CONFORMED COPY

1 Anthony M. De Marco, State Bar No. 189153 ORIGINAL FILED

anthony@demarcolawjirm. com Superior Court of California
2 LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY DE MARCO Countv:0f Los Anoeles
234 E. Colorado Blvd., 8th Floor
3 Pasadena, California 91101 MAY 25Z017
Tel: 626-844-7700
4 Fax: 626-449-5572 Sherr! H. Caner, t:xecuuve OUicar/Cierk
By: Judi Lara, Deputy .. .
!" .
5

6
Attorney for Plaintiff, JOHN CP DOE
7

8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES- CENTRAL DISTRICT
11 JOHN CP DOE, an Individual, Case No.: BC682002
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
14 ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF
LOS ANGELES A CORPORATION SOLE; 1. CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
15 ST. LOUISE DE MARILLAC CATHOLIC 2. NEGLIGENCE
CHURCH; FATHER CHRISTOPHER
16 CUNNINGHAM AND DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,
17
Defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
18

19 Based upon information and belief available to Plaintiff at the time of the filing of this
20 Complaint, Plaintiff makes the following allegations:
21 BACKGROUND FACTS
22 1. Plaintiff JOHN CP DOE was sexually molested as a child by DEFENDANT FATHER
23 CHRISTOPHER CUNNINGHAM, (hereinafter "Father CUNNINGHAM'') his parish priest at St.

24 Louise De Marillac Catholic Church in Covina, California. The sexual abuse occurred in the early

25 2000's on church grounds and in Plaintiff's family home. Plaintiff JOHN CP DOE was I 0-11 years
26 old when Father CUNNINGHAM sexually molested him. Plaintiff JOHN CP DOE is the second

27 victim of Father CUNNINGHAM to file a civil lawsuit. Since the 1990's officials with the

28 DEFENDANT ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF LOS ANGELES A CORPORATION

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 1 SOLE (hereinafter "Los Angeles Archdiocese" and "Archdiocese" or "RCALA") have known of other

2 complaints that Father CUNNINGHAM had sexually molested children. The RCALA did not

3 investigate these complaints, but instead transferred Father CUNNINGHAM to different assignments

4 and destroyed records pertaining to these complaints. Father CUNNINGHAM was ordained a

5 Catholic priest of the Los Angeles Archdiocese on June 9, 1990. His first parish assignment as a

6 priest was St. Christopher's in West Covina, California. Starting at St. Christopher's Father

7 CUNNINGHAM developed a penchant for spending extraordinary amounts of time with teenage

8 boys. Father CUNNINGHAM was assigned as an associate pastor at St. Christopher's from 1990 to

9 1994. At St. Christopher's the first complaint regarding Father CUNNINGHAM's conduct with youth

10 was made in writing to the pastor, Monsignor Helmut Hefner, who was also a longtime

11 ARCHDIOCESE official. That letter of complaint as well as all other records from Father

12 CUNNINGHAM's time at St. Christopher's have been destroyed by the RCALA.

13 2. From 1994 to 1998 Father CUNNINGHAM was assigned as an associate pastor at St.

14 Mary's Catholic Church in Palmdale, California. At St. Mary's Father CUNNINGHAM continued his

15 practice of spending extraordinary amounts of time alone with teen boys. Taking them to the movies

16 often one-on-one, taking them to ice cream often one-on-one. Having them in his rectory bedroom,

17 often one-on-one. Wrestling with them and hugging them. Father CUNNINGHAM would further

18 regularly discuss sex with teens in his religious education classes held at St. Mary's. All of this

19 conduct was observed by parish staff at St. Mary's. The Pastor of St. Mary's, who was aware of

20 Father CUNNINGHAM having boys one-on-one alone with him in his rectory bedroom, counseled

21 parish staff that Father CUNNINGHAM was not allowed to have minors alone with him in

22 Cunningham's rectory bedroom. The RCALA had long had a policy that such conduct was forbidden,

23 because it was suspicious for child sexual abuse occurring. Based on Cunningham's conduct with

24 minors, some parish staff suspected he might be sexually molesting boys. The RCALA has long had a

25 policy of expecting parish staff to report their suspicions that a priest might be sexually abusing

26 minors up the chain of command of the RCALA. The RCALA, however, negligently failed to

27 communicate this policy or expectation to parish staff at St. Mary's and throughout the RCALA in the

28 1990's and 2000's.

