FILED

3rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

Dona Ana County
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT 11/12/2018 11:19 AM
STATE OF NEW MEXICO DAVID S. BORUNDA
CLERK OF THE COURT
COUNTY OF DONA ANA, NEW MEXICO Elizabeth Balizan

JANE DOE “K”,

D-307-CV-2018-02544
Plaintiff,
Beyer, Marci
vs.

CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF EL PASO,

and OUR LADY OF HEALTH PARISH INC.,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR CAUSING SEXUAL ABUSE BY

PRIESTS, FAILURE TO PREVENT SEXUAL ABUSE BY PRIESTS, FOR THE
SEXUAL ABUSE ITSELF, AND RELATED CLAIMS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW JANE DOE “K” (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) complaining of

CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF EL PASO (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant DIOCESE OF EL

PASO or CDEP”) and OUR LADY OF HEALTH PARISH INC. (hereinafter referred to as

“Defendant OUR LADY OF HEALTH PARISH”), (hereinafter severally and jointly referred to

as “Defendants”), and for a cause of action would show the Court and/or Jury the following:

I.
PARTIES

1. In 1977, CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF EL PASO was a Texas corporation doing

business in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. CDEP may be served with process by serving its

registered agent, or any other authorized officer or agent therein at 499 Saint Matthews St., El

Paso TX, 79907-4214.

1
 2. Defendant OUR LADY OF HEALTH PARISH INC is a New Mexico

corporation doing business in Dona Ana County, New Mexico and may be served with process

by serving its registered agent, or any other authorized officer or agent therein at 1660 Hickory

Loop, Las Cruces New Mexico 88005.

3. At the time she was sexually abused and assaulted by Defendants’ Priest, Plaintiff

Jane Doe J resided in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. Plaintiff continues to reside in Dona Ana

County, New Mexico.

II.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. The acts and omissions complained about occurred in Dona Ana County, New

Mexico.

5. Plaintiff resides in Dona Ana County, New Mexico.

6. Defendant Our Lady of Health Parish, Inc., is a New Mexico administrative entity

with its principal place of business in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. It also had its principal

place of business in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, at the time of the events underlying this

Complaint.

7. Prior to its separate incorporation under New Mexico civil law, Defendant Our

Lady of Health, Inc., was considered a parish under Catholic Canon Law.

8. Defendant Our Lady of Health Parish, Inc., is the successor in interest to Our

Lady of Health Parish, and Our Lady of Health Parish is the predecessor in interest to Defendant

Our Lady of Health Parish, Inc.

9. Under Catholic Canon Law, and at the time of the events underlying this

Complaint, parishes (including Our Lady of Health Parish) were separate administrative entities

from the administrative entity of the diocese in which they reside and function.

2
 10. Under Catholic Canon Law, and at the time of the events underlying this

Complaint, Our Lady of Health Parish was an administrative entity separate from the

administrative entity of the Catholic Diocese of El Paso.

11. Under Catholic Canon Law and/or New Mexico law, and at the time of the events

underlying this Complaint, Our Lady of Health Parish held funds separate from the Catholic

Diocese of El Paso, held property separate from the Catholic Diocese of El Paso, hired and paid

personnel separate from the Catholic Diocese of El Paso, and made supervisory decisions

separate from the Catholic Diocese of El Paso.

12. Under Catholic Canon Law and/or New Mexico law, and at the time of the events

underlying this Complaint, Fr. Joaquin Resma was the director of the administrative entity of

Our Lady of Health Parish.

13. Pursuant to N.M. STAT. ANN. § 38-3-1 (2012), venue is proper in this Court.

III.
FACTS

14. Plaintiff was a victim of sexual abuse perpetrated by Fr. Joaquin Resma (hereafter

“Defendants’ Priest”), an agent of the Catholic Diocese of EL PASO and/or Our Lady of Health

Parish. The sexual abuse began in approximately 1977 and continued until approximately 1980,

when the abuse culminated in a forceful rape at the Parish rectory. Incidents of sexual abuse

occurred regularly over the course of this time period. After the rape at the rectory, Plaintiff

stopped attending Our Lady of Health Parish.

15. Defendants’ Priest sexually abused Plaintiff on the physical premises of Our Lady

of Health Parish.

16. Defendants’ Priest used his status and substantial power as a priest to groom

Plaintiff for sexual abuse.

3
 17. Defendant CDEP imbued Defendants’ Priest with the powers of his priesthood.

18. In the alternative, Defendant Our Lady of Health Parish imbued Defendants’ Priest

with the powers of his priesthood.

19. At all times material to this Complaint, and according to the internal policies and

procedures of the Catholic Diocese of El Paso, Defendants’ Priest was under the employ and

control of the Defendants, and acting within the course and scope of such employment (while

providing guidance, direction, counseling, confessional response, and psychological assistance to

his parishioners, including Plaintiff).

