Ultimately, the expanded language in Section 821B allowed courts, in a narrow way, to find the existence of a public nuisance in cases involving conduct that previously was not considered tortious. Section 821B includes and defines three factors to be used in guiding courts as to the meaning of “‘unreasonable,’” two of which—factors (a) and (c)—use very nebulous, open-ended language. It is these ambiguities and vagaries that being used by creative advocates and jurists. Instead of untangling the “jungle” grown by 900
years of confused jurisprudence, and despite the clear warnings contained in the Restatement’s comments, Section 821B has become a license for some judges and jurors to provide their own definitions of “unreasonable interference” and “a right common to the general public.

MISSION SAN LUIS REY
Holds retreats for, among others, students from Mater Dei High School in Santa Ana

Onward. . .

Here is Hale's Complaint in full except the plaintiff name has been changed to Mary Jones:

DAVID L. NYE (Bar #67009)
TIMOTHY C. HALE (Bar #184882)
NYE, PEABODY, STIRLING & HALE, LLP
33 West Mission St., Suite 201
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805) 963-2345
Facsimile: (805) 563-5385

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

For the County of Santa Barbara, Anacapa Division

MARY JONES, an individual,
Plaintiffs,

v.

Franciscan Friars of California, Inc.;Old Mission Santa Barbara; and Does 5 through 100, Inclusive.

Defendants.
Case No. 1265207

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:

1. PUBLIC NUISANCE
2. NEGLIGENCE
3. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION/
FAILURE TO WARN;
4. NEGLIGENT HIRING/RETENTION
5. FRAUD;
6. FIDUCIARY/CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY;
7. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;
8. NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN, TRAIN, OR EDUCATE PLAINTIFFS;
9. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
10. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
11. VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE ' 11166;
12. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE ' 17200;
13. FRAUD AND DECEIT;
14. PREMISES LIABILITY;
15. PROCURING OR MAKING A CHILD AVAILABLE TO ANOTHER

Based upon information and belief available to Plaintiff Mary Jones at the time of the filing of this First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff makes the following allegations:
PARTIES

18. Plaintiff Mary Jones is an adult female over the age of 26. Plaintiff was a minor residing in the county of Santa Barbara at the time of the sexual abuse alleged herein. Plaintiff’s complaint is timely filed to address the continuing Public Nuisance created by Defendants= ongoing conduct causing injury to the public and special injury to her. It also is timely pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1(a)(2-3) and (b)(2) as Plaintiff discovered within three years of filing this complaint that her injuries were caused by the childhood sexual abuse alleged herein. It is also timely pursuant to Evans v. Eckelman (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1609.
2. Defendant Doe 1/Franciscan Friars of California, Inc. (ADefendant Franciscan Friars@ or Athe Franciscans@) is a Roman Catholic Order and a non-profit public benefit corporation organized for religious purposes and incorporated under the laws of the State of California, doing business in Santa Barbara. Defendant Order is the religious order that owned and/or operated the properties in Santa Barbara - St. Anthony’s Seminary (ASt. Anthony’s@) and Defendant Old Mission Santa Barbara - where many of Does 1 -100's other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents sexually assaulted children.

2.1 Defendant Doe 4/Old Mission Santa Barbara (ADefendant Old Mission@), also known as Saint Barbara Parish, is a Roman Catholic church or parish located within the geographical boundaries of the Archdiocese in Santa Barbara, California. Old Mission is the church or parish where the perpetrator was assigned, or in residence, or doing supply work, or volunteering at, or visiting during the period of wrongful conduct. Does 1 through 100 are sometimes referred to collectively as ADefendants.@

2.2 The Perpetrator was at all times relevant an individual residing and/or doing business in the City and County of Santa Barbara, California, and was a Roman Catholic priest, member, religious brother, employee, agent and/or servant of the Franciscans and/or Defendant Old Mission and/or Does 5-100. During the dates of abuse, the Perpetrator was assigned, or in residence, or doing supply work, or volunteering, or visiting at Defendant Old Mission, and was under the direct supervision, employ and control of the Franciscans and/or Defendant Old Mission and/or Does 5-100.

3. Defendant Does 5 through 100, inclusive, are individuals and/or business or corporate entities incorporated in and/or doing business in California whose true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue such defendants by such fictitious names, and who will amend the Complaint to show the true names and capacities of each such Doe defendant when ascertained. Each such Defendant Doe is legally responsible in some manner for the events, happenings and/or tortious and unlawful conduct that caused the injuries and damages alleged in this First Amended Complaint.

4. The Perpetrator and/or each Defendant was and/or is the agent, servant and/or employee of the Franciscans and/or Defendant Old Mission and/or Does 5 -100. The Perpetrator and/or each Defendant was acting within the course and scope of his, her or its authority as an agent, servant and/or employee of the Perpetrator and/or other Defendants. The Perpetrator and/or the Franciscans and/or Defendant Old Mission and/or Does 5 -100, 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 First Amended Complaint, and the Perpetrator and/or each Defendant ratified the acts of the Perpetrator and/or the Franciscans and/or Defendant Old Mission and/or Does 5 -100 as described in this Complaint.

BACKGROUND FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

5. Plaintiff Mary Jones was raised Roman Catholic and attended a number of Santa Barbara parishes as a child, including San Roque, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in Montecito and Defendant Old Mission. She met the Perpetrator at the Santa Barbara Girl’s Club in or about 1964 when she was approximately six (6) years old. He was introduced to the girls as a member of Defendant Franciscan Friars, and Mary assumed he was a Roman Catholic priest, having never heard nor having any concept of a Roman Catholic religious brother.
In getting to know the young girl the Perpetrator soon discovered Mary was living in a single-parent family without a father, making her an ideal target as a child starved for anything resembling paternal attention and affection. Mary in turn was overjoyed by the attention the Perpetrator showered upon her. After a short period of grooming Mary for abuse (showering her with praise, taking her to the zoo or the beach, buying her candy and hamburgers, and touching and holding her), he began sexually abusing her.

For approximately a year the Perpetrator assaulted Mary on a regular basis. Much of the abuse took place in the living quarters for some of the members of Defendant Franciscan Friars that were located between St. Anthony’s Seminary and the Old Mission. In these instances, numbering at least forty (40) or more, the Perpetrator would have Mary change into her bathing suit in the middle of the room while he watched. On nearly half of those occasions the Perpetrator would allow other Franciscans to watch with him while the embarrassed young girl removed all of her clothes and underwear and changed into her swimsuit, trying in vane to cover herself by holding a towel in her mouth as she disrobed. She recalls it seemed as if the Perpetrator was constantly introducing her to new Franciscans who watched her strip naked, and to this day she can still feel their eyes exploring her exposed body.

Approximately twenty (20) times the Perpetrator sexually abused Mary in the stairwell leading to the parish organ at the Mission, claiming he needed to carry her up and down the stairwell because the stairs were too steep and he was afraid she would fall. In reality, he used this excuse as an opportunity to digitally penetrate her repeatedly, sometimes to the point the six year-old’s genitals would become raw. The Perpetrator also digitally penetrated Mary at times while they sat in his car at the beach, covering them both with a blanket so he could sexually assault her without being seen. Sometimes the Perpetrator would rub his penis up and down the young girl’s underwear, occasionally pushing it underneath her underwear.

Finally, on approximately ten (10) occasions he induced her to masturbate him, sometimes until he climaxed. These assaults took place in the room in the Mission where the parish organ was located, and in the Perpetrator’s car.

6. The Perpetrator and Defendants' other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents committed acts of Childhood Sexual Abuse in Santa Barbara before, during, and after the time Mary attended Defendant Old Mission. The Franciscan corporate practice of concealing the identities, propensities, and current assignments and/or residences of these perpetrators has enabled and empowered such men to sexually assault and/or continue to place at risk countless children around the various locations in the Western United States and throughout the world where these Franciscans have conducted their business for nearly a century, including but not limited to Franciscan friaries, missions, parishes, retreat centers and other communities in the western States of Arizona, California, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington, and in countries such as Africa, Brazil, El Salvador, Guatemala, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines and Thailand. Finally, an unknown number of Defendants= former pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents, whose propensities Defendants have been aware of for years but have disclosed to no one, continue to sexually assault and/or place at risk countless children around these various locations as well as at numerous other locations, such as in the State of Idaho, where these former Franciscans now reside.

7. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk posed by the Perpetrator to children before and during the time period he was assaulting Mary. In addition to the approximately ten to fifteen instances where the Perpetrator induced Mary to strip naked and change into her swimsuit in the middle of the room in the presence of at least one other Franciscan, Mary recalls an instance where the Perpetrator and a second Franciscan were sitting in chairs and watching as she undressed in the middle of the room. However, on this occasion, as she began to pull her bathing suit bottoms on while wearing no other clothing, a third Franciscan unexpectedly entered the room. She perceived him to be an authority figure as both the Perpetrator and the second Franciscan immediately stood up when he entered and seemed nervous. She sensed the third Franciscan was very displeased she was there, and felt as if she was in trouble. After a tense exchange between the third Franciscan and the Perpetrator, the Perpetrator rushed her out of the room and off the grounds shortly thereafter. However, the Franciscans never warned Mary’s mother, much less the community or law enforcement, that one of their members was inducing a six year-old girl to strip naked at the Mission while he and other Franciscans watched. As a result, although further abuse could have been prevented, the Perpetrator’s abuse of Mary continued after this incident.

