Kolbek v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 10-CV-4124 |
| Parties | DESIREE KOLBEK, et al. PLAINTIFFS v. TWENTY FIRST CENTURY HOLINESS TABERNACLE CHURCH, INC., et al. DEFENDANTS JEANNE ESTATES APARTMENTS, INC. THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF v. JENNIFER KOLBEK, et al.THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
Before the Court are Motions for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Tony Alamo (ECF No. 522), Sharon Alamo (ECF No. 499), Jeanne Estates Apartments, Inc., (ECF No. 493) and Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, Inc. (ECF No. 515). Plaintiffs have filed a response. (ECF No. 582). Defendants have filed replies. (ECF Nos. 588, 589, 593, & 594). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.
Plaintiffs Desiree Kolbek, Summer Hagan, Jamie Rodriguez, Pebbles Rodriguez, Jeanne Orlando, Amy Eddy, and Nikki Farr are all former members of Tony Alamo Christian Ministries ("TACM"). TACM is an organization of churches and businesses that are operated by individual members of TACM and Defendant Tony Alamo. Plaintiffs allege that TACM operates as a "communal organization." Members of TACM work in businesses affiliated with the ministry. Earnings from the businesses are deposited into an account shared by the church and businesses,and rather than receiving a salary, members' living expenses are paid with money from this joint account. According to Plaintiffs, Tony Alamo exercises some degree of control over everything in TACM, from the church, to the businesses, to the lives of the church members.
Plaintiffs allege that, when they were members of TACM, they were forced to become "spiritual wives" of Tony Alamo. Plaintiffs were "married" to Tony Alamo and moved into his home when they were minors. Jeanne Orlando was fifteen; Amy Eddy was fifteen; Pebbles Rodriguez was twelve; Desiree Kolbek was eight; and Summer Hagan was eleven. While Plaintiff Nikki Farr was never "married" to Alamo, she states that she was moved into his home at the age of fifteen and was "groomed" to be a spiritual wife.
As the "spiritual wives" of Tony Alamo, Plaintiffs state that Alamo subjected them to frequent sexual abuse and physical abuse as minors. Plaintiffs allege that this abuse took place in Alamo's home in Fouke, Arkansas; in other facilities on TACM property in Arkansas and California; in buses operated by TACM; in unknown hotels in Arizona and California; and at a federal correctional facility in Texarkana, Texas. In addition to suffering physical and sexual abuse, Plaintiffs allege that they were falsely imprisoned on TACM property and that their privacy was constantly invaded while they were "married" to Alamo.
Each of the Plaintiffs left or "escaped" the church on separate occasions between 1999 and 2010.1 In July of 2009, Tony Alamo was convicted of sexual abuse crimes against five of the Plaintiffs in this case. United States v. Hoffman, 626 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2010). In addition to a sentence of 175 years imprisonment, Alamo was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $2.5 million. Plaintiffs filed this civil action on August 27, 2010. In its original configuration,the suit included claims against numerous TACM church entities, individual church members, and TACM businesses. Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed most of these parties as the result of a settlement agreement. The only Defendants that remain are Tony Alamo, Sharon Alamo, Jeanne Estates Apartments, Inc., ("Jeanne Estates") and Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, Inc. ("Twenty First Century").
Defendant Sharon Alamo is another "spiritual wife" of Tony Alamo. While they are not legally married, Sharon Alamo admits that she has held herself out to be Tony Alamo's wife since August 31, 1989. Plaintiffs allege Sharon Alamo was a "sister wife" to them and that they shared a home with her during the time they were being abused. Defendant Jeanne Estates is an apartment complex based in Fort Smith, Arkansas that, according to Plaintiffs, is "used to generate money [to support] Tony [Alamo's] house and TACM operations." Jeanne Estates is and/or was owned and operated by members of TACM. Defendant Twenty First Century is a corporate church entity with its principal place of business in Dyer, Arkansas.
While Tony Alamo was the perpetrator of the sexual and physical abuse, Plaintiffs claim that the other Defendants should also be held liable because they and their agents encouraged and facilitated the abuse or, at the very least, did nothing to prevent the abuse when they had the duty and ability to do so. Plaintiffs' claims arising from the sexual and physical abuse are: negligence, negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, outrage, battery, mandatory reporter liability, transporter liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and trafficking liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1595.2 Inaddition to their claims based on physical and sexual abuse, Plaintiffs allege that all of the Defendants are liable for invasion of privacy, defamation, and false imprisonment.
The standard of review for summary judgment is well established. When a party moves for summary judgment, "[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Krenik v. County of LeSueur, 47 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 1995). This is a "threshold inquiry of...whether there is a need for trial—whether, in other words, there are genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986); see also Agristor Leasing v. Farrow, 826 F.2d 732 (8th Cir. 1987). A fact is material only when its resolution affects the outcome of the case. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party. Id. at 252.
The Court must view the evidence and the inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Enterprise Bank v. Magna Bank, 92 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir. 1996). The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. The nonmoving party must then demonstrate the existence of specific facts in the record that create a genuine issue for trial. Krenik, 47 F.3d at 957. A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256.
Defendants argue that the majority of Plaintiffs' claims are time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. In response, Plaintiffs argue that the limitations period on each claim has been tolled by Ark. Code. Ann. § 16-15-116, § 16-56-130, and/or equitable tolling. The Court will address each of these provisions as they relate to Plaintiffs' state claims and federal claims.
Plaintiffs have asserted claims against various Defendants for negligence, negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, outrage, battery, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, defamation, and mandatory reporter liability. Each of these claims has a statute of limitation ranging from one to three years.3 Plaintiffs filed this suit on August 27, 2010.4 The majority of Plaintiffs' claims stem from Defendants' actions alleged to have occurred while Plaintiffs were still a part of Tony Alamo's church.5 Because the majority of Plaintiffs left the church between 1999 and 2006, there is no dispute that most of their state claims were filed outside of the one to three year period provided by the relevant statutes of limitation.6 The primary dispute lies in whether the statutory period was tolled, thereby rendering Plaintiffs' claims timely.
The relevant portion of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-116 provides that, if a person is "under twenty-one (21) years of age or insane at the time of the accrual of the cause of action, thatperson may bring the action within three (3) years next after attaining full age[.]" (emphasis added). Because the age of twenty-one is specifically referenced in the statute, Plaintiffs interpret "full age" as meaning twenty-one. Accordingly, Plaintiffs maintain that the statutes of limitation on their claims did not expire until their twenty-fourth birthdays. The parties all acknowledge that Desiree Kolbek, Summer Hagan, and Jamie Rodriguez are the only Plaintiffs who filed claims prior to turning twenty-four.7 Therefore, even if Plaintiffs' definition of "full age" is applied, these three Plaintiffs are the only individuals who have claims that might be protected under the tolling provisions of § 16-56-116.
Defendants vigorously dispute Plaintiffs' interpretation of "full age" under the tolling provision. Defendants argue that Arkansas law clearly states that a person is of "full age" when they reach the age of eighteen. If this definition of "full age" is applied, the statutes of limitation would have expired when Plaintiffs reached the age of twenty-one rather than twenty-four. Defendants' definition of "full age" is derived from Ark. Code Ann. § 9-25-101 which provides in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial