JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

58. The RELIGIOUS ENTITIES, inclusive of the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, retained REGER to work as volunteer, employee, camp counselor, deacon, youth leader, coach, mentor, board member, missionary leader, teacher and/or any other positions. REGER utilized these affiliations to establish his position and in order to access minors, including through traveling on missions with the explicit authorization of the RELIGIOUS ENTITIES/INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, and running physical examinations of minors on behalf of RELIGIOUS ENTITIES/INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, during which sexual abuse of minors occurred.

59. As minors participating in and attending the RELIGIOUS ENTITIES, where REGER was employed, volunteered and/or worked, Plaintiffs were under REGER’s direct supervision, care and control, thus creating a special relationship, fiduciary relationship, and confidential relationship with Defendants. Additionally, as a minor child under the custody, care and control of Defendants, Defendants stood in loco parentis with respect to Plaintiffs while they were attending school, church, mission and school- related functions at the RELIGIOUS ENTITIES. As the responsible parties and employers controlling REGER, Defendants were also in a special relationship with Plaintiffs, and owed special duties to Plaintiffs.

60. Before Plaintiffs were sexually harassed, abused and exploited by REGER, Defendants, and DOES 1 through 100 knew that REGER had engaged in unlawful sexually-related conduct with minors in the past, and/or was continuing to engage in such conduct. Defendants had a duty to disclose these facts to Plaintiffs, their parents and others, but suppressed, concealed or failed to disclose this information. The duty to disclose this information arose by the special, trusting, confidential, fiduciary, and in loco parentis relationship between Defendants and Plaintiffs.

(Complaint, ¶¶ 57-60.)

PLNU is included in the definition of “Religious Entities” which also includes codefendants Church of The Nazarene, a California Corporation; Susanville Church of The Nazarene, a California Corporation; Sacramento District Advisory Board, Church of The Nazarene, a California Corporation; Cornerstone Christian School, an unknown entity; Timberline Ministries, Inc., a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation; Gospel Missionary Union dba Avant Ministries, a Missouri Corporation; and This

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/18/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

Side Out Ministries, an unknown entity. (Complaint, ¶ 6.)

Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) civil sex trafficking (Civ. Code § 52.5); (2) civil conspiracy; (3) negligence; (4) negligent supervision; (5) negligent hiring/retention; (6) negligent failure to warn, train, or educate; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); (8) assault; (9) sexual battery (Civ. Code § 1708.5); (10) sexual harassment (Civ. Code § 51.9); (11) gender violence (Civ. Code § 52.4); (12) breach of fiduciary duty; and (13) constructive fraud (Civ. Code § 1573.)

On February 16, 2024, PLNU and Plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal of the civil sex trafficking and sexual harassment causes of action. The Court signed the order of dismissal on February 23, 2024.

PLNU demurs to the entire complaint on grounds of uncertainty. PLNU also demurs to the second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, twelfth, and thirteenth causes of action on the grounds that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim and that the allegations are uncertain.

Legal Standard

The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.) A demurrer “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) Extrinsic evidence may not properly be considered on demurrer or on a motion to strike. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881; Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482.)

For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . ., we are not concerned with plaintiff’s possible inability or difficulty in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/18/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.) The sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action, not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)

Uncertainty

PLNU contends that the entire complaint is uncertain because PLNU is within the defined term “Religious Entities,” which includes eight different entities. PLNU argues that Plaintiff alleges the same facts against the Religious Entities and therefore conflates these entities even though they are spread out across the state and country, and includes churches, schools, councils, and PLNU. PLNU notes that Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations fail to specify any detail regarding PLNU.

PLNU adds that the allegation regarding its actual/or constructive knowledge inaccurately alleges that PLNU had a duty and special relationship with its “minor parishioners.” (Complaint, ¶ 28.) PLNU, however, is a post-secondary educational institution and does not have parishioners. PLNU further observes that while Plaintiffs allege that Reger was an employee, volunteer, and/or agent of the “Institutional Defendants,” the term “Institutional Defendants” is not defined in the complaint.

PLNU lastly argues that Plaintiff alleges that Reger held a laundry list of titles such as “volunteer, employee, camp counselor, deacon, youth leader, coach, mentor, board member, missionary leader, teacher and/or held other positions ” at each “Religious Entity” without specifying Reger’s role at PLNU.

Plaintiffs maintain in opposition that the complaint is not uncertain, and that they have alleged sufficient detail in paragraphs 28, and 57-60 such that PLNU is on notice of the claims against it, and that discovery will aid PLNU in discovering its role in the alleged abuse.

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. Here, Plaintiffs allege sufficient detail by which PLNU can respond to the complaint. Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and are only granted where the complaint is so muddled that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. The favored approach is to clarify theories in the complaint through discovery. (See Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group, June 2023 Update), sec. 7:85.)

Civil Conspiracy

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/18/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

PLNU demurs to the civil conspiracy cause of action on the ground that the complaint “does not allege specific allegations as to PLNU that PLNU in any manner conspired to promote and assist human trafficking and sexual abuse of minor victims, including Plaintiffs and others.” (Demurrer, 9:13-15.)

The elements of civil conspiracy are “(1) the formation and operation of the conspiracy, (2) wrongful conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (3) damages arising from the wrongful conduct.” (AREIII Cases (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1022.) CACI No. 3600 sets forth the two essential elements for a civil conspiracy: (1) “that [PLNU] was aware that [Mr. Reger] planned to [sexually abuse, sexually harass, and/or molest minors]; and (2) [PLNU] agreed with [Mr. Reger] and intended that [his sexual abuse, sexual harassment and/or molestation] be committed.” (CACI 3600.)

