Abuse Survivor's $4M Judgment Against Jehovah's Witness Umbrella Organization Upheld by Court
The ruling leaves in place terminating sanctions issued after the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York.refused to hand over a trove of documents concerning known molesters in the church.
December 10, 2018 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A California appellate court has upheld a $4-plus million judgment against Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc., the top organizational body of Jehovah's Witnesses, in a case brought by a woman who alleges she was molested as a child by a church elder in 2006.
The ruling from the Fourth District Court of Appeal leaves in place terminating sanctions and a $4,016,152.39 judgment after Watchtower refused to hand over a trove of documents it received in response to a 1997 letter sent to Jehovah's Witness congregations concerning known molesters in the church.
The underlying case was brought on behalf of J.W., who was molested by Gilbert Simental, with whom she and her family attended the Mountain View Jehovah's Witness congregation. J.W. contends that her family wouldn't have allowed her to attend a slumber party at Simental's house but for his service as an elder in the church, the highest authority at the congregational level of the organization. Simental was found guilty in two criminal cases of molesting J.W. and two other anonymous victims.
J.W.'s lawyers at The Zalkin Law Firm and Pine Freeman Tillett had argued before the trial court the responses to the 1997 letter were relevant to her case because they could establish the church's duty to protect children like her and to investigate Simental. They argued that the documents were needed for her negligence-based causes of action, and they were relevant to her punitive damages claim.
In turn, the Watchtower's lawyers at Clark Hill in Los Angeles initially had argued that the documents were protected by clergy-penitent privilege. After that privilege argument was turned back, they claimed that terminating sanctions were too extreme a remedy because the documents only applied to the punitive damages portion of the case.
But the trial court sided with J.W. and awarded her $3 million for pain and suffering; $1 million for future medical expenses; and $16,152.39 for costs.
On appeal, Watchtower's lawyers argued that J.W. hadn't alleged that there was a lack of proximate cause between its actions and her injury, particularly since she was molested outside of church grounds and at an event that wasn't church-sanctioned. But the Fourth District on Monday found that in a negligent hiring or retention case the focus should be on Watchtower's actions and the risk of molestation that it “allegedly knowingly created.”
“J.W. sufficiently alleged that Watchtower was responsible for Simental being in a position of authority within the church by alleging that Watchtower is the ultimate authority in the Jehovah's Witness Church,” wrote Justice Douglas Miller in a 44-page opinion.
Miller wrote that Watchtower's warnings that the case would “open the litigation floodgates” was misplaced since proximate cause would be decided “on a case-by-case basis.”
Watchtower's lawyer, Richard Nakamura of Clark Hill, didn't respond to an email seeking comment.
J.W.'s attorney, Devin Storey of the Zalkin Law Firm, said that it was important the court found proximate cause “as long as there's some kind of nexus to the defendant and to the defendant's business.”
Storey noted that he and his firm have litigated over the 1997 documents in two prior cases that have gone to the Court of Appeal and that highly redacted copies of some of the material have been handed over in a fourth case currently pending in Orange County.
“We litigate cases of sexual abuse all day, every day,” he said of his firm. “I've never had a defendant other than Watchtower tell a court point blank, 'I won't comply.'”
“Affirmatively understanding the order and saying 'I'm not going to do it.' … That's not something I ever see.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Luigi Mangione Defense Attorney Says NYC Mayor’s Comments on Case Raise Fair Trial Concerns
4 minute readDistressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
Trending Stories
- 1Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 2Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 3'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 4Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
- 5As a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250