20. The Diocese imbued its priests (including Defendants’ Priest) with

substantial power over the lives of its vulnerable parishioners. The imbuement of such power does

not necessarily implicate teaching the victim any particular set of religious beliefs. However, no

question exists that the Defendants taught vulnerable parishioners, particularly children, to put

complete trust in priests and believe that priests had divine power and authority over them and

their souls.

16. Defendants CDEP and Our Lady of Health Parish, Inc. knew or should have known

of Defendants’ Priest’s sexual abuses and/or other sexual misconduct, and knew or should have

known of the sexual abuse of many other vulnerable individuals by many more area priests, and

did nothing to stop or warn vulnerable parishioners like Plaintiff of the likelihood of sexual abuse

by its priests.

17. Defendants CDEP and Our Lady of Health Parish, Inc. owed a duty to hire,

supervise and retain priests who would not molest, abuse, and harm vulnerable parishioners, and

Defendants breached this duty.

4
 18. Defendants had a duty to protect vulnerable parishioners in their parishes from

abuse by priests in their parishes.

19. The Defendants breached this duty.

20. The Defendants had a duty to keep the premises of their parishes safe for use by

Plaintiff and other vulnerable parishioners.

21. The Defendants breached this duty.

22. The Defendants caused the abuse of Plaintiff by, among other things, empowering

priests to abuse vulnerable parishioners, and adhering to policies and practices of secrecy to protect

abusive priests and the Diocese from scandal. Adherence to these policies and practices of secrecy

was more important to the Defendants than warning vulnerable parishioners of sexually abusive

priests in their midst, which would have promoted safety and accountability.

23. At no time did any Defendant report Defendants’ Priest to law enforcement prior

to or after the sexual abuse of Plaintiff.

24. As a direct and proximate result of sexual abuse at the hands of Defendants’ Priest,

Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer serious emotional distress. Plaintiff now suffers from

embarrassment, humiliation, loss of self-esteem, depression, and other damages. Her trust in

religion and in authority figures has been seriously breached. Her faith has been badly damaged.

Plaintiff is now incurring expenses for needed psychological treatment, therapy and counseling,

seeking coping strategies suited to her current age and station in life.

25. The facts described herein support legal claims for battery, premises liability, and

negligence taking many forms such as 'failure to warn' or 'negligent hiring, training, retention and

supervision.'

5
 26. In addition to being liable for their own direct negligence, the Defendants are

vicariously liable for the sexual abuse suffered by Plaintiff at the hands of Defendants’ Priest,

under the aided-in-agency law of New Mexico.

27. Plaintiff is entitled to all compensation allowable under New Mexico law and jury

instructions for harms caused by Defendants, including punitive damages.

28. CDEP is legally responsible for punitive damages for the harms caused by its priests

on its premises.

29. In the alternative, Our Lady of Health Parish is legally responsible for punitive

damages for the harms caused by its priests on its premises.

30. Plaintiff suffered significant harm as a proximate result of the Defendants' breaches

of duties set forth above.

SEXUAL BATTERY: DEFENDANTS’ PRIEST

31. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above.

32. Defendants’ Priest sexually abused Plaintiff in a manner legally constituting the

tort of battery.

33. Defendants’ Priest’s sexual batteries of Plaintiff were intentional, and intentional

sexual batteries support liability for punitive damages to deter other sexual predators and

predations.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants’ Priest in an amount

reasonable to compensate her for damages, including punitive damages, for interest including pre-

judgment interest, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate,

6
including an equitable demand for an admission and an apology, as a matter of therapeutic need

for Plaintiff.

PUBLIC NUISANCE: CDEP AND OUR LADY OF HEALTH PARISH

34. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above.

35. The Defendants have for many years knowingly maintained and continue to

knowingly maintain policies and practices of telling vulnerable parishioners that priests are on

"sabbatical" or something similar, when they are actually undergoing treatment for alleged sexual

misconduct.

36. The Defendants have for many years knowingly maintained and continue to

knowingly maintain policies and practices of sending abusive priests to out-of-state “treatment

centers,” despite knowing that those priests are being pursued for arrest by law enforcement

entities, and despite knowing that many abusive priests use their out-of-state “treatment” stint as

an opportunity to flee the United States.

37. The Defendants have for many years knowingly maintained and continue to

knowingly maintain policies and practices of non-disclosure of documents detailing and

demonstrating the methods by which they handle their internal investigations of clergy accused of

the sexual abuse of vulnerable parishioners.

38. By failing to inform vulnerable parishioners, civil authorities, or the general public

of the sexual abuse perpetrated by their clerics, the Defendants have knowingly engaged in conduct

injurious to the health, safety, and welfare of large numbers of the public. This secretive conduct

has placed hundreds of New Mexican and Texan children at the risk of sexual abuse from unknown

7
abusive clerics, and hundreds of adult survivors at risk of profound and sometimes dangerous

"discovery triggers.”

39. These policies and practices of non-disclosure, which were knowingly created and

are knowingly maintained by the Defendants, are injurious to the health, safety, and welfare of

large numbers of the public at all times and under all circumstances, and thus constitute a nuisance

per se.