Thus, before the Perpetrator’s assaults against Mary ended, at least two other Franciscans were aware of the abuse being committed by the Perpetrator, and at least one of them was participating in exploiting a six year-old girl to create a pedophilic peep-show at the Old Mission and St. Anthony’s. The Franciscans could have stopped this abuse from continuing, and undoubtedly could have saved other young girls from subsequent abuse by the Perpetrator. Instead, the Franciscans told no one, protected their clearly pedophilic brethren and their own financial interests, and as a result the abuse continued.
8. Numerous other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents of Defendants have been sexually assaulting countless other children in, among other locations, Santa Barbara since 1936. During this time at least forty-two (42) pedophilic and/or ephebophilic Roman Catholic priests or religious brothers have been assigned to work at and were living at and/or visiting various locations around Santa Barbara County, including but not limited to St. Raphael’s Church in Goleta, San Roque, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in Montecito, and the adjoining properties of St. Anthony’s and the Mission. Twenty-five (25) of those priests or religious brothers were or are Franciscans, identified below in the decades they first appeared and continued to reside in or visit Santa Barbara based on information known to date:

1 - Fr. Owen Da Silva (1930s)
2 - Br. Berard Connolly (1940s, 1980s - 1990s)
3 - Fr. Martin McKeon (1950s - 1960s)
4 - Fr. Edward Henriques (1960s)

5 - Fr. Mario Cimmarrusti (1960s - 1970s)
6 - Fr. Mel Bucher (1960s)
7 - Fr. Forrest McDonald (1960s - 1970s)
8 - Br. Kevin Dunne (1960s - 1970s)
9 - Br. Sam Cabot (1960s-1980s)
10 - Fr. Edmund Austin (1970s)
11 - Fr. Gus Krumm (1970s - 1980s)
12 - Fr. Paul Conn (1970s - 1980s)
13 - Fr. Dave Johnson (1970s - 1980s)
14 - Fr. Joseph Prochnow (1970s - 1980s)
15 - Br. Matteo Guerrero (1970s, 1990s - 2000s)
16 - Fr. Robert Van Handel (1970s -1990s)
17 - Fr. David Carriere (1970s - 2000s)
18 - Fr. Steve Kain (1980s)
19 - Fr. Philip Wolfe (1980s)
20 - Pre-novitiate candidate Ed Byrom (1980s)
21 - Pre-novitiate candidate Tom Thing (1980s)
22 - Fr. Chris Berbena (1980s)
23 - Fr. Remy Rudin (1980s - 1990s)
24 - Br. Gerald Chumik (2000s)
25 - Pedro Vasquez (2000s)

At least eighty-one (81) children have been sexually abused in Santa Barbara by Roman Catholic priests or religious brothers since 1936. Sixty (60) of those children were abused by Franciscan priests or religious brothers. The confirmed number of victims and Franciscan perpetrators grows each year.

THE FRANCISCANS= CONTINUING REFUSAL TO PUBLICLY IDENTIFY ALL OF THEIR CURRENT OR FORMER PEDOPHILIC MEMBERS HAS CREATED A DEADLY ENVIRONMENT FOR TODAY’s CHILDREN

9. Time and again the Franciscans have had the opportunity to end the cycle of abuse by reporting perpetrators to law enforcement, and by warning the general public when a Franciscan has been accused of sexually assaulting a child. Tragically, the Franciscans ongoing efforts to protect their pedophilic members, and to protect the corporation’s financial interests, establish a clear and continuing pattern of conduct causing new harm to today’s children, and new trauma to adult survivors of Franciscan childhood sexual abuse.

10. Since at least 1964 the Franciscans have known some of their priests and religious brothers were sexually assaulting Santa Barbara children, and of the fact any child exposed to their agents was at a heightened risk of being sexually assaulted. Since at least 1964 the Franciscans have been concealing these crimes, and shielding their criminal members from discovery. Sadly, even with the recent litigation, the Franciscans have not changed their ways. The following are examples only of some of the most recent known Franciscan conduct placing children at risk. These examples illustrate how the Franciscans= conduct remains a present day threat to children wherever the Franciscans conduct their business, and is not just a thing of the past.

In July of 2003, the Franciscans assigned an admitted perpetrator - Fr. Gus Krumm - to a Sacramento parish next door to a school without any warning to the community. One Franciscan priest readily admitted he was aware of Fr. Krumm’s prior abuses but did not think it was appropriate to share such information with parishioners. Despite the fact the Franciscans claimed Fr. Krumm was forbidden contact with young children, he did in fact have direct contact with young children while at this assignment. Fr. Krumm’s current whereabouts are unknown to the general public.

In July 2004 the Franciscans admitted - albeit only after a reporter from the Dallas Morning News made the facts public - that yet another predator had been calling the Old Mission home for over two years. Specifically, in the early to mid-1970's Franciscan Br. Gerald Chumik assaulted at least one victim in Canada. Canadian authorities attempted to prosecute Br. Chumik in the 1990s, but Chumik fled to the United States. The Franciscans successfully and secretly harbored Br. Chumik, a fugitive from justice, behind the walls of the Old Mission for over two years. The Franciscans provided no warning to the public, much less to neighboring schools, of the threat Br. Chumik posed until the Dallas Morning News published the truth about Chumik. Br. Chumik’s current whereabouts are unknown to the general public.

In May 2005, the former rector of St. Anthony’s, Fr. Xavier Harris, admitted that while he was assigned at St. Williams in Los Altos in 2001, a well-known Franciscan Perpetrator, Fr. Steve Kain, assisted there as well. Fr. Harris did not warn any of the parishioners of Fr. Kain’s propensities, nor, to his knowledge, did any other Franciscans warn any parishioners about Fr. Kain. With no shortage of victims who were unaware of his propensities, Fr. Kain abused again. Fr. Harris admitted that Fr. Kane was then forced to stop assisting at St. Williams due to the abuse allegations, and was transferred to St. Boniface in San Francisco. Once again, Fr. Harris admitted he had no knowledge of any warnings to parishioners at St. Boniface regarding Fr. Kain’s propensities. Fr. Kain’s current whereabouts are unknown to the general public.

In July 2005, the Franciscan Vicar Provincial, Br. Tom West, admitted Mission resident, Franciscan Pedro Vasquez, had been accused of sexually assaulting a person West described as a Ayoung man.@ The Franciscans had allowed Vasquez to live at the Mission for three years without any warning to the community, and admitted to this fact in July of 2005 only when they knew its publication was inevitable. Fr. Vasquez’s current whereabouts are unknown to the general public.

In late 2006 a victim spoke with Fr. Virgil Cordano at the Mission and informed Cordano he had been sexually assaulted in 1976 by a Franciscan religious brother, Br. Mateo Guererro. Cordano did not act surprised at this information, admitted there had been other complaints against Guererro, and admitted that Guererro had been transferred as a result. To date, the Franciscans have taken no steps to make this information public, no steps to determine whether there are any other victims of Guererro who have not come forward, no steps to notify the communities in which Guererro has been assigned over the course of his career as a Franciscan, and no steps to warn the current community where Guererro is assigned. Br. Guererro’s current whereabouts are unknown to the general public.

Since approximately 1994 to the present the Franciscans have assigned another admitted perpetrator - Fr. Mel Bucher - to Old Mission San Luis Rey. Fr. Bucher sexually assaulted at least one adolescent boy in Oregon in the early 1970s. Despite this admission, the Franciscans continue to allow Fr. Bucher to manage the Mission San Luis Rey retreat center. The retreat center conducts retreats for, among others, high school-aged children, including overnight retreats for students from, among other locations, Mater Dei High School in Santa Ana. At least one current Franciscan and former Mater Dei faculty member has stated he would not discuss the allegations of abuse by Fr. Bucher with Mater Dei faculty or administrators because he does not Asee any purpose being served in that.@ The Franciscans have never warned the families of these students of Fr. Bucher’s history of abuse.

Such action and inaction by the Franciscans has and will continue to produce disastrous results, as evidenced by the case of Fr. Louis Ladenburger. Ladenburger left the priesthood and the Franciscan order in 1996. However, early in his career as a Franciscan Ladenburger was treated for what the Franciscan Provincial Minister, Mel Jurisich, has described only as “inappropriate professional behavior and relationships.” Such vague terms are standard procedure for the Franciscans when describing acts of childhood sexual abuse by their priests and religious brothers. After sending Ladenburger for treatment for his criminal conduct twice in the 1980s, the Franciscans allowed him to continue to work as a priest, including working at high schools. After another psychological review in 1993, the Franciscans insisted on restricting Ladenburger’s ministry. However, at no time did the Franciscans report Ladenburger’s criminal acts to law enforcement.

At no time did the Franciscans warn any families or communities where Ladenburger had worked or was working as a priest. As a result, when he left the priesthood nearly twenty-years after the Franciscans first learned of and began to conceal the risk he posed to children, Ladenburger had never been convicted of a sex crime, was not a registered sex offender, and only the Franciscans were aware of his pedophilic propensities. An unknown number of children have been sexually assaulted by Ladenburger as a result. In May of 2007, Ladenburger was arrested for sexually assaulting several children in Idaho.

