant to the rules and regulations of
25 DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) and the Roman Catholic Church, DEFENDANT DOE
26 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) retains control over the ministry of Father Newell in all its forms.
27

4.

Starting in or around 1993, Newell began performing parish ministry in Tijuana,

28 Mexico with the permission of DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE). This despite the fact
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1 that DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) purported to remove Father Newell from parish
2 ministry because of his sexual molestation of minor(s) and complaints regarding that molestation.
3 For many years Father Newell, under an alias, has also directed, operated, and hosted a regular
4 radio broadcast called “Koinonía Radio”. These broadcasts are subsidized by the Catholic church
5 and are heard in Tijuana, Mexico and Southern California. For these broadcasts, Father Newell
6 goes by the alias “Father Jeffrey David”.
7

5.

In 2008, DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) first listed Father Jeffrey

8 Newell has having been accused of sexually molesting a child. In that same listing, DEFENDANT

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY M. DEMARCO
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

9 DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) listed Father Newell’s status as a practicing priest as being on “inactive
10 leave.” DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE), however, was well aware that Father Jeffrey
11 Newell continued, with its permission, to perform parish ministry in Tijuana, Mexico in addition
12 to continued operation of his religious ministry, publishing, and broadcast businesses in California,
13 Tijuana, and Arizona.
14

6.

In 2010, an earlier victim of child sexual assault by Father Newell filed a lawsuit

15 against DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) for fraud. In the lawsuit the Plaintiff alleged
16 DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) falsely promised the victim in the 1990’s and in the
17 early 2000’s that Father Newell would be removed from the priesthood or had been removed.
18

7.

In December of 2018, DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE), again, listed

19 Newell as having been accused of sexually molesting a minor. DEFENDANT DOE 1 still
20 indicates that Father Newell is on “inactive leave;” giving the public the false impression that
21 Father Newell is not working as a priest. Yet DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) is still
22 well aware of Father Newell’s continued parish ministry in Tijuana and his continued operation of
23 religious ministry, publishing, and broadcasting activities in California, Arizona and Mexico.
24
25
26

BACKGROUND FACTS
8.

In 1985, Archbishop Roger Mahony attended a United States Conference of

27 Catholic Bishops (USCCB) meeting at which a report by Father Thomas Doyle and others was
28 presented detailing an epidemic of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests and the need for Dioceses
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1 and Archdioceses across the country to take immediate action to protect children.
2

9.

From 1980-1989, as a direct result of the child sexual assault committed upon

3 Plaintiff by Father Newell–and vicariously by DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE)–
4 DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) acknowledged that it had received multiple complaints
5 that not less than 22 of its priests had sexually molested children.
6

10.

In 1989, DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE), reduced to writing its policies

7 for the prevention of child molestation by its priests. The policies were provided to all priests of
8 DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) and were included in the annual priests’ handbook. The

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY M. DEMARCO
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

9 written “Policy on Sexual Abuse by a Priest” was, however, not given to members and staff of the
10 Church who were not clergy, including those who worked with youth for DEFENDANT DOE 1
11 (ARCHDIOCESE). The policy prohibited priests from (1) having minors in their living quarters;
12 (2) taking minors on unchaperoned outings; (3) tickling, wrestling, kissing or hugging minors.
13 DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE), and any or all of its subsidiaries, made no concerted
14 effort to educate or train parish-level agents who worked with or had responsibilities over children
15 on behalf of Defendants, as to its well established policies for prevention, detection or reporting
16 of priest misconduct of the molestation of minors.
17

11.

