ORIGINAL , STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF RICHLAND ‘ CIVIL ACTION NO; 2017-CP-40-06146 Joel Doe, a minor, by and through his Parents and Guardians Jane Doe and John Doe, vs. Plaintifs, | ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT First Baptist Church of Columbia, Andrew Gury Trial Demanded) McCraw, Wendell Estep, and Philip Turner, Some ES 2 Defendants, (a 68 = 2 TO: JOHN S. SIMMONS, ESQUIRE, ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIER AR TOE ‘THE PLAINTIFF ABOVE-NAMED: s= = me wx = os Defendants First Baptist Church of Columbia, Wendell Estep, and Philip ‘Turk, Wein | = fle their Answer tothe Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and would respestflly shows Flows FOR A FIRST DEFENSE, 1. Bach and every allegation of the Plaintiff's Complaint not hereinafter admitted is expressly denied. 2. Defendants admit First Baptist Church of Columbia is a nonprofit organization operating as a church in Richland County and further admits the residency of the parties as pled by Plaintiff in paragraphs 1-5. Defendants further admit Defendant Estep has decided to retire in a move planned before Defendant First Baptist Chuirch ever learned of allegations at issue in this lawsnit and admits that Defendant Turner was not on staff until 2014. 3. As to paragraphs 6-9, Defendants believe the alleged actions took place in Richland and Lexington counties and that Richland County circuit court has jurisdiction in this matter, as may other venues,4. Paragraph 10 merely realleges prior paragraphs, which have been addressed previously in this Answer, 5. Inresponse to paragraphs 11-12, Defendants admit Defendant First Baptist, Church is a local church in Columbia, South Carolina thet ministers in the local community. 6. Inresponse to paragraph 13, Defendants admit Defendant First Baptist Church ‘was in the past sued in connection with actions in the late 1990s of one individual, but denies any further lawsuits alleged in this paragraph. 7. Asto the allegations of paragraph 14, Defendants do not oppose the unsealing of the lawsuits for that prior matter but respect the right of the Plaintiffs in those lawsuits to have, that protection, just as the Plaintiff in this maticr is asking the Court for protection of his identity. 8 Paragraphs 15-16 are admitted upon information and belief. 9. Asto paragraphs 17-18, Defendants admit Plaintiff was involved in student ministries, which include small groups for fellowship and discipleship. 10. sto paragraph 19, Defendants admit Defendant MeCraw was involved as a volunteer small group leader for Plaintiff while Plaintiff was in middle school from August 2011 until May 2014. 11. Asto paragraph 20, Defendants deny knowledge of any alleged inappropriate or illegal activity, as nothing has been reported or alleged by Plaintiff other than the alleged conduct Plaintiff claims took place in 2016, but believes Plaintiff's parents would have been aware of any time their son was spending with Defendant McCraw outside of the church environment, 12, _Asto paragraph 21, Defendants deny any knowledge of this alleged incident, which was never reported, but would believe that any such event would have to be after June2016 if Plaintiff claims Defendant MeCraw’s wife, whom he married in June 2016, was not home. 13. As to paragraphs 22-25, Defendants admit multiple text messages went back and forth between Plaintiff and Defendant McCraw in July and August 2016. Upon information and belief, law enforcement became involved after Plaintiff's parents reported the text messages to Jaw enforcement but had not reported them fo Defendants at that time, although excerpts were later provided to Defendants by counsel for Plaintiff after law enforcement was involved and investigating the matter. 14, Asto paragraphs 26-27, Defendants deny any knowledge of this alleged conduct, which was never reported 15, _Asto paragraph 28, Defendants deny knowledge of any alleged inappropriate or illegal activity, as nothing has been reported or alleged by Plaintiff other than the referenced text messages that took place in 2016, but believes Plaintiff's parents would have been aware of any time their son was spending with Defendant McCraw outside of the church environment. 16. The allegations of paragraph 29 are denied, upon information and belief. 17. Asto the allegations of paragraph 30, Defendants admit learning on August 28, 2016, that Defendant McCraw had accessed Plaintiff's Snapchat account with a password provided by Plaintiff, upon information and belief. 18, _Asto the allegations of paragraph 31, Defendants admit leaning from law enforcement in 2017, and then from counsel for Plaintiff, that inappropriate text messages were sent from Defendant McCraw to Plaintiff. 19, sto the allegations of paragraphs 32-34, Defendants learned of the inappropriate nature of the text messages after law enforcement was already involved, as a result of Jawenforcement’s contacting of Defendant McCraw. Law enforeement became aware of, and was, investigating, the alleged conduct prior to Defendants learning of the inappropriate nature of the text messages, Defendant First Baptist Church did follow its policies upon leaming of the allegations, in addition to the law enforcement investigation that proceeded. 