Archdiocese and Others Accused of Negligence in Child Abuse Case

A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Archdiocese in California alleging sexual assault and abuse at the hands of an individual at the Parish, entities of religious authority in California. The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, paints a harrowing picture of a child's innocence lost and a religious institution's failure to protect those in its care.

The plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as John Doe to protect their privacy, the plaintiff, alleges that he encountered the perpetrator at a church service. The abuse occurred on two separate occasions inside the perpetrator's office at the Parish. The lawsuit states, "John Doe V.E.G. was a minor at the time of the abuse and could not consent to the sexual acts."

The lawsuit is part of a larger, national reckoning with sexual abuses that occurred within the Catholic Church. It raises concerns about the conduct of religious institutions, their duty of care, and their responsibility to protect children from harm. It alleges that the named Archdiocese and Parish, despite being in positions of authority and trust, failed to protect the abused and other children from the predatory behavior of the perpetrator.

The lawsuit claims that the Archdiocese and Parish were negligent in their supervision and retention of the perpetrator. It alleges, "The defendants knew or should have known about the perpetrator's dangerous propensities and previous acts of sexual misconduct but failed to take reasonable steps to prevent further harm."

The plaintiff seeks compensation for physical and emotional injuries, loss of earnings, and medical and psychological treatment expenses. The lawsuit alleges, "The plaintiff suffered physical, emotional, psychological, and psychiatric injuries, as well as past and future medical expenses, lost earning capacity, and lost income."

The lawsuit also alleges violations of California Penal Code §288(a). Section 288(a) criminalizes lewd or lascivious acts involving children under 14 years of age, while section 647.6(a)(1) criminalizes annoying or molesting a child under 18 years of age. These allegations suggest that the perpetrator's conduct was not only morally reprehensible but also criminally punishable.

The lawsuit further alleges that the defendants committed intentional infliction of emotional distress, human trafficking, negligence, negligent supervision, negligent retention/hiring, negligent failure to train, warn, or educate, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, sexual harassment, fraudulent transfer, sexual battery, sexual assault, and gender violence.