2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 3. Father CUNNINGHAM was witnessed by parish staff wrestling with one boy, whom

2 he routinely had alone with in CUNNINGHAM's bedroom. On one occasion Father CUNNINGHAM

3 was seen to pin the boy belly down on the ground, with the boys legs spread, and Father

4 CUNNINGHAM kneeling, between the boys legs and holding the boy down. The parish staff

5 member witnessing this conduct believed Father CUNNINGHAM's conduct to be improper.

6 4. One Pastor at St. Mary's wrote an evaluation of Father CUNNINGHAM in which he

7 says that Father CUNNINGHAM is too "immature" . "Immature" has been a code word used by

8 Catholic Clergy for many years to describe a priest who spends too much time with minors and who is

9 possibly sexually abusing them. In the same document, the Pastor writes that Father CUNNINGHAM

10 is popular with young people, especially in a one-on-one situation.

11 5. The successor pastor of St. Mary's in Palmdale, also becomes aware of Father

12 CUNNINGHAM having boys in his rectory bedroom. As a result the pastor counsel's Father

13 CUNNINGHAM he is not to have boys in his rectory bedroom, that doing so raises the appearance of

14 impropriety with youth and could result in a complaint of child sexual abuse.

15 6. In 1998, after a complaint that Father CUNNINGHAM was sexually abusing a child

16 reached the highest levels of the RCALA administration, Father CUNNINGHAM was moved to St.

17 Lawrence Martyr Catholic Church in Redondo Beach, California.

18 7. On May 24, 1999, the Vicar for Clergy for the RCALA, Richard Loomis, confirmed in

19 a letter to Father CUNNINGHAM that it was closing its case on the complaint in 1998 that Father

20 CUNNINGHAM had sexually molested a child. Monsignor Loomis's letter indicates that the child

21 was never interviewed, and gives no indication that any parish staff were ever interviewed regarding

22 Father CUNNINGHAM's conduct with the child or any other youth. The letter from Loomis

23 indicates records of the complaint, the investigation and the findings would be retained permanently in

24 the Confidential file of the RCALA pertaining to Father CUNNINGHAM. Despite this, record ofthe

25 complaint, the investigation and findings have been destroyed. The RCALA has maintained no record

26 of the identity of the victim, who complained of the abuse, when they complained, to whom they

27 complained, and what specifically they complained about. The RCALA has maintained no record of

28 who if anyone was interviewed regarding the complaint. The complaint was not presented to the

3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 ARCHDIOCESE Sexual Abuse Advisory board, despite the fact the ARCHDIOCESE had publicly

2 touted that such complaints were presented to that board for its determinations.

3 8. Monsignor Loomis, who was Vicar for Clergy, himself has been accused of sexually

4 molesting at least two minors, one of whom the RCALA has paid a significant settlement to.

5 Monsignor Loomis has also been allowed to continue in ministry, to the present, as an active parish

6 priest of the RCALA despite the abuse complaints against him.

7 9. In a deposition taken in 2016, Monsignor Loomis, when asked about the May 24, 1999

8 letter, could not remember a single detail about the complaint. Not who it was made by, not when it

9 was made, not who it was made to, not anything regarding what the complaint was about.

10 10. In 2001, Father CUNNINGHAM was assigned by the ARCHDIOCESE as Pastor at St.

11 Louise De Marillac Catholic church in Covina, California. Within a few months of his arrival, an

12 associate pastor at the parish complained in writing to the ARCHDIOCESE Vicar for Clergy Craig

13 Cox and the regional Bishop, Gabino Zavala that Father CUNNINGHAM is having teen boys in the

14 rectory as well as having a youth or young man staying in Father CUNNINGHAM's rectory bedroom

15 late into the night. The associate pastor complained about these contacts with teen boys because he

16 believed them to be "imprudent." The associate pastor identified some of the boys in his letters of

17 complaint that are sent to Monsignor Cox and Bishop Zavala. There is no record of the

18 ARCHDIOCESE conducting any interviews of any ofthe young boys or the young man.

19 11. The young man seen in Father CUNNINGHAM's bedroom admits in a letter written at

20 Father CUNNINGHAM's urging that he has known Father CUNNINGHAM since meeting Father

21 CUNNINGHAM as his parish priest at St. Christopher's in West Covina when the boy was 13 or 14

22 years old. The young man admits that he and Cunningham have had a close relationship since that

23 time. The ARCHDIOCESE never reached out to the boy to ask him any details regarding the history

24 of his contacts with Father CUNNINGHAM. The boy as a minor had also been an overnight guest of

25 Father CUNNINGHAM in the rectory at St. Mary's in Palmdale.

26 12. At St. Louise, Father CUNNINGHAM continued his practices of regularly giving hugs

27 to teens, wrestling with teen boys, grabbing their breasts and twisting, openly discussing with them

28 masturbation and other sexual topics in meetings on Church grounds. While at St. Louise parish staff

4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 complained to the RCALA regarding this conduct, as well as of finding used condoms on church

2 grounds, the morning after Father CUNNINGHAM's youth groups would meet in such areas.

3 13. While at St. Louise, Father CUNNINGHAM was observed by parish staffkissing two

4 late teen boys at a local Denny's. The staff member complained to Archdiocesan officials. Father

5 CUNNINGHAM discouraged the boys from being interviewed by the RCALA following the

6 complaint. Eventually Father CUNNINGHAM identified one of the two boys to the

7 ARCHDIOCESE. That boy confirmed Father CUNNINGHAM had kissed him, and that it was

8 routine, but that he was 18 at the time. The boy admitted to knowing Father CUNNINGHAM for

9 some time before however. There was never any attempt by the RCALA to determine how old the

10 teen was when Father CUNNINGHAM first came to know him and began kissing him. There was no

11 attempt by the RCALA to determine who the other boy Father CUNNINGHAM was seen kissing.

12 14. In 2003 Father CUNNINGHAM was removed from his position as Pastor at ST.

13 LOUISE DE MARRILAC by Cardinal Roger Mahony. Father CUNNINGHAM resisted this removal

14 and worked to gain the support of parishioners to have him stay. Such conduct has over the years

15 routinely been engaged in by priests who are being moved from a parish after complaints or concerns

16 of sexual abuse have become known to Archdiocesan leadership. This conduct of inflaming support

17 by parishioners acts discourage the child sexual abuse victims in the parish from reporting the abuse to

18 their parents or other adults for fear of being exposed or condemned by the parish community.

19 15. The sad truth however, is that children who have been molested by Catholic priests, are

20 often the children of the families most involved with the parish and with the priest. This is how the

21 priest gains the access and trust that are then manipulated to the pedophile priests perverted desires.

22 Counseling the teens regarding normal issues, can tum to counseling regarding their changing bodies

23 and about sex. A reassuring touch or kindness by the perpetrator, moves to more touching, hugs, long

24 looks, soft words, caresses. As the victim's inhibitions are lowered, the trusted moral and religious

25 authority leads the teen further to touches that are more intimate and pleasurable. Confused by

26 conflicting emotions, the victims often reaches a point where they do not believe that can tell anyone

27 of the conduct, because the youth fears be branded, fears the loss of privacy, fears they will be blamed

28 for allowing the conduct, fear being condemned or labeled, fears they or their family will be cast out

5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 of the religious community and religion they are so intimately involved in, fears the loss of faith their

2 parents will feel, or the loss of trust parents will feel in them. The child is further paralyzed and

3 imprisoned, when the perpetrator a respected, revered and loved Catholic priest, the center of the

4 community, utilizes his position to rally the adults and children of the parish to support him.

5 16. The RCALA by the early 2000's was well aware of the epidemic of its priests sexually

6 molesting minors, and of the activities by those priests which served to silence victims. Because of

7 this knowledge, the RCALA publicly purported to implement a policy of informing parish
8 communities whenever a priest had been accused of molesting minors. Despite this policy the

9 RCALA, never informed any of the parish communities Father CUNNINGHAM served that he had

10 been accused, accused multiple times of sexually abusing minors.

11 17. In 2004 Father CUNNINGHAM was assigned to Our Lady of Assumption parish in

12 Ventura, California. He again immediately took to the youth ofthe parish. Within months of his

13 arrival, he took a group of children and adults on a trip to Europe for world youth day. On that trip he

14 was accused of conduct that was suspicious for sexual abuse. The RCALA has kept no records of the

15 complaint, of who made, of what was complained of, of when such conduct occurred. Father

16 CUNNINGHAM confided in a long-time parishioner and friend from St. Mary's in Palmdale, that

17 Father CUNNINGHAM had been discovered in a hotel room, alone with a minor, with the minor's

18 belt in his hands.