20. Asto the allegations of paragraph 35, Defendants admit Defendant Estep decided to retire in a move planned before Defendants ever learned of allegations at issue in this law: 21. Asto paragraphs 36-46, these state legal conclusions to which no response is, required, The allegations included merely repeat prior allegations, and Defendants incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Answer as if fully set forth herein. To the extent that the allegations of these paragraphs could be construed to allege that these Defendants breached any duty or violated any law, the allegations are denied. 22. Paragraphs 47-73 are not directed at these Defendants, so no response is required. To the extent that the allegations of these paragraphs could be construed to allege that these Defendants breached any duty or violated any law, the allegations are denied. 23. Asto paragraphs 74-76, these state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations of these paragraphs could be construed to allege that these Defendants breached any duty or violated any law, the allegations are denied. Defendants perform background checks and have policies in place to train and to address conduct of which Defendants become aware, which were followed in connection with the allegations and individuals in this lawsuit. 24, Asto paragraphs 77-81, these state legal conclusions to which no response is required. The allegations included merely repeat prior allegations, and Defendants incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Answer as if fully set forth herein. To the extent that theallegations of these paragraphs could be construed to allege that these Defendants breached any ” duty or violated any law, the allegations are denied, 25.” Asto paragraphs 82-85, these state legal conclusions to which no response is. required, ‘The allegatiorts included merely repeat prior allegations, and Defendants incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Answer as if fully set forth herein. To the extent that the allegations of these paragraphs could be construed to allege that these Defendants breached any duty or violated any Jaw, the allegations are denied, 26. —_Asto paragraphs 86-93, these state legal conclusions to which no response is required, The allegations included merely repeat prior allegations, and Defendants incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Answer as if fully set forth herein. To the extent that the allegations of these paragraphs could be construed to allege that these Defendants breached any duty of violated any law, the allegations are denied. 27. sto paragraphs 94-100, these state legal conclusions to which no response is required. The allegations included merely repeat prior allegations, and Defendants incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Answer as if fully set forth herein. To the extent that the allegations of these paragraphs could be construed to allege that these Defendants breached any duty or violated any law, the allegations are denied. 28. As to paragraphs 101-103, these state legal conclusions to which no response is requiréd. The allegations included merely repeat prior allegations, and Defendants incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Answer as if fully set forth herein. To the extent that the allegations of these paragraphs could be construed to allege that these Defendants breached any duty or violated any law, the allegations are denied.29, sto paragraphs 104-115, these state legal conclusions to which no response is required, The allegations included merely repeat prior allegations, and Defendants incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Answer as if fully set forth herein. To the extent that the allegations of these paragraphs could be construed to allege that these Defendants breached any uty or violated any law, the allegations are denied, 30. Asto paragraphs 116-123, these state legal conclusions to which no response is required. The allegations included merely repeat prior allegations, and Defendants incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Answer as if fully set forth herein. To the extent that the allegations of these paragraphs could be construed to allege that these Defendants breached any duty or violated any law, the allegations are denied, 31. Asto paragraphs 124-128, these state legal conclusions to which no response is required. The allegations included merely repeat prior allegations, and Defendants incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Answer as if fully set forth herein, To the extent thet the allegations of these paragraphs could be construed to allege that these Defendants breached any duty or violated any law, the allegations are denied. 