Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 1 of 21 Page ID#: 1

Gilion C. Dumas, OSB 922932

gilion@dumaslawgroup.com
Ashley L. Nastoff, OSB 114691
ashley@dumaslawgroup.com
Dumas Law Group, LLC
516 SE Morrison Street, Suite 309
Portland, Oregon 97214
Telephone: 503-952-6789

Erin K. Olson, OSB 934776

eolson@erinolsonlaw.com
Law Office of Erin Olson, P.C.
2014 NE Broadway St.
Portland, Oregon 97232
Phone: 503-546-3150
Fax: 503-548-4435

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

MARK DOE, an individual filing under a Case No. 3:14-cv-00658

pseudonym,

Plaintiff, COMPLAINT

v.
Sexual Battery of a Child; Intentional
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF Infliction of Emotional Distress; Negligence
PORTLAND IN OREGON, AND
SUCCESSORS, A CORPORATION SOLE,
an Oregon corporation, dba DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN
OREGON, an Oregon corporation,

Defendants.

Page 1 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

 Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 2 of 21 Page ID#: 2

COMES NOW Plaintiff MARK DOE, by and through his attorneys of record, and for his

Complaint against DEFENDANTS, alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

This court has exclusive jurisdiction over claims against defendant ROMAN CATHOLIC

ARCHBISHOP OF PORTLAND IN OREGON, AND SUCCESSORS, A CORPORATION

SOLE, an Oregon Corporation, dba ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and paragraph 6.4.3 of the “Third Amended and Restated Joint Plan of

Reorganization of Debtor, Tort Claimants Committee, Future Claimants Representative, and

Parish and Parishioners Committee,” as confirmed by Hon. Elizabeth L. Perris in her “Order

Confirming Third Amended and Restated Joint Plan of Reorganization of Debtor, Tort Claimants

Committee, Future Claimants Representative, and Parish and Parishioners Committee” of April

17, 2007 in case number 04-37154-elp11 of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District

of Oregon. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a), together with the foregoing

provision of the confirmed bankruptcy plan.

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

2.

Plaintiff MARK DOE is an adult male citizen of the United States and a resident of the

State of Oregon. PLAINTIFF was born in 1961.

3.

At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants ROMAN CATHOLIC

ARCHBISHOP OF PORTLAND IN OREGON, AND SUCCESSORS, A CORPORATION

Page 2 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

 Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 3 of 21 Page ID#: 3

SOLE, dba the ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON, and its related entity the

ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON were Oregon corporations with principal

places of business in Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon. Defendant Oregon corporations

ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF PORTLAND IN OREGON, AND SUCCESSORS, A

CORPORATION SOLE and ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON merged in 1991,

at which time the merged corporations became ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF

PORTLAND IN OREGON, AND SUCCESSORS, A CORPORATION SOLE, and the

ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON became the merged corporation’s assumed

business name. The merged defendants are hereinafter collectively referred to as

“ARCHDIOCESE.”

4.

At all times relevant to this complaint, Maurice Grammond (“Fr. Grammond”) was a

Roman Catholic priest incardinated in the ARCHDIOCESE and assigned by the

ARCHDIOCESE to Our Lady of Victory parish in Seaside, Oregon, where he served as a parish

priest and administrator. Fr. Grammond’s post was officially sanctioned by the

ARCHDIOCESE.

5.

At all times relevant to this complaint, Fr. Grammond was employed by, and an agent

and servant of, the ARCHDIOCESE. During that employment and agency, Fr. Grammond

provided pastoral services to PLAINTIFF, and acted within the course and scope of his

employment or agency in performing duties for and on behalf of the ARCHDIOCESE.

///

///

Page 3 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

 Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 4 of 21 Page ID#: 4

6.

At all times relevant to this complaint, PLAINTIFF was an unemancipated minor living

in Seaside, Oregon. PLAINTIFF, his parents, and siblings were parishioners at Our Lady of

Victory from approximately 1961 through 1979. PLAINTIFF served as an altar boy from

approximately 1968 through 1974, was baptized, received First Holy Communion, and was

confirmed at Our Lady of Victory.

