Below Is The Order of The Court.: Entered On Docket May 1, 2012

11-22820-rddon Docket MayFiled 05/01/12 Doc 312 1, 2012 Entered
Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Main Document Pg 1 of 2 Below is the Order of the Court.
1 2 3 4 5
_________________________ Timothy W. Dore U.S. Bankruptcy Court

(Dated as of Entered on Docket date above)
6
7 8 9 10 11
__________________________________________________________________________
TIMOTHY W. DORE United States Bankruptcy Judge 700 Stewart Street, Room 8106 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 370-5300
12
13 14 15 16 17
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

In re: THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE, et al. Debtors. No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA W.D., Plaintiff, v. (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County) Adversary No. 12-01112-TWD Bankruptcy No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered)
18
19 20 21 22 23
24
25
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE 396 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (WHITE PLAINS DIVISON) - 1
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 24
Filed 05/01/12
Ent. 05/01/12 10:38:52
Pg. 1 of 2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312
Filed 05/01/12
Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Pg 2 of 2
Main Document
1 2 3 4 5
6
7
CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN,
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (WHITE PLAINS DIVISON)
Defendants.
8 9 10 11
THIS MATTER came before the Court on the Motion to Transfer Related Cases from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains Divison) [Docket No. 8] (Motion). The Court has reviewed and considered the Motion, the records and files in this case and the oral argument held on April 27, 2012. The Court stated its reasons for granting the Motion on the record. Now, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk of this Court is directed to transfer this adversary proceeding to the United States
12
13 14 15 16 17
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains Division). 2. Nothing in this Order prevents the Debtor or any party from filing a motion to remand this
adversary proceeding.
18
19 20 21 22 23
/// End of Order///
24
25
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE 397 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (WHITE PLAINS DIVISON) - 2
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 24
Filed 05/01/12
Ent. 05/01/12 10:38:52
Pg. 2 of 2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-1 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 U.S.B.C. Docket - WDWA (Seattle) Pg 1 of 5
Copy of
Jury, ChamNote
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Western District of Washington (Seattle) Adversary Proceeding #: 1201112TWD
Assigned to: Timothy W Dore Date Filed: 02/02/12 Demand: Nature[s] of Suit: 02 Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy)
Plaintiff WD
represented by WD PRO SE
V. Defendant Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a sole corporation
represented by Michael A Patterson Patterson Buchanan Fobes 2112 Third Avenue, #500 Seattle, WA 98121 2064626701 Fax : 2064626700 Email: map@pattersonbuc LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant Congregation of Christian Brothers
represented by Congregation of Christia PRO SE
Defendant Congregation of Christian BrothersNorth American Province aka Western Province aka Eastern Province aka American Province Defendant Christian Brothers Institute of California
represented by Christian Brothers Instit PRO SE
11-22820-rdd
Copy of
Defendant Christian Brothers Institute of Michigan
represented by Christian Brothers Instit PRO SE
CrossClaimant Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a sole corporation
represented by Michael A Patterson (See above for address)
V. Cross Defendant Congregation of Christian Brothers
Filing Date
Docket Text Defendant's Notice of Removal of Case 112406008 WD v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, etal from King County Superior Court to the United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Washington. Fee Amount $ 293 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A pgs 150# 2 Exhibit A pgs 51100# 3 Exhibit A pgs 101156) Nature of Suit: (02 (Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy))) (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 02/02/2012 at 12:21:11) Receipt of filing fee for Notice of Removal of Case(1201112) [notice,1358] ( 293.00). Receipt number 14881712. Fee amount $ 293.00. (U.S. Treasury) (Entered: 02/02/2012 at 12:22:48) Defendant's Proof of Service of Notice of Removal to Plaintiff. Filed by Michael A Patterson on behalf of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. (Related document(s)1 Notice of Removal of Case). (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 02/06/2012 at 15:42:25) Answer to Complaint and Jury Trial Demand , Crossclaim by Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle against Congregation of Christian Brothers.. Filed by Michael A Patterson of Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch &Kalzer on behalf of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 02/09/2012 at 16:22:39) Declaration of Service (Related document(s)3 Answer to Complaint, Crossclaim). Proof of Service. Filed by Michael A Patterson of Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch &Kalzer on behalf of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 02/10/2012 at 11:02:22)
