John Doe – Idaho

Sources

• facts
• facts
• summary
• summary
• sources
• sources
• add info
• add info

1. 
   view source details | |

Source details

• 
  Publisher:
  Date:
  Archive.org
  Source type: News article

  08/31/12 Idaho

  Tom DOE, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF
  LATTER-DAY SAINTS; President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints;
  Boy Scouts of America; Ore-lda Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Defendants.
  No. 1 :09-cv-00351-BLW excerpts from the MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER by
  B. LYNN WINMILL , Chief Judge In United States District Court, D. Idaho, follows:

  “INTRODUCTION

  *1 Plaintiff Tom Doe was a member of Boy Scout Troop 1 01 in Nampa, Idaho, which was
  sponsored by the LDS Church. He alleges that he was repeatedly sexually abused by his
  Scoutmaster and Quorum Advisor Larron Arnold. He claims that both organizations knew
  about the danger of abuse. But instead of disclosing this danger to Doe, they promoted
  scouting as a safe, trustworthy, and fun organization for boys. According to Doe, they
  also represented that Arnold was a trusted youth leader worthy of his Scoutmaster role
  despite knowing that he had previously molested another boy. In 2008, Doe filed a
  complaint naming as defendants two governing entities of the LDS church (“Church
  Defendants”) and two governing entities of the Boy Scouts of America (“Boy Scout
  Defendants”). Doe asserts several claims against Defendants, including constructive fraud.
  Both the Boy Scout and Church Defendants seek summary judgment on Doe's constructive
  fraud claims. The Church Defendants also ask the Court to reconsider a previous decision
  relating to choice of law. The Court heard oral argument on August 27, 2012, and took the
  matter under advisement.

  Having considered the briefs and the record, as well as oral argument, the Court will deny
  both the Boy Scouts and the Church Defendants' motions for partial summary judgment
  (Dkts. 197 & 198). The Court will also deny the motion to strike (Dkt.209).

  BACKGROUND

  1. Factual Background Plaintiff Tom Doe was born in 1953. Between 1965 and 1971, Doe
  was an active member of Boy Scout Troop 1 01 , a troop sponsored by the Nampa, Idaho,
  2nd Ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Church Defs' SUF 2-3,
  Dkt. 197-2. According to troop rosters, Doe joined Troop 101 in 1964. Scout Defs' SUF ^ 5,
  Dkt. 198—

  1 . The Boy Scouts invited Doe to join Scouts by making its program available to Doe
  through the sponsoring organization, the LDS Church. Pi's SDF If 30. Larren Arnold became
  Scoutmaster of Troop 101 in 1 964, the same year Doe joined. Arnold was also Doe's
  Quorum Advisor. Id. If 5. As Scoutmaster and Quorum Advisor, Arnold led spiritual,
  educational, and Boy Scout-related activities for the youth of the Nampa 2nd Ward and Boy
  Scout Troop 101. Id. At If 4. Doe's experience with the Aaronic Priesthood in the LDS
  Church taught him to trust, obey, and respect his Scoutmaster. Id. If 31 . His experience with
  the Boys Scouts, which encouraged and fostered close, friendly, trusting relationships
  between Scouts and Scoutmasters, reinforced his trust in Arnold. Id. If 33. Doe's recollection
  is that Arnold was a close friend to both him and his family, as he was Scoutmaster for
  Doe's two brothers. Id. Arnold allegedly gained the trust of Doe through time spent together,
  discussions, and mentorship. But Doe's father does not remember meeting Arnold, much
  less remember him as a close family friend. Id. It is undisputed, however, that Arnold led
  Troop 101, including Doe, on overnight camping trips throughout Idaho. In addition, Doe
  accompanied Arnold, alone, on several day trips into Oregon to fish and search for potential
  camp sites for the troop. Id. If 29. During at least five of these trips associated with scouting
  in both Oregon and Idaho, Arnold sexually abused Doe. Id. If 29. The abuse in Idaho
  occurred during the overnight camping trips with Troop 101 . The abuse in Oregon occurred
  when Doe accompanied Arnold on day-trips into Oregon. Id. If 29. According to Doe, his
  experience mirrors examples of other Scout experiences set forth in the Ineligible Volunteer
  Files maintained by the Scouts:

  “Scouts entrusting themselves to a Scout leader's guidance and protection while on
  camping trips, hiking trips, sleep overs, or other events, only to be sexually abused by the
  Scout leader.” Pi's SDF If 36.

  *2 Doe claims that the Boy Scouts of America “has always had a known problem with adult
  volunteers abusing Scouts.” Pi's Resp. at 10, Dkt. 203. In the

  early 1900s, the Boy Scouts of America began keeping “Ineligible Volunteer Files” on
  individuals banned from volunteering in scouting. Id. ^ 23. The “Perversion” category
  contains the most files and comprises any type of sexual misconduct, including child abuse.
  Id. ^ 24. Before Doe became a Scout, the Boy Scouts of America had compiled “thousands
  of incidents of child abuse” within scouting involving its adult volunteers. Id. And by the time
  Doe joined scouting, Boy Scouts of America was creating approximately 40 to 60
  Perversion Files each year. Id. Indeed, Doe claims that both the Boy Scout and the Church
  defendants had specific notice that Arnold was a child molester and danger to children.
  Richard White, a member of the Nampa 2nd Ward, testified that he told Bishop Leon Hales
  that his son, also a Scout in Troop 101, had been molested by Arnold, his Scoutmaster. Id.
  Bishop Hales purportedly responded that he would “take care of it.” And a week later,

  Bishop Hale told White that he “had taken care of it.” Id. Hales was a member of the Ore-
  Ida Council, the local Council for the Boy Scouts of America, when this conversation
  allegedly took place in the fall of 1964. Id. U 45.

  Because of the abuse by Arnold, Doe has suffered physical and emotional damages. Id. If
  52. His physician diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the
  abuse. Id. Doe says that he also suffers from other behavioral issues related to the sexual
  abuse, such as avoidance, dissociation amnesia, compartmentalization, and denial. Id.
  Additionally, he claims, he suffers from a number of other physical ailments from the abuse,
  including hypertension , high blood pressure , acid reflux , and sexual dysfunction. Id

  4. Conclusion

  In conclusion, the Court will deny both the Church
  and the Scout Defendants' motions for partial summary
  judgment on Doe's fraud claims. The Court does not know
  whether the claims will bear out at trial, but Doe has
  presented enough evidence to present the issue of fraud to
  a jury

  ORDER

  IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1 . LDS Church Defendants' motion for partial summary
  judgment (Dkt.197) is DENIED.

  2. The Boy Scout Defendants' motion for partial summary
  judgment (Dkt.198) is DENIED.

  3. The LDS Church Defendants' Sealed Motion to Strike
  (Dkt.209) is DENIED.

  All Citations

  Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 3782454

  Doe v. Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of..., Not Reported in...

  © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

  2012 WL 3782454

  Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.”

  TOM DOE V COP No 1-09-cv-00351-blw Orders on 4 motions.pdf