In 1990, Father Jeffrey Newell was ordained a Catholic priest of DEFENDANT

18 DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE).

In 1990, he was assigned by DEFENDANT DOE 1

19 (ARCHDIOCESE) to be an associate pastor at St. Raphael’s Catholic Church in Goleta, California,
20 near Santa Barbara. Soon after his arrival, Father Newell began recruiting Spanish-speaking youth
21 to church youth groups. In 1991, Father Newell was removed from ministry because of a
22 complaint that implicated him of child molestation. Upon concluding that the complaint of
23 molestation made against Father Newell was, in fact, credible, DEFENDANT DOE 1
24 (ARCHDIOCESE) sent him to St. Luke’s Institute in Maryland for treatment. In 1992,
25 DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) returned Father Newell to active parish ministry at St.
26 Raphael’s Catholic church in Goleta, California. A team of individuals at the parish were tasked
27 with monitoring his activities with minors. Upon Newell’s return from St. Luke’s, he immediately
28 resumed his work with the Church’s youth ministries, specifically recruiting the children of
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1 Spanish-speaking farmworkers from the area for his youth groups. In 1993, after issues involving
2 his interactions with minors continued to cause concern, DEFENDANT DOE 1
3 (ARCHDIOCESE) permitted Father Newell to split his ministry as a priest between Tijuana and
4 California.
5

12.

Between 1990 and 1994, DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) acknowledged

6 having received complaints that 18 more of its priests had sexually molested minors.
7

13.

In 1994, DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) updated its policy for the

8 prevention of child sexual abuse by priests. The update required that any priest who became aware

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY M. DEMARCO
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

9 or suspicious of a fellow priest violating the policy, to confront the priest about his inappropriate
10 behavior(s) and to report the violations to the Vicar for Clergy of DEFENDANT DOE 1
11 (ARCHDIOCESE). The updated policies continued to prohibit priests from having minors in the
12 priest living quarters, wrestling with minors, tickling minors, hugging minors and taking minors
13 on unchaperoned outings. The policies continued to be given, annually, to all priests working
14 within the jurisdiction of DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE). Defendants continued their
15 practice of only communicating these policies to priests. Defendants upheld their practice of not
16 communicating these policies to parish-level agents and not providing similar training to its non17 clergy agents on how to address incidents of child sexual abuse for the safety and welfare of the
18 children with whom they were entrusted.
19

14.

The sad truth, however, is that children who have been molested by Catholic priests,

20 are often the children of the families most involved with the parish and with the priest. This is
21 how the priest gains the access and trust that are then manipulated to the pedophile priests’
22 unnatural sexual desires. Counseling the teens regarding normal issues can turn to counseling
23 regarding their changing bodies and about sex. A reassuring touch or kindness by the perpetrator,
24 moves to more touching, hugs, long looks, soft words, and caresses. As the victim’s inhibitions
25 are lowered, the trusted moral and religious authority leads the teen further to touches that are more
26 intimate and pleasurable. Confused by conflicting emotions, the victims often reach a point where
27 they do not believe they can tell anyone of the conduct because the youths fear being branded, fear
28 the loss of privacy, fear they will be blamed for allowing the conduct, fear being condemned or
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1 labeled, fear they or their family will be cast out of the religious community and religion they are
2 so intimately involved in, fear the loss of faith their parents will feel, or the loss of trust parents
3 will feel in them. The child is further paralyzed and imprisoned when the perpetrator, a respected
4 revered and loved Catholic priest–the center of the community–utilizes his position to rally the
5 adults and children of the parish to support him.
6

15.

By the mid 1990’s, DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE), was well aware of

7 the epidemic of its priests sexually molesting minors and of the activities by those priests which
8 served to silence victims. Because of this knowledge, DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE)

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY M. DEMARCO
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

9 publicly purported to implement a policy of informing parish communities whenever a priest had
10 been accused of molesting minors. Despite this policy, DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE)
11 never informed any of the parish communities that Father Newell had served that he had been
12 accused of sexually assaulting a minor(s).
13

16.

In 2011, Jose Gomez was appointed Archbishop of DEFENDANT DOE 1

14 (ARCHDIOCESE).
15

17.

In 2013, DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) was forced by court order to

16 officially release to the public tens of thousands of pages of personnel files regarding its priests
17 who had been accused or convicted of molesting children. These files documented decades worth
18 of complaints made to DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) regarding child sexual assaults
19 by its priests as well as DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE)’s concerted efforts to cover-up
20 those priests’ sexually explicit actions and to keep any allegations or instances of child sexual
21 abuse from within its ranks hidden from the Catholic community, law enforcement, and the public
22 at large. The same day in which DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) released those files by
23 publishing them on its website, a document titled Final Addendum to the Report to the People of
24 God was included; surreptitiously buried in the thousands of pages that were released. The
25 document, however, was dated October 2008.

