Craig Allen Harward

Sources

1. Teacher of the year accused / Milpitas man suspected of molesting 5 children, SFGate, August 17, 2002.
2. Ex-teacher guilty of molest charges / 14-year sentence in Milpitas case, SFGate, March 12, 2003.
3. The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Craig Allen HARWARD, Santa Clara County Superior Court, June 10, 2004.
4. DOE V. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah Corporation sole; CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD, an individual, Superior Court of Alameda County Public Portal, July 10, 2024.
5. Craig Allen Harward, Utah Sex Offender Registry, July 11, 2024.
6. Doe v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Justia, April 1, 2025.

• 1. Teacher of the year accused / Milpitas man suspected of molesting 5 children

  • 20020817
  • News article
  • SFGate

  • original
  • archived
  • back to list

  A Milpitas man recently honored as an elementary school teacher of the year allegedly had been molesting students since 1997, police say.

  Craig Allen Harward, 54, already in Santa Clara County Jail on charges that he fondled a 10-year-old neighborhood boy, now is suspected of victimizing four other children, said Milpitas Police Cmdr. Dennis Graham.

  Charges involving the additional children have not yet been filed, Graham said.

  Three of the children attended Joseph Weller Elementary school in Milpitas, where Harward taught for the past six years. He is now on administrative leave,

  said Marlin Foxworth, superintendent of the Milpitas Unified School District.

  The four boys and one girl whom Milpitas police have identified as victims range in age from 7 to 13.

  The two who weren't Weller students, including the neighbor boy, knew Harward from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Milpitas First Ward, in Fremont, where he was a member and a secretary to the bishop.

  "Most of the incidents happened at the school, in his classroom," Graham said. "He had a stealth approach to doing things. He's pretty clever. He could approach them even when other students were around."

  Foxworth said district officials were surprised at the arrest.

  "He seemed a good teacher," he said.

  The district sent out letters to parents informing them of the arrest and asking them to contact the school with any questions or requests for counseling, Foxworth said.

  He declined to say whether the letter spurred new allegations against Harward.

  Harward, like other new teachers, was fingerprinted when he was hired and a background check was done, Foxworth said.

  Police began their investigation when the 10-year-old's parents contacted them on July 30, saying Harward had inappropriately touched their child during several incidents spanning about six weeks.

  The incidents, in which Harward allegedly fondled the boy's genitals and exposed himself, occurred by a pool in the complex and in Harward's home, where he lived with his wife.

  No children live in Harward's home, Graham said, but he does have a stepchild.

  Harward was arrested the following day, after surrendering at the police station with his church bishop at his side.

  He was charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious behavior with a child under 14, Graham said. The charges have the potential of putting Harward in prison for life, he said.

• 2. Ex-teacher guilty of molest charges / 14-year sentence in Milpitas case

  • 20030312
  • News article
  • SFGate

  • original
  • archived
  • back to list

  A former Milpitas elementary school teacher has admitted to sexually molesting four children, including two of his students, and will be sentenced to 14 years in prison.

  Craig Allen Harward, 54, pleaded guilty Monday to three counts of lewd and lascivious acts on children under the age of 14, and no contest to a fourth count of the same charge, said Milpitas Police Cmdr. Dennis Graham. A no- contest plea is essentially the same as a guilty plea except it cannot be used to establish liability in a civil lawsuit.

  Graham said 10 children, two of them girls, had come forward since Harward's arrest last summer to say he had fondled them, among other things, between the years of 1997 and 2002. One was a child from Southern California, Graham said.

  Prosecutors chose the four strongest cases, Graham said, and Harward agreed to a plea bargain. The charges carried the potential of a life sentence.

  They involved four boys -- two of whom were 10, one 11 and another 13 years old at the time they were molested.

  Two had been students at Joseph Weller Elementary School, where Harward worked for six years teaching kindergarten through third grade.

  He was named teacher of the year for 2001-02.

  The other two boys knew Harward from the Mormon Church in Fremont, where Harward was a secretary to the bishop. One of the boys from church also knew Harward from the neighborhood where Harward lived with his wife.

  Harward has been in Santa Clara County jail since his arrest, Graham said, and will remain there until his May 9 sentencing.

  Police began their investigation on July 30 based on information from one boy's parents. Harward was arrested the following day, after surrendering at the police station with his church bishop at his side.

• 3. The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Craig Allen HARWARD

  • 20040610
  • Court record
  • Santa Clara County Superior Court

  • original
  • archived
  • back to list

  The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.Craig Allen HARWARD, Defendant and Appellant. No. H026754. | (Santa Clara CountySuper. Ct. No. CC256862). | June 10, 2004. 2004 WL 1282850

• 4. DOE V. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah Corporation sole; CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD, an individual

  • 20240710
  • Court record
  • Superior Court of Alameda County Public Portal

  • original
  • archived
  • back to list

  Brett Schreiber, Esq. (SBN 239707) Meagan Verschueren, Esq. (SBN 313117) Katie Llamas, Esq. (SBN 303983) Singleton Schreiber, LLP
  591 Camino de la Reina, Ste. 1025
  San Diego, California 92108
  [phone numbers and email addresses redacted by FLOODLIT]
  Attorneys for Plaintiff
  SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
  JANE DOE,
  Plaintiff,
  v.
  THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah Corporation sole; CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD, an individual;
  and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.
  Case No.:
  COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
  1. SEXUAL BATTERY;
  2. NEGLIGENCE;
  3. NEGLIGENT HIRING,
  SUPERVISION, AND RETENTION; 4. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION;
  5. NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN,
  TRAIN, OR EDUCATE;
  6. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; 7. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
  EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  Plaintiff JANE DOE hereby complains and alleges as follows:
  PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
  1. Venue in this case is based upon California Code of Civil Procedure Section 395, in that the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the County of Alameda, State of California and most conduct of Defendants which forms the basis of this action occurred in the County of Alameda, State of California.
  2. All named entity defendants do business and conduct continuous and systematic activities in the State of California. All named entity defendants currently
  1

