Wave of around 100 Mormon sex abuse lawsuits continues in California

Part 3 of a series on lawsuits alleging sexual abuse coverups by Mormon officials.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints won a key battle last week against roughly 100 plaintiffs who say it covered up their sexual abuse. Most were children at the time of the alleged abuse.

Instead of remaining closely coordinated and proceeding in a single court, the 90-plus sex abuse lawsuits are set to move forward in dozens of separate federal and state courts, mostly in California.

On April 3, 2025, an order denying transfer was filed by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), affecting 41 lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by Mormon church members and coverups by Mormon leaders.

You can download a copy of the order for free from FLOODLIT.org in our documents area.

The panel wrote:

[W]e conclude that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Plaintiffs in these actions allege that they were sexually abused by individuals associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they attribute their abuse to an alleged nationwide policy or scheme to conceal sexual abuse within the Church. Plaintiffs argue that the actions therefore will involve common factual questions relating to the Church’s policies regarding sexual abuse.

Plaintiffs wanted to centralize the litigation in the Central District of California or the Northern District California. The Mormon church opposed centralization and instead recommended the District of Utah or the Northern District of New York as transferee districts.

The panel also stated:

[T]he actions here involve […] varied circumstances. Some plaintiffs allege abuse by Church clergy, others by Church missionaries or teachers, others by fellow Church members, and still others by family members. The alleged perpetrators had different relationships with both plaintiffs and the Church. Further, some plaintiffs allege a single instance of abuse while others allege abuse over the course of years. […] The actions here involve abuse that allegedly occurred over more than five decades, from 1968 to 2023. The Church’s policy on reporting and investigating sexual abuse undoubtedly changed over this period.

Accordingly, we are persuaded that discovery in these actions overwhelmingly will focus on unique, case-specific factual issues concerning whether and to whom each plaintiff reported the alleged abuse and how those individuals responded. […] Discovery relating to the Church’s policies in 1970, for instance, may not be relevant to abuse that allegedly occurred in 2010. […] Also weighing against centralization is the minimal number of involved counsel. One law firm, Slater Slater Schulman LLP, represents plaintiffs in 42 of the 51 actions (including the related actions). Movants’ counsel represents plaintiffs in another seven actions. Plaintiffs in only two actions are represented by non-overlapping counsel. We further note that the actions are overwhelming centered in California; only five actions are pending outside that state. Given these factors, informal coordination among counsel with respect to any common discovery of the Church ought to be feasible.

The order was accompanied by a list of relevant actions (labeled Schedule A). FLOODLIT has copies of the complaints in most of these cases available for download upon request, thanks to your donations and support.

Azusa 1st Ward LDS chapel, California

Central District of California

1. JANE ROE JC 7 v. CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER−DAY SAINTS, C.A. No. 2:24−08672
2. JOHN ROE JJ 93 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24−09335
3. JANE ROE LM 89 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24−09350
4. ROE PD 58 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24−09543
5. ROE AD 30 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24−10442
6. JOHN ROE AS 32 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24−10483
7. JOHN ROE CS 88 v. DOE 1, A CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24−11154
8. JANE ROE AA 102 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00403
9. JANE ROE SL 48 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00436
10. DANIEL CAREY v. THE CHURCH OF THE LATTER−DAY SAINTS, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00703
11. JANE DOE, ET AL. v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00711
12. JANE DOE v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00713
13. THOMAS v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00834
14. JANE ROE RL 8 v. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER−DAY SAINTS, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:24−02149
15. ROE JW 142 v. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER−DAY SAINTS, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:24−02150
16. JANE ROE EO 5 v. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER−DAY SAINTS, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:24−02151
17. JANE ROE RC 23 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:24−02383
18. JOHN ROE DR 63 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:24−02509
19. JOHN ROE DG 59 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:24−02559
20. JOHN ROE NR 52 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:24−02560
21. JANE ROE CP 76 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:24−02583
22. JANE ROE MB 69 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 8:24−02395
23. JANE ROE LB 61 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 8:24−02406
24. JOHN ROE WC 36 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 8:24−02410

Eastern District of California

1. JANE ROE TT 80 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−00007
2. JAMES v. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER−DAY SAINTS, C.A. No. 1:25−00118
3. JOHN ROE AJ 1 v. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER−DAY SAINTS, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24−02990
4. JOHN ROE PS 43 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24−03084
5. ROE AB 51 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24−03488

Northern District of California

1. JANE ROE HM 95 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:24−07656
2. JANE ROE JT 34 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:24−07632
3. ROE SR 3 v. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER−DAY SAINTS ET AL., C.A. No. 5:24−07119
4. ROE DC 90 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:24−07613

Southern District of California

1. ROE RV 47 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:24−02347
2. ROE JB 65 v. DOE 1, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:24−02349
3. ROE JS 6 v. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER−DAY SAINTS, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:24−02407

Northern District of Illinois

PETERSON v. THE CHURCH OF THE LATTER−DAY SAINTS, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−00947

Western District of Louisiana

AVERY v. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER−DAY SAINTS, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24−01516

District of Nevada

ZIMMERMAN v. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER−DAY SAINTS, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00206

Northern District of New York

KITLER, ET AL. v. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER−DAY SAINTS, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:24−01071

Western District of Washington

BUSSEY v. THE CHURCH OF THE LATTER−DAY SAINTS, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00197

Read the order regarding 41 sex abuse lawsuits against the Mormon church

You can download a free copy of the order or view the individual pages as images below.

The Modesto Bee reported yesterday on the ongoing wave of coordinated lawsuits.

FLOODLIT.org continues to monitor the ongoing wave of California civil lawsuits against the Mormon church and will provide updates as the suits move through various courts.

Mormon sex abuse lawsuits: the series continues

This article is Part 3 of an ongoing series on lawsuits alleging sexual abuse coverups by Mormon officials.

Read Part 1
Read Part 2

Part 4 coming soon.

Shine a light on sex abuse in the Mormon church

The Mormon church has not published a list of known sex offenders in its ranks.

Since its launch in 2022, FLOODLIT.org has documented over 4,050 abuse reports within the church, including nearly $51 million in settlements in 15 cases. 12 other cases involve secret settlement amounts.

In 2024, FLOODLIT broke the story when roughly 100 sexual abuse survivors filed lawsuits against the LDS church in California. Nearly all are still ongoing.

Please donate to support FLOODLIT.org’s investigative reporting.

Donate now

Contact us with information or questions.