02/02/2012
02/02/2012
02/06/2012
02/09/2012
02/10/2012
11-22820-rdd
Copy of
02/16/2012
Declaration of Service (Related document(s)1 Notice of Removal of Case). Proof of Service. Filed by Michael A Patterson of Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch &Kalzer on behalf of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 02/16/2012 at 16:41:31) Declaration of Service (Related document(s)3 Answer to Complaint, Crossclaim). Proof of Service. Filed by Michael A Patterson of Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch &Kalzer on behalf of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 02/16/2012 at 16:42:43) Notice of Motion to Transfer Related Cases From the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of WA to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of NY Filed by Michael A Patterson on behalf of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 02/17/2012 at 13:39:25) Motion to Transfer Adversary Case to Another District Motion to Transfer Related Cases from U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of WA to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of NY (White Plains Division) with Notice of Hearing. Filed by Michael A Patterson on behalf of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle The Hearing date is set for 3/23/2012 at 09:30 AM at Judge Dore's Courtroom, U.S. Courthouse, Room 8106. Response due by 3/16/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Transfer Related Cases from U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of WA to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of NY (White Plains Division)# 2 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Transfer Related Cases from U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of WA to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of NY (White Plains Division)) (Patterson, Michael) Modified on 2/21/2012 Filer and Chambers notified that attachment #2 proposed order has incorrect case number. (Richling, Patty). (Entered: 02/17/2012 at 13:47:45) Motion to Extend Time to File Report of Proceedings.. Filed by Michael A Patterson on behalf of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 02/23/2012 at 16:47:13) Supplemental Answer to Complaint Amended Answer and CrossClaim. Filed by Michael A Patterson on behalf of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 02/29/2012 at 11:44:47) Declaration of Service (Related document(s)10 Supplemental Answer to Complaint)... Filed by Michael A Patterson of Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch &Kalzer on behalf of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 02/29/2012 at 11:48:11) Declaration of Service (Related document(s)10 Supplemental Answer to Complaint)... Filed by Michael A Patterson of Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch &Kalzer on behalf of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 02/29/2012 at 12:39:59)
02/16/2012
02/17/2012
02/17/2012
02/23/2012
02/29/2012
10
02/29/2012
11
02/29/2012
12
11-22820-rdd
Copy of
03/13/2012 03/14/2012
13 14
Received UNSIGNED Order Forwarded to Chambers for Judge's Signature. Filed by Patterson, Michael. Related document 9 (Entered: 03/13/2012 at 11:23:02) Submitted But Not Entered (Related document(s)13 Received UNSIGNED Order). (PBR) (Entered: 03/14/2012 at 09:44:32) Received UNSIGNED Order Forwarded to Chambers for Judge's Signature. Filed by Patterson, Michael. Related document 9 (Entered: 03/14/2012 at 10:31:02) ORDER Granting The Archdiocese An Extension of Time to File Report of Proceedings (Related Doc # 9) (PBR) (Entered: 03/15/2012 at 10:40:22) Objection of The Christian Brothers' Institute (Debtor) to the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle's Motion to Transfer Venue to U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Related document(s)7 Generic Notice, 8 Motion to Transfer Adversary Case to Another District). Proof of Service. Filed by Scott S Markowitz on behalf of The Christian Brothers' Institute. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Notice of Removal# 2 Exhibit B Certificate of Service of Notice of Removal) (Markowitz, Scott) (Entered: 03/16/2012 at 10:18:35) Notice to Court of Intent to Argue. Date of Hearing: 3/23/2012. Filed by Scott S Markowitz on behalf of The Christian Brothers' Institute. (Related document(s)7 Generic Notice, 8 Motion to Transfer Adversary Case to Another District, 17 Objection). (Markowitz, Scott) (Entered: 03/19/2012 at 06:37:51) Notice to Court Requesting Continuance of Hearing on Motion from: Date of Hearing: 3/23/2012 at 9:30 am. to: 4/27/2012 at 9:30 am. Filed by Michael A Patterson on behalf of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. (Related document(s)8 Motion to Transfer Adversary Case to Another District). (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 03/19/2012 at 09:45:53) Minute Entry: Motion to Transfer Related Cases from U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of WA to the Southern District of NY is continued to 04/27/2012 at 09:30 AM at Judge Dore's Courtroom, U.S. Courthouse, Room 8106.(related document(s): 8 (JB) (Entered: 03/20/2012 at 13:54:25) Reply to Debtor's Objection to Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle's Motion to Transfer Related Cases from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains Division) (Related document(s)8 Motion to Transfer Adversary Case to Another District). Proof of Service. Filed by Michael A Patterson of Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch &Kalzer on behalf of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J) (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 03/20/2012 at 14:34:34) Second Motion to Extend Time to File Report of Proceedings.. Filed by Michael A Patterson on behalf of Corporation of the
03/14/2012
15
03/15/2012
16
03/16/2012
17
03/19/2012
03/19/2012
03/20/2012
03/20/2012 03/28/2012
18 19
11-22820-rdd
Copy of
Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 03/28/2012 at 11:44:31) Received UNSIGNED Order Forwarded to Chambers for Judge's Signature. Filed by Patterson, Michael. Related document 16 (Entered: 03/28/2012 at 12:02:02) Received UNSIGNED Order Forwarded to Chambers for Judge's Signature. Filed by Patterson, Michael. Related document 19 (Entered: 03/28/2012 at 12:02:02) ORDER Granting The Archdiocese A Second extension of time to file Report of proceedings (Related Doc # 19) . (PBR) (Entered: 03/30/2012 at 15:04:03) Notice of Appearance of Tarter Krinsky &Drogin LLP and Gordon Tilden Thomas &Cordell LLP Filed by Scott S Markowitz on behalf of The Christian Brothers' Institute. (Markowitz, Scott) (Entered: 04/13/2012 at 14:15:16) Notice to Court of Intent to Argue. Date of Hearing: 4/27/2012. Filed by Scott S Markowitz on behalf of Christian Brothers of Ireland Inc, Christian Brothers' Institute. (Related document(s)7 Generic Notice, 8 Motion to Transfer Adversary Case to Another District, 17 Objection, Notice to Court of Intent to Argue, Notice to Court of Motion to be Continued, Minutes Hearing Held, 18 Reply). (Markowitz, Scott) (Entered: 04/23/2012 at 07:59:19) Notice to Court of Intent to Argue. Date of Hearing: 4/27/2012. Filed by Michael A Patterson on behalf of Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle. (Related document(s)7 Generic Notice, 8 Motion to Transfer Adversary Case to Another District, Notice to Court of Motion to be Continued). (Patterson, Michael) (Entered: 04/23/2012 at 11:17:12) ORDER Granting Motion to Transfer Adversary Case to U.S. Bankruptcy Court For The Southern District Of New York (White Plains Division) (Related Doc # 8) . (DR) (Entered: 05/01/2012 at 10:38:52)
03/28/2012
20
03/28/2012
21
03/30/2012
22
04/13/2012
23
04/23/2012
04/23/2012
05/01/2012
24
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-2 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Defendants Notice of Removal Pg 1 of 5
Doc. 1 -
6 Case 12-01112-TWD Doc 1 Filed 02/02/12 Ent. 02/02/12 12:21:11 Pg. 1 of 5
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 1 -
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 1 -
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 1 -
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 1 -
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 1 of 50
Doc. 1-1
11 Case 12-01112-TWD Doc 1-1 Filed 02/02/12 Ent. 02/02/12 12:21:11 Pg. 1 of 50
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-3
Doc. 1-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-4
Doc. 1-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-5
Doc. 1-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-6 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Defendants Proof of Service Pg 1 of 2
Doc. 2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-6 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Defendants Proof of Service Pg 2 of 2
Doc. 2
11-22820-rdd Doc 312-7 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Doc. 3 Answer to Complaint and Jury Trial Demand Crossclaim Pg 1 of 40
1 2 3 4 5 6
HONORABLE TIMOTHY W. DORE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON In re: THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE, et al.. Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA Plaintiffs, vs. Adv. Pro. 12-01112-TWD CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants. (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County)
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
DEFENDANT ARCHDIOCESES ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND CROSS-CLAIMS -1
166687.doc PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S. 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701

