62-CV-13-7283

Filed in Second Judicial District Court
9/22/2014 9:37:03 AM
Ramsey County Civil, MN

DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF MINNESOTA

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF RAMSEY

Case

Type: Personal Injury

Court File No. : 62-CV -13-7283

Doe 20,

Plaintiff,
AIVIENDED SUMMONS

v
Fr. Michael Jerome Keating,
Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, and
Fr. Kevin McDonough,
Defendants.

THIS SUMMONS IS DIRECTED TO THE DEFENDANTS ABOVE NAMED.

l.

YOU ARE BEING SUED. The Plaintiff has started a lawsuit against you. The

Plaintiff s Complaint against you is attached to this Summons. Do not throw these papers away.
They are official papers that affect your rights. You must respond to this lawsuit even though it
may not yet be filed with the Court and there may be no court file number on this Summons.

2,

YOU MUST REPLY WITHIN 20 DAYS TO PROTECT YOUR RIGIITS.

You must give or rnail to the person who signed this Summons a written response called

an

Answer within 20 days of the date on which you received this Summons. You must send a copy

of your Answer to the person who signed this Summons located at JeffAnderson & Associates,
P.4., 366 Jackson Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55101.

3.
response

YOU MUST RESPOND TO EACH CLAIM. The Answer is your written

to the PlaintifPs Complaint. In your Answer you must state whether you agree or

disagree with each paragraph of the Complaint.

If

you believe the Plaintiff should not be given

everything asked for in the Complaint, you must say so in your Answer.

 62-CV-13-7283

4,
RESPONSE

YOU WILL LOSE YOUR CASE IF YOU DO NOT SEND A \ryRITTEN

TO THE COMPLAINT TO THE

PERSON 1VHO SIGNED THIS

SUMMONS. If you do not Answer within 20 days, you will lose this case. You will not get to

tell your side of the story, and the Court may decide against you and award the Plaintiff
everything asked for in the Complaint,

If you do not want to contest the claims

stated

in the

Cornplaint, you do not need to respond. A default judgment can then be entered against you for
the relief requested in the Complaint.

5.

LEGAL ASSISTANCE. You may wish to get legal help from

a

lawyer. If you

do not have a lawyer, the Court Adrninistrator may have infonnation about places where you can

get legal assistance. Even

if

you cannot get legal help, you must still provide a written

Answer to protcct your rights or you may losc thc casc.

6.

ALTERNATM DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

ordered to participate

in an alternative

Minnesota General Rules

The parties may agree to or be

dispute resolution process under Rule

of Practice. You must still send your written

ll4 of the

response

Complaint everl if ygu expect to use alternative means of resolving this dispute.

Dated:

z /r, I r(

rEFF ANDERS.N &

P.A.

#2057

Michael G. Finnegan, #033649X
Attomeys forPlaintiff
366 Jackson Street, Suite 100
St. Paul, MN 55101
(65t)227-e9eo

2

to

the

 62-CV-13-7283

DISTRICT COURT

STA'T'E OF MINNESOTA

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COI.JNTY OF RAMSEY

Case

Type: Personal Injury

Court File No.: 62-CV-13-7283

Doe 20,

Plaintiff,

AMENDED COMPLAINT

v
Fr. Michael Jerome Keating,
Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, and
Fr. Kevin McDonough,
Defendants

PlaintifT, for her cause of action against Defendants, alleges that:

PARTTES

1.

Plaintiff Doe 20 (hereinafter "Plaintiff') is an adult female resident of Minnesota.

The identity of Plaintiff has been disclosed under separate covet to Defendant. Plaintiff was a
minor at the time of all sexual abuse and all sexual exploitation alleged herein.

2.

At all

times material, Defendant Fr. Michael Jerome Keating (hereinafter

"Keating") was an adult male resident of thc State of Minnesota.

3.