32, Asto paragraphs 129-138, these state legal conclusions to which no response is required. The allegations included merely repeat prior allegations, and Defendants incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Answer as if fully set forth herein, To the extent that the allegations of these paragraphs could be construed to allege that these Defendants breached any duty or violated any law, the allegations are denied. FOR A SECOND DEFENSE 33. Defendants would show, upon information and belief, that the Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint should be dismissed in whole or in part, with costs, under this standard. FOR A THIRD DEFENSE 34, Defendants would show that law enforcement fully investigated the matter and have closed the investigation with no charges and that South Carolina statutory and common law specifically prohibit any private right of action under the reporting statute, FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE 35. Defendants would show, upon information and belief, that any liability for these Defendants, which is expressly denied, is limited by the provisions of the South Carolina, Solicitation of Charitable Funds Act, S.C, Code Ann, § 33-56-10, et seq., because Defendants are, oF are agents of, a charitable organization as defined in § 33-56-170. FOR A FIFTH DEFENSE 36. Defendants would show, upon information and belief, that any liability for these Defendants, which is expressly denied, is barred by the provisions of the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, 42U.S.C. Section 14501, et seq., because Defendants are, or are a volunteer for or agent of, a non-profit organization. FOR A SIXTH DEFENSE 37. Defendants would show that any alleged damages sustained by the Plaintiff, which are specifically denied, were the result ofan intervening act of a third person beyond the control of these Defendants and that such intervening act was not intended or directed by these Defendants and could not be foreseen by these Defendants, and any causal connection between any alloged negligence of these Defendants and the claimed incident with Plaintiff is broken by such intervening act, and these Defendants are not liable to the Plaintiff,FOR A SEVENTH DEFENSE 38. Defendants would show, upon information and belief, that the alleged injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, if any, were the result of the consent or negligence of the Plaintiff and therefore, the Plaintiff cannot recover any sum whatsoever from the Defendants. FOR AN EIGHTH DEFENSE 39, Such injury or loss as the Plaintiff sustained, if any, as alleged in the Complaint, ‘was proximately caused and occasioned by the actions of a third party, which was the direct and proximate cause of injuries or losses suffered by the Plaintiff, if any, and without which the same would not have occurred. Therefore, Defendants plead the acts of a third party as a complete bar to this action against ther. FOR A NINTH DEFENSE 40. Defendants would show, upon information and belief, that any injuries or damages sustained by the Plaintiff were due to his own negligent, careless, reckless and grossly negligent acts or omissions which combined and concurred with any negligence on the part of others or on the part of these Defendants, which is specifically denied, to produce such injuries or damages, if any, and without which such injuries or damages would not have occurred. Defendants plead such negligence, carelessness, recklessness and gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff and would ask that this Court compare the negligence of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and if it is determined that the Plaintiff's negligence, carelessness, recklessness and ‘gross negligence was greater than the negligence, carelessness, recklessness and gross negligence of Defendants, which is specifically denied, then the Plaintiff should be totally barred from recovery and if it is determined that the Plaintiff's negligence, carelessness, recklessness and gross negtigence is equal to or less than the negligence of the Defendant, then the amount ofrecovery available to the Plaintiff should be reduced by the percentage of the Plaintiff's own negligence, carelessness, recklessness and gross negligence. FORAT 41. Defendants would show, upon information and belief, that punitive damages are barred in the present action pursuant to Constitutional and statutory law. WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Defendants First Baptist Church of Columbia, Wendell Estep, and Philip Turner respectfully request that the Amended Complaint be dismissed, with costs, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Defendants also demand a jury trial. Columbia, South Carolina October 26, 2017 Respectfully submitted, MURPHY & GRANTLAND, P.A. Eh Peter E. Farr, Esq PO Box 6648 Columbia, South-Carolina 29260 (803) 782-4100 Attomeys for Defendants First Baptist Church of Columbia, Wendell Estep, and Philip TurnerORIGINAL, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS: COUNTY OF RICHLAND CIVIL ACTION NO: 2017-CP-40-06146 Joel Doe, a minor, by and through his Parents and Guardians Jane Doe and John Doe, Plaintiffs, vs. First Baptist Church of Columbia, Andrew McCraw, Wendell Estep, and Philip Turner, Defendants, for Defendant, do hereby certify that on October 26, 2017, have served a copy of the foregoing Answer of Defendants First Baptist Church of Columbia, Wendell Estep, and Philip ‘Turner in connection with the above-referenced via hand delivery to: John Simmons, Esquire Simmons Law Firm, LLC 1711 Pickens St, Columbia SC 29201 Peter E. Farr, Esquire Columbia, South Carolina October 26, 2017