40. Plaintiff is entitled to equitable abatement of Defendants' policies and practices

allowing the non-disclosure and non-prosecution of clergy credibly accused of sexual contact with

vulnerable parishioners. Defendants insist they determine who is "credibly accused" without

secular law enforcement or court assistance.

41. The conduct of Defendants was willful, intentional, wanton, and/or taken in utter

disregard of the safety and wellbeing of others, including Plaintiff, and subjects the Defendants to

punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests abatement of Defendants' conduct, policies, and

practices constituting public nuisance (including non-disclosure of documents and deception of

the public as to ongoing sexual misconduct or protection of past abuses by CDEP clergy), and such

other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

NEGLIGENCE: CDEP AND OUR LADY OF HEALTH PARISH

42. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above.

43. Defendants CDEP and Our Lady of Health Parish, Inc. had and continue to have

numerous duties to prevent their conduct or the conduct of priests in their employ, care or custody

from harming people, including Plaintiff, and Defendants CDEP and Our Lady of Health Parish,

Inc. breached these duties, resulting in damage to Plaintiff. One of these numerous duties was the

8
duty to protect foreseeable victims, by those in charge or custody of persons with dangerous

propensities, like Defendants’ Priest, and this duty was breached by the assignment of Defendants’

Priest to parish ministry.

44. Thus, Defendants CDEP and Our Lady of Health Parish, Inc. are directly liable for

their own negligence.

45. The conduct of Defendants CDEP and Our Lady of Health Parish, Inc. was willful,

intentional, wanton, reckless and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety and wellbeing of others,

including Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants CDEP and Our Lady of Health Parish, Inc. to punitive

damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants CDEP and Our Lady of

Health Parish, Inc. in an amount reasonable to compensate her for damages, including punitive

damages, for interest including pre-judgment interest, costs, and such other and further relief as

this Court may deem appropriate.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR SEXUAL BATTERIES:

CDEP AND OUR LADY OF HEALTH PARISH

46. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above.

47. The sexual abuse of Plaintiff by Defendants’ Priest constituted battery, among other

torts.

48. Defendants’ Priest was and remains an agent or employee of the Diocese and/or the

Parish. But for the fact that Defendants’ Priest was a Catholic priest, with all of the duties,

responsibilities, and vested and apparent authority that being a Catholic priest entails over a

9
Catholic parishioner such as disciplinarian, teacher, and advisor, Defendants’ Priest would not

have had the necessary faculties or powers needed to abuse Plaintiff.

49. Thus, Defendants CDEP and Our Lady of Health Parish, Inc. are vicariously liable

for the conduct of the priest who abused Plaintiff under the theory of "aiding-in-agency," because

they imbued the priest with substantial power over vulnerable children like Plaintiff and sexual

abuse occurred as a result.

50. The agency and power dynamic in this case has nothing to do with the theological

beliefs of the Catholic religion.

51. The conduct of Defendants CDEP and Our Lady of Health Parish, Inc. was willful,

intentional, wanton, and/or taken in utter disregard of the safety and wellbeing of others, including

Plaintiff, and subjects Defendants CDEP and Our Lady of Health Parish, Inc. to punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants CDEP and Our Lady of

Health Parish, Inc. in an amount reasonable to compensate her for damages, including punitive

damages, for interest including pre-judgment interest, costs, and such other and further relief as

this Court may deem appropriate.

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: CDEP AND OUR LADY OF HEALTH PARISH

52. Plaintiff realleges the facts and allegations set forth above.

53. The conduct of all Defendants regarding sexual abuse perpetrated by their priests,

including (but not limited to) the intentional assignment of known sexual predators to parish

ministry without warning to vulnerable parishioners and the use of euphemisms and ploys to shield

10
sexual misconduct from public scrutiny, was outrageous and constitutes intentional infliction of

emotional distress on all victim survivors, including Plaintiff.

54. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

will continue to suffer damages.

55. The conduct of Defendants was willful, intentional, wanton, reckless, and/or taken

in utter disregard of the safety and wellbeing of others, including Plaintiff, and subjects the

Defendants to punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendants in an amount

reasonable to compensate her for damages, including punitive damages, for interest including pre-

judgment interest, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

REQUEST FOR JURY

56. Plaintiff respectfully requests trial by jury of the issues in this case.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that Defendants be

cited to appear and answer, and that on final trial, Plaintiff has judgment against Defendants for

all relief requested, attorney’s fees, for costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, punitive

damages, and for such other and further relief, general and special, at law or in equity, to which

Plaintiff is entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF BRAD D. HALL, LLC

/s/ Levi A. Monagle 11/12/18

BRAD D. HALL
LEVI A. MONAGLE
320 Gold Av SW #1218
Albuquerque, NM 87102
(505) 255-6300, (505) 255-6323 Fax

11
 AND

FLORES, TAWNEY, & ACOSTA, P.C.

CONNIE J. FLORES
NM State Bar No.: 26531
1485 N. Main Street, Suite B
EL PASO, New Mexico 88001
1(575)222-1000- voice
1(575)652-4752- facsimile
[email protected]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

12