Third Amended Complaint, MK v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN JOSE, Et Al.

Electronically Filed
Gregory A. Garcia, Cal. State Bar 320407

1 ggarcia@hermanlaw.com by Superior Court of CA,
Jamie M. Majerus, Cal. State Bar 326006 County of Santa Clara,
2 jmajerus@hermanlaw.com on 1/10/2024 4:30 PM
HERMAN LAW Reviewed By: A. Montes
3 9434 Deschutes Road, Suite 1000 Case #21CV392393
Palo Cedro, CA 96073 Envelope: 14079464
4 Telephone: (305) 931-2200
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff M.K.
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA – DOWNTOWN SUPERIOR COURTHOUSE
9
10 M.K., Case No. 21CV392393

11 Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to
Hon. Evette D. Pennypacker, Dept. 6
12 vs.
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
13 DAMAGES
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN JOSE
14 (DIOCESE), et al., 1. Negligence (Against ST. ALOYSIUS)
2. Negligence (Against ORDER)
15 Defendants. 3. Negligence (Against DOES 5 through
25)
16 4. Negligent Retention and Supervision
(Against ST. ALOYSIUS)
(Against ORDER)
(Against DOES 5 through 25)
19
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20
21
22 Plaintiff, M.K., by and through undersigned counsel, brings this Complaint against the ST.
23 ALOYSIUS RETREAT HOUSE (“ST. ALOYSIUS”); CALIFORNIA FRIENDS OF THE
24 SACERDOTAL INTERNATIONAL FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIUS X, INC. (“ORDER”); and
25 DOES 5 through 25, inclusive (together, “DEFENDANTS”), and alleges as follows:
26 INTRODUCTION
27 This is a revival action filed pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 340.1.
28 Plaintiff, when she was approximately four (4) to six (6) years old in or about 1997 to 1999, was
-1-
Third Amended Complaint for Damages
1 sexually assaulted by FATHER BENEDICT VAN DER PUTTEN, while he was an ordained and
2 active Priest. This action alleges physical, psychological and emotional injuries suffered as a result
3 of sexual conduct as proscribed in CCP § 340.1.
4 PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5 1. Plaintiff is currently a citizen and resident of the State of California. Plaintiff was a
6 minor at the time of the sexual abuse alleged herein.
7 2. At all times relevant herein, ST. ALOYSIUS is a retreat facility and/or under the
8 authority of ORDER with a principal place of business located 19101 Bear Creek Road, Los Gatos,
9 CA 95033. ST. ALOYSIUS is thus a citizen and resident of Santa Clara County, California.
10 3. ORDER is a Catholic religious order with their principal location at 19101 Bear Creek
11 Road, Los Gatos, CA 95033. ORDER is thus a citizen and resident of Santa Clara County, California.
12 4. At all times relevant herein, FATHER BENEDICT VAN DER PUTTEN (“VAN DER
13 PUTTEN”) was a Priest employed, controlled, and/or supervised by each of the DEFENDANTS. At
14 all times relevant therein, VAN DER PUTTEN acted as an agent of DEFENDANTS, subject to
15 DEFENDANTS’ direction, control, and supervision.
16 5. Defendants DOES 5 through 25, inclusive, are individuals and/or business or corporate
17 entities incorporated in and/or doing business in California, whose true names and capacities are
18 unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues such defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend
19 the Complaint to show the true names and capacities of each such DOE Defendant when ascertained.
20 Each such DOE Defendant was and is legally responsible in some manner for the events, happenings,
21 and/or tortious and unlawful conduct that caused the injuries and damages alleged in this Complaint.
22 6. Each DEFENDANT is the agent, servant, and/or employee of other DEFENDANTS,
23 and each DEFENDANT acted within the course and scope of his, her, or its authority as an agent,
24 servant, and/or employee of the other DEFENDANTS.
25 7. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are individuals, corporations, partnerships, and/or
26 other entities that engaged in, joined in, and/or conspired with the other wrongdoers in carrying out
27 the tortious and unlawful activities described in this Complaint.
28 / / /
-2-
1 8. The true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual, or otherwise,
2 of Defendant DOES 5 through 25, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said
3 Defendants by such fictitious names. Each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is
4 negligently, intentionally, or otherwise legally responsible in some manner for the allegations
5 referenced herein. Plaintiff will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint to show their names and
6 capacities when the same have been ascertained.
7 9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action, as the amount in controversy
8 exceeds $25,000.
9 10. Personal jurisdiction lies over DEFENDANTS, as they are present and domiciled in
10 the State of California.
11 11. Venue of this action lies in Santa Clara County, as ST. ALOYSIUS resides there. See
12 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 395(a). Further, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
13 claim occurred in Santa Clara County.
14 DUTY
15 Defendant ORDER
16 12. At all times relevant and material hereto, ORDER, as principal, and ST. ALOYSIUS,
17 as agent, were in an agency relationship, such that ST. ALOYSIUS acted on ORDER’s behalf, in
18 accordance with ORDER’s instructions and directions on all matters, including those relating to the
19 hiring, retention, and supervision of clergy and other personnel. The acts and omissions of ST.
20 ALOYSIUS were subject to ORDER’s plenary control, and ST. ALOYSIUS consented to act subject
21 to ST. ALOYSIUS’s control.
22 13. At all times relevant and material hereto, ORDER and Plaintiff were in a special
23 relationship of camp - camper and/or educator - student, in which ORDER owed Plaintiff a duty of
24 reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm. Specifically, Plaintiff was a camper/student and/or guest
25 of ST. ALOYSIUS.
26 14. At all times relevant and material hereto, ORDER and VAN DER PUTTEN were in a
27 special relationship of employer – employee, in which ORDER owed a duty to control the acts and
28 conduct of VAN DER PUTTEN to prevent foreseeable harm.

-3-
1 15. At all times relevant and material hereto, ORDER owed a duty to Plaintiff to use
2 reasonable care to protect the safety, care, well-being and health of Plaintiff while she was under the
3 care, custody or in the presence of ORDER. ORDER’s duties encompassed using reasonable care in
4 the retention, supervision and hiring of VAN DER PUTTEN, and the duty to otherwise provide a safe
5 environment for Plaintiff.
6 Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS
7 16. At all times relevant and material hereto, ST. ALOYSIUS and Plaintiff were in a
8 special relationship of camp - camper and/or educator - student, in which ST. ALOYSIUS owed
9 Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to protect her from foreseeable harm. Specifically, Plaintiff was a
10 camper/student and/or guest at ST. ALOYSIUS.
11 17. At all times relevant and material hereto, ST. ALOYSIUS had a duty to act as a
12 reasonably prudent parent would to protect Plaintiff from foreseeable harms on ST. ALOYSIUS
13 grounds and during ST. ALOYSIUS-related activities. In this regard, ST. ALOYSIUS was in loco
14 parentis with ST. ALOYSIUS students, including Plaintiff.
15 18. At all times relevant and material hereto, ST. ALOYSIUS and VAN DER PUTTEN
16 were in a special relationship of employer – employee, in which ST. ALOYSIUS wowed a duty to
17 control the acts and conduct of VAN DER PUTTEN to prevent foreseeable harm.
18 19. At all times relevant and material hereto, ST. ALOYSIUS owed a duty to Plaintiff to
19 use reasonable care to protect the safety, care, well-being and health of Plaintiff while she was under
20 the care, custody or in the presence of ST. ALOYSIUS. ST. ALOYSIUS’S duties encompassed using
21 reasonable care in the retention, supervision and hiring of VAN DER PUTTEN, and the duty to
22 otherwise provide a safe environment for Plaintiff.
23 20. ST. ALOYSIUS had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the training of clergy, priests,
24 administration and staff in the prevention of sexual abuse and protection of the safety of children and
25 parishioners in its care.
26 21. ST. ALOYSIUS had a duty to establish and implement policies and procedures in the
27 exercise of reasonable care for the prevention of sexual abuse and protection of the safety of the
28 children and parishioners in its care.

