Sam Doe v. Apostolic Assembly the Faith in Christ Jesus

• Citation: 452 F.Supp.3d 503
• Decision Date: 06 April 2020
• Docket Number: EP-19-CV-240-KC
• Parties: Sue DOE and Sam Doe, Individually, and Jane Doe, Plaintiffs, v. The APOSTOLIC ASSEMBLY OF the FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS and Stephen Mendoza Arellano, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

452 F.Supp.3d 503

Sue DOE and Sam Doe, Individually, and Jane Doe, Plaintiffs,

v.The APOSTOLIC ASSEMBLY OF the FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS and Stephen Mendoza Arellano, Defendants.

EP-19-CV-240-KC

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division.

Signed April 6, 2020

James M. Feuille, Stuart R. Schwartz, Scott Hulse, PC, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiffs.

Marisa Y. Ybarra, Ray Pena McChristian PC, James (Jeep) O. Darnell, Jr., Jim Darnell, P.C., El Paso, TX, for Defendants.

ORDER

KATHLEEN CARDONE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On this day, the Court considered Defendant Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss ("Motion"), ECF No. 14. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts and allegations are taken from Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("Complaint"), ECF No. 12, and Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss ("Response"), ECF No. 16.¹

Plaintiffs are Jane Doe and her parents, Sue Doe and Sam Doe. Compl. ¶ 1. Jane Doe was a minor at the time of the events giving rise to this lawsuit. Id. ¶ 19. Jane Doe has since reached the age of majority and proceeds in this lawsuit in her individual capacity. See Oct. 25, 2019, Order 1, ECF No. 10; see generally Compl. Her parents, Sue Doe and Sam Doe, assert claims in their individual capacities as well. See Oct. 25, 2019, Order 1; see generally Compl. Plaintiffs were granted leave to proceed under pseudonyms pursuant to Doe v. Stegall , 653 F.2d 180, 185 (5th Cir. 1981). Oct. 25, 2019, Order 1; Compl. ¶ 1.

Defendants in this case are the Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus ("the Church") and Stephen Mendoza Arellano. Compl. ¶¶ 2–3. The Church alone files the instant Motion. See Mot. ¶ 1.

At the time of the events at issue in this lawsuit, Mr. Arellano was thirty years old and an ordained minister for the Church. Compl. ¶ 6. He was working as the Church's New Mexico District Youth Treasurer "and was poised to become its President." Id. ¶ 7. Mr. Arellano's father, Jimmy M. Arellano, was the Pastor of the Church and the New Mexico District Bishop. Id. ¶¶ 10–11.

Plaintiffs allege that the Church "did not conduct any interview or a sufficient interview of Arellano prior to his hiring as New Mexico District Youth Treasurer or prior to his ordination as a youth minister." Id. ¶ 12. Mr. Arellano's role included serving as a "spiritual leader" over the youth-members of the Church, requiring him "to counsel, love, and provide[ ] guidance, direction, and emotional and psychological assistance to his parishioners." Id. ¶¶ 13, 15. At the time, Jane Doe was one of the Church's young parishioners, at fifteen and sixteen years old. Id. ¶¶ 15, 19.

The Church directed Mr. Arellano to act as a mentor for and chaperone trips with youth from the Church "without supervision." Id. ¶ 17. A message of the Church, which Mr. Arellano also taught, was for parishioners "to put complete trust in the religious leaders and belief that they had divine power and authority over the souls of their parishioners." Id. ¶ 18.

Sue and Sam Doe had attended the Church for decades and "were very active in its ministry." Id. ¶ 21. They "trusted the Church and its leaders to be spiritual and religious authority in their lives and in Jane's life." Id. ¶ 22. The Does had also been family friends with the Arellanos for decades, such that Jane "was familiar with" Mr. Arellano "for most of her life." Id. ¶ 20. However, "[b]eing half Arellano's age," Jane Doe "only became personally familiar with him when she began to participate in Church related activities as a pre-teen." Id. ¶ 23.

In May 2017, when Jane Doe was 15 years old, her grandfather passed away. Id. ¶ 27. Plaintiffs allege that, in the wake of Jane Doe's loss, "Arellano became a predator ... in a sexually explicit manner." Id. ¶¶ 25–29. Mr. Arellano "began to befriend, pursue, target, and groom" Jane Doe "to establish an emotional connection" and "lower her inhibitions," in order to influence Jane Doe into "engag[ing] in prohibited sexual conduct." Id. ¶ 30.

Specifically, Mr. Arellano communicated with Jane Doe on Snapchat, the photograph and messaging application. Id. ¶ 31. During the same period, Mr. Arellano was communicating with approximately fifty other women on Snapchat, "six in a sexually explicit manner." Id. ¶ 33. "In at least one instance, [Mr. Arellano] received nude photos and/or a video from a young woman who may have been underage." Id. As to Jane Doe, Mr. Arellano sent "photos of Jane's grandfather, commented on her portrait photography, sent her pictures of her favorite things, and expressed personal interest in her activities." Id. ¶ 31.