When first contacted shortly after Ladenburger’s arrest last year, the Franciscans denied having any record of past abuses by Ladenburger. After this initial denial, Fr. Jurisich finally admitted to Ladenburger’s sordid history, and the Franciscans= knowledge since the 1980s of the risk he posed to children. Ladenburger has since pleaded guilty to lewd conduct with two boarding school students, and on March 24, 2008, was sentenced to five years in prison. The sentencing judge, the Honorable John Luster, found Ladenburger’s conduct so severe that he rejected a joint request by the prosecution and the defense of a suspended sentence. Ladenburger has admitted he has a sex addiction. These latest victims are further evidence of the continuing threat to all children posed by the Franciscans refusal to warn the public of their current and former members who have been accused of sexual abuse.

Four months after the Franciscans first denied then admitted they knew about the threat posed by Ladenburger, they were at it again. One would hope that after decades of Franciscan sexual abuse and cover-ups, at some point - perhaps, for instance, now that the number of confirmed Santa Barbara victims of Franciscan childhood sexual abuse has risen to sixty - the Franciscan hierarchy would finally reconsider the corporation’s horribly flawed strategy of lying about and refusing to identify Franciscan priests and brothers accused of sexual abuse. One would hope that after seeing today’s children continuing to be victimized as a result of this failed corporate strategy they would finally recognize that for the sake of both past and future victims, it was time to tell the truth. However, as evidenced by their recent conduct towards Mary, the Franciscans have learned nothing from the sad events involving Ladenburger, much less from their sordid history. Instead, they continue to re-victimize survivors of Franciscan sexual abuse, and to create new victims, by continuing to lie, conceal and cover-up the identities of Franciscans who pose a risk to children.

In this case, Mary contacted the Franciscans for help when she finally began to make the connection between her injuries and the abuse she suffered. Because of her young age at the time of the abuse, and the trauma she suffered during the abuse, she had been unable to recall the name of the Perpetrator. She informed the Franciscans of her age at the time of the abuse (6 years old), of the Perpetrator’s grooming techniques (such as buying Mary candy), of the nature of the abuse (primarily digital penetration), of the fact the Perpetrator often abused her while they sat under a blanket, and of the fact he appeared to come and go quite a lot and may not have lived at the Old Mission. She also informed the Franciscans the Perpetrator’s name might be AEd@ or ASam.@ In response, the Franciscan Vicar Provincial, Br. Tom West, informed Mary in September 2007 and during a meeting in November 2007 that the Franciscans had been Aunable to find [any possible Franciscan perpetrator] of either name.@ This response led Mary falsely to believe she was the only child abused by the Perpetrator, thus creating new emotional distress, shame and self-loathing in Mary. As is all too common in many victims of childhood sexual abuse, she wondered what she had done wrong to make her the Perpetrator’s only target. Feeling horribly alone and ashamed after the meeting, Mary suffered through new injuries as a result of the Franciscans= supposed inability to identify her perpetrator: a debilitating panic attack and migraine, and repeated vomiting throughout the night after the meeting with Br. Tom.

Unbeknownst to Mary at the time, this new trauma could have been avoided. The Franciscans and Br. Tom undoubtedly had, in fact, identified a possible Franciscan Perpetrator named Sam: Br. Sam Cabot. In 2006 both Br. Tom and the Franciscan’s Provincial Minister, Fr. Jurisich, participated in multiple mediation sessions in Los Angeles involving, among others, two victims of Br. Sam. Br. Tom and Fr. Jurisich knew from their involvement in those two claims that Br. Sam had sexually abused two young girls who, like Mary, were six years old during the periods of abuse; they knew that one of Br. Sam’s favorite grooming techniques, as with Mary, was to buy his victims candy; they knew that, as with Mary, Br. Sam’s abuse consisted primarily of digital penetration; they knew Br. Sam used to abuse these two girls, as with Mary, as he sat with them under a blanket; and they knew that Br. Sam had continued to abuse both these young girls in Santa Barbara even while, as may have been the case with Mary, he was neither assigned nor living in Santa Barbara at the time. Despite his knowledge of these obvious parallels, Br. Tom denied any knowledge even of a possible Franciscan perpetrator named Sam. In fact, although during his November 2007 meeting with Mary Br. Tom acknowledged that these two young cousins had been abused by a Franciscan, he never disclosed to Mary the fact their perpetrator’s name was ASam.@ Nor did he disclose his awareness of another possible Franciscan perpetrator named AEd,@ Fr. Edward Henriques, who also spent time in Santa Barbara during the period of abuse.



This is exactly the kind of Franciscan deception that brings new torment to victims who find the courage to come forward, and results in new victims such as those of Louis Ladenburger. Clearly, seeing yet another example in the Ladenburger case of the tragedy Franciscan deception and duplicity has wrought has done nothing to change Franciscan business practices when dealing with pedophilic priests and religious brothers. The Franciscans= first and only loyalty is to their corporation and its members, pedophilic or otherwise. As a result, both adult survivors of Franciscan childhood sexual abuse and today’s children exposed to Franciscan perpetrators continue to be chewed up and spat out by the Franciscan corporate machine. And the number of past and present victims of this Franciscan corporate scheme continues to grow.

Meanwhile, at least as recently as Spring 2007 the Franciscans have allowed Br. Sam Cabot to work within half a mile of an elementary school in Los Angeles. A school that most likely is attended by numerous young girls the age of Br. Sam’s prior victims. A school, and a community, that undoubtedly has no clue that a predator such as Br. Sam is within easy walking distance of their children. A predator who would be a registered sex offender had the Franciscans first reported him to law enforcement when they learned of his crimes. A predator who undoubtedly has many more victims in addition to those identified to date.

THE COMPELLING STATE INTEREST IN PREVENTING CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE

California courts and the state legislature have recognized, repeatedly, the compelling state interested in preventing childhood sexual abuse. Fredenburg v. Fremont, 119 Cal.App.4th 408, 412-13 (2004) (discussing enactment and legislative history of Megan’s Law); Burt v. County of Orange, 120 Cal.App.4th 273, 285 (2004) (Aconcerns with protecting children from harm is a compelling interest supporting its efforts in gathering information and filing reports concerning persons suspected of child abuse@); Roe v. Superior Court, 229 Cal.App.3d 832, 838 (1991) (recognizing the state's compelling interest in protecting children from abuse); People v. Gonzalez, 81 Cal.App.3d 274, 277 (1978) (recognizing compelling state interest in the protection of children from sexual molestation); People v. Mills, 81 Cal. App.3d 171, 181 (1978) (person who sexually assaults a child has waived his right to privacy). However, for decades the Franciscans have successfully frustrated law enforcement efforts to enforce this compelling state interest, shielding Franciscan perpetrators from criminal prosecution by concealing their crimes and the whereabouts of known perpetrators. Time and again the Franciscans= efforts have helped such criminals escape prosecution through, among other methods, expired criminal statutes of limitation. As a result, very few of these men have been prosecuted, convicted, and forced to register as sex offenders. Thus, the Franciscans have successfully concealed from the public the identities of an unknown number of Franciscan perpetrators.
As evidenced by the new victims in the Ladenburger case, and the continuing pattern of deceit evidenced by the Franciscans= conduct towards Mary, the clergy-abuse crisis has not been abated by the 2006 Franciscan litigation. To the contrary, it is business as usual at Franciscan corporate headquarters. For this reason, the legal system cannot sit back and wait for current or former Franciscan perpetrators such as Ladenburger to reveal themselves through new victims. The ongoing lies, deceit, and concealment by the Franciscans mandate proactive efforts to save today’s children from new abuse like that suffered by Ladenburger’s recent victims. The public needs to know where Br. Cabot is currently working, particularly when he is less than half a mile away from an elementary school. They need to know about the abuse committed by Br. Matteo, and where he is currently assigned or in residence. They need to know about Fr. Bucher’s history of abuse, particularly where he is allowed to conduct or have access to retreats for adolescents. And they need to know about every other current or former Franciscan who, like Ladenburger until he was caught sexually abusing more children in 2007, have been accused of childhood sexual abuse but have not yet been identified.

It is an abomination that of the twenty-five (25) Franciscan perpetrators who have lived or spent significant time in Santa Barbara since 1936, only two have been criminally prosecuted locally . The sad reality is the criminal courts= hands have been tied by the Franciscans= successful efforts to conceal Franciscan criminal acts and the whereabouts of known perpetrators until the applicable statutes of limitation have expired. As a result, absent immediate action by the civil courts, today’s children will continue to be victimized by Franciscan perpetrators wherever the Franciscans of the Province of St. Barbara conduct their business, and at numerous other locations where unidentified former Franciscan perpetrators, like Ladenburger, now reside. Pursuant to the compelling state interest in preventing acts of future childhood sexual abuse, the Franciscans must be ordered to disclose immediately the identities, histories of abuse, and last known locations of all current and former Franciscans accused of childhood sexual abuse while they were members of the Order.

THE INJURY TO MARY

10.1 The sexual abuse and exploitation of Plaintiff and the circumstances under which it occurred caused Plaintiff to develop various psychological coping mechanisms which reasonably made her incapable of ascertaining the resulting damages from that conduct. Within the last 3 years, Plaintiff discovered or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse.

The Perpetrator’s use of Roman Catholic doctrine and his status as a religious brother during the period of abuse also inhibited Mary’s awareness of the wrongfulness of his conduct until recently. The assaults often took place during or after the Perpetrator read to or spoke with Mary about various biblical study materials from the parish. The Perpetrator would then tell Mary she Aneeded to do this (i.e. masturbate him), while talking to her about Jesus having given people what they needed. After most assaults he warned her not tell anyone or God would be angry with her. In doing so, the Perpetrator exploited Mary’s having been raised in the Catholic church, and induced Mary to believe she needed to agree to the conduct or risk angering God. Consequently, while sensing something was wrong, Mary was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct until recently, within the last three years. She has always felt that she had done something wrong, and feared bringing shame to her family if anyone found out about the abuse. All of these things resulted in psychological blocking mechanisms that have prevented her from facing and realizing the wrongfulness of the Perpetrator’s conduct until recently when, out of desperation, she began to delve more deeply into what was causing her debilitating panic attacks.
11. As a direct result of the wrongful conduct alleged herein, 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; has suffered and continue to suffer spiritually; was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing Plaintiff’s daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; has sustained and continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
PUBLIC NUISANCE

(Against The Defendants)
12. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
13. Defendants continue to conspire and engage in efforts to: 1) conceal from the general public the sexual assaults committed by, the identities of, and the pedophilic/ephebophilic tendencies of, the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic agents; 2) attack the credibility of the victims of the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic/ephebophilic agents; and 3) protect the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic/ephebophilic agents from criminal prosecution for their sexual assaults against children, all in violation of law.

14. The negligence and/or deception and concealment by Defendants was and is injurious to the health and/or indecent or offensive to the senses and/or an obstruction to the free use of property by the general public, including but not limited to residents of the County of Santa Barbara and all other members of the general public who live in communities around the Western United States where Defendants conducted, and continue to conduct, their business, and was and is indecent and offensive to the senses, so as to interfere with the general public’s comfortable enjoyment of life in that children cannot be left unsupervised in any location where there are agents of Defendants present as the general public cannot trust Defendants to prohibit their pedophilic agents from supervising, caring for, or having any contact with children, nor to warn parents of the presence of the current and/or former pedophilic agents of Defendants, nor to identify their current and/or former pedophilic agents, nor to disclose said agents= assignment histories, nor to disclose their patterns of conduct in grooming and sexually assaulting children, all of which create an impairment of the safety of children in the neighborhoods in Santa Barbara and throughout the Western United States where Defendants conducted, and continue to conduct, their business.

15. The negligence and/or deception and concealment by Defendants was specially injurious to Plaintiff’s health as she and her family were unaware of the danger posed to young children left unsupervised with agents of Defendants, and as a result of this deception, Plaintiff was placed in the custody and control of the Perpetrator, an agent of Defendants, who subsequently and repeatedly sexually assaulted Plaintiff.
Defendants= negligence and/or deception and concealment of the Perpetrator’s identity, and of the fact he had other victims in addition to Plaintiff, also caused Plaintiff new emotional distress and injury as Defendants= negligence and/or deception led Plaintiff to believe she was the Perpetrator’s only victim when in reality Defendants knew or should have known the Perpetrator did in fact have other victims. This false belief in turn caused Plaintiff to fear that as the Perpetrator’s only victim she had done something wrong to trigger the abuse, resulting in Plaintiff experiencing overwhelming feelings of shame and guilt, and causing new emotional distress and injury for Plaintiff. These new injuries could have been prevented by Defendants had they simply acknowledged the identity of the Perpetrator and that Plaintiff was not his only victim.

The negligence and/or deception and concealment by Defendants also was specially injurious to Plaintiff’s health in that when Plaintiff finally discovered the negligence and/or deception and concealment of Defendants, Plaintiff experienced extreme and severe mental and emotional distress that Plaintiff had been the victim of the Defendants= negligence and/or deception and concealment; that Plaintiff had not been able to help other minors being molested because of the negligence and/or deception and concealment; and that Plaintiff had not been able because of the negligence and/or deception and concealment to receive timely medical treatment needed to deal with the problems Plaintiff had suffered and continues to suffer as a result of the molestations.

16. The continuing public nuisance created by Defendants was, and continues to be, the proximate cause of the injuries and damages to the general public alleged in paragraph 14, and of Plaintiff’s special injuries and damages as alleged in paragraph 15.

17. In doing the aforementioned acts, Defendants acted negligently and/or intentionally, maliciously and with conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights.

18. As a result of the above described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to
suffer special injury in that they 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; has suffered and continues to suffer spiritually; was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing Plaintiff’s daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; has sustained and will continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. As a proximate result of these injuries, Plaintiff has suffered general and special damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
(Against All Defendants)
19. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

20. Sometime in approximately 1964, the Perpetrator repeatedly engaged in unpermitted, harmful and offensive sexual conduct and contact with Plaintiff. Said conduct was undertaken while the Perpetrator was an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent of Defendants, while in the course and scope of employment with Defendants, and/or was ratified by Defendants.

21. Prior to or during the abuse alleged above, Defendants knew, had reason to know,
or were otherwise on notice of unlawful sexual conduct by the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents. Defendants failed to take reasonable steps and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding placement of the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents in functions or environments in which contact with children was an inherent part of those functions or environments. Furthermore, at no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in place a system or procedure to supervise and/or monitor employees, volunteers, representatives, or agents to insure that they did not molest or abuse minors in Defendants= care, including the Plaintiff.

22. Defendants had a duty to protect the minor Plaintiff when she was entrusted to their
care by Plaintiff’s parents. Plaintiff’s care, welfare, and/or physical custody was temporarily entrusted to Defendants. Defendants voluntarily accepted the entrusted care of Plaintiff. As such, Defendants owed Plaintiff, a minor child, a special duty of care, in addition to a duty of ordinary care, and owed Plaintiff the higher duty of care that adults dealing with children owe to protect them from harm.

23. Defendants, by and through their agents, servants and employees, knew or reasonably should have known of the Perpetrator’s and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents= dangerous and exploitive propensities and that they were unfit agents. It was foreseeable that if Defendants did not adequately exercise or provide the duty of care owed to children in their care, including but not limited to Plaintiff, the child entrusted to Defendants= care would be vulnerable to sexual abuse by the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents.

24. Defendants breached their duty of care to the minor Plaintiff by allowing the
Perpetrator to come into contact with the minor Plaintiff without supervision; by failing to adequately hire, supervise, or retain the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents who they permitted and enabled to have access to Plaintiff; by failing to investigate or otherwise confirm or deny such facts about the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents; by failing to tell or concealing from Plaintiff, Plaintiff's parents, guardians, or law enforcement officials that the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents were or may have been sexually abusing minors; by failing to tell or concealing from Plaintiff's parents, guardians, or law enforcement officials that Plaintiff was or may have been sexually abused after Defendants knew or had reason to know that the Perpetrator may have sexually abused Plaintiff, thereby enabling Plaintiff to continue to be endangered and sexually abused, and/or creating the circumstance 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 the Perpetrator to the Plaintiff and her parents or guardians as being in good standing and trustworthy. Defendants cloaked within the facade of normalcy Defendants= and/or the Perpetrator’s and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents= contact and/or actions with the Plaintiff and/or with other minors who were victims of the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents, and/or disguised the nature of the sexual abuse and contact.

25. 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; has suffered and continues to suffer spiritually; was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing Plaintiff’s daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; has sustained and will continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION/FAILURE TO WARN

(Against All Defendants)

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

27. Defendants had a duty to provide reasonable supervision of the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents, and to use reasonable care in investigating the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents. Additionally, because Defendants knew or should have known of the heightened risk the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents posed to all children, Defendants had a heightened duty to provide reasonable supervision and protection to children with whom Defendants allowed the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents to have contact and/or custody and control of; and to provide adequate warning to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s family, minor students, and minor parishioners of the Perpetrator’s and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents= dangerous propensities and unfitness.

28. Defendants, by and through their agents, servants and employees, knew or reasonably should have known of the Perpetrator’s and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents= dangerous and exploitive propensities and that they were unfit agents. Defendants also knew that if they failed to provide children who had contact with the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents sufficient supervision and protection, those children would be vulnerable to sexual assaults by the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents. Despite such knowledge, Defendants negligently failed to supervise the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents in the position of trust and authority as a Roman Catholic Priest, religious brother, religious instructor, counselor, school administrator, school teacher, surrogate parent, spiritual mentor, emotional mentor, and/or other authority figure, where he was able to commit the wrongful acts against the Plaintiff. Defendants failed to provide reasonable supervision of the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents, failed to use reasonable care in investigating the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents, and failed to provide adequate warning to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family of the Perpetrator’s and Defendants' other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents' dangerous propensities and unfitness. Defendants further failed to provide Plaintiff with adequate supervision and protection, and failed to take reasonable measures to prevent future sexual abuse.

29. 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; has suffered and continues to suffer spiritually; was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing Plaintiff’s daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; has sustained and will continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. As a proximate result of these injuries, Plaintiff has suffered general and special damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT HIRING/RETENTION

(Against All Defendants)

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

31. Defendants had a duty not to hire and/or retain the Perpetrator and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents given their dangerous and exploitive propensities.

32. Defendants, by and through their agents, servants and employees, knew or reasonably should have known of the Perpetrator’s and Defendants= other pedophilic and/or ephebophilic agents= dangerous and exploitive propensities and/or that they were unfit agents.