L.A. v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Stockton 8/12/09 CA3

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2009 » L.A. v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Stockton 8/12/09 CA3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: C057895

Case Date: 11/30/2009

Preview:Filed 8/12/09

L.A. v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Stockton CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ---L.A., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF STOCKTON et al., Defendants and Respondents. C057895 (Super. Ct. No. CV031343)

Plaintiff, who has been designated the fictitious name L.A., appeals from a judgment following the sustaining of a demurrer, without leave to amend, to her complaint for damages against defendants The Roman Catholic Bishop of Stockton, the Pastor of Presentation Church, and the Pastor of St. Anne Church (collectively, defendants). The allegations of the complaint

are, in all material respects, identical to those of the plaintiff in a related case before us, D.D. v. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Stockton, C057260 (D.D.). Our opinion in D.D., which we are filing contemporaneously with this decision, governs the disposition of this appeal. We

1

shall therefore affirm the judgment for the reasons set forth in our lengthy discussion in that case. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Since this is an appeal following an order sustaining a demurrer, we summarize and accept as true all well-pleaded material allegations of the complaint. (Hensler v. City of

Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 8, fn. 3; Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 7.) We exercise our independent judgment in

reviewing a demurrer to determine whether the factual allegations of the complaint state a cause of action. (Schmidt

v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.) The complaint Plaintiff alleges she was the victim of horrific and continuous acts of sexual abuse by Doe 6, a priest, teacher and agent of defendants. The abuse occurred between 1981 and 1984,

when plaintiff was between the ages of seven and nine. Defendants and their employees knew of the abuse and concealed, condoned, and otherwise failed to protect plaintiff from Doe 6, despite actual or constructive notice that he had abused other minors and was a chronic child molester. Plaintiff, now well into adulthood, "immediately repressed all memories of said harassment, abuse, and molestation as a direct result of the trauma inflicted by [Doe 6], and had no awareness of the actions, injury, or wrongfulness of such acts" at the time they occurred.

2

On December 20, 2004, plaintiff recovered her memory of the sexual abuse when, while riding in an elevator, she smelled a certain mixture of body odor and cologne, which triggered her childhood memories of being molested. During this elevator

ride, plaintiff "discovered that her psychological injuries and/or illness, were actually caused by the childhood sexual harassment, molestation and abuse she suffered at the hands of DOE 6, while she was a minor parishioner and student." Plaintiff seeks damages against defendants based on a number of legal theories, including negligent supervision, negligent hiring and retention, failure to warn, constructive fraud, sexual battery, assault, and sexual harassment. Procedural history Plaintiff filed her complaint on December 6, 2006. Defendants demurred, inter alia, on the ground that the complaint was time-barred. The trial court agreed with

defendants and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The court's order states in pertinent part: "IT IS ORDERED that the Demurrer be, and is hereby, sustained without leave to amend . . . on the ground that: 1) Hightower v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th [759] is applicable. prior to January 1, 2003. Plaintiff's claim lapsed [

Download L.A. v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Stockton 8/12/09 CA3.pdf