Mr. Arellano also "became flirtatious" with Jane Doe and "initiated sexually charged communications." Id. ¶ 32. He began to send Jane Doe nude photos of himself on Snapchat and asked Jane to reciprocate, though she refused. Id. ¶ 34. When Jane Doe sent photographs, Mr. Arellano would "pressure her to ‘take it off’ " and would "tell[ ] her about sexual activities that he and she should engage in." Id. ¶ 35. He also sent Jane Doe text messages, including some reading, "You are so beautiful," "Love you babe," and "I want you." Id.

In June 2017, Mr. Arellano messaged Jane Doe on Snapchat, stating that he was in El Paso, Texas, where Jane Doe resided, and that he wanted to see her. Id. ¶ 36. He arrived at Jane Doe's grandmother's house, where Jane Doe was staying, "and he and Jane left in his Aston Martin." Id. ¶ 37. Mr. Arellano drove Jane Doe around the neighborhood for around two hours, making conversation about Jane Doe's school activities and family life. Id. ¶ 41.

Mr. Arellano eventually arrived back in front of Jane Doe's grandmother's house "and then began to kiss Jane." Id. ¶ 43. Stating that they should drive away so as not to be seen, Mr. Arellano drove "a couple of blocks away" and then "continued kissing Jane and started to grope her thighs and buttocks over her clothing." Id. ¶¶ 44–45. He then returned Jane Doe to her grandmother's house "where he kissed her goodbye and left." Id. ¶ 45.

When Jane Doe turned sixteen in July 2017, Mr. Arellano was paid to assist with making a video for her birthday party. Id. ¶ 46. Mr. Arellano "continued to communicate in a sexually explicit manner" with Jane Doe on Snapchat, sending nude photographs of himself and messages about "things he wanted to do to her in a sexual manner" and requesting nude photographs from Jane Doe. Id. ¶¶ 47–48.

"One night, around midnight," Mr. Arellano messaged Jane Doe, asking if she was at her grandmother's house. Id. ¶ 50. Jane Doe said yes, and "he then sent a photo on Snapchat of the front of the house, indicating that he was present at the house." Id. They again drove around the neighborhood before parking nearby the house, where Mr. Arellano kissed and groped Jane Doe. Id. ¶ 51. On this occasion, Mr. Arellano reached under Jane Doe's clothes, kissing and leaving marks on her chest. Id. When Mr. Arellano attempted to reach under Jane Doe's pants, she refused and he stopped, "although he continued to rub her genital area outside her clothes." Id. Jane Doe realized her grandmother was calling and texting her and returned to the house. Id.

In August 2017, Jane Doe and Mr. Arellano were both in attendance at "a Church sponsored function at the Hotel Encanto in Las Cruces, New Mexico." Id. ¶ 52. Mr. Arellano "invited Jane to his hotel room and had sexual intercourse with Jane." Id. Mr. Arellano photographed himself with Jane Doe, naked, and subsequently posted it on Snapchat. Id. ¶ 55. Plaintiffs allege that the encounter "left Jane psychologically and socially scarred." Id. ¶ 56. They also allege that Mr. Arellano "has a history of attempting to commit similar acts of sexual assault" on other women. Id. ¶ 57.

Two days later, Sam Doe reported the incident to the Las Cruces Police Department and an investigation commenced. Id. ¶ 59. Sam Doe also reported the incident to the Church. Id. ¶ 61. Plaintiffs allege that state law required the Church to report the incident to local law enforcement or another government agency, but the Church failed to do so and did not otherwise investigate the claims or discipline Mr. Arellano. Id. ¶¶ 62, 67. The Church also elected not to cooperate with the police investigation. Id. ¶ 63. "In fact, the Church conspired with Arellano and his father to conceal the inappropriate conduct from Plaintiffs as well as from authorities investigating the rape and abuse." Id. ¶ 64. Sam Doe "reached out to [the Church] on several occasions regarding this matter, but was rebuffed." Id. ¶ 65.

Plaintiffs allege that there have been other instances "of sexual misconduct by members and officials of the Church," but that in some or all of those instances, "the Church attempted to silence the victims and hide the truth." Id. ¶¶ 68–69.

Following these events, Jane Doe, Sue Doe, and Sam Doe allege that they have experienced severe emotional distress and mental anguish, as well as monetary damages from medical care and counseling services. Id. ¶¶ 75–79.

On February 25, 2019, Mr. Arellano pled guilty to federal charges of "traveling to meet a minor for purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)." Id. ¶ 70. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seventy-one months, a supervised release term of fifteen years, and a sex offender registration term of fifteen years. Id. Mr. Arellano is presently incarcerated in a federal prison in Texas. Id. ¶ 3.

On June 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed suit in the 171st District Court for El Paso County, Texas. Notice of Removal Ex. 2, ECF No. 1-2. Defendants removed to this Court on August 28, 2019. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. The Church filed the instant Motion on November 12, 2019. See Mot. Plaintiffs filed their Response on December 6, 2019, see Resp., and the Church filed a Reply on December 13, 2019, see Def....