19 18. Father CUNNINGHAM was informed by his pastor at Our Lady of Assumption in

20 Ventura that some sort of complaint had been made relating to his conduct at World Youth Day.

21 Shortly after Father CUNNINGHAM was told this, Father CUNNINGHAM took a leave of absence

22 from his position. There is no record of the RCALA taking any action to either investigate the

23 complaint or impose any discipline upon Cunningham. Instead the RCALA has to the present elected

24 to financially support Father CUNNINGHAM, including paying for his separate legal defense in

25 actions involving his sexual abuse of minors.

26 19. In 2013, the RCALA was forced to make public tens of thousands of pages of

27 personnel files regarding its priests accused of molesting children. On the same day the RCALA

28 made these documents public on its website in 2013, the RCALA buried in that production a

6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 document titled Final Addendum to the Report to the People of God. The document however was

2 dated October 2008. In that document, the RCALA lists Father CUNNINGHAM as having a credible

3 allegation of child sexual abuse having been made against him. Again, the RCALA has not retained

4 any records pertaining to this complaint. There is no reference as to the timing of the complaint, or

5 when the abuse was alleged to occur.

6 21. The RCALA in 1989 formalized its policies regarding the prevention, detection and

7 reporting of child sexual abuse by priests. This was done because the RCALA had become well

8 aware of the epidemic of abuse by its priests, and by priests generally. Those policies were added to

9 periodically over the course of the 1990's and early 2000's. Those policies at all times prohibited

10 priests from having minors in their rectory living quarters. From priests wrestling with, tickling or

11 hugging minors, or spending too much time in the company of minors, or taking minors on any

12 outings without adults present. By 1994, those policies expressly stated that if a fellow priests

13 observes any of such conduct they are required to report it to the Vicar for Clergy of the

14 ARCHDIOCESE. These policies starting in 1989 were given to every priest working in the RCALA.

15 The RCALA however, took no action in 1989 or throughout the 1990's or early 2000's to

16 communicate to parish or school staff these same policies. While the RCALA throughout this time

17 and before, expected parish staff to communicate any suspicions of abuse by priests up the chain of

18 command, nothing was done by the RCALA to communicate this expectation to those staff members,

19 or to provide those staff members with guidance regarding what sort of conduct should be avoided and

20 should create suspicions of abuse. Therefore while the priests of a parish were told what conduct with

21 minors should be avoided, like having kids in the rectory, or taking them on trips without another

22 adult present, or wrestling with them, or hugging them, youth group leaders and catechism teachers

23 who would be in the best position to observe this conduct were not informed of this.

24 22. The RCALA by failing to communicate these policies to parish staff purposefully

25 sought to keep secret abuse by priests, and in this way facilitated priests like Father CUNNINGHAM,

26 molestation of minors. Parish staff not knowing of these policies, feared they would lose their

27 positions ifthey reported their concerns. Many dismissed their observations and concerns because

28 they didn't actually see or know of sexual molestation, though they observed conduct by priests such

7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 as Father CUNNINGHAM which caused them to suspect abuse was occurring.

2 23. Defendants RCALA and ST. LOUISE DE MARILLAC CATHOLIC CHURCH

3 through their agents and managing agents knew of prior complaints that Father CUNNINGHAM had

4 sexually molested a minor, prior to the end of his abuse of Plaintiff. Defendants RCALA and ST.

5 LOUISE DE MARILLAC through their agents and managing agents knew or had reason to know that
6 Father CUNNINGHAM routinely violated rules of Defendants that were designed to prevent child

7 molestation by clergy. Such rules violations included but were not limited to Father CUNNINGHAM

8 regularly having underage boys alone with him in his church living quarters; regularly wrestling with

9 under age boys on church grounds; regularly meeting underage boys without chaperones for outings to

10 movies, Starbucks and other locations.

11 PARTIES

12 24. Plaintiff JOHN CP DOE was approximately 10-11 years old when he was sexually

13 molested by Father CHRISTOPHER CUNNINGHAM, his parish priest, at ST. LOUISE DE

14 MARILLAC CATHOLIC CHURCH, in West Covina. Plaintiff is under 26 years of age. Plaintiff is

15 a resident of the Los Angeles County.

