The Motion to Reconsider was filed on Tuesday, May 28 and served on Wednesday, May 29. The full title reads, “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider the Application of Maryland’s Statute of Limitations to Conspiracy Claims of All Plaintiffs and to Reconsider the Application of Courts and Judicial Proceeding §5-117 and Allow Certain Plaintiffs Seven Years from the Age of Majority for Filing of Their Action.”
The argument invalidating the statute of limitations, since the conspiracy was only discovered in August 2011, is put forward in more detail. The Judge may reject it again. That doesn’t mean it has no merit. If rejected, the Plaintiffs lawyers will appeal the ruling. The entire appellate process will probably take around two years. It is an uphill battle but the Plaintiffs’ are willing to fight on in the cause of justice.
The argument that the statute of limitations for Plaintiffs Renee Gamby and Donna Doe should be 7 years from the age of majority (18), not 3 years, is a new one from what I can tell. It looks sound from my limited perspective especially in the case of Gamby since the alleged crimes against her occurred in Maryland. I hope it succeeds.
The complete Motion to Reconsider is available under SGM Lawsuit / SGM Class Action Lawsuit Documents. Here are some highlights.
“As alleged in the SAC [Second Amended Complaint], discovery of the conspiracy occurred in August 2011. Until that date, plaintiffs were not aware of the concerted efforts by Church leadership to suppress reporting of child abuse, to interfere with the prosecution of child abuse, and to prevent other church members from learning of past reported child abuse.”
Civil Conspiracy Claims Are Timely Filed as Such Claims Accrued at the Time of Discovery of the Conspiracy
“Under the discovery rule, a cause of action for conspiracy accrues when the plaintiff learns of the conspiracy or with reasonable inquiry should have learned of the conspiracy. Courts applying the discovery rule to civil conspiracy claims have reached the same conclusion - the crucial factor is the discovery of the conspiracy, not the discovery of the underlying tort injury…
“To hold otherwise means that a plaintiff is barred from bringing a claim before she ever discovers or could have discovered the factual predicates for the claim, a direct contradiction of the discovery rule…
“Like other states, Maryland recognizes that different causes of action may have different accrual dates, and the time of learning about the injury arising from negligence is not the same as the time of learning about the conspiracy. The timeliness of conspiracy claims should be judged by the discovery of the conspiracy, not the discovery of the underlying injury associated with other causes of action.”
Claims of Certain Plaintiffs Are Timely Filed Within the Requirements of §5-117
“In October 2003, Maryland law was amended by passage of Courts and Judicial Proceeding Section 5-117, which increased the time allowed for bringing claims “arising out of” an alleged incident of “sexual abuse” that occurred while the victim was a minor. Rather than the standard three year statute of limitations, the new law allowed a victim seven years after reaching the age of majority to file suit, if the claims fall within the scope of the law. The claims of Renee Gamby and Donna Doe both “arise out of’ alleged incidents of sexual abuse that occurred when they were minors. In addition, both Gamby and Doe were the victims of “sexual abuse” as defined under Maryland law, because both were abused by persons specifically included within the scope of §5-177. Meeting the requirements of §5-117, each plaintiff should be allowed 7 years from the date of majority, and thus the claims of Renee Gamby and Donna Doe are timely filed within the requirements of the Maryland law.”
“The application of the discovery rule to civil conspiracy claims dictates that such claims accrue at the time the plaintiffs discover or should have discovered the facts establishing the elements required to bring a conspiracy claim. Under this rule, Plaintiffs civil conspiracy claims are timely filed. Moreover, based on the allegations in the SAC, the allegations by Renee Palmer Gamby and Donna Doe arise out of alleged incidents of sexual abuse that occurred when the plaintiffs were minors. As such, the applicable period of limitations is seven years from the age of majority, and claims by both Gamby and Doe were filed within the allowable limitations period.”
Please Help - All Gifts & Tax Deductible Contributions Are Kept Strictly Confidential