At all times

material, Defendant Archdiocese

of St. Paul and Minneapolis

("Archdiocese") was and continues to be an organization or entity, which includes, but is not

limited to, civil corporations, decision making entities, officials, and employees, authorized to
conduct business and conducting business in the State of Minnesota with its principal place
business at 226 Summit Avenue, St, Paul, Minnesota. The Archbishop is the top

of

official of the

Archdioccse and is given authority over all maters within the Archdiocese as a result of his

position. The Archdiocese functions as a business by engaging in numerous revenue producing
activities and soliciting money from its members in exchange for its services. The Archdiocese

 62-CV-13-7283

has several programs which seek out the participation of children in the Archdiocese's activities.

The Archdiocese, through its offìcials, has control over those activities involving children' The
Archdiocese has the power

to appoint, supervise, monitor, and fire each person working with

children within the Archdiocese.

4.

Fr. Kevin McDonough is a priest of the Archdiocese who has served as Vicar

General of the Archdiocese. He is a citizen and resident of Minnesota.

FACTS

5.

In

approximately 1997 to 2000, Keating engaged

in multiple instances of

unpermitted, harmful, and offensive sexual contact with Plaintiff, while she was a minor.

6.

Upon information and beliet Keating was a seminatian in St. Paul, Minnesota,

under the authority and control of the Archdiocese, During the instances of Keating's sexual
contact with the Plaintiff, Keating was known to have engaged in prior sexual misconduct with
females, and despite that known history was permitted to continue in formation towards becoming
a priest, and

did become a priest of the Archdiocese under the authority of the Archbishop of the

Archdiocese and with his approval.

7,

The Archdiocese knew, or should have known, that Keating was a danger to youth

and young women before Keating molested Plaintiff. That information was available to the
Archdiocese and its agents and employees.

8.

The Archdiocese negligently or recklessly believed that Keating was fït to work

with children and/or that any previous problems he had were fixed and cured and/or that Keating
would not sexually molest children and/or that Keating would never hurt children by crossing
appropriate boundaries with children.

9.

The Archdiocese held Keating out as an appropriate and trustworthy person to be

around and work with children.
2

 62-CV-13-7283

10.

By holding Keating out as trustworthy, fit, and safe to work with children,

the

Archdiocese conferred on Keating a special position of authority over the Catholic community,
the

Plaintift
I

l.

and her family.

Further, Defendant Archdiocese, by holding itself out as being able to provide a

safe environment for children, solicited and/or accepted this position of authority. This position

of authority prevented the then minor Plaintiff, or her parents on hcr behalt from effectively
protecting the Plaintiff from Keating.

12.

Defendant Archdiocese had a special relationship with Plaintiff and a fiduciary

relationship with the Plaintiffand her family.

13.

Defendant Archdiocese owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because

it

had

superior knowledge about the risk that Keating posed to Plaintiff and others similarly situated, and

a general awareness of a risk of potential harm by authority frgures in its programs and by its
agents and employees, including seminarians, deacons and priests.

14.

Defendant Archdiocese had a duty to Plaintiff to protect her from harm because the

Archdiocese created a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff.

15.

Defendant Archdiocese's breach of its duties include but are not limited to:

a, failure to have sufficient policies and procedures

to prevent the known risk of

child sex abuse,

b.

failure to properly implement the policies and procedures to prevent child sex
abuse,

c.

failure to take reasonable measures to make sure that the policies

and

procedures to prevent child sex abuse were working,

d,

failure to adequately inform and warn families and children of the risks of child
sex abuse,
3

 62-CV-13-7283

e.

failure to investigate risks of child molestation,

f.

failure to properly train the workers at institutions and programs within the
geographical confiues of the Archdiocese,

g.

failure to have any outside agency test its safety procedures,

h.

failure to protect the children in their programs from child sex abuse,

i.
j.

failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care for child safety,
failure to investigate the amount arrd type of information necessary to represent
the institutions, programs, and leaders and people as safe,

k,

failure to train its employees properly to identify signs of child molestation by

fèllow employees, and

L

failed to wam Plaintiff or her parents about a known risk and problem
Defendant Keating posed to children.

16.