16 25. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF LOS ANGELES A CORPORATION

17 SOLE ("RCALA") is authorized to conduct business and conducts business in the State of California,

18 with its principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California. Defendant RCALA has

19 responsibility for Roman Catholic Church operations in Ventura County, Santa Barbara County and

20 Los Angeles County, California. Defendant, RCALA is the ARCHDIOCESE in which the sexual

21 abuse occurred. Plaintiff was a parishioner and student of ST. LOUISE DE MARILLAC and the

22 RCALA. Father CUNNINGHAM was a priest, employee and an agent of RCALA at all times

23 relevant when he met Plaintiff and Plaintiffs family and while the sexual abuse of Plaintiff was

24 occurring. The RCALA at all times relevant employed, supervised and controlled the employment as

25 a priest of Father CUNNINGHAM, as well as all other employees and agents of ST. LOUISE DE

26 MARILAC CATHOLIC CHURCH.

27 26. Defendant ST. LOUISE DE MARILLAC CATHOLIC CHURCH is the Catholic

28 Church at which Plaintiff and his family were parishioners. ST. LOUISE DE MARILLAC

8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 CATHOLIC CHURCH is also the Catholic Church at which Father CUNNINGHAM was assigned

2 and worked as Pastor at the time he met and came to sexually abuse Plaintiff. As part of his duties

3 with ST. LOUISE DE MARILLAC CATHOLIC CHURCH and the RCALA, Father CUNNINGHAM

4 visited parishioners in their homes, including Plaintiff and Plaintiffs family's home. ST. LOUISE DE

5 MARILLAC CATHOLIC CHURCH is located in Covina, California, which is within Los Angeles

6 County. ST. LOUISE DE MARILLAC CATHOLIC CHURCH is not separately incorporated. ST.

7 LOUISE DE MARILLAC CATHOLIC CHURCH is wholly owned, operated and controlled by the

8 RCALA, and has been since its creation.

9 27. Defendant Father CUNNINGHAM did commit child sexual abuse upon Plaintiff

10 JOHN CP DOE within the meaning of Code ofCivil Procedure section 340.1 (e) when Plaintiff JOHN

11 CP DOE was approximately 10-11 years of age. Father CHRISTOPHER CUNNINGHAM is a

12 resident of Rhode Island.

13 28. Defendant Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are individuals and/or business or corporate

14 private or public entities incorporated in and/or doing business in California, whose true names and

15 capacities are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues such Defendants by such fictitious names, and

16 who will amend the Complaint to show the true names and capacities of each such Doe Defendants

17 when ascertained. Each such Defendant Doe is legally responsible in some manner for the events,

18 happenings and/or tortious and unlawful conduct that caused the injuries and damages alleged in this

19 Complaint.

20 29. Defendants the RCALA, ST. LOUISE DE MARILLAC CATHOLIC CHURCH,

21 Father CUNNINGHAM, and Does 1 through 100, are hereinafter referred to as the "Defendants."

22 30. Each Defendant is the agent, servant and/or employee of other Defendants, and each

23 Defendant was acting within the course and scope of his, her or its authority as an agent, servant

24 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 in

26 and conspired with the other wrongdoers in carrying out the tortious and unlawful activities described

27 in this Complaint, and Defendants, each of them, ratified the acts of the other Defendants as described

28 in this Complaint.

9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2 CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
3 (Plaintiff Against All Defendants)
4 31. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
5 32. Defendants are vicariously liable for the child sexual abuse committed upon Plaintiff

6 by Father CUNNINGHAM: 1) The Defendants authorized the wrongful conduct; 2) The Defendants

7 ratified the wrongful conduct.

8 33. For the reasons set forth in the incorporated paragraphs of this Complaint, the sexual

9 abuse ofPlaintiffby Father CUNNINGHAM arose from, was incidental to, Father CUNNINGHAM's

10 employment with Defendants, and each of these Defendants ratified or approved of that sexual

11 contact. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that Defendants ratified and/or approved of the

12 sexual misconduct by failing to adequately investigate, discharge, discipline or supervise Father

13 CUNNINGHAM or other priests known by Defendants to have sexually abused children, or to have

14 been accused of sexually abusing children. Defendants and each of them ratified Father

15 CUNNINGHAM's abuse by concealing evidence of prior sexual abuse of other children by Father

16 CUNNINGHAM and other priests from Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' parents, other families with children, law

17 enforcement, and personnel of Defendants who could have been in a position to prevent the abuse of

18 Plaintiffs and others if they had known of complaints of Father CUNNINGHAM's sexual abuse of

19 children, and prior complaints of other priests of sexual abuse of children.

