Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:27 pm
Posts: 5156
|
I have been privately contacted with a request to post the actual lawsuit document for the Jane Doe 25 lawsuit here: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
JANE DOE NO. 25, CASE NO.:
DIVISION:
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW TRIBES MISSION, INC.,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, JANE DOE NO. 25, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Complaint against Defendant, NEW TRIBES MISSION, and alleges as follows:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff, JANE DOE (“JANE”), is an adult female who resides in ……………
2. Defendant, NEW TRIBES MISSION (“NTM”), is a Florida corporation, with its home office located in Seminole County, Florida. NTM organizes, operates, funds, employs, and controls international Christian “missions”. Part of NTM’s operation of these international missions is the organization, operation, control, funding, and employment of boarding schools and dormitories for children of “mission volunteers”. NTM operates through an “Executive Committee”, which is a body of individuals stationed in Sanford, Florida who control all NTM international missions, including the mission at Fanda in Senegal.
3. DAVID BROOKS (“BROOKS”) was at all material times an agent, managing director and/or employee of NTM. BROOKS served NTM as a “Dorm Dad” and “Bible Studies Teacher” for the NTM Dormitory in Fanda in Senegal. BROOKS is a serial pedophile with a specific sexual interest in pre-pubescent girls.
4. Venue properly lies in this judicial circuit in that NTM is headquartered in this judicial circuit. This Court has jurisdiction in that this is a claim for damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, as Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of five million dollars, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5. JANE DOE NO. 25 (“JANE”) was born in 1980 and raised by NTM missionary parents. JANE lived, during a portion of her youth in Senegal, where she was housed in the Fanda Dormitory. DAVE BROOKS (“BROOKS”) and his wife served as JANE’s dormitory supervisor.
6. As part of his duties as “Dorm Dad”, DAVE BROOKS had unlimited and unsupervised access to the young boys and girls housed in the Fanda Dormitory, including JANE. As, “Dorm Dad”, BROOKS garnered the trust, respect, and obedience of the children living in the Fanda Dormitory. As, “Bible Studies Teacher”, BROOKS gained control and influence over the children in his class. BROOKS was looked upon by the young children as a parent, as he assumed the role of their natural parents who were away on missionary duties assigned to them by NTM.
7. BROOKS used his position at NTM as a means of satisfying his deviant sexual desires. BROOKS used his status as “Dorm Dad” and “Bible Studies Teacher” to molest and sexually abuse JANE when she was between the ages of approximately six through eight.
8. In or about 1987, when JANE was only six years old, BROOKS began his unlawful and heinous sexual relationship with JANE. BROOKS began coming into JANE’s room late at night for “bed checks” after the other children had fallen asleep. The molestation began as BROOKS would sit on the edge of JANE’s bed and tickle her genitals, groin, and legs. The molestation became more severe over time as BROOKS began rubbing JANE’s buttocks and vagina.
9. BROOKS also incorporated sexual games with JANE and the other girls, including a “seashell game” in which BROOKS placed a seashell in his shorts and had JANE and the other girls reach in his pants and search for it. BROOKS would then have JANE or one of the other girls put the seashell in their pants and BROOKS would search for the shell by sticking his hands in the girls’ underwear. When BROOKS learned that the young girls were mimicking this “game” on their own in front of other NTM staff, he told JANE that it was alright to experiment with things like that, but that there was a time and place for that behavior.
10. On another occasion, BROOKS sexually abused JANE and another young girl in the indoor shower at the Fanda School’s dormitory. BROOKS entered the bathroom where the two girls were showering and taught them how to masturbate by putting their genitals under the running water from the faucet. BROOKS watched for several minutes as the girls took turns placing their genitals under the running water. BROOKS also conspicuously watched JANE shower several times throughout the year she lived in the Fanda dormitories. BROOKS’ sexual abuse of JANE continued until late 1988, ……………………………………………….
11. DAVID BROOKS’ sexually abusive behavior with children at the Fanda Missionary School, including Plaintiff, was open and notorious to other NTM personnel. As early as 1986, NTM officials were notified of sexual abuse accusations against BROOKS. Upon information and belief, NTM officials heard over a dozen complaints between 1986 and 1993 that BROOKS was sexually abusing children at the Fanda Missionary School. At no point during his tenure as a dorm parent did NTM leadership conduct a meaningful investigation into the disclosures of sexual abuse, nor did they notify the parents of the children at Fanda. Instead, BROOKS was allowed to be alone with the young girls and given extraordinary access to them.
12. BROOKS convinced JANE that telling anyone about their sexual relationship would breach her trust with her parents, breach her trust with BROOKS, and, most disconcerting to JANE, breach her trust with God. Additionally, BROOKS threatened to expose JANE to “everyone” if JANE did not cooperate.
13. Upon information and belief, BROOKS sexually abused over twenty other girls during his tenure at NTM. NTM knew or should have known of BROOKS’ serious threat to the health, safety and welfare of JANE and other minors arising from “red flags” demonstrating his perverted sexual propensities. NTM, however, continued to provide BROOKS with unfettered access to minors, including JANE.
14. NTM purposefully and fraudulently concealed information that was pertinent and necessary for JANE and others to bring civil claims in this matter. For instance, NTM misled Plaintiff and her mother as to the dates they learned of BROOKS’ abuse of girls so as to mislead them as to the possibility that NTM was negligent in their supervision of BROOKS.
15. Additionally, upon information and belief, NTM was not merely silent about BROOKS’ sexual abuse of children, but obstructed a law enforcement investigation into BROOKS’ sexual misconduct, destroyed records, and made affirmative misrepresentations to BROOKS’ other sexual abuse victims and their families in an effort to conceal evidence of their own wrongdoing and evade civil liability for their actions that led to the sexual abuse of JANE.
16. As a result of these affirmative misrepresentations and acts of intentional misconduct by NTM, Plaintiff was unaware of NTM’s negligence and wrongdoing in the supervision of BROOKS, as she had been affirmatively deceived and misled by misstatements and cover-up of its negligence. Plaintiff was blamelessly unaware of her potential cause of action against Defendant because it had been concealed from her through Defendant’s affirmative misrepresentations to Plaintiff and her mother specifically as well as to other missionaries and their families. Plaintiff and her mother relied on these misrepresentations to JANE’s detriment.
17. The Executive Committee of NTM doctored its file and purposely chose not to report BROOKS’s criminal acts to the appropriate authorities in Senegal. The information was kept secret from anyone outside the inner sanctum of NTM, including those who needed the information to bring civil claims against NTM for negligence, including JANE.
18. NTM fraudulently misled numerous victims, including JANE and all other interested parties as to their knowledge of BROOKS’ vast record of sexual abuse in Fanda. Upon information and belief, after learning of BROOKS’ actions, the Executive Committee of NTM concealed this information and misled the victims in Fanda. Instead of announcing to BROOKS’ victims that they were aware of his actions and had taken steps to hold BROOKS accountable, NTM concealed this knowledge and informed them that Brooks’ abuse of girls was “undetected.” NTM also concealed their knowledge of Brooks’ confession of sexual abuse of a minor. All of this was done to mislead his victims, including JANE, into thinking NTM had no knowledge of his crimes until his dismissal and cover-up their own wrongdoing. NTM offered no explanation and absolutely no indication that BROOKS had been dismissed with NTM’s knowledge of his heinous sexual crimes. This fraudulent and active concealment, as well as blatant deceit, deprived JANE the requisite knowledge necessary to bring a claim against NTM, thereby protecting NTM from liability for its negligence in her abuse.
19. Upon information and belief, NTM concealed, altered and/or destroyed documents that would have disclosed to JANE NTM’s negligence with regard to its supervision and retention of BROOKS which led to her childhood sexual abuse.
20. Upon information and belief, the Executive Committee of NTM ordered BROOKS to be reassigned to his home church and to not turn over any information to Senegal authorities with the purpose and intent of concealing its knowledge of his acts from persons associated with NTM in Senegal, including JANE.
21. The scope of his crimes and numerous victims demonstrates that NTM was negligent in its supervision of BROOKS, to whom NTM had given unrestricted access to children. Within the timeframe of the statute of limitations, the Executive Committee of NTM was aware of its negligent supervision of BROOKS. In order to avoid civil liability for its blatantly negligent supervision, the Executive Committee of NTM actively concealed all information and knowledge related to BROOKS’ crimes from JANE, other victims, and any interested party. This was purposely and fraudulently done to evade civil liability for NTM’s negligent supervision of BROOKS.
22. Upon information and belief, DAVE BROOKS’ wife, Lugene Brooks, was an employee/agent of NTM given the duties of “Dorm Mom” at Fanda. Lugene Brooks knew of her husband’s sexual abuse of children. In an effort to avoid civil liability, the Executive Committee of NTM declared and took the false position that Lugene Brooks was not an employee/agent of NTM. By distancing itself from Lugene Brooks, NTM sought to evade civil liability and conceal NTM’s notice and knowledge of BROOKS’s crimes.
23. BROOKS was in a fiduciary relationship with JANE and her parents. BROOKS was in a position of trust and confidence with JANE, who looked to BROOKS for counseling, parenting, and guidance.
24. NTM was also in a fiduciary relationship with JANE. JANE and her parents looked to NTM and its representatives for counseling, spiritual direction, parenting, and guidance. NTM owed JANE a fiduciary duty to:
(a) Investigate and warn JANE and her parents of the potential for harm from BROOKS;
(b) Disclose its awareness of facts regarding BROOKS that created a likely potential for harm;
(c) Disclose its negligence with regard to the hiring, supervision, assignment, and retention of BROOKS;
(d) Provide a safe environment for JANE where she would be free from abuse; and
(e) Protect JANE from exposure to harmful individuals like BROOKS.
25. NTM breached its fiduciary duty to JANE by failing to:
(a) Investigate and warn JANE of the potential for harm from BROOKS;
(b) Disclose its awareness of facts regarding BROOKS that created a likely potential for harm;
(c) Disclose its own negligence with regard to hiring, supervision, assignment, and retention of BROOKS;
(d) Provide a safe environment for JANE where she would be free from abuse; and
(e) Protect JANE from exposure to harmful individuals like BROOKS.
26. BROOKS’ childhood sexual abuse of JANE was so traumatic that she repressed all memory of the sexual abuse. Due to various involuntary coping mechanisms, JANE was also unable to make a causal connection between her psychological injuries, behavioral manifestations, and the sexual acts and other misconduct of BROOKS.
27. It is only within the past two years preceding the filing this lawsuit that JANE DOE recovered her memory of these traumatic events. Subsequent to the initial surfacing of these memories, additional memories have been recalled. Due to her loss of memory combined with NTM’s fraudulent concealment of their complicity and negligence preceding the abuse, JANE DOE did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that she had been injured and that NTM had caused her injuries until her memories began to surface.
28. The sexual abuse by BROOKS has caused JANE to experience severe and permanent psychological, emotional and physical injuries. Following the recovery of her memory of abuse, JANE DOE has experienced a series of non-epileptic psychogenic seizures which her physicians have told her are associated with stress, trauma, and lack of sleep. These injuries are persistent, permanent, and debilitating in nature.
COUNT I
(NEGLIGENCE)
29. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 27 above.
30. At all material times, NTM owed a duty to JANE to use reasonable care to ensure JANE’s safety, care, health, and well-being while she was housed and schooled by NTM or under the supervision and direction of its pastors and agents.
31. NTM’s duties encompassed using reasonable care in the hiring, retention, assignment and/or supervision of pastors and other religious authority figures who would not pose a threat to the safety, care, health, and well-being of minors.
32. At all relevant times, NTM knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that BROOKS had dangerous sexual propensities involving children, was unfit for his duties, and presented a threat to the health, safety and welfare of JANE.
33. NTM breached these duties by failing to take reasonable precautions to provide a safe environment for JANE where she would be free from the unwanted sexual advances and dangerous propensities of BROOKS, a person of religious authority, father figure, managing agent and/or employee of NTM. NTM also breached its duty of care by failing to properly investigate and/or disclose its awareness of facts regarding BROOKS that created a likely potential for harm to JANE.
34. As a direct and proximate result of NTM’s negligence, JANE has experienced severe and permanent psychological, emotional, and physical injuries. These injuries are persistent, permanent, and debilitating in nature.
35. It is only recently that JANE has recognized the causal connection between her abuse and his injuries.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JANE DOE, demands judgment against Defendant, NEW TRIBES MISSION, for compensatory damages, costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II
(RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR / VICARIOUS LIABILITY)
36. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 27 above.
37. BROOKS was at all material times the employee, appointee and/or agent of NTM.
38. BROOKS was authorized to be alone with JANE and other minors, and to have unlimited access to minors at night in their beds.
39. BROOKS’s initial contact and relationship with JANE was in furtherance of the business of NTM. In addition, BROOKS was authorized to touch JANE and display affection in a manner consistent with providing care, spiritual guidance, parental guidance, and leadership. BROOKS extended and converted this authorized touching into the molestation and sexual assault of JANE as described above. The molestation and rape of JANE occurred during BROOKS’s working hours, on NTM’s premises, and in the course and scope of the performance of BROOKS’s duties.
40. The wrongful acts of BROOKS were committed in the actual or apparent course and scope of his employment or agency with NTM.
41. NTM ratified the criminal acts and conduct of BROOKS that he committed to JANE.
42. As a direct and proximate result of the sexual abuse perpetrated by BROOKS, JANE has suffered severe and permanent psychological, emotional and physical injuries. These injuries are persistent, permanent, and debilitating in nature. It is only recently that JANE has recognized the causal connection between her abuse and her injuries.
43. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, NTM is responsible for the actions of its servant, BROOKS, committed in the actual or apparent scope of his duties.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JANE DOE, demands judgment against Defendant, NTM, for compensatory damages, costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff intends to move to amend the Complaint in accordance with Florida Statutes to assert a claim for punitive damages.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this action.
Date: September ___, 2012. Respectfully submitted,
HERMAN, MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A.
18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218
Miami, Florida 33160
Tel: 305-931-2200
Fax: 305-931-0877
By:
JEFFREY M. HERMAN
Florida Bar No. 521647
jherman@hermanlaw.com
STUART S. MERMELSTEIN
Florida Bar No. 947245
smermelstein@hermanlaw.com
ADAM D. HOROWITZ
Florida Bar No. 376980
ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com
|
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