In that document, DEFENDANT DOE 1

26 (ARCHDIOCESE) listed Father Jeffrey Newell as having at least one credible allegation of child
27 sexual abuse made against him. DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) has not retained any
28 records pertaining to the complaint that resulted in Father Newell’s name being listed on the 2008
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1 report. The 2008 list makes no reference as to the timing of the complaint against Father Newell,
2 or when the abuse was alleged to occur.
3

18.

In December 2018, Archbishop Jose H. Gomez of DEFENDANT DOE 1

4 (ARCHDIOCESE), publicly announced, "that every case of child sexual abuse is one too many, a
5 crime committed against an innocent soul, a sin that cries to heaven for justice, reparation, and
6 healing;" assuring his faithful Catholic followers that he stands behind the victims of sexual abuse
7 by priests and he has given his full support in the favor of sexual abuse survivors and the people
8 who trust him.

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY M. DEMARCO
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

PARTIES
19.

Plaintiff JOHN NS DOE was approximately 13 years old when the sexual assaults

12 by Father Newell began. Father Newell continued to sexually assault Plaintiff for several years.
13 Father Newell met Plaintiff while performing parish ministry as a Catholic priest in Tijuana,
14 Mexico. Father Newell transported Plaintiff to California and had him stay with him in Simi
15 Valley, California while Father Newell performed ministry as a Catholic priest in the region.
16 Father Newell also brought Plaintiff to St. Raphael’s Catholic Church in Goleta, California.
17 Plaintiff was approximately 13 year sold when Father Jeffrey Newell commenced his sexual
18 assaults upon Plaintiff while working at St. Raphael’s Catholic Church. Plaintiff is a resident of
19 Los Angeles county, California.
20

20.

DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) is a religious corporation sole authorized

21 to conduct business and conducts business in the State of California, with its principal place of
22 business in Los Angeles County, California. DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) has
23 responsibility for Roman Catholic Church operations in Los Angeles County, Ventura County,
24 and Santa Barbara County, California. DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) is the Catholic
25 Diocese in which the sexual abuse of Plaintiff occurred. Plaintiff, at all times relevant, was under
26 the care and control of DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESES) agent Father Jefferey Newell.
27 From 1993 onward other agents of DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) including priests
28 were aware Father Newell had custody and control of the minor Plaintiff. That the minor Plaintiff
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1 was living with Father Newell, was travelling alone with Father Newell and was accompanying
2 Father Newell as he conducted ministry with and on behalf of DEFENDANT DOE 1
3 (ARCHDIOCESE). This despite the fact DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) already had
4 strict policies that forbade priests like Father Newell from having any minor travelling alone with
5 them, precisely because it raised the serious concern that sexual abuse of the minor by the priest
6 was occurring.

At all times relevant, Father Jeffrey Newell was a priest incardinated in

7 DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE). Father Jeffrey Newell was a priest, employee and an
8 agent of DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) at all times relevant when he met Plaintiff and

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY M. DEMARCO
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

9 Plaintiff’s’ family and while the sexual abuse of Plaintiff was occurring. DEFENDANT DOE 1
10 (ARCHDIOCESE), at all times relevant, employed, supervised, and controlled the employment of
11 Father Jeffrey Newell as a priest, as well as all other employees and agents of St. Raphael’s
12 Catholic Church in Goleta, California.
13

21.

Defendant Does 2 through 100, inclusive, are individuals and/or business or

14 corporate private or public entities incorporated in and/or doing business in California, whose true
15 names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues such Defendants by such
16 fictitious names, and who will amend the Complaint to show the true names and capacities of each
17 such Doe Defendants when ascertained. Each such Defendant Doe is legally responsible in some
18 manner for the events, happenings and/or tortious and unlawful conduct that caused the injuries
19 and damages alleged in this Complaint.
20

22.

Defendants the DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) and Does 2 through 100,

21 are herein referred to as the “Defendants.”
22

23.

Each Defendant is the agent, servant and/or employee of other Defendants, and

23 each Defendant was acting within the course and scope of his, her or its authority as an agent,
24 servant and/or employee of the other Defendants. Defendants, and each of them, are individuals,
25 corporations, alter egos and partnerships of each other and other entities which engaged in, joined
26 in and conspired with the other wrongdoers in carrying out the tortious and unlawful activities
27 described in this Complaint, and Defendants, each of them, ratified the acts of the other Defendants
28 as described in this Complaint.
8

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2

CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE/SEXUAL ASSAULT

3

(All Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

4

24.

Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

5

25.

Defendants are vicariously liable for the child sexual assault committed upon

6 Plaintiff by Father Jeffrey Newell: 1) The Defendants authorized the wrongful conduct; 2) The
7 Defendants ratified the wrongful conduct.
8

26.

For the reasons set forth in the incorporated paragraphs of this Complaint, the

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY M. DEMARCO
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

9 sexual abuse of Plaintiff by Father Jeffrey Newell arose from, was incidental to, Father Newell’s
10 employment with Defendants, and each of these Defendants ratified or approved of Father
11 Newell’s sexual abuse of minors, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief
12 that Defendants ratified and/or approved of the sexual misconduct by failing to adequately
13 investigate, discharge, discipline or supervise Father Newell or other priests known by Defendants
14 to have sexually abused children, or to have been accused of sexually abusing children.
15 Defendants and each of them ratified Father Newell’s abuse by concealing evidence of sexual
16 abuse of other children by Father Newell and other priests from Plaintiffs, Plaintiff’s parents, other
17 families with children, law enforcement, and personnel of Defendants who could have been in a
18 position to prevent the abuse of Plaintiffs and others if they had known of complaints of Father
19 Newell’s sexual abuse of children, and prior complaints of other priests of sexual abuse of children.
20

27.

The risk of abuse of a Catholic priest’s authority, the risk of misuse of church,

21 parish and school resources, facilities, rituals, procedures and responsibilities, and the risk of
22 misuse of access to young, vulnerable children, and their families all to allow them to commit
23 sexual abuse upon children, are, and have been for decades, risks known to the officers and
24 directors of Defendants who have enacted policies and procedures, prior to Plaintiff’s molestation
25 by Father Newell, to address such conduct and its consequences. The central tenets of the policies
26 and procedures of Defendants was the avoidance of scandal, secrecy and loyalty to fellow clergy,
27 including child molesting clergy, rather than the protection of the safety of children.
28

28.

Defendants have routinely over the years failed to discipline, investigate or
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1 terminate known child molesting priests. Instead, Defendants condoned the conduct of priests
2 molesting children by protecting offending clerics from public scorn and civil authorities, often
3 transferring them from town to town, county to county, state to state, and country to country, all
4 to allow child molesting priests to escape prosecution and protect their reputations, as well as the
5 reputation of the Defendants. By doing so, Defendants have systematically encouraged and
6 condoned this conduct by more priests including, Father Newell.
7

29.

In the present action, after learning of the first complaint against Father Newell in

8 1991, DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) has shielded Father Newell, by falsely claiming

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY M. DEMARCO
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

9 to his earlier victim that he had been removed from ministry and discouraging that victim from
10 reporting their abuse to law enforcement. Thereafter, and to the present, DEFENDANT DOE 1
11 (ARCHDIOCESE) has falsely represented to that victim and to the Catholic community
12 DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) serves that Father Newell is out of ministry, all the
13 while knowing that Father Newell, sometimes under an alias of Father Jeffrey David has continued
14 his ministry for and on behalf of DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) and other Catholic
15 organizations.
16

30.

DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) has taken no steps to remove Father

17 Newell from ministry, which can only be done by the formal process of laicization, which
18 DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) is authorized to initiate since Father Newell is still
19 incardinated with DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE).
20

31.

As a direct result of the child sexual assault committed upon Plaintiff by Father

21 NEWELL and vicariously by DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE), Plaintiff has suffered,
22 and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical
23 manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation,
24 and loss of enjoyment of life; were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing
25 Plaintiff’s daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; and/or has incurred and will
26 continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.
27 ///
28 ///
10

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2

NEGLIGENCE

3

(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

4

32.

Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

5

33.

Defendants had a duty to protect the minor Plaintiff when he was entrusted to their

6 care by Plaintiff’s parents. Plaintiff’s care, welfare, and/or physical custody were temporarily
7 entrusted to Defendants, and Defendants accepted the entrusted care of Plaintiff. As such,
8 Defendants owed Plaintiff, a minor child, a special duty of care, in addition to a duty of ordinary

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY M. DEMARCO
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

9 care, and owed Plaintiff the higher duty of care that adults dealing with children owe to protect
10 them from harm.
11

34.

Father Jeffrey Newell was able, by virtue of his unique authority and position as a

12 Roman Catholic Priest, to identify vulnerable victims and their families upon which he could
13 perform such sexual abuse; to manipulate his authority to procure compliance with his sexual
14 demands from his victims; to induce the victims to continue to allow the abuse; and to coerce them
15 not to report it to any other persons or authorities. As a priest, Father Jeffrey Newell had unique
16 access to families like Plaintiff. Father Jeffrey Newell’s access, authority and reverence was
17 known to the Defendants and encouraged by them. Father Newell used his authority and position
18 as a Roman Catholic Priest to sexually abuse Plaintiff and other minors.
19

35.

Defendants, by and through their agents, servants and employees, knew or

20 reasonably should have known of Father Newell’s dangerous and exploitive propensities and/or
21 that Father Newell was an unfit agent. It was foreseeable that if Defendants did not adequately
22 exercise or provide the duty of care owed to children in their care, including but not limited to the
23 Plaintiff, then the children entrusted to Defendants’ care would be vulnerable to sexual abuse by
24 Father Newell.
25

36.

Defendants breached their duty of care to the minor Plaintiff by allowing Father

26 Newell to come into contact with the minor Plaintiff without supervision; by failing to adequately
27 supervise, or negligently retaining Father Newell who they permitted and enabled to have access
28 to Plaintiff; by failing to investigate or otherwise confirm or deny such facts about Father Newell;
11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1 by failing to tell or concealing from Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s’ parents, guardians, or law enforcement
2 officials that Father Newell was or may have been sexually abusing minors; and/or by holding out
3 Father Newell to the Plaintiff and his parents or guardians as being in good standing and
4 trustworthy. As a priest, Father Newell was expected to minister to parish families. Defendants
5 acknowledged and expect that parish priests should visit parishioners’ homes as part of their duties
6 as priests. Father Newell visited family homes like Plaintiff’s as part of his expected functions.
7 Defendants cloaked within the facade of normalcy Defendants’ and/or Father Newell’s contact
8 and/or actions with the Plaintiff and/or with other minors who were victims of Father Newell,

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY M. DEMARCO
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

9 and/or disguised the nature of the sexual abuse and contact.
10

37.

Defendants had a duty to educate, train and warn Plaintiff, and other minors

11 involved in youth programs at St. Raphael’s in Goleta and every other parish and Catholic religious
12 organization Father Newell worked, regarding prevention, detection and reporting of child abuse
13 so as to help safeguard Plaintiff and other participants from being sexually abused by priests and
14 other adults associated with those programs. Defendants had a duty to educate, train and warn
15 parents and adult agents of Defendants and other employees that had regular contact with or
16 oversight of minors in Defendants schools and youth programs regarding prevention, detection
17 and reporting of child abuse so as to help safeguard Plaintiff and other minors from being sexually
18 abused in those schools and programs. No such education was given Plaintiff or other minors in
19 Defendants’ schools and youth programs prior to Father Newell’s abuse of Plaintiff. This, despite
20 the fact that such written policies were created not later than 1989 and transmitted to all priests
21 working in the DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE).
22

38.

DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) made a conscious decision to only

23 provide those written policies to priests, and to not provide access to those policies to the multitude
24 of non-priest parish and school staff, volunteers, parents or children in Defendants’ schools and
25 youth programs. If those policies had been communicated to parish and school and employees
26 and agents responsible for youth programs at St. Raphael’s Catholic Church and each of Father
27 Newell’s other church assignments, those persons would have known DEFENDANT DOE 1
28 (ARCHDIOCESE) forbade the sort of suspicious conduct Father Newell was routinely engaging
12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1 in with underage boys, and that such conduct created a suspicion of abuse, and that the
2 DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) expected that such conduct would be reported up the
3 chain of command. The suspicious conduct engaged in by Father Newell with teen boys that was
4 witnessed by parish staff, adult youth group leaders and priests at St. Raphael’s and each of the
5 other church assignments Father Newell had included but was not limited to his unchaperoned
6 trips with Plaintiff and other minors, his having Plaintiff residing alone with him, his having other
7 minors alone with him.
8

39.

Many of the parish staff persons who witnessed Father Newell’s suspicious conduct

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY M. DEMARCO
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

9 were mandated reporters by virtue of their positions working with children at St. Raphael’s and
10 other of his church assignment. Many of those parish staff who were mandated reporters suspected
11 Father Newell was abusing minors but did not report their suspicions to law enforcement because
12 none of the Defendants informed those persons that they were mandated reporters as is required
13 by California Penal Code §11165.7. Defendants violation of the requirements of Penal Code
14 §11165.7 as well as Penal Code §11166 constitutes negligence per se and was a proximate cause
15 of the abuse of each Plaintiff.
16

40.

DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) since at least the 1970’s had a policy

17 and expectation that all parish workers and staff that had suspicions a priest might be sexually
18 abusing minors should report those concerns up the chain of command.

This policy and

19 expectation however was not reduced to writing, and was not uniformly communicated to parish
20 and school workers until the 2000’s.
21

41.

The epidemic of priests sexually molesting minors has long been known to

22 Defendants. Hundreds of Catholic priests in the DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) alone
23 have been accused of molesting children in the years leading up to Father Newell’s molestation of
24 Plaintiff and other minors. The DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) in the 1950’s, 1960’s,
25 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s received a multitude of complaints that its priests had sexually abused
26 minors. DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) like other Catholic institutions around the
27 country and world adhered to a policy of keeping those complaints secret, moving priests to other
28 unsuspecting parishes or communities, of not investigating complaints and of taking steps to
13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1 silence victims and their families. DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) during this time
2 period routinely developed a practice and policy of sending such accused priests to therapists loyal
3 to the Defendant or other Catholic Institutions for therapy who would not make mandated reports
4 of child sexual abuse and therefore allow the priests to be recycled back into further church
5 assignments, endangering countless more children. In 2002 and 2003, more than 700 victims filed
6 lawsuits against the DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) alleging child sexual abuse by
7 Catholic clergy serving in DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE) 's jurisdiction. Settlements
8 in excess of 700 million were reached for those victims between 2004 and 2007.

LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY M. DEMARCO
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

9

42.

As a direct result of the child sexual assault committed upon Plaintiff by Father

10 Newell and vicariously by DEFENDANT DOE 1 (ARCHDIOCESE), Plaintiff has suffered, and
11 continue to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations
12 of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of
13 enjoyment of life; were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing Plaintiff’s
14 daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; and/or has incurred and will continue to
15 incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.
16
17

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for compensatory damages; treble damages pursuant to

18 Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.1(b); and such other statutory damages, fees and costs and
19 other relief as the court deems appropriate and just.
20
21
22

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues so triable.

23
24 DATED: February 13, 2020

LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY M. DEMARCO

25
26
27
28

By:

/s/ Anthony M. De Marco
ANTHONY M. DE MARCO
Attorney for Plaintiff
14

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES