You are on page 1of 11

STATE OF MINNESOTA

DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
____________________________________
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Case Type: Personal Injury
John Doe 100, Court File No. 62-CV-13-4273

Plaintiff,

Honorable John B. VanDeNorth, Jr.
vs.

Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis,


AMENDED COMPLAINT


Defendant.
____________________________________

Plaintiff, for his cause of action against Defendant, alleges as follows:
1. Plaintiff John Doe 100 is currently a resident of the State of California.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff resided in the State of Minnesota.
The identity of Plaintiff John Doe 100 has been disclosed under separate cover to
Defendant.
2. At all times material, Defendant Archdiocese of St. Paul and
Minneapolis ("Archdiocese") was and continues to be an organization or entity,
which includes, but is not limited to, civil corporations, decision making entities,
officials, and employees, authorized to conduct business and conducting business
in the State of Minnesota with its principal place of business at 226 Summit
Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102. The Archbishop is the top official of the
Archdiocese and is given authority over all maters within the Archdiocese as a
result of his position. The Archdiocese functions as a business by engaging in
Filed in Second J udicial District Court
10/2/2013 10:27:03 AM
Ramsey County Civil, MN
Filed in Second J udicial District Court
10/2/2013 10:27:03 AM
Ramsey County Civil, MN
62-CV-13-4273 62-CV-13-4273
numerous revenue producing activities and soliciting money from its members in
exchange for its services. The Archdiocese has several programs, which seek out
the participation of children in the Archdiocese's activities.
The Archdiocese, through its officials, has control over those activities involving
children. The Archdiocese has the power to appoint, supervise, monitor, and fire
each person working with children within the Archdiocese.
3. At all times material, Father Thomas S. Stitts (hereinafter Fr. Stitts)
was a Roman Catholic Priest ordained in 1962 and employed by Defendant
Archdiocese. At all times material, Fr. Stitts remained under the direct
supervision, employ and control of Defendant Archdiocese, who placed Fr. Stitts
in positions where he had access to and worked with children.
FACTS
4. From 1962 through 1985, Fr. Stitts was employed by Defendant
Archdiocese.
5. In approximately 1965 or 1966, Archbishop Leo Binz and/or Coadjutor
Archbishop Leo Byrne and archdiocesan supervisors learned or should have
learned that Fr. Stitts had been sexually inappropriate with altar boys at Our Lady
of Grace Catholic Church in Edina, Minnesota.
6. In approximately 1968 through 1970, or before this date, Archbishop
Leo Binz and/or Coadjutor Archbishop Leo Byrne and archdiocesan supervisors
learned or should have learned that Fr. Stitts was sexually inappropriate with
several boys at Guardian Angels Catholic Church (now known as St. Elizabeth
62-CV-13-4273 62-CV-13-4273
Ann Seton Catholic Church) in Hastings, Minnesota, after mass and in the church
rectory.
7. In approximately September of 1970, Defendant Archdiocese placed Fr.
Stitts at St. Leos Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Fr. Stitts was under the
supervision and control of Defendant Archdiocese while Fr. Stitts served at St.
Leos parish.
8. In approximately 1971, or before this date, Archbishop Leo Binz and/or
Coadjutor Archbishop Leo Byrne and archdiocesan supervisors learned or should
have learned that Fr. Stitts been sexually inappropriate with boys, other than the
Plaintiff, at St. Leos Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.
9. Even after these incidents of sexual misconduct at St. Leos and the
prior sexual misconduct that took place at Our Lady of Grace and Guardian
Angels, Defendant Archdiocese continued to allow Fr. Stitts access to children.
Children, including Plaintiff, and their families were not told what Defendant
Archdiocese knew or should have known that Fr. Stitts had been sexually
inappropriate with boys in the prior parishes in which he served and that Fr. Stitts
was a danger to them.
10. The Archdiocese knew or should have known that Fr. Stitts was a
child molester and knew or should have known that Fr. Stitts was a danger to
children before sexually abusing Plaintiff.
11. In or around the year 1971, and continuing thereafter, Fr. Stitts engaged
in child sexual abuse of Plaintiff. The sexual contact and/or acts constituted or
62-CV-13-4273 62-CV-13-4273
would have constituted a criminal offense under the criminal statutes in the State
of Minnesota. Said abuse continued during times that Plaintiff was participating in
parish activities with Fr. Stitts. Fr. Stitts groomed Plaintiff under false pretenses
for the purpose of isolating and sexually abusing him. Fr. Stitts sexual abuse of
Plaintiff took a variety of forms. Said abuse included, but was not limited to,
hugging, fondling (over and under clothing), sexual humping and molesting
Plaintiffs genitals. The abuse escalated to the point that Fr. Stitts coerced and
forced Plaintiff to be naked while he exposed his genitalia and rubbed his exposed
genitalia on Plaintiff until Fr. Stitts ejaculated.
12. At all times material hereto, Defendant Archdiocese represented to
Plaintiff, his parents and the general public that Defendant Archdiocese provided a
safe, religious, wholesome and protected environment for children.
13. Defendant Archdiocese promoted services and programs under the
guise that they provided a safe, wholesome and protected environment for
children, all the while knowing that Defendant Archdiocese attracted, harbored
and had been infiltrated by child predators.
14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Archdiocese knew or
should have known that children, in particular Plaintiff, were vulnerable to the
grooming, manipulation, and sexual exploitation referenced herein by perpetrators
such as Fr. Stitts. Defendants were in a special custodial relationship with children,
including Plaintiff, and knew or should have known that by allowing the
perpetrators to serve unsupervised amidst these particularly vulnerable children,
62-CV-13-4273 62-CV-13-4273
they were creating an unreasonable risk that said vulnerable and highly trusting
children, including Plaintiff would fall victim to perpetrators like Fr. Stitts.
15. At all times material hereto, Defendant Archdiocese had a practice
and pattern of harboring child abusers, like Fr. Stitts, and protecting their
identities, thereby exposing unwitting parents and their vulnerable children to
further harm at the hand of said abusers.
16. At all times material hereto, Fr. Stitts was an agent, assign, and/or
was the responsibility or under the control, of the Defendant Archdiocese. Rather
than taking reasonable and proper steps to protect children against sexual abuse,
Defendant Archdiocese engaged in a pattern and practice of shuttling perpetrators,
and specifically Fr. Stitts to different parishes and locations.
17. At all times material hereto, Defendant Archdiocese through a
hierarchical pattern of deceit, protected perpetrators like Fr. Stitts from being
exposed for pedophilia and other wrongful conduct with minor children, including
Plaintiff and enabled them to continue to harm Plaintiff and other children.
Although the sexual abuse alleged herein occurred at different times and different
locations, the harm caused to Plaintiff herein arose from the actions of Defendant
Archdiocese in accordance with its long standing policies and procedures in hiding
evidence of instances of child sexual abuse in Catholic churches and schools under
its jurisdiction, and as such the attacks on the Plaintiff herein arose out of the same
series of occurrences and/or transactions. Common questions of law and fact exist
in the claims of the Plaintiff.
62-CV-13-4273 62-CV-13-4273
18. Defendant Archdiocese owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care
because the Archdiocese had a duty to Plaintiff to protect Plaintiff from harm.
19. Defendant Archdioceses breach of its duties includes but is not limited
to: failure to have sufficient policies and procedures to prevent child sex abuse,
failure to properly implement the policies and procedures to prevent child sex
abuse, failure to take reasonable measures to make sure that the policies and
procedures to prevent child sex abuse were working, failure to adequately inform
families and children of the risks of child sex abuse, failure to investigate risks of
child molestation, failure to properly train the workers at institutions and programs
within each Defendant's geographical confines, failure to have any outside agency
test its safety procedures, failure to protect the children in their programs from
child sex abuse, failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care for child safety,
failure to investigate the amount and type of information necessary to represent the
institutions, programs, and leaders and people as safe and failure to train its
employees properly to identify signs of child molestation by fellow employees.
20. Defendant Archdiocese failed to use ordinary care in determining
whether its facilities were safe and/or to determine whether it had sufficient
information to represent its facilities as safe. Defendants failures include but are
not limited to: failure to have sufficient policies and procedures to prevent abuse at
its facilities, failure to investigate risks at its facilities, failure to properly train the
workers at its facilities, failure to have any outside agency test its safety
procedures, failure to investigate the amount and type of information necessary to
62-CV-13-4273 62-CV-13-4273
represent its facilities as safe, failure to train its employees properly to identify
signs of child molestation by fellow employees, failure by relying upon mental
health professionals, failure by relying upon people who claimed that they could
treat child molesters.
21. Defendant Archdiocese also failed to use ordinary care in supervising
its employee Fr. Stitts to prevent Fr. Stitts from committing foreseeable acts of
sexual abuse while he was acting within the course and scope of his employment
with the Defendant Archdiocese.
22. Defendant Archdiocese also breached its duties to Plaintiff by failing to
warn him and his family of the risk that Fr. Stitts posed and the risks of child
sexual abuse by clerics. It also failed to warn him about any of the knowledge that
Defendant had about child sex abuse.
23. Defendant Archdiocese also breached its duties to Plaintiff by failing to
report Fr. Stitt's abuse of children to the police and law enforcement.
24. Defendant Archdiocese knew or should have known that some of the
leaders and people working at Catholic institutions within the Archdiocese were
not safe.
25. Defendant Archdiocese knew or should have known that it did not have
sufficient information about whether or not its leaders and people working at
Catholic institutions within the Archdiocese were safe.
62-CV-13-4273 62-CV-13-4273
26. Defendant Archdiocese knew or should have known that there was a
risk of child sex abuse for children participating in Catholic programs and
activities within the Archdiocese.
27. Defendant Archdiocese knew or should have known that it had
numerous agents who had sexually molested children. It knew or should have
known that child molesters have a high rate of recidivism. It knew or should have
known that there was a specific danger of child sex abuse for children participating
in their youth programs.
28. Defendant Archdiocese held its leaders and agents, and specifically Fr.
Stitts, out as people of high morals, as possessing immense power, teaching
families and children to obey these leaders and agents, teaching families and
children to respect and revere these leaders and agents, soliciting youth and
families to its programs, marketing to youth and families, recruiting youth and
families, and holding out the people that worked in the programs as safe.
29. Defendant Archdiocese encouraged parents, including the parents of
the Plaintiff, to allow their children to spend time alone with their parish priest,
including Fr. Stitts, in order for the parish priest to provide mentoring and moral
and spiritual guidance to the child.
30. Defendant Archdiocese was negligent and/or made negligent and false
representations to Plaintiff and his family during, before and after Plaintiff was
sexually abused.
62-CV-13-4273 62-CV-13-4273
31. As a proximate result of Defendant Archdioceses actions and
negligence described herein, Plaintiff has suffered physical, spiritual, emotional,
mental, financial and economic injuries.

COUNT III: DEFENDANT ARCHDIOCESE NEGLIGENCE
32. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth under this count.
33. Defendant Archdiocese had a special relationship with Plaintiff as
described herein.
34. Defendant Archdiocese owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care.
35. Fr. Stitts sexual abuse was foreseeable to the Defendant Archdiocese.
36. Defendant Archdiocese breached the duty of reasonable care it owed
Plaintiff.
37. Defendant's breach of its duty was the proximate cause of Plaintiff s
injuries.
38. As a direct result of Defendant's negligent conduct, Plaintiff has
suffered the injuries and damages described herein.
COUNT IV: DEFENDANT ARCHDIOCESE NEGLIGENT
SUPERVISION

39. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth under this count.
40. At all times material, Fr. Stitts was employed by Defendant
Archdiocese and was under Defendant Archdiocese's direct supervision, employ
62-CV-13-4273 62-CV-13-4273
and control when he committed the wrongful acts alleged herein. Fr. Stitts
engaged in the wrongful conduct while acting in the course and scope of his
employment with Defendant Archdiocese and/or accomplished the sexual abuse
by virtue of his job-created authority.
41. Defendant Archdiocese failed to exercise ordinary care in supervising
Fr. Stitts in his parish assignments at Defendant Archdiocese; and further failed to
prevent the foreseeable misconduct of Fr. Stitts from causing harm to others,
including the Plaintiff.
42. As a direct result of Defendant's negligent conduct, Plaintiff has
suffered the injuries and damages described herein.
COUNT V: DEFENDANT ARCHDIOCESE NEGLIGENT RETENTION
43. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set
forth un3er this count.
44. Defendant, by and through its agents, servants and employees, became
aware, or should have become aware, that employee Fr. Stitts was an unfit agent
with dangerous and exploitive propensities to sexually abuse children, yet
Defendant failed to take any further action to remedy the problem and failed to
investigate or reassign to a position where Fr. Stitts would not work with children.
45. As a direct result of Defendant's negligent conduct, Plaintiff has
suffered the injuries and damages described herein.
46. Plaintiff requests a jury trial in this matter.

62-CV-13-4273 62-CV-13-4273
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF demands judgment against Defendant as follows:
A. For an award of special and general damages, in excess of $50,000, and to
specifically be proven at trial;
B. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable
under the relevant circumstances.
Dated: October 2, 2013 NOAKER LAW FIRM LLC

_____________________________
By: Patrick W. Noaker, #274951
Attorney for Plaintiff
Carlson Center
601 Carlson Parkway, Suite 1050
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305
(612) 839-1080
Patrick@noakerlaw.com

and

JAMES, VERSON & WEEKS, P.A.
Leander L. James, ISB No. 4800
Craig K. Vernon, ISB No. 5514
1626 Lincoln Way
Coeur dAlene, Idaho 83814
(208) 667-0683
ljames@jvwlaw.net
cvernon@jvwlaw.net

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF


62-CV-13-4273 62-CV-13-4273

You might also like