Defendant Archdiocese failed to use ordinary care in determining whether its

facilities were safe and/or to determine whether it had sufficient inf<¡rmation to represent its
facilities as safe. Defendant's failures include but are not limited to:

a.

failure to have sufficient policies and procedures to prevent abuse at its
facilities,

b.

failure to investigate risks at its facilities,

c,

failurc to properly train the workers at its facilities,

d.

failure to have any outside agency test its safety procedures and deal with such
issues intemally and secretlY,

c.

failure to investigate the amount and type of information necessary to represent
its facilities as safe,

4

 62-CV-13-7283

f.

failure to train its employees properly to identify signs of child molestation by

fbllow employees, and

g.

failed to wam Plaintiff or her parents about a known risk and problem
Defendant Keating posed to children.

17,

Defendant Archdiocese breached its duties to Plaintiff essentially by failing to warn

her and her family of the risk that Keating posed and the risks of child sexual abuse by clerics.

It

also failed to wam her about any of the knowledge that the Archdiocese had about child sex abuse
and f)efendant Keating.

18.

Defendant Archdiocese knew or should have known that some of the leaders and

people working at Catholic institutions within the Atchdiocese were not persons it was safe to have

in contact with children.

19.

The Archdiocese knew or should have known that

it did not have sufficient

information about whethcr or not its leaders and people working at agencies and the institutions

within the Archdiocese were safe.

20.

The Archdiocese knew or should have known that it had numerous agents who had

sexually molested children. It knew or should have known that child molesters have a high rate

of recidivism.

21.

As to Defendant Keating, the Archdiocese knew or should have known that prior

to his sexual interactions with the Plaintiff, Keating had admitted engaging in similar conduct with
other minor females.

22.

The Archdiocese held its leaders and agents out as people of high morals,

possessing immense power, teaching families and children

to obey

as

these leaders and agentso

teaching families and children to respect and revere these leaders and agents, soliciting youth and

5

 62-CV-13-7283

families to its programs, rnarketing to youth and families, recruiting youth and families, and
holding out the people that worked in the programs as safe.

23.

The Archdiocese was negligent and/or made representations to Plaintiff and her

family during each and every year of her minority.

24.

Upon information and belief; Keating

\4/as

ordained a pricst of the Archdiocese

of

St. Paul and Minneapolis on May 25,2002.

25.

Upon infomration and belieÊ Keating worked as a priest at St. John the Baptist in

New Brighton, Minnesota from 2003 to 2005.

26.

Plaintiff reported Keating's sexual abuse of her to Archdiocesan officials including

Archbishop Iìarry Flynn, then Vicar General Rev. Kevin McDonough, then Chancellor of Cívil

Affairs Andrew Eisenzimrner, Greta Sawyer and the Clergy Review Board in 2006.

27.

Defendant Archdiocese failed to take seriously Plaintiff s allegations of sexual

abuse

by Keating, failed to properly and thoroughly investigate Plaintiff's allegations of sexual

abuse

by Keating, and engaged in behavior that was cxtreme, outrageous, and reckless toward

Plaintiff. Defendant Archdiocese's actions intended to cause harm to Plaintiff and her family and
at the same tirne protected Keating and the Archdiocese from public scandal and scorn.

28.

As part of its investigation into Plaintiff s report of sexual abuse by Keating, the

Archdiocese engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct by communicating with a potential
Keating victim by email alone with the intent of not adequately conoborating Plaintiffls account,
Further, agents of the Archdiocese made conscious efforts to ensure the Review Board would not

substantiate Plaintiffls accounts despite there being ample evidence

on Keating in

the

Archdiocese's records from an earlier investigation by Father Cozzens and witnesses with
information who were not confronted. These actions by the Archdiocese caused severe emotional
distress to Plaintiff when the Archdiocese, knowing
6

it

had conducted a sham investigation,

 62-CV-13-7283

contended the

Plaintiff s allegations were not credible. In fact, the Archdiocese had information

that the Plaintiffs allegations about Keating were consistent with past conduct by Keating.

29.

F'ollowing Plaintiffls report

of

allegations

of

Archdiocese engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct when

sexual abuse by Keating, the

it held Keating out

as a keynote

speaker at an event and caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.

30.

The Archdiocese's conduct in allowing Keating to sit on the Board of Trustees at

the University of Mary after

Plaintiff s report of sexual

abuse by Keating was reckless and extreme

and resulted in severe emotional distress to Plaintifl'.

31.

The Archdiocese engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct when

it failed to

impose its own restrictions on Keating by allowing him to mentoÍ, counsel, and/or advise young

women, by not enforcing his attendance at a priest support group, and by failing to properly
monitor and supervise Keating. The Archdiocese's failure to impose and enforcc restrictions on
Keating caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.

32.

Following Plaintiffs report

of

allegations

of

sexual abuse by Keating, the

Archdiocese recklessly continued him in ministry with full faculties and continued to hold him out
as

frt and trustwofthy. In addition, the Archdiocese permitted Keating to teach a semester-long

program in Rome, with minimal supervision and monitoring. Plaintiff experienced extreme ærd
severe emotional distress upon leaming that Keating was unsupervised and unmonitored and that
her painful account and report to the Archdiocese was deemed "unsubstantiated" and not believed.

33.

Upon information and belief, Keating joined the faculty at the University of St.

Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota in 2006 and was regarded

34.

as

being in good standing in that position.

As a direct result of the sexual abuse, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to

suffer great pain of mind and body, severe and permanent emotional distress, embarrassment, loss

of self-esteem, humiliation and psychological injuries, was prevented and will continue to be
7

 62-CV-13-7283

prevented from performing her normal daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life, has
incurued and

will continue to incur expenses for rnedical

and psychological treatment, therapy and

counseling.

COUNT

35.

DEFENDANT KEATING .
SEXUAL BATTERY

I:

Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint

as

if fully

set forth under this

count and fuither alleges:

36.

In and around 1997 to 2000, Keating inflicted unpennitted, harmful, and offensive

sexual contact upon the person

ofPlaintiff.

37.

Plaintiff did not consent to the harmful bodily contact.

38.

As a direct result of Keating's harmful sexual conduct, Plaintiffhas suffered and

continues to suffer from the injuries allcged herein.

COUNT

II: DEF.ENDANT ARCHDIOCESE
NEGLIGENCE

39.

Plaintiff incorpomtes all paragraphs of this Complaint

as

if fully set forth under this

count and further alleges:

40.

Defendant Archdiocese owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care and at all times

Keating was under the direct supervision and control of the Archdiocese when he committed the

wrongful acts alleged in this Complaint, when supervising Keating, and when investigating the
PlaintifP s allegations about Keating,

41.

Defendant Archdiocese breached the duty of reasonable care it owed Plaintiff, and

Defendant Keating cngaged in the wrongful conduct with the Plaintiff, while Keating acted within
the course and scope of his employment as a seminarian within the Archdiocese, and accomplished

his sexual abuse by vinue of his seminarian authority. The Archdiocese failed to exetcise ordinary
care in (a) supervising Keating, (b) in advancing him within the Archdiocese despite knowledge

I

 62-CV-13-7283

that Keating had a history of misconduct with young women, and (c) in holding him out as a person

fit to be with childrsn, and (d) in investigating Keating's history'

42.

The Archdiocese breached its duty in supervising and investigating Defendant

Keating, and that bleach was the proximate cause of PlaintifPs injuries.

43.

As a direct result of Defendant's negligent conduct, Plaintiff has suffered the

injuries and damages described herein.

COUNT

44.

III:

DEFONDANTS ARCHDIOCESE and McDONOUGH
DEFAMATION

Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint

as

if fully

set forth underthis

count and further alleges:

45.

ln20l2,Fr. Kevin McDonough,

acting in his capacity as agent or employee of the

Archdiocese, published false statements about the Plaintiff'

46.

Those false statements were published in writing.

47.

Either McDonough acted within the course and scope of his employment, as agent

or employee of the Archdiocese, or he acted individually in making those false statements.

48,

As an agent or employee of the Archdiocese, McDonough's false statements are

the responsibility of the Archdiocese, and liability is properly found against the Archdiocese for

MoDonough's statements. Alternatively, if McDonough acted outside the course and scope of his
employment, he properly has personal liability for his false statements.

49.

It appears that McDonough acted within the course and scope of his employment,

as agent or employee

50.

of the Archdiocese.

McDonough's published statements about the Plaintiff were that she had mental

and emotional disability that gave her "delusions," falsely implying that the Plaintiff had falsely

reported, to the Archdiocese, to law enforcement, and to others, the hannful and offensive
9

 62-CV-13-7283

touchings by Keating that she had experienced. In reporting that the Plaintiff had falsely reported

to law enf'orcement, McDonough accused the Ì'laintiff of having committed a crime. In falsely
reporting that the Plaintiffhad "delusions," McDonough's comments for the Archdiocese tend to
disgrace and degrade the Plaintiff.

51.

McDonough made his particular defamatory comments about the Plaintiff to a

corlespondent outside of Minnesota.

52.

McDonough's comments were calculated to expose the Plaintiffto public contempt

or ridicule, and thus induce an

ill opinion

of her, and impair her in the good opinion and respect

of

others.

53.

McDonough's statements about the Plaintiff are libelous, and are actionable

without any allegation of speoial damages,

54.

McDonough published his comments with knowledge they were false or in reckless

disregard ofthe falsity of his comments. In fact, McDonough and the Archdiocese knew or should

have known that Keating had a history of sexually inappropriate contact witb young women, and

that information about Keating that had been reported to the Archdiocese had been internally
manipulated to exonerate Keating despite the Archdiocese knowing that Keating had a history

of

inappropriate sexual contact with minor females.

55.

As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

suffer severe emotional distress, including but not limited to depression, anxiety, embanassment,
loss of self-esteem, humiliation, and psychological injuries.

COUNT IV: DEFENDANT ARCHDIOCESE.
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF' EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

56.

Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint

count and further alleges:

l0

as

if fully

set forth under this

 62-CV-13-7283

57.

Defendant Archdiocese's conduct toward Plaintiff, as described herein, was

extreme and outrageous, The failures of the Archdiocese included:

a.

failing to warn the Plaintiffof Keating's known history,

b.

failing to take seriously her allegations about Keating,

c.

conducting a sham investigation into her allegations about Keating by failing to

properly and thoroughly investigate the PlaintifPs allegations of sexual abuse
by Keating, and

d.

in publishing false statements about her, in accusing her of a crime, and in
accusing her of "delusions,"

was behavior by the Archdiocese that is extreme and outrageous.

58.

The Archdiocese took those steps to cause harm to Plaintiff and her family and to

protect Keating and the Archdiocese from public scandal and scorn.

59.

A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate the Archdiocese's extreme

and

outrageous conduct toward Plaintiff. Plaintiff had great trust, faith, confidence, and reverence in
the Archdiocese, which, by viftue of the Archdiocese's wrongful conduct, turned to fear.

60.

Defendant Archdiocese's conduct toward Plaintiff, as described hereir¡ was

intentional and reckless.
6l

.

A reasonable person would not expeot or tolerate the Archdiocese's intentional and

reckless conduct toward Plaintiff.

62.

As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

suffer severe emotional distress, including but not limited to depression, anxiety, embarrassment,
loss of self-esteem, humiliation, and psychological injuries.

11

 62-CV-13-7283

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

63.

Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants individually, jointly, and severally

in an arnount in excess of $50,000 plus costs, disbursements, reasonable attorney's fees, interest,
and such othet and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE FOR A TRIAL BY JURY.

Dated:

llt'lta

JEFF ANDERSON

&

TES, P.A.

By: Jeffrey R. Anderson,#20í7
Michael G. Þ'innegan, #033649X
366 Jackson Street, Suite 100
St. Paul, MN 55101

(6st)227-9990
Attorneys for Plaintiff

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The undersigned hereby acknowledges that sanctions, including costs, disbursements, and
reasonable attomey fees may be awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. $ 549.211 to the party against
whom the allegations in this pleading are asserted.

t2