Santillan, et. al. v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno 
Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District Division of Eight
Appeal From the judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County
Cite as 2008 SOS 77

Not Time-barred, the Case for Sex Abuse Against Fresno Diocese

Brothers George and Howard Santillan filed a case against the Diocese-Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno in 2003 for failure to protect children from an employee’s unlawful sexual conduct.  The complaint charged the officials of the Fresno Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church that they were on notice that a parish priest was molesting young boys.

The case was brought following the requirements laid under (Code Civil Procedure, § 340.1, subdivisions. (b),(c).  The statute, which applies only to actions brought that year, that revives time-barred claims against persons or entities for breach of a legal duty to protect children from sexual abuse if the defendant had notice that abuse had taken place and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it from recurring.

In its complaint the brothers George and Howard alleges that from 1959 through 1973, they were the victims of childhood sexual abuse by Monsignor Anthony Herdegen, the resident cleric at their hometown Catholic parish in Wasco, California.

They claim that the abuse took place behind closed doors, in Msgr. Anthony Herdegen's bedroom at the rectory.  They also alleged that Herdegen's housekeeper, Barbara Zeilman, knew either what was happening or should have known, since she knew they were often alone with the priest in his room.

To substantiate their claim, the brothers used their mother’s account that when she first learned of the abuse in 1987, she confronted Zeilman about it.  According to the mother, she asked Zeilman, what she knew, Zeilman just cried and even though Zielman never said that she recalled what had happened, she apologized.

On the otherhand, the brothers took the deposition of Cardinal Roger Mahony, now the archbishop of Los Angeles, who was an official of the Fresno Diocese for much of the 1960s and 1970s.

Cardinal Roger Mahony testified that during the period in question, a priest's practice of taking boys into his bedroom and closing the door would have raised grounds for suspicion of sexual misconduct and that "if there was well-founded suspicion of some problem, I would expect the housekeeper- Barbara Zeilman would have told somebody.

Later on the Diocese- Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno move for summary judgment on the complaint based on the ground that the action did not qualify for the one-year revival period because there was no evidence that the Diocese had notice beforehand of any unlawful sexual conduct by Herdegen.  Thus, the action was barred by the statute of limitations.

The trial court held that while there is no direct evidence the officials knew of any molestations taking place at the church rectory in the Kern County community of Wasco, a triable issue exists as to whether such knowledge may be imputed to them based on the observations of a part-time parish employee.

The court continued that while Zeilman may have had actual or constructive knowledge of the abuse, such knowledge could not be imputed to the diocese for purposes of Sec. 340.1(c) because she was a low-level employee and there was no evidence that her job duties included reporting such abuse.

Because there was no evidence that Zeilman had ever reported her presumed suspicions to the Diocese, the trial court found there were no triable issues to show the Diocese was ever on notice beforehand that Heredegen was committing unlawful sexual conduct.

Judgment in favor of the Diocese- Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno was later entered.

The Brothers George and Howard Santillan timely file an appeal before the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District Division of Eight, contending that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment.

On appeal, the appellate court reverses the trial court’s determination that the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.

It held that where the two bothers testified they were sexually abused as children by their parish priest, and there was evidence that part-time parish housekeeper knew or should have known that priest was sexually abusing them, the testimony by priest who performed administrative functions in the diocese at the time that person in the housekeeper’s position would have been expected by diocese to report suspicious conduct, (such as priest being alone in bedroom with young boys) was sufficient to establish triable issue as to whether diocese is chargeable with knowledge of priest’s conduct so that the brothers claims would qualify under statute reviving certain time-barred claims of childhood sexual abuse.