  operate, oversee, manage, own, control and profit from religious gatherings, membership and entities in the County of Alameda, State of California, including the subject Fremont California Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints in the City of Fremont, County of Alameda, State of California. Based upon information and belief, at all relevant times and currently, all named defendants own real property in the State of California. All defendants were conducting business in the State of California when they harmed Plaintiff JANE DOE and most of the harm occurred at property owned, managed and operated by Defendants in the County of Alameda, State of California. As such, jurisdiction and venue are proper.
  A. PLAINTIFF JANE DOE
  3. At the time of filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff is an adult and resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California.
  4. Plaintiff’s full legal name is being withheld to protect her identity under her California statutory and constitutional rights of privacy because this case involves intimate facts of her sexual assault, battery and abuse and detailed facts of a sexual and intimate nature. The sexual assault, battery and abuse occurred in approximately 2000 and 2001 when Plaintiff was about twelve (12) and thirteen (13) years old. As a victim of childhood sexual assault, battery and abuse as defined by Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1, Plaintiff proceeds under the pseudonym JANE DOE. Plaintiff is entitled to protect her identity in this public court filing by not disclosing her name. Doe v. Lincoln Un. Sch. Dist. Doe (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758.
  5. This is an action to recover damages on behalf of an adult who was a victim of childhood sexual assault, battery and abuse and it is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 340.11.
  6. Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.11, this Complaint is timely because Plaintiff is under forty (40) years old and this is an action for the recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse, assault, and battery.
  2

  B. DEFENDANTS
  7. Defendant THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS (hereinafter “LDS Corporation”), also commonly known as the “LDS Church” or “Mormon Church,” is a Utah for-profit corporation that holds itself out to be a religious organization that gives back to its people. In reality, it is a company that has enormous profits yearly and hold investments worth billions of dollars.
  8. It is estimated that LDS Corporation and its businesses own over 16,000 United States properties, including hundreds of multimillion-dollar suburban parcels, commercial towers, religious sites and large farmlands. This includes a large piece of land where the subject incidents occurred in Fremont, California, that based upon information and belief, is worth more than $8,000,000.00.
  9. Based upon information and belief, at relevant times, LDS Corporation has and does own several businesses including but not limited to insurance companies, investment companies, radio stations, television stations, news and newspaper companies, cattle ranches, the park, water sewage companies, a high-end mall, and real estate companies. Based upon information and belief, LDS Corporation has leadership with ownership and/or it has ownership interest in major airlines.
  10. LDS does business as (1) Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; (2) Millennial Star Network; (3) Vernon Utah Livestock; (4) Mortgage Loan Service; (7) Salt Lake Mormon Tabernacle Choir; (8) Farm Management Company; (9) Deseret Transportation; (10) Latter-Day Saint Philanthropies; (11) Beehive Clothing; (12) Deseret Industries; (13) Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square; (14) Deseret Soap; (15) Elberta Valley AG; (16) Mormon Tabernacle Choir; (17) Deseret Pasta; (18) Joseph Smith Memorial Building; (19) LDS Philanthropies; (20) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; and (21) Latter-Day Saint Humanitarian Center.
  11. In or around 2021, CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, LDS Corporation’s global operating company, merged with LDS Corporation. LDS Corporation has merged with several of
  3
  its entities over the years.
  12. LDS holds nominal title and owns, manages and controls the real property
  associated with “the church,” LDS Corporation, throughout the United States and the world. This includes the LDS Corporation meetinghouses and “houses of worship,” including but not limited to real property in the State of California and County of Alameda. LDS has numerous contacts with the State of California, including but not limited to, holding and applying for several permits in and around the State of California. Additionally, LDS Corporation oversees and operates multiple subsidiary corporations on behalf of the “church” throughout California. LDS Corporation conducts business in the State of California and has systemic activities in the State of California. LDS Corporation’s headquarters is located at 50 East North Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84510.
  13. LDS Corporation does not provide information about their finances to the public in the United States with rare exception, but it generates income from its businesses in the State of California. Worldwide, disclosures and studies estimate that LDS profits at least several billions of dollars annually. Based upon information and belief, LDS Corporation owns hundreds of billions of dollars in stocks, real property, business profits, and business assets. Based upon information and belief, LDS Corporation bought and gained stock, in part, through investing tithing money received from its members.
  14. LDS Corporation is registered to do business in the State of California, and the presiding Bishop in each area, ward or stake throughout California serves at the pleasure of and subject to the direct and absolute control of “the church,” LDS Corporation. LDS Corporation owns and operates a large number of “houses of worship” or “meetinghouses” in the State of California and controls the leaders, employees and workers at each, including but not limited to the Bishops and Bishop Secretaries.
  15. The Bishops are appointed to control each ward by the LDS Corporation and subject to their control. The Bishop of the ward is often referred to as the “father” or
  4

  “caretaker” of the ward, responsible for the wellbeing of all of the members of the ward. The Bishops and other leaders at the wards (the “Bishopric”) vet and select one or two “Bishop Secretaries” or “Executive Secretaries” per Ward. The Bishop Secretary works closely with the Bishop and other leaders. They have several responsibilities including directing communications between the members and the Bishopric; forwarding messages received from employees and volunteers to appropriate leaders; keeping lists of members and details about each member; helping with seminary and institute matters; helping members register for classes; helping members with access to church services and offerings; scheduling interviews for youth and adults who need to renew their ”temple recommends;” scheduling appointments with the Bishopric; serves as a members of the Ward Council; attends Ward Council meetings; complete assignments given by the Bishopric; meet with the Bishopric and prepare agendas for meetings; and work closely with members to ensure operations in the best interest of “the church,” LDS Corporation.
  16. Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD is an individual that was a resident of the State of California at the time of the subject sexual abuse, assault and battery described herein. Based upon information and belief, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD currently owns real property in the State of California. However, investigation shows that CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD likely currently resides in either the City of Saint George, State of Utah or the City of San Jose, State of California. At all times relevant, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD was a Bishop Secretary at the subject Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints located at 48950 Green Valley Road, Fremont, California 94539, which was owned and operated by LDS Corporation. At all times relevant, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD was serving and acting as an agent of LDS CORPORATION.
  17. At all times relevant herein, LDS Corporation, Defendant HARWARD and DOES 1 through 50 assumed responsibility for the wellbeing of the LDS Corporation’s members, including but not limited to children and “church students” including
  5

  Plaintiff. Defendants, and each of them, held out their leaders, executive employees and council members, including Defendant HARWARD, as their agents who were placed by the LDS Corporation and DOES 1 to 50 in positions of authority and responsibility over members of the congregation, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff. As such, LDS Corporation, Defendant HARWARD and DOES 1 to 50 had a special relationship with members of their congregation, including but not limited to, Plaintiff. This relationship gave rise to a duty to protect members of the congregation, and more specifically, minor members of the congregation, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff, from foreseeable risks of harm. At all times alleged herein, Defendants and DOES 1 through 50 assumed special responsibilities toward their members in order to protect said members, and more specifically, minor members, including but not limited to, Plaintiff, from sexual predators, sexual abuse, and any and all abuse, especially abuse from its executive leadership and council members. Defendants and DOES 1 through 50 also had a duty to protect people from abuse and harm at their subject property in Fremont, California.
  18. LDS Corporation’s income comes from member tithes which is turned over to the “Church” for investment and other uses, including support of the administrative expenditures of the LDS Corporation and its wards, stakes and areas. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that the LDS Corporation receives at least approximately five to seven (5-7) billion dollars per year from member tithing, which involves members being asked to donate 10% or more of their income to LDS Corporation. It has been reported publicly in the media that LDS Corporation owns financial assets and real estate in excess of $100 billion.
  19. The true names, identities, or capacities, whether individual, associate, successor-in-interest to, corporate, or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 50, are unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names, identities, or capacities of such fictitiously designated Defendants are ascertained, Plaintiff will ask leave of this Court to amend this complaint to assert their true names, identities, and capacities, together with the proper charging
  6

  allegations.
  20. Each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is responsible, in some
  manner, for the events and happenings herein, thereby legally causing the injuries and damages to Plaintiff as more thoroughly alleged below.
  21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, each Defendant was the agent, representative, and/or employee of each other Defendant. In doing the wrongful acts and inactions hereinafter alleged, each Defendant was acting within the course and scope of said alternative personality, capacity, identity, agency, representation, and/or employment with each other defendant and were within the scope of their authority, whether actual or apparent. At all times relevant, Defendant LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, knew or should have known about Defendant HARWARD’s sexual harassment, sexual abuse, rape, and wrongful conduct at and off of Defendant LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50’s property and recklessly retained him in a leadership position and tried to cover up reports of abuse, placing hundreds of youth at risk. Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, thereby ratified Defendant HARWARD’s wrongful actions. Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 are therefore vicariously liable for the actions of Defendant HARWARD and the remaining DOES.
  22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, Defendants were the trustees, partners, servants, joint venturers, shareholders, contractors, or employees of each other Defendant and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually through such capacity, within the course and scope of their authority in each position, with the permission and consent of each other Defendant, at the direction of each other defendant, and whose conduct was thereafter ratified by each other Defendant. Accordingly, each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff.
  23. Wherever appearing in this Complaint, each reference to “Defendants” shall be deemed to include all Defendants, including all fictitiously named defendants.
  7

  FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
  24. From approximately 1959 through 2001, Defendant LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 knew that many of its members were being sexually abused by its leaders, employees and agents. Based upon information and belief, there were more than one-hundred and eighty-four (184) official reports and/or accusations related to sexual abuse by LDS Corporation leaders by 2001. Based upon information and belief, several other reports were made to the church but were never made public due to LDS Corporation covering it up.
  25. Since 2001, more than one-hundred and fifty (150) LDS Corporation leaders and members have been accused of sexually abusing children. Almost all accused were alleged to have multiple victims.
  26. Beginning in or around the year 2000 and continuing through 2001, Plaintiff, who was approximately twelve (12) to thirteen (13) years old, was the victim of childhood sexual misconduct, assault, battery, molestation, harassment and abuse. Plaintiff attended bible class at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints located at 48950 Green Valley Road, Fremont, CA 94539 (“LDS’ Property”) including but not limited to in approximately 2000 and 2001.
  27. In approximately 2000 and 2001, at the times Plaintiff was sexually abused, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD served as Secretary to the Bishop at LDS Corporation and was under the direct supervision, agency, and control of Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50. As part of its ministry, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 appoint Church Elders, High Priests, Bishopric Members, Single Adult Leaders, Spiritual Advisors, Executive Members, Youth Counselors, Religious Leaders, mentors, agents, and supervisors to educate and minister to families, including their children. Defendant LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 appointed Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD and gave him authority to act on its behalf and to assert control over its members.
  28. In or around 2000 and 2001, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD publicly
  8
  showed inappropriate affection to Plaintiff at LDS’ Property at the general big congregation in front of all local leaders appointed by LDS Corporation. Defendant HARWARD often sat by Plaintiff and touched Plaintiff’s thighs and shoulders. Every time Defendant HARWARD came to sit by or walk with Plaintiff, Plaintiff soon learned and expected that Defendant HARWARD would touch Plaintiff’s body each time. It became a regular occurrence. Based upon information and belief, Defendant HARWARD did this to other church students at LDS’ Property around the same time.
  29. In or around 2000 and 2001, Defendant HARWARD regularly walked with Plaintiff to classes and inappropriately touched Plaintiff’s shoulders.
  30. In or around 2000 and 2001, Defendant HARWARD would repeatedly take Plaintiff out of bible class at LDS’ Property several times per month to sexually abuse her and the class leader would allow it. Defendant HARWARD would open the classroom door, ask for Plaintiff to come with him, and the LDS Corporation leader leading the class would allow it without question despite Plaintiff seeming more and more hesitant each time. The class leader would tell Plaintiff to go and that “it’s okay you will be right back.” No one ever asked Plaintiff why she didn’t want to go. Plaintiff reluctantly went and felt forced to go. Plaintiff soon knew that each time she was called to leave the classroom by Defendant HARWARD, he was going to take her to another room to engage in sexual acts. Plaintiff was told not to tell anyone and was afraid to speak out at the time. The LDS Corporation, its class leader, as well as other church leaders, knew or should have known what was going on but allowed it to happen despite that knowledge.
  31. In or around 2000 and 2001, while Plaintiff was in Defendant LDS’ custodial care and under their control and apparent asserted authority, Defendant HARWARD would repeatedly and regularly take Plaintiff out of bible class at LDS’ Property and bring her to a smaller room or bathroom and touch Plaintiff on her genitals and private parts. Defendant HARWARD would also force Plaintiff to fondle Defendant HARWARD’s penis and perform oral sex on him regularly.
  9

  32. In or around 2000 and 2001, during ongoing sexual abuse of Plaintiff at LDS’ Property, Defendant HARWARD would grope Plaintiff’s genitals, touch his own penis and then force Plaintiff to touch Defendant HARWARD’s penis too. Defendant HARWARD would put his penis in Plaintiff’s mouth, which was painful. Defendant HARWARD similarly sexually abused other children around the same time period.
  33. In and around 2000 and 2001, Defendant HARWARD often escorted Plaintiff and her family to their vehicle when many people were outside of the church, including church/LDS Corporation leaders, and Defendant HARWARD would quickly grope Plaintiff’s body on the way.
  34. While Plaintiff was in Defendant LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50’s custodial care and under their control during bible class at the subject LDS’ Property, LDS Corporation and DOES 1 – 50 recklessly and negligently allowed Plaintiff to be alone with Defendant HARWARD and sexually abused on multiple occasions. While Plaintiff was in Defendant LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50’s custodial care and under their control, LDS Corporation knowingly allowed Defendant HARWARD to sexually harass Plaintiff and touch Plaintiff’s body inappropriately in front of LDS Corporation leaders and members.
  35. At all times relevant, LDS Corporation and DOES 1 to 50 failed to supervise the children in its care, including Plaintiff, and failed to enact, implement, and follow reasonable policies or procedures for supervision of children in their custodial care and under their asserted authority, including Plaintiff; and LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50’s failure to exercise reasonable care in the supervision of the children during bible class, enabled Harward to repeatedly sexually abuse Plaintiff.
  36. In or around 2000 and 2001, and before that time period, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, were notified of Defendant HARWARD’s propensity to abuse children through visual observation of his sexual harassment of children and through reports of sexual misconduct. In response to visual observations and reports, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 did not go to the
  10

  police or take any action to protect Plaintiff or other abused children. LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 failed to protect, prevent, or stop the known and/or likely and foreseeable sexual abuse of children at its subject property, LDS’ Property, for years. As a result, several children were sexually abused by Defendant HARWARD while he was acting in the course and scope of his agency and/or employment and under the consent, authority, and on behalf of LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50.
  37. In or around 2000 and 2001, a church group of all of the women church members would meet off of the church premises two to three times per month and Defendant HARWARD would volunteer to watch some of the children for the church/LSD Corporation, including Plaintiff, and he would take Plaintiff back to his house until the church women were done with the church activity. While at Defendant HARWARD’s house, on nearly every occasion that he watched Plaintiff related to the church activities, Defendant HARWARD would sexually touch Plaintiff and/or force Plaintiff to engage in sexual acts, including anal penetration during which Defendant HARWARD would insert his penis into Plaintiff’s anus. The anal penetration and oral sexual acts were painful and caused Plaintiff pain and discomfort.
  38. In or around 2000 and 2001, LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 would have camping and/or scout trips in which it would take children camping and to do various activities. On at least two occasions while on a LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 camping trip, Defendant HARWARD, while acting within the course and scope of his agency and in his position of authority with LDS Corporation, sexually abused, assaulted and battered Plaintiff.
  39. During all periods and acts of sexual harassment, abuse, assault and battery described above, Defendant HARWARD was acting within the course and scope of his employment and/or agency with LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, under the color of authority given to him by LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, and with the consent, knowledge and ratification of LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50.
  40. Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD has been accused of sexually abusing
  11

  at least ten (10) children.
  41. In 2004, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD pleaded guilty to charges
  relating to sexual abuse of four children over a six-year period while he was the Bishop Secretary for LDS Corporation. He was sentenced in Santa Clara County Superior Court to 14 years in prison for the lewd and lascivious acts on four children.
  42. At all relevant times described above, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 knowingly allowed and gave Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD the authority, location, means, ratification, and access to children to sexually abuse children, including but not limited to Plaintiff, at its property and off-site events.
  FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
  Sexual Battery
  (Against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 50)
  43. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully set forth herein.
  44. In or about 2000 and 2001, while Plaintiff was at Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50’s property and under the custodial care of Defendants, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD, an adult male, intentionally touched, groped, and fondled Plaintiff’s private parts and genitals and put his penis into Plaintiff’s mouth on several occasions, all without her consent and while Plaintiff was a minor of approximately twelve (12) and thirteen (13) years old.
  45. At all relevant times described above, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD’s conduct was intentional and sexually offensive, and included sexual and offensive contact with Plaintiff’s body, constituting sexual battery under California Civil Code section 1708.5.
  46. At all relevant times described above, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD knew that Plaintiff was a minor and unable to consent to sexual touching and/or sexual acts.
  47. At all relevant times, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD was working
  12
  and acting within the course and scope of his employment and/or agency, including the managerial and supervisory authoritative role granted to him, with Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, when he committed the wrongful sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff.
  48. At all relevant times, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD was acting under the authority granted to him by Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, and holding himself out as acting on behalf of, and acting on behalf of, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 when he committed the wrongful sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff such that his acts were the acts of the LDS Corporation at the time of the wrongful sexually offensive contacts.
  49. At all relevant times, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD was acting with the knowledge, consent and ratification of Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, when he committed the wrongful sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff.
  50. At all relevant times and before the sexual assault and battery of Plaintiff, Defendants knew or should have known that Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD would sexually assault and batter children; and Defendants knew or should have known that Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD had sexually assaulted and battered children at the subject LDS’ Property and at LDS events before and that he had sexually violent propensities and would likely harm someone, especially children, if given the opportunity .
  51. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the wrongful acts and omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, described above, Plaintiff was injured in her health, strength and activity, sustaining physical, mental and nervous pain and suffering, and severe shock to her health and person, all to her general damages in a sum which will be shown according to proof.
  52. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the wrongful acts and omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, described above, Plaintiff was injured and may be
  13

  disabled in the future and thereby prevented from attending to the duties of her usual occupation. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
  53. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the wrongful acts and omissions of the defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff required and will require medical care, medical treatment, life care, and other incidental expenses and will likely incur additional like expenses in the future, all in amounts presently unknown to her. Plaintiff therefore asks leave of court either to amend this Complaint so as to show the amount of her medical and life care expenses, when ascertained, or to prove the amount at the time of trial.
  54. In committing the wrongful and egregious acts described herein, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD acted with malice, oppression and fraud, justifying an award of punitive damages against Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD.
  SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence
  (Against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 50)
  55. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully set forth herein.
  56. In 2000 and 2001 and at all relevant times, Defendants and DOES 1 through 50 had a duty to supervise the children at their property that were participating in their activities and whom were under their custodial care, including but not limited to, Plaintiff. They had a duty to have in place and enforce those rules and regulations necessary for the protection of the children in their care. Defendants and DOES 1 through 50 had a special relationship with plaintiff and thus owed plaintiff a protective duty of care to keep children who participated in its activities safe, which duty included an affirmative duty to protect children lawfully on the subject premises and attending the bible classes, along with at its church-sponsored and organized events.
  57. Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 had a further duty to
  14
  provide proper oversight and supervision to avoid such abusive conduct as that which befell Plaintiff and other minor children at the hands of Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD, who was enabled in perpetrating said abuse by and through the negligence of the Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50.
  58. At the time of the child sexual harassment and abuse incidents described herein, Defendants and each of them owed Plaintiff a duty of care to use reasonable care to avoid injury to others including Plaintiff and a duty to provide services that were free from sexual, offensive, or inappropriate touching and contact.
  59. In or about 2000 and 2001, Defendants breached their duty of care to Plaintiff while Plaintiff was at Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50’s property and while Plaintiff was attending Defendants’ events and under the custodial care of Defendants, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD, an agent acting on behalf of all other Defendants, intentionally touched, groped, and fondled Plaintiff’s private parts and genitals and put his penis into Plaintiff’s mouth on several occasions, all without her consent and while Plaintiff was a minor of approximately twelve (12) and thirteen (13) years old.
  60. At all relevant times described above, Defendants knew or should have known that Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD’s conduct was harmful, negligent, inappropriate, egregious, offensive, sexually offensive and grossly negligent and that such conduct had a substantial likelihood of causing harm to Plaintiff.
  61. At all relevant times described above, Defendants knew that Plaintiff was a minor and unable to consent to sexual touching and/or sexual acts.
  62. At all relevant times, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD was working and acting within the course and scope of his employment and/or agency, including the leadership, managerial and supervisory authoritative role granted to him, with Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, when he committed the wrongful sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff.
  63. At all relevant times, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD was acting
  15

  under the authority granted to him by Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, and holding himself out as acting on behalf of, and acting on behalf of, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 when he committed the wrongful sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff such that his acts were the acts of the LDS Corporation at the time of the wrongful sexually offensive contacts.
  64. At all relevant times, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD was acting with the knowledge, consent and ratification of Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, when he committed the wrongful sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff.
  65. At all relevant times and before the sexual assault and battery of Plaintiff, Defendants knew or should have known that Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD would sexually assault and batter children; and Defendants knew or should have known that Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD had sexually assaulted and battered children at the subject LDS’ Property and at LDS events before and that he had sexually violent propensities and would likely harm someone, especially children, if given the opportunity .
  66. At all relevant times, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, knew or with reasonable diligence should have known about Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD’s propensity and history of sexually harming children.
  67. Despite knowing and having notice of Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD’s past wrongful conduct and propensity to engage in sexual abuse of children, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 chose not to discipline Defendant HARWARD, to ratify his conduct, and to retain Defendant HARWARD as a leader and representative of the LDS Corporation and their agent, knowingly subjecting persons of all ages, and especially children, including Plaintiff, to the real risk that Defendant HARWARD would sexually harm them, thereby ratifying and adopting the misconduct of Defendant HARWARD as its own conduct.
  16

  68. Based upon information and belief, Defendants made a conscious reckless and knowing decision not to report or warn about prior sexual abuse and signs of sexual abuse by Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD to parents or the police and instead engaged in a cover-up operation to protect Defendant HARWARD, which was grossly negligent and reckless.
  69. While engaging in the above wrongful acts and omissions, Defendants were grossly negligent and Defendants, and each of their, gross negligence was a direct, proximate, and legal result of Plaintiff’s harms and losses described above and below.
  70. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the gross negligence and carelessness of the Defendants, and each of them, described above, Plaintiff was injured in her health, strength and activity, sustaining physical, mental and nervous pain and suffering, and severe shock to her health and person, all to her general damages in a sum which will be shown according to proof.
  71. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the gross negligence and carelessness of the Defendants, and each of them, described above, Plaintiff was injured and may be disabled in the future and thereby prevented from attending to the duties of her usual occupation. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
  72. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the gross negligence and carelessness of the defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff required and will require medical care, medical treatment, life care, and other incidental expenses and will likely incur additional like expenses in the future, all in amounts presently unknown to her. Plaintiff therefore asks leave of court either to amend this Complaint so as to show the amount of her medical and life care expenses, when ascertained, or to prove the amount at the time of trial.
  73. In committing the wrongful and egregious acts described herein, Defendants CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD and LDS Corporation acted with malice, oppression and fraud, justifying an award of punitive damages against Defendants CRAIG ALLEN
  17

  HARWARD and LDS Corporation.
  THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention
  (Against Defendants THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS and DOES 1 through 50)
  74. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully set forth herein.
  75. At all times herein mentioned the Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 to 50 owed plaintiff a protective duty of care to keep the children, including Plaintiff, safe while they were in defendants’ custodial care. Said duty includes the duty to protect children from sexual assaults by other agents, employees, and volunteers of LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, or other members of the church and to reasonably, adequately, and with due care, properly hire, supervise, and retain the people, volunteers, agents and employees who were providing the services to the children.
  76. At all times relevant, Defendants had a duty and obligation to adequately and properly investigate the background, fitness, and competence of its employees, agents, volunteers, leaders, and those acting on its behalf, including Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD, before hiring and before and during retaining them as employees, agents, volunteers or as someone to act on their behalf. Defendants had a duty to use reasonable care in the hiring, supervision and retention of its employees, agents, volunteers, independent contractors, leaders, executive team members, and those it permitted to act on its behalf.
  77. Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them, negligently and carelessly, employed, supervised, hired, trained, controlled, screened, sponsored, directed, oversaw, managed, and retained its employees, agents, servants, volunteers or independent contractors, including Defendant HARWARD, and failed to investigate the skill, competence, dangerous propensities, background, ability and prior conduct of HARWARD, to determine whether he was fit and competent to
  18
  perform his job duties as a Bishop Secretary or Executive Secretary in a safe and reasonable manner.
  78. Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them, failed to properly and adequately investigate and vet Defendant HARWARD as an employee, agent, independent contractor, volunteer, leader, executive secretary, and/or someone to act on its behalf before hiring him.
  79. Had Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 properly and adequately vetted and investigated Defendant HARWARD’s background, dangerous propensities, fitness and competence, they would have discovered that he was unfit and incompetent to be in the position they gave him with access to and control over children at the church/LDS Corporation.
  80. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that in addition to his assault against Plaintiff in 2000 and 2001, Defendant HARWARD committed sexual assault and battery of multiple other children in 1997 through 2003 while in his position as the Bishop Secretary of LDS Corporation.
  81. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at least one other child reported a sexual assault and battery by Defendant HARWARD to Defendants LDS Corporation and its local leaders before Plaintiff was sexually assaulted and battered. During the times when Defendant HARWARD was sexually abusing Plaintiff, Defendants were able to see and watch Defendant HARWARD grope Plaintiff in public and regularly allowed him to take Plaintiff to rooms alone without explanation or any oversight or supervision whatsoever in reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s wellbeing.
  82. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that after at least one other person reported a sexual assault and battery at the LDS Property and after LDS saw the signs of abuse by Defendant HARWARD, and while knowing that sexual abuse by its leaders was a pervasive and disgusting problem that permeated its company, Defendants dismissed the complaint carelessly and grossly negligently retained its Bishop Secretary, HARWARD, instead of terminating his employment or properly
  19

  investigating the serious acts and complaint(s).
  83. At all times relevant, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50
  knew and should have known that Defendant HARWARD had already sexually assaulted and abused other children and was concurrently sexually abusing other children at its subject LDS’ Property, yet Defendants did nothing to prevent the harm and sexual assault and battery of Plaintiff while she was under their custodial control, custody and watch.
  84. Despite having warning and notice of Defendant HARWARD’s violent, unstable, inappropriate and offensive nature and behavior, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, left Defendant HARWARD in a position of power and authority over vulnerable children, including Plaintiff.
  85. Despite having warning and notice of Defendant HARWARD’s predatorial, inappropriate and offensive nature and behavior, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, knowingly left Defendant HARWARD in an unsupervised, closed room and environment to sexually assault Plaintiff on numerous occasions at its LDS’ Property.
  86. As a direct and proximate result of the above negligence of the Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, Defendant HARWARD sexually harassed and sexually assaulted and battered Plaintiff.
  87. At all times relevant, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 had a duty to ensure the safety of their members while at their property and under their control, especially and including the children that they assumed the care for while conducting classes and other events and activities, by enacting and enforcing policies, procedures, adequate training, accountability, reporting measures, and other safety measures for their agents, employees and volunteers to follow when dealing and interacting with children and for children to be able to report and be safe and free from harm, harassment and sexual abuse while at their property and/or under their control.
  88. Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 also had a duty to take
  20

  disciplinary actions against any employee, agent, volunteer, leader or persons acting on its behalf, including but not limited to Defendant HARWARD, who engaged in misconduct designed to harm or injure children at their property or under their control; and not to retain such employees, agents, volunteers, leaders or other persons that did engage in such misconduct and wrongful acts.
  89. Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 breached their duties to Plaintiff including but not limited to failing to adequately train its volunteers, employees, agents and those it put in leadership roles, including Defendant HARWARD, in working in and around children in vulnerable situations; failing to enact and enforce reasonable safety policies and procedures for its employees and agents who interacted with children; failing to adequately and safely monitor and supervise its employees and agents including Defendant HARWARD’s conduct with children to ensure that he was not acting inappropriately, dangerously or in such a way to cause harm to children; failing to heed warnings and reports of Defendant HARWARD’s inappropriate and sexually suggestive behavior and sexual misconduct; and failing to take disciplinary action against its employees and agents, including HARWARD, who engaged in wrongful acts and behavior.
  90. At all times relevant, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, knew or should have known that Defendant HARWARD’s background and prior and concurrent wrongful acts and omissions, as well as his inappropriate behavior with children, rendered him unfit to be hired as a Secretary Bishop who would interact alone with children and assert control over them; that the employee and agent training of Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 was insufficient, inadequate, and unreasonable to prevent harm to children, including Plaintiff; that the policies and procedures of Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 were inadequate and insufficient to ensure the safety of children; and/or that its policies and procedures were not being enforced; and that Defendant HARWARD engaged in inappropriate and unlawful sexual conduct with children before Plaintiff.
  21

  91. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the gross negligence and carelessness of the Defendants, and each of them, described above, Plaintiff was injured in her health, strength and activity, sustaining physical, mental and nervous pain and suffering, and severe shock to her health and person, all to her general damages in a sum which will be shown according to proof.
  92. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the gross negligence and carelessness of the Defendants, and each of them, described above, Plaintiff was injured and may be disabled in the future and thereby prevented from attending to the duties of her usual occupation. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
  93. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the gross negligence and carelessness of the defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff required and will require medical care, medical treatment, life care, and other incidental expenses and will likely incur additional like expenses in the future, all in amounts presently unknown to her. Plaintiff therefore asks leave of court either to amend this Complaint so as to show the amount of her medical and life care expenses, when ascertained, or to prove the amount at the time of trial.
  94. In committing the wrongful and egregious acts described herein, Defendants CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD and LDS Corporation acted with malice, oppression and fraud, justifying an award of punitive damages against Defendants CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD and LDS Corporation.
  FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Supervision
  (Against Defendants THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS and DOES 1 through 50)
  95. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully set forth herein.
  96. At all times herein mentioned the Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 to
  22
  50 owed plaintiff a protective duty of care to keep the children, including Plaintiff, safe while they were in defendants’ custodial care. Said duty includes the duty to protect children from sexual assaults by other agents, employees, and volunteers of LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, or other members of the church and to reasonably, adequately, and with due care, properly hire, supervise, and retain the people, volunteers, agents and employees who were providing the services to the children.
  97. At all relevant times, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 failed to enact, implement, and follow a system or procedure to reasonably supervise the children in their care, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff, to prevent sexual molestation, battery, assault, and abuse of children, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff.
  98. Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 to 50 were, or should have been, aware of how vulnerable young children were to sexual molestation, battery, assault, and abuse within the LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50’s classes, activities, programs, and/or clubs for minors. LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 had decades worth of notice of pervasive sexual abuse and child molestation that occurred at its properties and by its members and leadership. LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 had notice of Defendant HARWARD’s dangerous and predatorial propensities before and while he was harming Plaintiff but failed to supervise Plaintiff and instead facilitated and harbored Defendant HARWARD in his sexual abuse of Plaintiff at their property and during their events.
  99. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the gross negligence and negligent supervision of the Defendants, and each of them, described above, Plaintiff was injured in her health, strength and activity, sustaining physical, mental and nervous pain and suffering, and severe shock to her health and person, all to her general damages in a sum which will be shown according to proof.
  100. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the gross negligence and negligent supervision of the Defendants, and each of them, described above, Plaintiff was injured
  23

  and may be disabled in the future and thereby prevented from attending to the duties of her usual occupation. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
  101. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the gross negligence and negligent supervision of the defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff required and will require medical care, medical treatment, life care, and other incidental expenses and will likely incur additional like expenses in the future, all in amounts presently unknown to her. Plaintiff therefore asks leave of court either to amend this Complaint so as to show the amount of her medical and life care expenses, when ascertained, or to prove the amount at the time of trial.
  FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
  Negligent Failure to Warn, Train, or Educate (Against Defendants THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF
  LATTER-DAY SAINTS and DOES 1 through 50)
  102. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully set forth herein.
  103. At all times relevant herein, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 owed Plaintiff a duty to take reasonable measures and use reasonable care to protect Plaintiff from the risk, and avoid causing the risk of abuse and other tortious conduct by properly warning, training, and/or educating Plaintiff, other minor children within the subject ward’s community including other victims, and their parents and guardians within the subject ward’s community about how to avoid such risk.
  104. Before and at the times of the abuse alleged herein, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 to 50 breached their duty to take reasonable measures and to use reasonable care to protect Plaintiff from and avoid causing the risk of abuse and other tortious conduct by and through its failure to properly warn, train, and/or educate Plaintiff, other minor children within the subject ward’s community, and their parents and guardians within the subject ward’s community about how to avoid such a risk
  24
  This includes how and when to say no, limitations on authority, policies and procedures against sexual acts and sexual abuse, reporting procedures, accountability procedures, a buddy system, security and other measures that should have been taken and taught.
  105. At all times relevant, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 breached their duty to take reasonable measures and to use reasonable care to protect Plaintiff from the risk of childhood sexual molestation, battery, assault, abuse, and other tortious conduct while Plaintiff was at its property and/or events by failing to warn, train, and/or educate Plaintiff or her parents about how to avoid such a risk.
  106. At all times relevant, Defendants LDS Corporation and DOES 1 through 50 breached their duty to take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff from and to use reasonable care to avoid the risk of childhood sexual molestation, battery, assault, abuse, and other tortious conduct by its agents and leadership by failing to supervise Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD and stop him from committing wrongful sexual acts with minor children, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff in the face of signs, facts and reports of the same that were known or knowable to Defendants.
  107. Because Plaintiff was a minor at the time of the sexual misconduct perpetrated against her by Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD, Plaintiff was unable to give free or voluntary consent to the sexual acts perpetrated against her. Reasonable care required Defendants to take affirmative acts to protect children in their care, custody and/or control, including Plaintiff. However, Defendants failed to take any actions to protect children or Plaintiff.
  108. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the negligence of the Defendants, and each of them, described above, Plaintiff was injured in her health, strength and activity, sustaining physical, mental and nervous pain and suffering, and severe shock to her health and person, all to her general damages in a sum which will be shown according to proof.
  109. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the negligence of the Defendants, and each of them, described above, Plaintiff was injured and may be disabled in the
  25

  future and thereby prevented from attending to the duties of her usual occupation. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
  110. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the negligence of the defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff required and will require medical care, medical treatment, life care, and other incidental expenses and will likely incur additional like expenses in the future, all in amounts presently unknown to her. Plaintiff therefore asks leave of court either to amend this Complaint so as to show the amount of her medical and life care expenses, when ascertained, or to prove the amount at the time of trial.
  SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
  Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  (Against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 50)
  111. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all prior allegations as if fully set forth herein.
  112. At all times relevant, Defendants and DOES 1 through 50 were in a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff, owing her a special duty of due care. All Defendants are and were mandated reporters with respect to claims of child abuse and child safety.
  113. Defendants and DOES 1 through 50 owed the Plaintiff a statutory, common law, and constitutional duty to protect her and guarantee her safety while on the subject premises and while engaged in the subject ward’s bible class and activities, and to protect her from dangers of which said Defendants knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, including, but not limited to, the danger posed by Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD to young children, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff.
  114. Defendants and DOES 1 through 50 breached their fiduciary duty to Plaintiff by failing to properly supervise CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD and take appropriate steps to prevent the lewd and lascivious conduct perpetrated by him against Plaintiff. Defendants and DOES 1 through 50 also failed to implement or follow reasonable or appropriate policies and procedures to protect Plaintiff.
  115. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the Defendants’ breach of fiduciary
  26
  duty to Plaintiff, and each of theirs, described above, Plaintiff was injured in her health, strength and activity, sustaining physical, mental and nervous pain and suffering, and severe shock to her health and person, all to her general damages in a sum which will be shown according to proof.
  116. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, and each of theirs, described above, Plaintiff was injured and may be disabled in the future and thereby prevented from attending to the duties of her usual occupation. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
  117. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, and each of theirs, Plaintiff required and will require medical care, medical treatment, life care, and other incidental expenses and will likely incur additional like expenses in the future, all in amounts presently unknown to her. Plaintiff therefore asks leave of court either to amend this Complaint so as to show the amount of her medical and life care expenses, when ascertained, or to prove the amount at the time of trial.
  SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
  Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
  (Against Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD and DOES 1 through 50) 118. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every
  allegation in the preceding paragraphs.
  119. In committing the acts and course of conduct described hereinabove,
  Defendant HARWARD and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, acted outrageously and deliberately and with the intent to cause, or with reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiff to suffer severe and ongoing emotional distress, embarrassment humiliation, and mental anguish. Defendant HARWARD and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, were aware that Plaintiff was relying upon him, and each of them, to refrain from subjecting her to such abusive and agonizing behavior.
  27
  Defendant HARWARD and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, were further aware that engaging in such abusive and agonizing behavior would cause Plaintiff to suffer severe and ongoing emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish. As such, the acts and course of conduct committed by Defendant HARWARD and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, as described hereinabove, constituted Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against Plaintiff.
  120. As a direct and legal result of the wrongful acts of Defendant HARWARD and DOES 1 through 50 and in intentionally inflicting emotional distress, Defendants caused Plaintiff to suffer severe shock and severe emotional distress in addition to injuries including but not limited to severe physical and mental pain and suffering, physical injuries, past and future costs of medical care and treatment, and past and future loss of earnings and earning capacity, in an amount not yet ascertained, but which exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.
  121. In committing the acts described above, Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD acted with malice, oppression, and fraud, justifying an award of punitive damages against Defendant HARWARD.
  PRAYER FOR RELIEF
  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, and the following relief as follows:
  1. For general and compensatory damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
  2. For special damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
  3. For costs of litigation and expert costs;
  4. For punitive damages against Defendant CRAIG ALLEN HARWARD as to
  Causes of Action One through Three and Seven only;
  5. For punitive damages against Defendant THE CHURCH OF JESUS
  CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS (“LDS Corporation”) as to Causes of Action Two and Three only;
  28
  6. For interest and prejudgment interest at the legal rate of 10%; and,
  7. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper and just under
  all the circumstances.
  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
  NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury in the above-captioned matter.
  Dated: July 9, 2024
  SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP
  Brett Schreiber, Esq. Meagan Verschueren, Esq. Katie Llamas, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff
  By:
  29
  COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

• 5. Craig Allen Harward

  • 20240711
  • Registered sex offender record
  • Utah Sex Offender Registry

  • original
  • archived
  • back to list

  Name: Craig Allen HARWARD Registration #: 10099386
  Aliases: Che HARWARD
  Craig HARWARD
  Craig E HARWARD
  Status: Active

  Physical Description
  • Age: 75 (DOB: 07/14/1948) • Height: 5'06''
  • Sex: M • Weight: 200lbs
  • Race: White • Eyes: Brown
  • Hair: Bald
  • Scars/Tattoos:

  Address
  [redacted by FLOODLIT]
  SAINT GEORGE, UT 84770
  View Map
  Other Known Addresses
  Offenses
  • Description: PC 288(a) - Lewd and Lascivious Acts With Minor
  • Date Convicted: 06/06/2003
  • Conviction State: California
  • Release Date:
  • Details: J&C states: 288(A) PC-L&L ACTS W/CHILD UND 14 YRS FELONY
  • Counts: 3

• 6. Doe v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

  • 20250401
  • News article
  • Justia

  • original
  • archived
  • back to list

  Plaintiff: Jane Doe
  Defendant: Craig Allen Harward and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
  Case Number: 3:2024cv04993
  Filed: August 9, 2024
  Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
  Presiding Judge: James Donato
  Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
  Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
  Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
  RSS RSS Track this Docket
  Docket Report

  This docket was last retrieved on September 27, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
  Date Filed Document Text
  September 27, 2024 #Electronic filing error. ***The judge's initials are missing from the case number for this filing. Counsel need not re-file the document, but should reference the correct judge's name/initials on future filings.*** Re: #21 Stipulation, filed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (krp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2024)
  September 26, 2024 Filing 21 STIPULATION re #19 Stipulation, #20 Stipulation, #1 Notice of Removal, #18 Stipulation, #17 Stipulation Joint Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to the Complaint filed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Pipkin, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/26/2024)
  September 12, 2024 Filing 20 STIPULATION filed by Craig Allen Harward. (Funk, Bruce) (Filed on 9/12/2024)
  September 12, 2024 Filing 19 STIPULATION re #2 Certificate of Interested Entities, #1 Notice of Removal, #6 Certificate of Service, #5 Declaration in Support, #17 Stipulation Joint Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to the Complaint filed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Pipkin, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2024)
  September 5, 2024 Filing 18 STIPULATION filed by Craig Allen Harward. (Funk, Bruce) (Filed on 9/5/2024)
  August 27, 2024 Filing 17 STIPULATION JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT filed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Pipkin, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/27/2024)
  August 26, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 16 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Case Management Conference set for 11/14/2024 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 11/7/2024. Signed by Judge James Donato on 8/26/2024. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2024)
  August 23, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge James Donato for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero no longer assigned to case, Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Signed by Clerk on 08/23/2024. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(mbc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2024)
  August 22, 2024 Filing 14 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Jane Doe.. (Verschueren, Meagan) (Filed on 8/22/2024)
  August 22, 2024 Filing 13 CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2024)
  August 22, 2024 Filing 12 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Craig Allen Harward.. (Funk, Bruce) (Filed on 8/22/2024)
  August 20, 2024 Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance filed by Katie Suzanne Llamas on behalf of Jane Doe (Llamas, Katie) (Filed on 8/20/2024)
  August 20, 2024 Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance filed by Meagan Lynn Verschueren on behalf of Jane Doe (Verschueren, Meagan) (Filed on 8/20/2024)
  August 15, 2024 Filing 9 Certificate of Interested Entities by Craig Allen Harward (Funk, Bruce) (Filed on 8/15/2024)
  August 15, 2024 Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance filed by Bruce C. Funk on behalf of Craig Allen Harward (Funk, Bruce) (Filed on 8/15/2024)
  August 13, 2024 Filing 7 STIPULATION re #4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines, #2 Certificate of Interested Entities, #1 Notice of Removal, 3 Case Assigned by Intake,, Joint Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to the Complaint filed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Pipkin, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/13/2024)
  August 12, 2024 Filing 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints re #4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines, #2 Certificate of Interested Entities, #1 Notice of Removal, 3 Case Assigned by Intake,, (Pipkin, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/12/2024)
  August 12, 2024 Filing 5 Declaration of Elizabeth Pipkin in Support of #1 Notice of Removal, In suppot of The Church's Notice of Removal of Action filed byThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Related document(s) #1 ) (Pipkin, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/12/2024)
  August 12, 2024 Filing 4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 11/6/2024. Initial Case Management Conference set for 11/13/2024 02:00 PM in San Francisco, - Videoconference Only. (krp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2024)
  August 12, 2024 Filing 3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 8/26/2024. (smc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2024)
  August 9, 2024 Filing 2 Certificate of Interested Entities by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Pipkin, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/9/2024) Modified on 8/12/2024 (krp, COURT STAFF).
  August 9, 2024 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL Of Action Under 28 U.S.C 1332, 141, AND 1446 from Alameda County Superior. Their case number is 24CV082728. (Filing fee $405 receipt number ACANDC-19712798). Filed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Pipkin, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/9/2024) Modified on 8/12/2024 (krp, COURT STAFF).