20 34. Plaintiff was also a student at LOUISE DE MARILLAC CATHOLIC CHURCH

21 School. Defendants' special relationship with Plaintiff gave rise to a special duty of care to Plaintiff

22 as an underage student. Father CUNNINGHAM came into contact with Plaintiff and fostered a

23 relationship with Plaintiff through Father CUNNINGHAM's work with, administration of, and

24 teaching at the school operated by ST. LOUISE DE MARILLAC and the RCALA.

25 35. The risk of abuse of a Catholic priest's authority, the risk of misuse of church, parish

26 and school resources, facilities, rituals, procedures and responsibilities, and the risk of misuse of

27 access to young, vulnerable children, and their families all to allow them to commit sexual abuse upon

28 children, are, and have been for decades, risks known to the officers and directors of Defendants who

10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 have enacted policies and procedures, prior to Plaintiff's molestation by Father CUNNINGHAM, to

2 address such conduct and its consequences. The central tenets of the policies and procedures of

3 Defendants was the avoidance of scandal, secrecy and loyalty to fellow clergy, including child

4 molesting clergy, rather than the protection of the safety of children.

5 36. Defendants have routinely over the years failed to discipline, investigate or terminate

6 known child molesting priests. Instead, Defendants condoned the conduct of priests molesting

7 children by protecting offending clerics from public scorn and civil authorities, often transferring them

8 from town to town, county to county, state to state, and country to country, all to allow child

9 molesting priests to escape prosecution and protect their reputations, as well as the reputation of the

10 Defendants. By doing so, Defendants have systematically encouraged and condoned this conduct by

11 more priests including, Father CUNNINGHAM.

12 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

13 NEGLIGENCE

14 (Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

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

16 38. Defendants had a duty to protect the minor Plaintiff when he was entrusted to their care

17 by Plaintiff's parents. Plaintiff's care, welfare, and/or physical custody were temporarily entrusted to

18 Defendants, and Defendants accepted the entrusted care of Plaintiff. As such, Defendants owed

19 Plaintiff, a minor child, a special duty of care, in addition to a duty of ordinary care, and owed

20 Plaintiff the higher duty of care that adults dealing with children owe to protect them from harm.

21 39. Father CUNNINGHAM was able, by virtue of his unique authority and position as a

22 Roman Catholic Priest, to identify vulnerable victims and their families upon which he could perform

23 such sexual abuse; to manipulate his authority to procure compliance with his sexual demands from

24 his victims; to induce the victims to continue to allow the abuse; and to coerce them not to report it to

25 any other persons or authorities. As a Priest, Father CUNNINGHAM had unique access to families

26 like Plaintiff's. Father CUNNINGHAM's access, authority and reverence was known to the

27 Defendants and encouraged by them. Father CUNNINGHAM used his authority and position as a

28 Roman Catholic Priest to sexually abuse Plaintiff and others.

11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 40. Defendants, by and through their agents, servants and employees, knew or reasonably

2 should have known of Father CUNNINGHAM's dangerous and exploitive propensities and/or that

3 Father CUNNINGHAM was an unfit agent. It was foreseeable that if Defendants did not adequately

4 exercise or provide the duty of care owed to children in their care, including but not limited to the

5 Plaintiff, the children entrusted to Defendants' care would be vulnerable to sexual abuse by Father

6 CUNNINGHAM.

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

8 CUNNINGHAM to come into contact with the minor Plaintiff without supervision; by failing to

9 adequately supervise, or negligently retaining Father CUNNINGHAM who they permitted and

10 enabled to have access to Plaintiff; by failing to investigate or otherwise confirm or deny such facts

11 about Father CUNNINGHAM; by failing to tell or concealing from Plaintiff, Plaintiffs parents,

12 guardians, or law enforcement officials that Father CUNNINGHAM was or may have been sexually

13 abusing minors; and/or by holding out Father CUNNINGHAM to the Plaintiff and his parents or

14 guardians as being in good standing and trustworthy. As a Priest, Father CUNNINGHAM was

15 expected to minister to parish families. Defendants acknowledge and expect that parish priests should

16 visit parishioners' homes as part of their duties as priests. Father CUNNINGHAM visited family

17 homes like Plaintiffs as part of his expected functions. Defendants cloaked within the facade of

18 normalcy Defendants' and/or Father CUNNINGHAM's contact and/or actions with the Plaintiffs

19 and/or with other minors who were victims of Father CUNNINGHAM, and/or disguised the nature of

20 the sexual abuse and contact. RCALA created policies, include failure to send to parishioners in 2001

21 and 2002 policies regarding sexual abuse of minors.