7.

At all times relevant to this complaint, the ARCHDIOCESE held Fr. Grammond out as a

“priest” through the act of public ordination and the granting of faculties to Fr. Grammond.

Defendants retained the right to control the means, methods, and physical details of any priest

with faculties in the ARCHDIOCESE.

8.

The ARCHDIOCESE empowered Fr. Grammond to perform all the duties of a priest,

including but not limited to the power to provide spiritual, moral and ethical guidance; religious

instruction; education; pastoral and religious services; altar boy training and supervision; and

other duties of a parish priest. The ARCHDIOCESE knew that as part of his duties as a priest,

Fr. Grammond would be in a position of trust and confidence with children and their families,

including PLAINTIFF in this case. Further, the ARCHDIOCESE knew Fr. Grammond would

select, train and have discretion over minor children, and empowered him to order and instruct

such youth, including PLAINTIFF in this case, to comply with his commands.

9.

At all times relevant to this complaint, the ARCHDIOCESE, through public documents

and statements, proclaimed that its priests were subject to a set of behavioral parameters,

Page 4 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

 Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 5 of 21 Page ID#: 5

including but not limited to celibacy and respectful confidence, and were therefore sexually

“safe” with regard to parishioners both young and old. By allowing Fr. Grammond to act as a

priest, Defendants signaled to the public that Fr. Grammond comported with the

ARCHDIOCESE’s internal rules regarding the proper conduct of priests.

10.

At all times relevant to this complaint, the ARCHDIOCESE invited PLAINTIFF, his

family, and all other members of the public to enter into a special, fiduciary relationship with the

Roman Catholic Church, in part inviting PLAINTIFF and his family to trust the Church with

their spiritual matters and encouraging PLAINTIFF to submit to the rules of the Church in

exchange.

11.

At all times relevant to this complaint, one of the teachings of the Roman Catholic

Church was a firm and consistent obedience to any instruction from a Roman Catholic priest.

PLAINTIFF was raised in this belief, and it formed the basis for his relationship with Fr.

Grammond. In particular, the ARCHDIOCESE encouraged PLAINTIFF and his family to

welcome the ARCHDIOCESE’s priests into their lives, including having priests to dinner,

inviting them to family and social events, and generally conditioning PLAINTIFF – consistent

with the ARCHDIOCESE’s teachings on how children should behave toward priests – to respect,

obey, and revere any priest of the Roman Catholic faith.

12.

While performing his duties as a priest, and for the purpose of furthering the duties

required in that role, Fr. Grammond befriended PLAINTIFF and his family and gained

PLAINTIFF’s trust and confidence as a spiritual guide, authority figure, and valuable and

Page 5 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

 Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 6 of 21 Page ID#: 6

trustworthy mentor. Fr. Grammond sought and received the support, acquiescence, and

permission of employees or agents of the ARCHDIOCESE, as well as that of PLAINTIFF’s

family, to spend substantial periods of time alone with PLAINTIFF. Fr. Grammond performed

duties on behalf of ARCHDIOCESE that gave him authorized access to PLAINTIFF, and the

ARCHDIOCESE authorized Fr. Grammond to spend time alone with PLAINTIFF in furtherance

of Fr. Grammond’s duties as an Archdiocesan priest.

13.

Pursuant to the power vested in him by the ARCHDIOCESE, Fr. Grammond sought and

instilled in PLAINTIFF and PLAINTIFF’s family that they were to have respect for Fr.

Grammond’s authority and guidance, and to comply with Fr. Grammond’s instruction and

requests. As a result, PLAINTIFF was conditioned to trust Fr. Grammond and comply with his

directions, and to view and respect him as a person of authority in spiritual, moral, and ethical

matters. This course of conduct, culminating in the sexual abuse as described below, is

hereinafter collectively referred to as “grooming.”

14.

Fr. Grammond’s grooming of PLAINTIFF, and/or his actions toward PLAINTIFF were

within the scope of his agency and were: (1) committed in direct connection and for the purposes

of fulfilling his employment and agency with the ARCHDIOCESE; (2) committed within the

time and space limits of his agency as an Archdiocesan priest; (3) done initially, and at least in

part, from the desire to serve the interests of the ARCHDIOCESE; (4) done directly in the

performance of his duties as a Archdiocesan priest; (5) consisted generally of actions of a kind

and nature which Fr. Grammond was required to perform as an agent of the ARCHDIOCESE;

and (6) done at the direction of, and pursuant to, the power.

Page 6 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

 Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 7 of 21 Page ID#: 7

15.

At all material times, the ARCHDIOCESE knew or should have known that a victim of

sexual abuse, such as PLAINTIFF, is unlikely to disclose abuse, or to seek counseling for the

effects of abuse, because of, for example, the shame and guilt associated with such abuse, the

conviction that the victim will not be believed if he or she discloses it, and the long-term

consequences stemming from the abuse that prevent a victim from disclosing, such as emotional

and psychological trauma, depersonalization, depression, dissociative symptoms, and/or

impaired cognitive functioning.

16.

Notwithstanding this knowledge, the ARCHDIOCESE knew that Fr. Grammond sexually

abused boys prior to his sexual abuse of PLAINTIFF, and the ARCHDIOCESE did nothing to

stop Fr. Grammond or prevent future sexual abuse by Fr. Grammond. The ARCHDIOCESE

knew or reasonably should have known about the serious risks Fr. Grammond posed to minor

parishioners, including PLAINTIFF. Before, during, and shortly after Fr. Grammond’s abuse of

PLAINTIFF, the ARCHDIOCESE had the following notice and knowledge that Fr. Grammond

was a sexual predator who posed a risk to minor parishioners:

A. In approximately 1957, minor child J.C. Jr. went on a camping trip with Fr.

Grammond and several other children. When J.C. Jr. came home late, his father and mother

questioned J.C. Jr. about the reason he was late. J.C. Jr. said that Fr. Grammond let him drive his

car while sitting on his lap, and further, Fr. Grammond made the boys swim nude and then dried

them off. J.C. Jr. also said that Fr. Grammond played a game with the boys, where whoever won

or lost had to sleep with Fr. Grammond. J.C. went to his parish priest, Fr. V.L. Moffenbeier, and

told him what happened and how Fr. Grammond was “messing with these boys . . . .” Fr.

Page 7 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

 Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 8 of 21 Page ID#: 8

Moffenbeier told J.C., “I’ll take care of it.” At the time, Fr. Moffenbeier was an Archdiocesan

priest assigned by the ARCHDIOCESE to the Holy Cross parish and was an agent and servant of

the ARCHDIOCESE.

B. In approximately 1962 or 1963, Fr. Grammond visited the D. family in Portland

and went to say goodnight to the D. boys. When minor child J.D. came downstairs the next

morning, he told to his mother that Fr. Grammond had sexually abused him the night before. His

mother went to Fr. John R. Thatcher, the priest of the family’s regular parish, St. Ignatius, and

reported the matter to him. Fr. Thatcher told J.D.’s mother that he “would take care of it.” At

the time, Fr. Thatcher was the priest assigned by the ARCHDIOCESE to St. Ignatius parish and

was an agent and servant of the ARCHDIOCESE.

C. In approximately 1965 or 1966, while assigned to the Oakridge parish, Fr.

Grammond befriended the F. family, including the minor son R.M. Fr. Grammond frequently

spent the night at the family’s house in Dexter, Oregon. Because the family did not have an

extra bedroom, Fr. Grammond slept with R.M. R.M.’s mother eventually became concerned

about Fr. Grammond’s actions toward R.M., because, for example, Fr. Grammond spent a

considerable amount of time with R.M., took him on camping and skiing trips, bought him

expensive gifts, and tried to convince R.M’s mother to let R.M. live with him. On one occasion

when Fr. Grammond spent the night, Fr. Grammond put a lock on the inside of R.M.’s bedroom

door. R.M.’s mother reported her suspicion that Fr. Grammond was doing improper things with

her son to Fr. Charles Scott, R.M.’s principal at St. Francis High School in Eugene. At Fr.

Scott’s request, R.M.’s mother reported the matter to Msgr. Edmund J. Murname, then a dean of

the ARCHDIOCESE and an Archdiocesan official in various other capacities, who was an agent

and servant of the ARCHDIOCESE.

Page 8 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

 Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 9 of 21 Page ID#: 9

D. In December 1968, Msgr. Edmund Van der Zanden, an official of the

ARCHDIOCESE, received a letter from a Clatsop County judge describing Fr. Grammond’s

interference with the children of a local family. A letter from the boy’s father followed,

addressed to Archbishop Dwyer, stating that Fr. Grammond kept one of his sons overnight in the

rectory against the wishes of the boy’s family. The problem persisted, and Department of Public

Welfare and Juvenile Court officials wrote to Msgr. Van der Zanden reporting Fr. Grammond’s

continuing interference with the child. According to a response written to the Department of

Public Welfare officials by Msgr. Van der Zanden on April 19, 1969, Archbishop Dwyer wrote

to Fr. Grammond, “cautioning him with regard to his obvious indiscretions . . . .” In a second

letter dated May 19, 1969, Msgr. Van der Zanden again reported that the Archbishop wrote to Fr.

Grammond.

E. In 1969 or 1970 in Eugene, minor child D.R. and his mother personally contacted

Fr. Vincent Cunniff to report that Fr. Grammond had sexually abused D.R. Fr. Cunniff promptly

drove to Portland and reported the situation personally to Archbishop Dwyer. Archbishop

Dwyer subsequently met with the family of D.R. at the parish office in Eugene where they

related Fr. Grammond’s abuse of D.R. to Archbishop Dwyer. There is no reference in Fr.

Grammond’s personnel file to any of this.

F. In approximately 1970, 10-year-old T.K. and his mother told Msgr. George Smith

that Fr. Grammond sexually abused T.K. Msgr. Smith was a priest for whom T.K. had served as

an altar boy during at least one mass at Seaside, and was assigned by the ARCHDIOCESE to the

Arch Cape mission. Msgr. Smith later stated that he confronted Fr. Grammond with T.K.’s

report and that Fr. Grammond vehemently denied it, suggesting that T.K. had an overactive

imagination and should seek counseling. This response angered T.K.’s mother, who threatened

Page 9 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 10 of 21 Page ID#: 10

to go to the police. Msgr. Smith said to her, “Go right ahead, but you’re a single mother, you

work in bars, you’re a maid, and nobody is going to believe you over us.”

G. In Spring 1974, Archbishop Dwyer confronted Fr. Grammond with an allegation

that a witness observed him abusing a child. Fr. Grammond responded to Archbishop Dwyer,

“How can you have a witness when I didn’t abuse anyone?” Archbishop Dwyer responded,

“Then be careful.”

H. In approximately 1979-1980, Mary Jo Stacey encountered MARK DOE’s brother,

F.M., a teenage boy she knew from her parish, at a local Dairy Queen. At the time, Mrs. Stacey

served as the Coordinator of Religious Education at her Seaside parish, Our Lady of Victory, and

was supervised by Fr. Grammond. F.M. appeared intoxicated, and Mrs. Stacy asked him if he

wanted her to call Fr. Grammond to take her home. F.M. replied, “Father Grammond screws

around with boys.” Mrs. Stacey did not follow up on this statement, instead calling the police to

report F.M.’s condition. This was the third time someone told Mrs. Stacey that Fr. Grammond

abused teenage boys. She disregarded the first two reports, relayed to her by acquaintances

before she became an employee of the ARCHDIOCESE, as “tacky” rumors.

I. Several years later, F.M.’s brother J.M., told Mrs. Stacey that Fr. Grammond

abused him and his brother when they were children. Mrs. Stacey believed J.M., but did not

report any of the information she received concerning Fr. Grammond’s abuse of children to

officials with the ARCHDIOCESE.

17.

Because of the decades-long knowledge that dozens, if not hundreds, of minor children

suffered abuse at the hands of Fr. Grammond, PLAINTIFF’s abuse was a foreseeable result of

Fr. Grammond’s continued employment and interaction with young parishioners. The

Page 10 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 11 of 21 Page ID#: 11

ARCHDIOCESE’s failure to warn or otherwise remedy the known danger posed by Fr.

Grammond was thus a direct, proximate, and foreseeable cause of PLAINTIFF’s molestation and

damages as alleged herein.

18.

As a result of Fr. Grammond’s sexual abuse, intentional infliction of emotional distress,

molestation, breach of authority, trust and position as priest and authority figure to PLAINTIFF,

and ARCHDIOCESE’s negligence, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer severe and

debilitating emotional injury, pain and suffering, physical and emotional trauma, and permanent

psychological damages distinct in time and logic from the sexual abuse itself, all to

PLAINTIFF’s noneconomic damages in the approximate amount of $2,000,000, the exact

amount to be determined by the jury at trial. Specifically, Plaintiff’s noneconomic damages

include but are not limited to anxiety, depression, guilt, embarrassment, social anxiety, grief,

substance abuse, intimate relationship issues, and sexual issues, and loss of faith and trust in

organized religion.

19.

As an additional result and consequence of Fr. Grammond’s sexual abuse, molestation,

breach of authority, trust and position as priest and authority figure to PLAINTIFF, and

ARCHDIOCESE’s negligence, PLAINTIFF has incurred and/or will incur in the future costs for

counseling, psychological, and/or psychiatric medical treatment, all to PLAINTIFF’s economic

damages in the approximate amount of $30,000 the exact amount to be proven and determined

by the jury at trial.

///

///

Page 11 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 12 of 21 Page ID#: 12

20.

In or around October 2013, PLAINTIFF remembered that he was sexually abused by Fr.

Grammond and discovered the causal connection between his abuse, as set forth in paragraph 23,

and the damages suffered as a result of the abuse, as set forth in paragraphs 18 and 19. Prior to

that time, PLAINITFF did not discover, and reasonably could not discover, the connection

between his abuse and resulting injuries because psychological conditions arising from his abuse

by a trusted priest prevented that discovery, despite any external events. On information and

belief, these conditions may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: anxiety

disorder(s), avoidance, denial, depersonalization disorder, depression, dissociative amnesia,

dissociative disorder(s), mood disorder(s), post-traumatic stress disorder, self-blame, and/or

substance abuse disorder(s). These conditions are among the standard and normal consequences

of child sexual abuse as recognized by the mental health community, and any or all of these

conditions commonly prevent reasonable persons in PLAINTIFF’s position from being able to

ascertain harm arising from the abuse until well into adulthood. PLAINTIFF’s discovery in

2013 was well within the standard time frame for adults who were abused in childhood to

discover the causal connection between that abuse and their injuries.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF –

SEXUAL BATTERY OF A CHILD

21.

PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 20.

22.

Fr. Grammond, while acting within the course and scope of this employment and agency

with the ARCHDIOCESE, and using his authority and position of trust as a priest for the

Page 12 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 13 of 21 Page ID#: 13

ARCHDIOCESE – through the grooming process, and/or as a result of the performance of his

agency duties as a priest – induced and directed PLAINTIFF to engage in various sexual acts

with him. This sexually inappropriate activity included but may not be limited to fondling

PLAINTIFF’s penis and other intimate parts, and oral sex. The abuse occurred in or around

1968–1974, while PLAINTIFF was approximately ages 7–12, in the rectory of Our Lady of

Victory as well as in Fr. Grammond’s car. Fr. Grammond’s grooming of PLAINTIFF included

befriending PLAINTIFF and his family; having PLAINTIFF serve as an altar boy with him at

mass; taking PLAINTIFF on camping, skiing, and ice skating trips; and lavishing PLAINTIFF

with gifts.

23.

Fr. Grammond’s sexual abuse and grooming were committed in direct connection and at

least in part for the purposes of fulfilling his employment and agency with the ARCHDIOCESE;

the acts and grooming were committed within the time and space limits of his employment and

agency as a priest and were done directly in the performance of his duties as a parish priest and

parish school administrator. The behavior generally consisted of acts of a kind and nature that

Fr. Grammond was required to perform as a priest and parish administrator, and were done at the

direction of, and pursuant to, the power vested in him by the ARCHDIOCESE. Fr. Grammond

used the grooming process to accomplish his acts of sexual abuse of PLAINTIFF. Specifically,

the sexual abuse resulted from a progressive series of actions that began with and continued to

involve Fr. Grammond’s performance of the ordinary and authorized duties of a priest, and the

abuse ensued during occasions when Fr. Grammond had authority over PLAINTIFF in his

position as a priest for the ARCHDIOCESE.

Page 13 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 14 of 21 Page ID#: 14

24.

As a result of Fr. Grammond’s sexual abuse of PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF has suffered

and continues to suffer the injuries and damages alleged in paragraphs permanent and lasting

damages as detailed in paragraphs 18 and 19.

25.

The actions of Fr. Grammond, acting by and through his agency and employment with

the ARCHDIOCESE, were intentional, willful, malicious and in utter disregard of the rights of

PLAINTIFF, exceeded all bounds of socially tolerable conduct, exhibited a reckless and/or

outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm, demonstrated a conscious

indifference to the health, safety and welfare of PLAINTIFF, and are of the kind that punitive

damages will tend to prevent in the future. PLAINTIFF seeks punitive damages against the

ARCHDIOCESE in an amount to be determined by the jury at trial.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF –

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

26.

PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 25.

27.

Fr. Grammond, while engaging in grooming of PLAINTIFF, knowingly and intentionally

caused severe emotional distress to PLAINTIFF when he sexually abused PLAINTIFF.

PLAINTIFF did, in fact, suffer severe emotional distress as a result of this abuse, and the sexual

abuse of a child is beyond the bounds of all socially tolerable conduct.

///

///

Page 14 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 15 of 21 Page ID#: 15

28.

As a result of Fr. Grammond’s intentional infliction of emotional distress on

PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF has suffered and continues to suffer the injuries and damages alleged

in paragraphs 18 and 19.

29.

The actions of Fr. Grammond, acting by and through his agency and employment with

the ARCHDIOCESE, were intentional, willful, malicious and in utter disregard of the rights of

PLAINTIFF, exceeded all bounds of socially tolerable conduct, exhibited a reckless and/or

outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm, demonstrated a conscious

indifference to the health, safety and welfare of PLAINTIFF, and are of the kind that punitive

damages will tend to prevent in the future. PLAINTIFF seeks punitive damages against the

ARCHDIOCESE in an amount to be determined by the jury at trial.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF –

NEGLIGENCE

30.

PLAINTIFF realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 29.

31.

The ARCHDIOCESE had duties to protect the safety and welfare of the minor children

under their control and supervision, such as PLAINTIFF, including the duty to protect the

children from sexual predators.

32.

Prior to Fr. Grammond’s sexual abuse of PLAINTIFF, the ARCHDIOCESE learned and

were aware that a significant number of their priests, including Fr. Grammond, were pedophiles

Page 15 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 16 of 21 Page ID#: 16

or had pedophiliac tendencies and/or histories and that those priests presented a risk of grooming

minors for sexual abuse, as follows:

A. By the 1950s, and certainly by the early 1970s, the ARCHDIOCESE was aware

of a systematic danger of child molestation by its priests. In 1957 and certainly by 1974, the

ARCHDIOCESE was aware that Fr. Grammond had abused dozens of boys over multiple

postings in the preceding decades, with several documented reports of abuse between 1957 and

1974. In 1955 and certainly by 1974, the ARCHDIOCESE knew that Fr. Rocco Perone had

abused a number of boys at St. Philip Neri Catholic Church before he was forced to leave

Oregon in 1956. By the 1970s, the ARCHDIOCESE knew that Fr. Thomas Laughlin had

molested perhaps a dozen children. By the 1960s and certainly by 1974, the ARCHDIOCESE

knew that Fr. Aldo Orso-Manzonetta had been molesting boys for years, and yet continued to

allow children to spend the night in the rectory with him. By 1974, the ARCHDIOCESE also

knew that its clergy were frequently engaging in similar sexual contact with minors due to

numerous other reports of child abuse involving priests and religious officials of the

ARCHDIOCESE, in addition to the interaction by and between the ARCHDIOCESE of Portland

and other dioceses within the Catholic Church and the Catholic hierarchy. The ARCHDIOCESE

kept extensive records on all such reports and complaints regarding priests in the diocese in a

secured filing system.

B. Clerical abuse of children was a problem in the Catholic Church generally, and

known to the hierarchy – including ARCHDIOCESE – although the problem was never

discussed with the laity. For instance, the need to protect children from molestation was evident

in 1917, when the Church promulgated policy (the Code of Canon Law) that forbade sexual

contact between clerics and children. Another provision required priests to inform their bishop

Page 16 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 17 of 21 Page ID#: 17

of reports that other priests had engaged in sexual contact with children. Adherence to these

policies was considered a mandatory part of employment with the Church. In 1922, the Holy

See’s Congregation of the Holy Office published De Modo Procedendi in Causis Sollicitationis

(“The Manner of Proceeding in Cases of Solicitation”) and distributed it to bishops worldwide.

It described procedures for ecclesiastical prosecution of priests who solicited sexual contact from

parishioners, and required strict secrecy, including from the victim. In 1962, the Vatican

distributed Instructio de Modo Procedendi in Causis Sollicitationis (“Instructions on the Manner

of Proceeding in Cases of Solicitation,” also known as “the 1962 Vatican protocol”), Title V, to

bishops worldwide, setting forth procedures for processing clerics who violated the prohibition

against solicitation for sexual purposes. The 1962 Vatican protocol also included a section that

addressed sexual contact with children. The Church issued revised policy directives in 1983,

making sexual abuse of a child by a priest an internal crime. Policy at this time obligated a

bishop to investigate allegations of child abuse. Failure to observe the mandatory application of

canons violated Church policy. All of these rules were enacted to protect children entrusted to

the care of the church, and the ARCHDIOCESE was required to follow these canons to ensure

the protection of children in the care of the ARCHDIOCESE.

33.

Despite the ARCHDIOCESE’s knowledge of the procedures in place to prevent the

known danger of sexual abuse of children by priests, in addition to its knowledge of Fr.

Grammond’s continued abuse and unsupervised access to minor males including PLAINTIFF,

the ARCHDIOCESE did nothing to warn PLAINTIFF or his family about the danger of

molestation of children in priests’ care or under their control, nor did it protect PLAINTIFF from

such dangers. Given the prevalence and knowledge of child abuse reports by the early 1970s, it

Page 17 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 18 of 21 Page ID#: 18

was reasonably foreseeable that, absent warnings or other precautions, the class of Catholic

children, including PLAINTIFF, faced the danger of molestation by a priest. The abuse

PLAINTIFF suffered was likely to and did cause him severe harm. It would have been

inexpensive and simple for the ARCHDIOCESE to issue warnings or take other measures to

protect PLAINTIFF, given that it ultimately controlled the messages disseminated within the

various Oregon parishes it operated, and controlled how its agents and employees interacted with

children.

34.

The ARCHDIOCESE’s failure to warn or otherwise protect PLAINTIFF caused or was a

substantial contributing factor in his abuse. Due to the duration and consistency of child

molestation in the ARCHDIOCESE, the ARCHDIOCESE’s knowing failure to warn of the

danger of abusive priests, and of Fr. Grammond in particular, and its failure to establish

guidelines to protect minor parishioners or minimize this danger created a foreseeable risk of

harm to the safety of children in the care of the ARCHDIOCESE and its agents, including

PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF was a member of the class of individuals to be protected by a warning

about the known danger of sexual abuse, guidelines identifying hallmarks of child abuse and

signs of child abusers, and/or monitoring of priests. If the ARCHDIOCESE had issued

warnings, or if guidelines or monitoring policies had been in place, PLAINTIFF would have

been protected from some or all of his abuse.

35.

The ARCHDIOCESE was negligent in one or more of the following particulars:

A. In allowing Fr. Grammond to remain as a priest even after the ARCHDIOCESE

knew of his propensity to use his position as a priest to engage in acts of sexual abuse;

Page 18 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 19 of 21 Page ID#: 19

B. In allowing Fr. Grammond to interact with and supervise young boys in his

position as priest when the ARCHDIOCESE knew of his propensity to use to his position as a

priest to engage in acts of sexual abuse;

C. In permitting Fr. Grammond to spend private time with young boys on Our Lady

of Victory parish premises and at other Archdiocesan facilities and events;

D. In failing to report the sexual abuse of other children to law enforcement or to

otherwise remove Fr. Grammond from his position as a priest after receiving complaints and

reports about Fr. Grammond’s use of his position as a priest to engage in the sexual abuse of

children;

E. In failing to properly supervise Fr. Grammond as a priest or to monitor his

activities after learning of his propensity to use his position as a priest to engage in acts of sexual

abuse with minor boys; and

F. In failing to notify the parents, students, and parishioners of Our Lady of Victory

or other Archdiocesan facilities and entities after learning of Fr. Grammond’s propensity to use

his position as a priest to engage in acts of sexual abuse.

36.

As a direct and proximate cause of the ARCHDIOCESE’s failure to warn, establish

guidelines concerning child abuse, or otherwise protect children, PLAINTIFF suffered and

continues to suffer the injuries and damages alleged in paragraphs 18 and 19.

37.

Given the ARCHDIOCESE’s extensive history and experience with child sexual abuse

by its priests, in failing to warn PLAINTIFF and/or his family of the prevalence of molestation

by priests or warning signs, the ARCHDIOCESE was negligent toward the rights and safety of

Page 19 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 20 of 21 Page ID#: 20

PLAINTIFF, and showed extraordinary disregard of or indifference to known or highly probable

risks to others, including PLAINTIFF. The ARCHDIOCESE acted with malice or a reckless and

outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm, and with conscious indifference to

the health, safety and welfare of PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF is therefore entitled to punitive

damages against the ARCHDIOCESE in an amount to be determined by the jury at trial.

JURY DEMAND

38.

PLAINTIFF demands trial by jury on all issues raised by the pleadings, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1411.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Page 20 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)

Case 3:14-cv-00658-ST Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 21 of 21 Page ID#: 21

DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT

39.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them,

as follows:

A. For non-economic damages in the amount of $2,000,000, the actual amount to be

determined by the jury;

B. For economic damages in the estimated amount of $30,000, the actual amount to

be determined by the jury;

C. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial by the jury;

D. PLAINTIFF’s disbursements and incurred cost; and

E. For any other relief this Court deems just and equitable.

DATED this 22nd day of April, 2014.

Erin K. Olson, 934776

(503) 546-3150

Gilion C. Dumas, OSB 922932

Ashley L. Nastoff, OSB 114691
(503) 952-6789

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Page 21 – COMPLAINT (DOE V. ARCHDIOCESE)