Plaintiffs claim that they have sufficiently alleged civil conspiracy because they allege that PLNU “had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the foreseeability that Reger presented dangerous propensities directed towards minors and that PLNAZ, despite having such knowledge, concealed the fact that Reger was or may have engaged in unlawful sexual conduct with minor children” and “[t]he conspiracy between Reger and PLNAZ accomplished an unlawful purpose by unlawful means, including, but not limited to, promoting and assisting human trafficking and sexual abuse of minor victims, including Plaintiffs.” (Opposition, 11:18-24, citing ¶¶ 28, 109-113 of the complaint.)

The Court finds the Complaint fails to state a claim for civil conspiracy against PLNU. Missing are any allegations that PLNU was aware Reger planned to continue his misconduct or that PLNU agreed with Reger and intended for Reger’s sexual abuse to be committed. The demurrer to the second cause of action for civil conspiracy is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Negligence; Negligent Supervision; Negligent Hiring/Retention; Negligent Failure to Warn, Train, or Educate

In Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204, the California Supreme Court explained the “two-part framework” the court must apply in determining duty:

First, the court must determine whether there exists a special relationship between the parties or some other set of circumstances giving rise to an affirmative duty to protect. Second, if so, the court must consult the factors described in Rowland to determine whether relevant policy considerations counsel limiting that duty.

(Id. at 437.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/18/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

PLNU demurs to these causes of action on the ground that Plaintiffs fail to allege with any specificity a special relationship between PLNU and any plaintiff or Reger. PLNU suggests that “[h]ere, no facts plead show a special relationship was established between PLNU and Plaintiffs or Reger. Plaintiffs do not allege they were students at PLNU or that Reger was an employee of PLNU (because he was not.) What is more, there are no facts plead that show PLNU had the ability to control Reger’s conduct.” (Demurrer, 6:23-26.) PLNU adds that Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts that it knew or should have known of Reger’s misconduct as there are no specific allegations of sexual abuse occurring on the PLNU campus, that children in the care of PLNU were sexually abused, or that PLNU had knowledge of Reger’s risk to children.

Plaintiffs advance that they sufficiently allege PLNU’s special duties in paragraph 120 of the complaint which states:

120. Defendants and each of them had special duties to protect the minor Plaintiffs and the other minors within the RELIGIOUS ENTITIES and REGER ENTITIES when such minors were entrusted to their care by their parents. Plaintiffs’ care, welfare and/or physical custody was entrusted to Defendants. Defendants voluntarily accepted the entrusted care of Plaintiffs. As such, Defendants owed Plaintiffs, minor children, a special duty of care, in addition to a duty of ordinary care, and owed Plaintiffs the higher duty of care that adults dealing with children owe to protect them from harm.

The duty to protect and warn arose from the special, trusting, confidential, and/or fiduciary relationship between Defendants and Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs felt great trust, faith and confidence in Defendants, and in REGER as a volunteer, employee, camp counselor, deacon, youth leader, coach, mentor, board member, missionary leader, teacher and/or held other positions of Defendants.

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that they sufficiently allege a special relationship with Plaintiffs.

The Court also finds that Plaintiffs sufficiently allege PLNU’s knowledge in paragraph 28 which states “[b]efore Plaintiffs were sexually harassed, abused and exploited by REGER, Defendants, and DOES 1 through 100 knew that REGER had engaged in unlawful sexually-related conduct with minors in the past, and/or was continuing to engage in such conduct.”

At this stage of the pleadings, and taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that PLNU owed them a duty. Accordingly, the demurrer

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/18/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

is OVERRULED. As noted above, the demurrer for uncertainty is also OVERRULED.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

PLNU demurs to the IIED cause of action on the ground that it is vague and no specific extreme or outrageous conduct is alleged against PNLU.

The Court disagrees. Here, Plaintiffs allege:

64. With knowledge that REGER had previously engaged in dangerous and inappropriate conduct with children, Defendants conspired to and did knowingly fail to take reasonable steps and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by REGER, including preventing or avoiding placement of REGER in a function or environment in which contact with children is an inherent aspect of that function or environment.

65. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants failed to report and did hide and conceal from Plaintiffs, students, parents, teachers, law enforcement authorities, civil authorities and others, the true facts and relevant information necessary to bring REGER to justice for the sexual misconduct he committed with minors, as well as protect minors under their care, including Plaintiffs.

[¶]

186. Defendants’ conduct toward Plaintiffs, as described herein, was outrageous and extreme. Among other things, Defendants tolerated and permitted individuals in administration of the RELIGIOUS ENTITIES to:

a. Dissuade victims from reporting or going to the police; b. Dissuade victims from going to the press c. Destroying evidence or failing to preserve evidence; d. Allowing a perpetrator to remain in his position with no warning, after questioning him and students about sexual misconduct with students; e. Allowing students/minors to break the rules in order to be abused by REGER; f. Permit REGER to leave the state with minors even though he was known to sexually abuse such minors and had been criminally reported multiple time.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/18/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

(Complaint, ¶¶ 64-65, 186.)

At this stage of the pleadings, and taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs sufficiently allege extreme or outrageous conduct by PLNU. Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED. As noted above, the demurrer for uncertainty is also OVERRULED.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Constructive Fraud; Civil Conspiracy

PLNU demurs to these causes of action on the same ground as the negligence-based causes of action – that Plaintiff fails to plead a special relationship.

As the Court has overruled the demurrer to the negligence-based causes of action, the demurrer to these causes of action is also OVERRULED for the same reasons.

Where the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, Plaintiffs may file and serve a First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) no later than July 2, 2024. Although not required by statute or court rule, Plaintiffs are directed to present the clerk a copy of this ruling at the time of filing the 1AC. PLNU may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the 1AC, 35 days if served by mail.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or other notice is required.

Moving counsel’s notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact Plaitniffs' counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Plaintiffs' counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/18/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.