-4-
1 22. At all times relevant and material hereto, DEFENDANTS and Plaintiff were in a
2 special relationship of camp – camper and/or educator - student, in which DEFENDANTS owed
3 Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm.
4 23. At all times relevant and material hereto, DEFENDANTS had a duty to act as a
5 reasonably prudent parent would to protect Plaintiff from foreseeable harms on ST. ALOYSIUS
6 grounds and during student-related activities. In this regard, DEFENDANTS were in loco parentis
7 with students, including Plaintiff.
8 24. At all times relevant and material hereto, DEFENDANTS and VAN DER PUTTEN
9 were in a special relationship of employer – employee, in which DEFENDANTS owed a duty to
10 control the acts and conduct of VAN DER PUTTEN to prevent foreseeable harm.
11 25. At all times relevant and material hereto, DEFENDANTS’s duties encompassed using
12 reasonable care in the retention, supervision and hiring of VAN DER PUTTEN, and the duty to
13 otherwise provide a safe environment for Plaintiff.
14 26. DEFENDANTS had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the training of teachers,
15 clergy, priests, administration, employees, and staff in the prevention of sexual abuse and protection
16 of the safety of children and students in its care.
17 27. DEFENDANTS had a duty to establish and implement policies and procedures in the
18 exercise of reasonable care for the prevention of sexual abuse and protection of the safety of the
19 children and students in its care.
20 VAN DER PUTTEN’S SEXUAL ASSAULT OF PLAINTIFF
21 28. At all times relevant and material hereto, Plaintiff was a student at ST. ALOYSIUS
22 and participated in DEFENDANTS’ school-related activities and those of their employee-agent
23 clergy.
24 29. Plaintiff was raised in a Catholic family. In or about 1997 through 1999, Plaintiff
25 participated in after-school activities at ST. ALOYSIUS.
26 30. From approximately 1997 to 1999, when Plaintiff was approximately four (4) to six
27 (6) years old and a student participating in school-related activities at ST. ALOYSIUS, Plaintiff was
28 sexually abused and assaulted by VAN DER PUTTEN, a priest at ST. ALOYSIUS, on multiple
-5-
1 occasions over approximately two (2) years. The acts of sexual abuse and assault took place on ST.
2 ALOYSIUS premises.
3 31. During the course of the aforementioned abuse, VAN DER PUTTEN acted in
4 inappropriate behavior, which includes, by way of example: VAN DER PUTTEN would be
5 physically touchy with children at ST. ALOYSIUS camp during 1997 to 1999 in the presence of other
6 workers, nuns, teachers and parents who observed his behavior. Further, VAN DER PUTTEN would
7 pick up Plaintiff in the presence of ST. ALOYSIUS employees during camp, and give Plaintiff gifts.
8 VAN DER PUTTEN would also openly isolate Plaintiff from the group during summer camp
9 activities for one-on-one hikes.
10 32. As part of the summer camp activities, VAN DER PUTTEN took Plaintiff on ATV
11 rides. While on the all-terrain vehicle, VAN DER PUTTEN would sit behind Plaintiff and fondle her
12 vagina under her clothing.
13 33. As part of ST. ALOYSIUS Holy Communion, VAN DER PUTTEN was also left
14 alone with Plaintiff in a room by a ST. ALOYSIUS staff member, Maria Lopez, on the ST.
15 ALOYSIUS campus while Plaintiff was preparing holy communion, and again VAN DER PUTTEN
16 sexually abused Plaintiff by fondling her vagina under her clothing. On multiple occasions, while
17 Plaintiff was under VAN DER PUTTEN’S supervision, authority, and control, VAN DER PUTTEN
18 sexually abused Plaintiff.
19 34. VAN DER PUTTEN’s inappropriate behavior was well known at ST. ALOYSIUS. For
20 instance, numerous children reported to Defendant, inappropriate behavior they had suffered at the
21 hands of VAN DER PUTTEN long before VAN DER PUTTEN sexually assaulted and abused
22 Plaintiff.
23 35. Moreover, on September 11, 1997, Defendant wrote a letter to VAN DER PUTTEN
24 saying, “The accusations made against you are serious. They are made to your superior by a fellow
25 priest who takes them seriously. Consequently, you need to take each one separately, and answer the
26 accusation as to whether it is true or false. See if there is any part of truth, or where the accusation
27 might have come from. Point out, if you can, the context out of which they might have been taken.
28 Finally give your opinion on the issues raised, so that there can be no doubt as to where you stand.”
-6-
1 36. Further, on September 12, 1997, Defendant wrote VAN DER PUTTEN a letter saying
2 they had a problem with his “familiarity with the smaller girls (7-9 years), all wanting to be next to
3 you, because you take them by the hand, and allow them to lean against you. They also made remarks
4 about your touching and squeezing the older girls, of being too familiar during the conferences, of
5 passing by the cabins in the evenings, passing by the swimming pool while the girls are swimming,