22 42. Defendants had a duty to educate, train and warn Plaintiff, and other minors involved

23 in youth programs at ST. LOUISE DE MARILLAC CATHOLIC CHURCH and ST. MARY'S

24 CATHOLIC CHURCH regarding prevention, detection and reporting of child abuse so as to help

25 safeguard Plaintiff and other participants from being sexually abused by priests and other adults

26 associated with those programs. Defendants had a duty to educate, train and warn parents and adult

27 agents of Defendants and other employees that had regular contact with or oversight of minors in

28 Defendants schools and youth programs regarding prevention, detection and reporting of child abuse

12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 so as to help safeguard Plaintiff and other minors from being sexually abused in those schools and

2 programs. No such education was given Plaintiff or other minors in Defendants' schools and youth
3 programs prior to Father Cunningham's abuse of Plaintiff. This despite the fact that such written

4 polices were created not later than 1989 and transmitted to all priests working in the RCALA.

5 43. The RCALA made a conscious decision to only provide those written policies to

6 priests, and to not provide access to those policies to the multitude of non-priest parish and school

7 staff, volunteers, parents or children in Defendants' schools and youth programs. Ifthose policies had

8 been communicated to parish and school and employees and agents responsible for youth programs at

9 St. Mary's in Palmdale, and St. Louise De Marillac in Covina, those persons would have known the

10 ARCHDIOCESE forbade the sort of suspicious conduct Cunningham was engaging in with teen boys,

11 and that such conduct created a suspicion of abuse, and that the ARCHDIOCESE expected that such

12 conduct would be reported up the chain of command. The suspicious conduct engaged in by Father

13 CUNNINGHAM with teen boys that was witnessed by parish staff, adult youth group leaders and

14 priests at St. Mary's in Palmdale and at St. Louise De Marillac in Covina included, wrestling with teen

15 boys, having them alone with him in his rectory living quarters, kissing them, taking them out one-on-

16 one to ice cream and the movies, giving them "titty-twisters", hugging them, and spending inordinate

17 amounts of time alone with them.

18 44. The RCALA since at least the 1970's had a policy and expectation that all parish

19 workers and staff that had suspicions a priest might be sexually abusing minors should report those

20 concerns up the chain of command. This policy and expectation however was not reduced to writing,

21 and was not uniformly communicated to parish and school workers until the 2000's.

22 45. The epidemic of priests sexually molesting minors has long been known to Defendants.

23 Hundreds of Catholic priests in the RCALA alone have been accused of molesting children in the

24 years leading up to Father CUNNINGHAM's molestation of Plaintiff and other minors. The RCALA

25 starting in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and 1990's received a multitude of complaints that its

26 priests had sexually abused minors. The RCALA like other Catholic institutions around the country

27 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 silence

13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 1 victims and their families. The RCALA during this time period routinely developed a practice and

2 policy of sending such accused priests to therapists loyal to the Defendant or other Catholic

3 Institutions for therapy who would not make mandated reports of child sexual abuse and therefore

4 allow the priests to be recycled back into further church assignments, endangering countless more

5 children. In 2002 and 2003, more than 700 victims filed lawsuits against the RCALA alleging child

6 sexual abuse by Catholic clergy serving in Los Angeles. Settlements in excess of 700 million were
7 reached for those victims between 2004 and 2007.

8 46. As a direct result of the wrongful conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered, and

9 continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of

10 emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of

11 life; were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing Plaintiffs daily activities and

12 obtaining the full enjoyment of life; and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for

13 medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for damages; attorneys' fees; punitive damages as to

15 FATHER CHIRSTOPHER CUNNINGHAM only; and such other relief as the court deems

16 appropriate and just.

17 JURY TRIAL DEMAND

18 Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

19

20 DATED: MayJ..l{ , 2017 LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY M. DEMARCO

21

22
By: gy~.
23
~ARCO
24 Attorney for Plaintiff, JOHN CP DOE

25

26

27

28

14
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES