California Bishops Prevail In Part On Anti-SLAPP Defense To Abuse Concealment Claims

In Emens v. California Catholic Conference, (CA Super. Ct., April 17, 2019), a California state trial court granted a portion of an anti-SLAPP motion filed by the bishops of California's 11 dioceses seeking to strike a broad complaint filed against them charging that they have concealed clergy sex abuse. The complaint in the case (full text) filed last October charges that the concealment actions by the various bishops amount to a public nuisance, a private nuisance and civil conspiracy.  It asked for an order requiring release of the names of all clergy accused of child molestation and their history of abuse. California's anti-SLAPP law allows courts to strike a complaint that arises from acts in furtherance of free speech on a public issue unless plaintiff establishes there is a probability that he or she will prevail.

Finding that plaintiff has not established the probability of prevailing on the merits, the court struck portions of the complaint which allege actions in furtherance of free speech rights, but allowed plaintiff to move ahead on those claims that are not based on the exercise of free expression, saying in part:

Some of the conduct alleged does implicate the right of free speech, including the right not to speak. This would include the right not to publicly disclose the names of priests against whom allegations were made which were determined to be unfounded or lack credibility, and disclosing the names of priests against who allegations were made of conduct in the 1950’s where there was no investigation and where the priests have passed away.

The allegation that defendants attacked the credibility of victims does implicate free speech. Defendants may address the credibility of those making accusations against priests. 

Allowing child molesters to live in the community without notice to the community and transferring alleged molesters to new parishes without warning of the general public has First Amendment free speech implications. The actions are not permitting molesters to live in the community and transferring accused molesters, but doing this without notice to the affected communities. There are no allegations that the priests at issue had been convicted of any crime, or that notice was mandated. This would include accusations made against priests which were determined to lack credibility and to be without merit.

Concealing information regarding the actions of defendants and their agents from victims of past abuse also implicates free speech, as it is a general allegations as to all information regarding any reports of abuse, whether that information is connected to the abuse of a particular victim or there was any relation between the time of the abuse and the time of the information, and without regard to the credibility of the information. 

The remaining allegations do not involve the right to free speech or petition. There is no right to conceal sexual assaults from authorities. Protecting abusers from criminal prosecution is neither free speech nor petition. Making affirmative representations of the fitness of priests for assignments which included working with children while concealing information regarding the sexual misconduct of those priests is not an issue of free speech, but an issue of false speech.

Pacific Standard reports on the press conference held yesterday by the plaintiff and his attorneys who see the decision as a victory since it allows plaintiff to move ahead on some of his allegations.