John Doe – Texas

Case information sources

• case report | facts | sources

1. 
   view source details | |

Case information source details

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

  10/10/13 Texas

  In the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and The Corporation of The

  Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Appellants,
  versus John DOE, Appellee. No. 1 3-1 3-00463-CV.

  “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints filed a petition seeking permission to
  appeal an interlocutory order. See Tex.R.App. P. 28.3(a) (requiring a party seeking to
  pursue a permissive appeal of an interlocutory order to petition the court of appeals for
  permission to appeal). This petition was before Chief Justice VALDEZ and Justices
  RODRIGUEZ and GARZA.

  Excerpts from the memorandum opinion follows:

  I. BACKGROUND

  In his original petition, Doe asserted that Eustacio Munioz sexually assaulted him on
  numerous occasions from 2002, when he was fourteen years old, through 2009, when he
  was twenty-one. Doe alleged that Munioz committed an intentional tort and that the Church
  was vicariously liability for the acts of Munioz, who Doe claimed was the Church's employee
  or agent at that time. Doe alleged that the Church was directly liable for, among other
  things, negligently hiring, training, retaining, and supervising Munioz when they knew or
  should have known of his dangerous propensities. Doe also claimed in his first amended
  petition that Munioz coerced and threatened him with reports of criminal prosecution if he
  reported the assaults or otherwise made a claim. The Church filed a traditional motion for
  summary judgment. 1 In its motion, the Church contended that Doe's claims were time-
  barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Doe filed his response, asserting that there
  were fact issues and that the continuing tort doctrine and duress tolled limitations. After the
  trial court heard the motion and received additional briefing regarding the tolling doctrines,
  the trial court generally denied the Church's motion for summary judgment. Upon the
  Church's request that the trial court allow it to file a petition for permissive appeal, the trial
  court signed an amended order. The order again denied the Church's motion without
  providing a basis for the trial court's ruling. It set out the statutory language of section
  51.014(d) and rule 168 and noted the following controlling question of law: “Are the Church
  Defendants entitled to summary judgment on their statute of limitations defense?” The
  Church timely filed its petition for permissive appeal in this Court. See TEX.R.APP. P. 28.3 .”

  The Court denied the Church's petition for permissive appeal.

  MUNIOZ-Eustacio Munioz COP v John DOE Appellee No 1 3-1 3-00463-CV 2.pdf