6 and of joining in the game with the older girls (thus obliging the sisters to leave).”
7 36. Despite all of the foregoing, no action was taken, no investigation was completed,
8 and VAN DER PUTTEN continued to work at ST. ALOYSIUS and sexually abuse Plaintiff.
9 37. The acts of sexual abuse and assault perpetrated by VAN DER PUTTEN against
10 Plaintiff included conduct which constitutes a “childhood sexual assault” as defined in CCP §
11 340.1(d).
12 NOTICE – FORESEEABILITY
13 38. At all times relevant and material hereto, DEFENDANTS knew, or in the exercise of
14 reasonable care should have known, or otherwise were on notice, that VAN DER PUTTEN had a
15 propensity for the conduct that caused injury to Plaintiff; specifically, that he had a propensity to
16 engage in the sexual abuse or assault of children. Not only did other children report to Defendant,
17 VAN DER PUTTEN’s sexual abuse prior to VAN DER PUTTEN sexually abusing Plaintiff, but
18 Defendant produced documents showing they were aware of and concerned about VAN DER
19 PUTTEN being around young girls.
20 39. At all times relevant and material hereto, DEFENDANTS knew, or in the exercise of
21 reasonable care should have known, or otherwise were on notice, that clergy, teachers, staff, and other
22 employees were taking positions within ORDER for the purposes of obtaining exposure to children
23 with the intent of sexual exploitation.
24 40. At all times relevant and material hereto, it was reasonably foreseeable to
25 DEFENDANTS that VAN DER PUTTEN would commit acts of child sexual abuse or assault on
26 children.
27 ///
28 ///
-7-
1 41. At all times relevant and material hereto, DEFENDANTS knew or should have known,
2 or were otherwise on notice, that VAN DER PUTTEN was unfit, dangerous, and a threat to the health,
3 safety and welfare of the minors attending activities at ST. ALOYSIUS.
4 42. With such actual or constructive knowledge, DEFENDANTS’ acts and omissions
5 provided VAN DER PUTTEN with the opportunity to commit foreseeable acts of child sexual abuse
6 or assault on Plaintiff.
7 DEFENDANTS’ CONCEALMENT OF ACTS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY PRIESTS
8 43. Plaintiff was in the zone of danger, and a foreseeable victim, as a child whose family
9 engaged in religious pastoral activities in close proximity to or with religious clergy.
10 44. DEFENDANTS were in the best position to protect against the risk of harm, as they
11 knew of the systemic problem and foreseeable proclivities of its Priests to sexually abuse children.
12 45. At all relevant times, while DEFENDANTS had special and unique knowledge of the
13 risk of child sexual abuse by its Priests, such Priests who would prey on children were outside the
14 reasonable contemplation of the religious community and families who trusted Priests to have access
15 to their children. Because VAN DER PUTTEN was a Priest, Plaintiff’s family believed Plaintiff was
16 safe with VAN DER PUTTEN, and entrusted Plaintiff with VAN DER PUTTEN.
17 46. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family had no opportunity to protect Plaintiff against a danger
18 that was solely within the knowledge of DEFENDANTS.
19 47. At no relevant time did DEFENDANTS attempt to warn the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s
20 family, who would receive services from VAN DER PUTTEN as a Priest, that VAN DER PUTTEN
21 posed a danger to children of sexual abuse.
22 48. The sexual abuse of Plaintiff was the result of a cover up by DEFENDANTS, as
23 defined in CCP § 340.1(b).
24 BREACH
25 49. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, breached their duties by (i) failing to protect
26 Plaintiff from sexual assault and lewd and lascivious acts committed by their agent and employee;
27 (ii) failing to establish policies and procedures that were adequate to protect the health, safety and
28 welfare of children and protect them from sexual abuse; (iii) failing to implement and enforce policies
-8-
1 and procedures that were adequate to protect the health, safety and welfare of students and protect
2 them from sexual abuse; (iv) hiring, retaining and/or failing to supervise VAN DER PUTTEN, when
3 they knew, or should have known, he posed a substantial risk of harm to children; and (v) failing to
4 adequately monitor and supervise children during the ST. ALOYSIUS church/camp-related activities.
5 50. At all relevant times, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, had inadequate policies and
6 procedures to protect children it was entrusted to care for and protect, including Plaintiff.
7 51. DEFENDANTS concealed their knowledge that VAN DER PUTTEN was unsafe and
8 failed to adopt policies and procedures that would protect children and reduce the risk of child sexual
9 abuse by their employees.
10 52. DEFENDANTS failed to warn Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals that they
11 were at risk of sexual abuse.
12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
13 Negligence
14 (Against ST. ALOYSIUS)
15 53. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 50 above.
16 54. Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS was negligent.
17 55. Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS owed a duty of care to Plaintiff.
18 56. Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS breached the duty of care owed to Plaintiff.
19 57. Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS had actual or constructive notice that Plaintiff was being
20 sexually abused by VAN DER PUTTEN and failed to protect Plaintiff or otherwise make ST.
21 ALOYSIUS a safe for Plaintiff. Plaintiff was sexually abused after Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS knew
22 or should have known that Plaintiff was being sexually abused by VAN DER PUTTEN.
23 58. Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS was negligent in the supervision of VAN DER PUTTEN,
24 and in the failure to remove VAN DER PUTTEN from ST. ALOYSIUS to keep the campers,
25 parishioners and guests safe.
26 59. It was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS that allowing VAN DER
27 PUTTEN unfettered access to children may result in the sexual abuse of the same children.
28
-9-
1 60. Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS’s acts, conduct and omissions showed a reckless or willful
2 disregard for the safety and well-being of Plaintiff and other children.
3 61. As a direct and proximate result of ST. ALOYSIUS’S acts and/or omissions, as set
4 forth above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer economic damages, and severe and
5 permanent psychological, emotional, and physical injuries, shame, humiliation and the inability to
6 lead a normal life.
7 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
8 Negligence
9 (Against ORDER)
11 63. Defendant ORDER was negligent.
12 64. Defendant ORDER owed a duty of care to Plaintiff.
13 65. Defendant ORDER breached the duty of care owed to Plaintiff.
14 66. Defendant ORDER had actual or constructive notice that Plaintiff was being sexually
15 abused by VAN DER PUTTEN and failed to protect Plaintiff or otherwise make ST. ALOYSIUS a
16 safe for Plaintiff. Plaintiff was sexually abused after Defendant ORDER knew or should have known
17 that Plaintiff was being sexually abused by VAN DER PUTTEN.
18 67. Defendant ORDER was negligent in the supervision of VAN DER PUTTEN, and in
19 the failure to remove VAN DER PUTTEN from ST. ALOYSIUS to keep the campers, parishioners
20 and guests safe.
21 68. It was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant ORDER that allowing VAN DER
22 PUTTEN unfettered access to children may result in the sexual abuse of the same children.
23 69. Defendant ORDER’s acts, conduct and omissions showed a reckless or willful
25 70. As a direct and proximate result of ORDER’s acts and/or omissions, as set forth above,
26 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer economic damages, and severe and permanent
27 psychological, emotional, and physical injuries, shame, humiliation and the inability to lead a normal
28 life.
- 10 -
1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Negligence
3 (Against DOES 5 through 25)
5 72. Defendants DOES 5 through 25’s acts and/or omissions, as set forth above, constitute
6 negligence.
7 73. Defendants DOES 5 through 25 owed a duty of care to Plaintiff.
8 74. Defendants DOES 5 through 25 breached the duty of care owed to Plaintiff.
9 75. Defendants DOES 5 through 25 had actual or constructive notice that Plaintiff was
10 being sexually abused by VAN DER PUTTEN and failed to protect Plaintiff or otherwise make ST.
11 ALOYSIUS safe for Plaintiff. Plaintiff was sexually abused after Defendants DOES 5 through 25
12 knew or should have known that Plaintiff was being sexually abused by VAN DER PUTTEN.
13 76. Defendants DOES 5 through 25 was negligent in the supervision of VAN DER
14 PUTTEN, and in the failure to remove VAN DER PUTTEN from the DEFENDANTS to keep the
15 children under their protection and control safe.
16 77. It was reasonably foreseeable to Defendants DOES 5 through 25 that allowing VAN
17 DER PUTTEN unfettered access to children may result in the sexual abuse of the same children.
18 78. Defendants DOES 5 through 25’s acts, conduct and omissions showed a reckless or
19 willful disregard for the safety and well-being of Plaintiff and other children.
20 79. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants DOES 5 through 25’s acts and/or
21 omissions, as set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer economic damages, and
22 severe and permanent psychological, emotional, and physical injuries, shame, humiliation, and the
23 inability to lead a normal life.
24 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 Negligent Hiring, Retention, and/or Supervision
26 (Against ST. ALOYSIUS)
28 81. Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS was negligent.

- 11 -
1 82. Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS owed a duty of care to Plaintiff.
2 83. Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS breached the duty of care owed to Plaintiff. Defendant ST.
3 ALOYSIUS having actual or constructive notice of child sexual abuse perpetrated by its agents and/or
4 employees, namely VAN DER PUTTEN, breached their duty and failed to protect Plaintiff, and
5 otherwise make ST. ALOYSIUS activities safe.
6 84. Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS knew or should have known that Plaintiff was being
7 sexually abused and failed to terminate the perpetrators of the sexual abuse, namely VAN DER
8 PUTTEN, or otherwise make ST. ALOYSIUS safe for Plaintiff. Plaintiff was sexually abused during
9 and after the time in which ST. ALOYSIUS knew or should have known that Plaintiff was being
10 sexually abused.
11 85. It was reasonably foreseeable by Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS that, in allowing

12 employees to have unfettered and unmonitored access to children, that the children may be sexually
13 abused.
14 86. Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS was negligent in the hiring, supervision, placement,
15 training, and retention of VAN DER PUTTEN at ST. ALOYSIUS.
16 87. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS’s negligence, Plaintiff
17 has suffered and continues to suffer severe and permanent psychological, emotional, and physical
18 injuries, shame, humiliation, and the inability to lead a normal life.
19 88. Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS’s acts, conduct, and omissions showed a reckless or willful
21 89. Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS, through the acts and/or omissions set forth above,
22 negligently hired, retained, and/or supervised VAN DER PUTTEN.
23 90. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS’s acts and/or omissions
24 set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, economic damages, and severe and
25 permanent psychological, emotional and physical injuries, shame, humiliation and the inability to
27 ///
28 ///
- 12 -
1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
3 (Against ORDER)
5 92. Defendant ORDER was negligent.
6 93. Defendant ORDER owed a duty of care to Plaintiff.
7 94. Defendant ORDER breached the duty of care owed to Plaintiff. Defendant ORDER
8 having actual or constructive notice of child sexual abuse perpetrated by its agents and/or employees,
9 namely VAN DER PUTTEN, breached their duty and failed to protect Plaintiff, and otherwise make
10 ST. ALOYSIUS activities safe.
11 95. Defendant ORDER knew or should have known that Plaintiff was being sexually
12 abused and failed to terminate the perpetrators of the sexual abuse, namely VAN DER PUTTEN, or
13 otherwise make ST. ALOYSIUS safe for Plaintiff. Plaintiff was sexually abused during and after the
14 time in which ST. ALOYSIUS knew or should have known that Plaintiff was being sexually abused.
15 96. It was reasonably foreseeable by Defendant ORDER that, in allowing employees to

16 have unfettered and unmonitored access to children, that the children may be sexually abused.
17 97. Defendant ORDER was negligent in the hiring, supervision, placement, training, and
18 retention of VAN DER PUTTEN at ST. ALOYSIUS.
19 98. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant ORDER’s negligence, Plaintiff has
20 suffered and continues to suffer severe and permanent psychological, emotional, and physical
21 injuries, shame, humiliation, and the inability to lead a normal life.
22 99. Defendant ORDER’s acts, conduct, and omissions showed a reckless or willful
24 100. Defendant ORDER, through the acts and/or omissions set forth above, negligently
25 hired, retained, and/or supervised VAN DER PUTTEN.
26 101. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant ORDER’s acts and/or omissions set
27 forth above, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, economic damages, and severe and
28 ///
- 13 -
1 permanent psychological, emotional and physical injuries, shame, humiliation and the inability to
3 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (Against DOES 5 through 25)
7 103. DOES 5 through 25 had a duty of care in the hiring, retention, training and/or
8 supervision of one or more of their employees, contractors and/or agents.

9 104. DOES 5 through 25’s employee, contractor and/or agent, VAN DER PUTTEN, was
10 unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired.
11 105. DOES 5 through 25, by and through their employees, contractors, and/or agents, knew
12 or should have known that VAN DER PUTTEN was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or
13 incompetence created a particular risk of harm to others, including Plaintiff and other similarly
14 situated children.
15 106. In failing to exercise reasonable care in the hiring, supervision, training and/or
16 retention of VAN DER PUTTEN, DOES 5 through 25 breached a duty of care owed to Plaintiff and
17 other children similarly situated.
18 107. As a direct and proximate result of DOES 5 through 25’s acts and/or omissions, as set
19 forth above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer economic damages, and severe and
20 permanent psychological, emotional, and physical injuries, shame, humiliation, and the inability to
22 PRAYER FOR RELIEF as to ST. ALOYSIUS
23 1. General damages in an amount to be shown according to proof at the time of trial;
24 2. Special damages including medical and psychological care expenses in an amount to
25 be shown according to proof at the time of trial;
26 3. Treble damages, pursuant to CCP § 340.1(b);
27 4. Costs of suit; and
28 5. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
- 14 -
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF as to ORDER
8 PRAYER FOR RELIEF as to DOES 5 through 10

15 PRAYER FOR RELIEF as to DOES 11 through 25
22 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
23 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this action.
24
Dated: January 10, 2024 HERMAN LAW
25
26
27 By: ______________________________
Jamie M. Majerus
28 Attorney for Plaintiff M.K.
- 15 -
PROOF OF SERVICE
M.K. vs. Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose (Diocese), et al.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 21CV392393
I am and was at all times herein mentioned over the age of 18 years and not a party to the
action in which this service is made. At all times herein mentioned I have been employed in the
County of Shasta in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service
was made. My business address is 9434 Deschutes Road, Suite 1000, Palo Cedro, CA 96073.
On January 10, 2023, I served the foregoing document:
1. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
on the interested parties in this action as follows:
By Electronic Service to:
Joel C. Spann, Esq. | jcs@severson.com

Rhonda L. Nelson, Esq. | rln@severson.com
SEVERSON & WERSON
595 Market Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415-398-3344
Email to: Joel C. Spann <jcs@severson.com>; Rhonda L. Nelson rln@severson.com
Victoria A. McCay <vam@severson.com>; Veronica J. Appleberry
<vja@severson.com>
Attorneys for Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS RETREAT HOUSE, et al.
Executed on January 10, 2023, at Palo Cedro, California.
Sonya Sayles /s/Sonya Sayles

Type or Print Name Signature

Third Amended Complaint, MK v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN JOSE, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Third Amended Complaint, MK v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN JOSE, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electronically Filed

Gregory A. Garcia, Cal. State Bar 320407

7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 M.K., Case No. 21CV392393

24 SACERDOTAL INTERNATIONAL FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIUS X, INC. (“ORDER”); and

25 DOES 5 through 25, inclusive (together, “DEFENDANTS”), and alleges as follows:

3 of sexual conduct as proscribed in CCP § 340.1.

4 PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6 minor at the time of the sexual abuse alleged herein.

15 DEFENDANTS’ direction, control, and supervision.

22 6. Each DEFENDANT is the agent, servant, and/or employee of other DEFENDANTS,

24 servant, and/or employee of the other DEFENDANTS.

25 7. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are individuals, corporations, partnerships, and/or

27 the tortious and unlawful activities described in this Complaint.

6 capacities when the same have been ascertained.

13 claim occurred in Santa Clara County.

21 to ST. ALOYSIUS’s control.

28 conduct of VAN DER PUTTEN to prevent foreseeable harm.

5 environment for Plaintiff.

6 Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS

10 camper/student and/or guest at ST. ALOYSIUS.

14 parentis with ST. ALOYSIUS students, including Plaintiff.

22 otherwise provide a safe environment for Plaintiff.

25 parishioners in its care.

28 children and parishioners in its care.

3 Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm.

7 with students, including Plaintiff.

13 otherwise provide a safe environment for Plaintiff.

16 of the safety of children and students in its care.

19 children and students in its care.

20 VAN DER PUTTEN’S SEXUAL ASSAULT OF PLAINTIFF

22 and participated in DEFENDANTS’ school-related activities and those of their employee-agent

25 participated in after-school activities at ST. ALOYSIUS.

12 vagina under her clothing.

18 sexually abused Plaintiff.

19 PUTTEN being around young girls.

23 with the intent of sexual exploitation.

3 safety and welfare of the minors attending activities at ST. ALOYSIUS.

7 DEFENDANTS’ CONCEALMENT OF ACTS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY PRIESTS

21 posed a danger to children of sexual abuse.

23 defined in CCP § 340.1(b).

12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

14 (Against ST. ALOYSIUS)

15 53. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 50 above.

16 54. Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS was negligent.

17 55. Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS owed a duty of care to Plaintiff.

25 parishioners and guests safe.

6 lead a normal life.

7 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

17 that Plaintiff was being sexually abused by VAN DER PUTTEN.

20 and guests safe.

3 (Against DOES 5 through 25)

4 71. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 68 above.

7 73. Defendants DOES 5 through 25 owed a duty of care to Plaintiff.

15 children under their protection and control safe.

23 inability to lead a normal life.

24 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

25 Negligent Hiring, Retention, and/or Supervision

26 (Against ST. ALOYSIUS)

27 80. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 77 above.

28 81. Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS was negligent.

5 otherwise make ST. ALOYSIUS activities safe.

11 85. It was reasonably foreseeable by Defendant ST. ALOYSIUS that, in allowing