W.D.,
ANSWER AND CROSS-CLAIM Defendant, Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (Archdiocese), a corporation sole, and in answer to Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages, hereby admits, denies and alleges as follows:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1.2, and therefore, denies same. 9 1.3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1.4 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1.1
I. INTRODUCTION In answer to paragraph 1.1 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is
without sufficient knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the allegations therein, and therefore, denies same. 1.2 In response to paragraph 1.2 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
admits Edward Courtney (Courtney) worked at ODea. Defendant Archdiocese is without sufficient knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the remainder of the allegations in paragraph
In response to paragraph 1.3 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
admits that ODea High School is a school owned by defendant Archdiocese and operated by the Christian Brothers (the Christian Brothers as used herein is a collective reference to the following organizations: Congregation of Christian Brothers, Congregation of Christian Brothers of Ireland, Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province a/k/a Western Province a/k/a Eastern Province a/k/a American Province). As to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1.3, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and, therefore, denies the same. In response to paragraph 1.4 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
admits that the Christian Brothers is a teaching order that contracts to provide teachers and administrators in some schools. As to the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 1.4, the Archdiocese is without sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies the allegations contained therein.

166687.doc
PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S. 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.5
In response to paragraph 1.5 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and, therefore, denies the same. 1.6 In response to paragraph 1.6 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies any knowledge that Courtney was molesting students at ODea. Defendant Archdiocese also denies any knowledge regarding Courtneys alleged molestation of minors or the reasons for assignments by the Christian Brothers. As to the remainder of the allegations contained therein, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
9 as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies the same. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 denies any knowledge that Courtney suffered from psychological problems or that Courtney abused minors. Defendant Archdiocese also denies any knowledge regarding Courtneys 1.7 In response to paragraph 1.7 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies any knowledge that Courtney was molesting students at ODea. Defendant Archdiocese also denies any knowledge regarding Courtney or reasons for assignment by the Christian Brothers. Defendant admits Courtney worked at St. Alphonsus Parish School. As to the remainder of the allegations contained therein, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies same. In response to paragraph 1.8 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
alleged abuse of minors or reasons for assignment by the Christian Brothers. As to the remainder of the allegations contained therein, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies same.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1.9
denies any knowledge that Courtney abused students prior to and during his time at ODea. Defendant Archdiocese also denies any knowledge regarding Courtneys alleged abuse of minors or reasons for assignment by the Christian Brothers. As to the remainder of the allegations contained therein, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies same. 1.10 In response to paragraph 1.10 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies any knowledge that Courtney abused students prior to and during his time at ODea. Defendant Archdiocese also denies any knowledge regarding Courtneys alleged abuse of
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1.12 To the extent the allegations in paragraph 1.12 of Plaintiffs Complaint are minors or reasons for assignment by the Christian Brothers. Defendant admits Courtney worked at St. Alphonsus Parish School. As to the remainder of the allegations contained therein, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies same. 1.11 To the extent the allegations in paragraph 1.11 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese denies the same. To the extent any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 1.11 calls for a legal conclusion, defendant
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese denies the same. 1.13 To the extent the allegations in paragraph 1.13 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese denies the same. To the extent any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 1.13 calls for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.14
To the extent the allegations in paragraph 1.14 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese denies the same. To the extent any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 1.14 calls for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. II. 2.1 PARTIES
In answer to paragraph 2.1 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same.
9 2.2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 therefore, denies the same. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2.3 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 2.3 of Plaintiffs Complaint are admits it is a sole, non-profit corporation with its principal place of business located in King County, Washington and that it owns ODea High School. As to the remainder of the In answer to paragraph 2.2 of plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
allegations contained in Paragraph 2.2, the terms and phrases owned, operated, managed and controlled ODea High School call for legal conclusions, and as such are referred to the Court, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. As to any remaining
allegations contained in paragraph 2.2, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and,
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 2.4 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 2.4 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 2.5 In answer to paragraph 2.5 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 2.6 In answer to paragraph 2.6 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3.2 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 calls for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers the same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. As to any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 3.2, defendant 3.1 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE In answer to Paragraph 3.1 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
admits that its primary administrative offices are located in King County, Washington. To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.1 of Plaintiffs Complaint calls for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers the same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. As to any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 3.1, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.2 of Plaintiffs Complaint,
Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to from a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. // //

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4.1
IV.
FACTS
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese admits that Edward Courtney attended Catholic schools within the Seattle Archdiocese. Defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.2 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.2 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information 9 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 denies the same. 4.4 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.4 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.2 refer to Courtneys and other persons testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.2 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.3 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.3 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.4 refer to Courtneys and other persons testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.4 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.5 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.5 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
9 directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 paragraph 4.7 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.8 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.8 of Plaintiffs Complaint are sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.7 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.7 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.8 refer to documents, the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.9 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.9 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information 9 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

denies the same. 4.11 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.11 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.12 refer to Courtneys and other persons testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.12 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4.13
To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.13 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.13 refer to Courtneys and other persons testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.13 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto.
9 4.14 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.15 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.16 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.16 of Plaintiffs Complaint are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.15 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.15 of Plaintiffs Complaint are To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.14 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore,
DEFENDANT ARCHDIOCESES ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND CROSS-CLAIMS - 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.16 refer to Courtneys and other persons testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.16 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.17 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.17 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
9 denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.17 refer to testimony, the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.18 refer to testimony, the 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.18 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.19 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.19 of Plaintiffs Complaint are testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.17 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.18 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.18 of Plaintiffs Complaint are


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.20 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.20 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information 9 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.23 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.23 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denies the same. 4.22 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.22 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.22 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.22 refer to
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.23 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.23 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.24 In answer to paragraph 4.24 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese admits Courtney worked at ODea. To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.24 of Plaintiffs Complaint are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same.
9 4.25 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 4.26 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.25 refer to Courtneys and other persons testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.25 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.26 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.27 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.27 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
9 documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.29 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.29 of Plaintiffs Complaint are defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.28 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.28 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.29 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.30 In answer to the allegations in paragraph 4.30 of Plaintiffs Complaint,
defendant Archdiocese denies any knowledge of Courtneys alleged molestation of minors and his alleged visits to therapists. Defendant Archdiocese also denies any knowledge of the Christian Brothers alleged history of abuse at Briscoe Memorial School and ODea. Defendant Archdiocese also denies any knowledge of Courtneys alleged sexual abuse of minors at ODea. As to the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 4.30, defendant
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 pedophilia. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4.32 In answer to the allegations in paragraph 4.32, defendant Archdiocese denies Defendant any knowledge that Courtney molested minors at ODea and other schools. Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.31 In answer to the allegations in paragraph 4.31, defendant Archdiocese is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. Defendant Archdiocese denies any alleged long history of harboring pedophiles and in fact the Archdiocese of Seattle was, and still is, a recognized leader among religious organizations in addressing concerns over detection of
Archdiocese also denies that it immediately became aware of the abuse alleged in paragraph 4.32. As to the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.32, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4.33
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.33 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.33 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto.
9 4.34 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 4.35 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.36 In answer to paragraph 4.36 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.34 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer theretoo. 4.35 In answer to paragraph 4.35 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is In answer to paragraph 4.34 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.36 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
paragraph 4.36 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.37 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.37 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.39 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.40 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.40 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.40 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant
9 Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.42 refer to testimony, the 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.43 In answer to paragraph 4.43 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese 4.41 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.41 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
denies any knowledge regarding any alleged decision to place any alleged pedophile at ODea. As to the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 4.43, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.44 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.44 In answer to paragraph 4.44 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese The
denies any knowledge of Courtneys alleged molestation of students at ODea.
Archdiocese admits Courtney worked at ODea. To the extent the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.44 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained
9 therein and, therefore, denies the same. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.46 refer to testimony, the 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.46 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.47 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.47 of Plaintiffs Complaint are 4.45 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.45 of Plaintiffs Complaint are


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.47 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.47 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.48 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.48 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.48 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.48 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.49 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.49 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.49 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.49 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4.50
In answer to paragraph 4.50 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese The
denies any knowledge of Courtneys alleged molestation of students at ODea.
Archdiocese admits Courtney worked at ODea. To the extent the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.50 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.51 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.51 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information 9 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 denies the same. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4.54 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.54 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denies the same. 4.52 In answer to paragraph 4.52 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.53 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.53 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.55 In answer to paragraph 4.55 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies any knowledge of Courtneys alleged molestation of boys before and at ODea. The

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Archdiocese admits Courtney worked at ODea. To the extent the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.55 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.56 To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.56 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same.
9 4.57 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.58 call for legal conclusions, such as mandatory reporting laws, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 4.59 In answer to paragraph 4.59 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.58 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.58 of Plaintiffs Complaint are To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.57 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.58 refer to McGraws testimony,
admits Courtney worked at ODea. To the extent that the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.59 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.59 call for legal conclusions, such as mandatory reporting laws, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 4.60 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.60 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
9 documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4.62 In answer to paragraph 4.62 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.61 In answer to paragraph 4.61 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies any knowledge or awareness of Courtneys alleged abuse of minors at ODea. To the extent that the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.61 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.61 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when
admits it did not report Courtney to the authorities or try to prevent Courtney from teaching because it denies having knowledge of Courtneys alleged abuse of minors. To the extent that the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.62 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4.63
To the extent that the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.63 of Plaintiffs
Complaint are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.63 refer to Courtneys testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answers thereto. 4.64 In answer to paragraph 4.64 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies any knowledge of Courtneys alleged abuse of minors at ODea. To the extent that the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.64 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 denies the same. The Archdiocese denies any knowledge that Courtney was a serial sexual 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 predator. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.65 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.66 In answer to paragraph 4.66 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.64 call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers the same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 4.65 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.65 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
admits Courtney was arrested for felony indecent liberties with a minor. To the extent the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.66 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.67 In answer to paragraph 4.67 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
admits Courtney pled guilty to a felony charge of indecent liberties with a minor. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.67 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.67 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
9 truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 specifically denies the allegations therein. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

4.68
In answer to paragraph 4.68 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
admits that in the past five years men have made claims of being physically and sexually abused by Courtney, thirty years after the alleged conduct. As to the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.68, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. V. 5.1 CAUSES OF ACTION
5.1 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.2 In answer to paragraph 5.2 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
specifically denies the allegations therein.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
5.3
incorporates all relevant prior and subsequent responses and, to the extent this paragraph requires any separate or additional response, denies the same. 5.4 In answer to paragraph 5.4 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
specifically denies the allegations therein. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.4 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.5 In answer to paragraph 5.5 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
9 specifically denies the allegations therein. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 incorporates all relevant prior and subsequent responses and, to the extent this paragraph 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

5.5 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.6 In answer to paragraph 5.6 of plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies the allegations therein. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.6 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.7 In answer to paragraph 5.7 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
requires any separate or additional response, denies the same. 5.8 In answer to paragraph 5.8 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
specifically denies the allegations therein. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.8 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
5.9
specifically denies the allegations therein. The Archdiocese further states that with regard to policies and procedure regarding the allegations of sexual abuse, the Archdiocese of Seattle was, and still is, a recognized leader among religious organizations in trying to protect and heal victims of such abuse and addressing concerns over detection of pedophilia. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.9 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.10 In answer to paragraph 5.10 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
9 specifically denies the allegations therein. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 specifically denies the allegations therein. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

5.11
To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.11 of Plaintiffs
Complaint are directed towards defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.11 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.12 In answer to paragraph 5.12 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
5.13
specifically denies the allegations therein. 5.14 In answer to paragraph 5.14 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
incorporates all relevant prior and subsequent responses and, to the extent this paragraph requires any separate or additional response, denies the same.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
5.15
specifically denies that Courtney was acting within the course and scope of employment during his alleged abuse, and that defendant Archdiocese is liable under the doctrine of respondent superior. Defendant Archdiocese also denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 5.15. To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.15 call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.16 In answer to paragraph 5.16 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies all the allegations therein. In addition, the terms and phrases, actual and apparent agents call for a legal conclusion, and as such, are referred to the Court and therefore,
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.19 In answer to paragraph 5.19 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 5.17 In answer to paragraph 5.17 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies the allegations. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.17 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.18 In answer to paragraph 5.18 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies the allegation therein. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.18 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the
incorporates all relevant prior and subsequent responses and, to the extent this paragraph requires any separate or additional response, denies the same. 5.20 To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.20 of Plaintiffs
Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
makes no answer thereto.
To the extent the remaining allegations in paragraph 5.20 of
Plaintiffs Complaint are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 5.21 To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.21 of Plaintiffs
Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. Defendant Archdiocese specifically denies having any knowledge of Courtneys alleged violations of Chapter 9.68A RCW and therefore, denies having violated Chapter 9.68A RCW. To the extent the remaining allegations in paragraph 5.21 are directed to
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RCW 9.68A.130. 5.23 In answer to paragraph 5.23 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 5.22 To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.22 of Plaintiffs
Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. Defendant Archdiocese specifically denies having any knowledge of Courtneys alleged violations of Chapter 9.68A RCW and therefore, denies plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorneys fees and costs against defendant Archdiocese, pursuant to
denies the allegations therein. To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.24 call for

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.25 In answer to paragraph 5.25 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies the allegations therein. To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.25 call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.26 In answer to paragraph 5.26 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
incorporates all relevant prior and subsequent responses and, to the extent this paragraph 9 requires any separate or additional response, denies the same. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

5.27
Paragraph 5.27 of Plaintiffs Complaint appears to consist of rhetoric and allege
no actual facts and therefore, defendant Archdiocese is unable to admit or deny and therefore denies the same. 5.28 To the extent the allegations in paragraph 5.28 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.28 call for a legal
VI.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER, defendant Archdiocese denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought in their Prayer for Relief against defendant Archdiocese. Defendant Archdiocese denies any allegations not expressly admitted herein. VII. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER and without waiving any allegations previously denied, the following affirmative defenses are asserted: 1. 2. 3. The Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. To the extent that the Plaintiffs allege inappropriate conduct by the alleged
Christian Brothers Perpetrators, any such acts were outside the scope of his duties, responsibilities, and mission as a Christian Brother. 4. Damages, if any, sustained by the Plaintiffs were proximately caused by their
9 own actions or omissions so as to bar or reduce recovery herein. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 8. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


5.
Damages, if any, sustained by the Plaintiffs were proximately caused by persons
other than defendant Archdiocese and for whom defendant Archdiocese has no responsibility, either direct or vicarious. 6. Damages, if any, were caused in whole or in part by other non-parties at fault,
including the State of Washington and King County. 7. Damages, if any, sustained by the Plaintiffs must be segregated from those
caused by the intentional misconduct of others. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. Plaintiffs damages, if any, were proximately caused by an intervening cause,
9.
which was the superseding cause of the alleged damages. 10. Plaintiffs have failed to join necessary parties without whom complete relief
cannot be granted, to wit, Courtney.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
11.
Pursuant to the laws of the state of Washington, defendant Archdiocese is
entitled to an allocation of fault under the determination of proportionate share of entities/individuals causing damages if recovery is sought. 12. Plaintiffs claims touch on issues of the nature, extent and administration of the
religious ministry, including application of Canon Law to the service of priests and clergy and, therefore, are barred from consideration and/or are not actionable in this forum pursuant to the mandates of the United States and Washington State Courts and additional provisions regarding separation of church and state.
9 13. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 A. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1. Defendant Archdiocese references the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint, and incorporates all admissions, denials, and allegations in the Archdioceses Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint as set out in all the preceding paragraphs. 2. Representation of Existing Fact: The Christian Brothers repeatedly represented, FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUD relief can be granted. 14. In the event these Plaintiffs have filed a petition for bankruptcy, this State Court Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against defendant Archdiocese upon which
has no jurisdiction over this claim. 15. 16. The imposition of punitive damages is not recognized under Washington law. The imposition of punitive damages would violate the Washington State
Constitution and United States Constitution. VIII. DEFENDANT ARCHDIOCESES CROSS-CLAIMS
as fact, that they possessed no knowledge of alleged abusers who had previously engaged in sexual misconduct with children and/or of their dangerous propensities, yet were brought to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
work in the Seattle Archdiocese at Briscoe Memorial School and ODea High School. Defendant Christian Brothers acted in concert to conceal and suppress their knowledge concerning the known dangerous propensities of such abusers. The Christian Brothers made false representations regarding existing material facts to the Archdiocese, specifically including but not limited to the following: 2.1 In 1954, a Christian Brother who was believed to have abused children at Briscoe was allowed to remain at Briscoe where ten years later the Christian Brothers noted that this Brother should not be permitted to
9 return and that he keeps certain boys with himself. The handling of 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Christian Brothers failed to communicate with the Archdiocese these 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3. facts regarding Brother Courtney prior to his transfer to ODea. Materiality: The Christian Brothers misrepresentations regarding their 2.2 this Brother was never shared with the Archdiocese. Prior to Brother Courtneys transfer to ODea High School, the Christian Brothers received a complaint by a parent that Brother Courtney had a sexual encounter with his son at St. Laurence High School in Chicago. They referenced another complaint involving a similar episode with another student and Brother Courtney the previous year. Brother
Courtney was removed from St. Laurence and accepted at ODea. The
knowledge and information that alleged abusers at Briscoe and ODea had previously engaged in sexual misconduct with children and/or knew of their dangerous propensities, and that the Christian Brothers concealed and suppressed that abuse or knowledge of the abusers dangerous propensities, were material because the Seattle Archdiocese would not have entered

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
into a joint defense agreement and/or would not have listed and provided for the Christian Brothers liability insurance coverage if they had known of this knowledge. 4. Falsity: The representation that the Christian Brothers possessed no knowledge
or additional information that showed the alleged abusers had either previously engaged in sexual misconduct with children and/or knew of the abusers dangerous propensities was false, as was the representation that the Christian Brothers had no evidence that showed they had concealed and suppressed the abuse or knowledge. As the Archdiocese only learned after several lawsuits and numerous discovery productions, the Christian Brothers did in fact have
9 this knowledge and information, but they simply chose not to disclose that information or 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 that sexual abuse and/or dangerous propensities was false. They knew or should have known 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that these representations were false because they produced evidence after the Archdiocese entered into a joint defense agreement and provided for liability insurance coverage. 6. Intent: The Christian Brothers intended that the Archdiocese rely upon their knowledge prior to the Archdioceses agreement regarding settlements and liability insurance coverage. 5. Knowledge of Falsity: The Christian Brothers knew or should have known that
their representation that they had no knowledge or additional information that showed the alleged abusers had either previously engaged in sexual misconduct with children and/or knew of the abusers dangerous propensities was false. They also knew or should have known that their representation that they had no evidence showing that they had concealed and suppressed
misrepresentations when the Archdiocese entered into their joint defense agreement with them and provided for liability insurance coverage because they knew that they would not agree to the split in monetary responsibility, the joint defense, or coverage of liability insurance if they

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
maintained that they had no knowledge or information regarding the abusers previous engagement in sexual misconduct with children or such dangerous propensities, and that no evidence existed regarding their concealment or suppression of that knowledge. The Christian Brothers intended that joint defense agreement terms and liability insurance coverage would reflect the statements that the Christian Brothers had no knowledge or information showing that the abusers had previously engaged in sexual misconduct with children or showed such dangerous propensities, and that they had no evidence showing that they had concealed and suppressed that knowledge.
9 7. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 relied upon the Christian Brothers to truthfully represent what knowledge and information they 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 possessed regarding the abusers previous sexual misconduct with children or such dangerous propensities, as well as their concealment and suppression, and the Archdioceses reliance caused them to enter into a joint defense agreement and provide for liability insurance coverage. 9. Archdiocese had a right to rely upon the Christian Brothers: The Archdiocese Christian Brothers were making false representations when they repeatedly indicated that they had no knowledge or information showing that the abusers had engaged in sexual misconduct with children or showing such dangerous propensities, and that they had no evidence that showed the Christian Brothers had concealed and covered-up that misconduct. This is Archdioceses Ignorance of Falsity: The Archdiocese had no idea that the
particularly true where the Archdiocese did not have access to the internal records of the Christian Brothers and such evidence should have been produced upon requested discovery. 8. Archdioceses Reliance on the Truth of the Representations: The Archdiocese
had a right to rely upon the Christian Brothers to truthfully represent what knowledge or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
information they possessed regarding the abusers previous sexual misconduct with children or such dangerous propensities, as well as their concealment and suppression of such knowledge or information, because the Archdiocese had a agreement with the Christian Brothers to operate Briscoe and ODea (schools within the Seattle Archdiocese), the Archdiocese did not have access to the Christian Brothers internal records, such evidence should have been produced upon requested discovery, and the Christian Brothers were in the best position to assert the existence or non-existence of that knowledge or information. The Archdiocese had no way of knowing that the statements and representations of the Christian Brothers were misleading and
9 fraudulent. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 B. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11. Defendant Archdiocese references the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint, and incorporates all admissions, denials, and allegations in the Archdioceses Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint as set out in all the preceding paragraphs. 12. At all times material to Plaintiffs Complaint, ODea High School was a school SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: CONTRIBUTION 10. Consequent Damage: As discussed above, the Archdiocese has suffered
damages because of the misrepresentations by the Christian Brothers. The Archdiocese was damaged because the misrepresentations of the Christian Brothers caused them to enter into a joint defense agreement and provided for the Christian Brothers liability insurance coverage they had no idea that knowledge or information existed that the abusers previously engaged in sexual misconduct with children and/or possessed such dangerous propensities and that the Christian Brothers concealed and suppressed this knowledge and information.
owned by defendant Archdiocese and operated by Christian Brothers pursuant to a written agreement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
13.
Many or all of the alleged acts or omissions giving rise to the allegations in
Plaintiffs Complaint occurred at or near ODea High School. 14. Pursuant to RCW 4.22.040, a right of contribution exists between two or more
parties who are jointly and severally liable upon the same indivisible claim for the same injury or harm. 15. Accordingly, the Christian Brothers are, or may be liable to the Archdiocese for
all or part of the claims asserted against the Archdiocese in the above-captioned action. 16. Pursuant to the above statute, defendant Archdiocese is entitled to contribution
9 from defendant Christian Brothers for any judgment assessed against it in this case, as well as 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

any other losses, attorney fees, court costs, experts costs, litigation expenses, and any other expenses incurred by defendant Archdiocese as a result of the plaintiffs claims alleged in the Complaint. C. 17. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: IMPLIED INDEMNITY Defendant Archdiocese references the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs
Complaint, and incorporates all admissions, denials, and allegations in the Archdioceses Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint as set out in all the preceding paragraphs herein. At all times material to Plaintiffs Complaint, ODea High School was a school
owned by defendant Archdiocese and operated by the Christian Brothers pursuant to a written agreement. 19. Many or all of the alleged acts or omissions giving rise to the allegations in
Plaintiffs Complaint occurred at or near ODea High School.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
20.
A claim for implied indemnity arises when the relationship between the parties
is such that one party has incurred an obligation that the other should discharge. Central Washington Refrigeration, Inc. v. Barbee, 133 Wn.2d 509, 513, 946 P.2d 760 (1997). 21. Accordingly, the Christian Brothers are, or may be liable to the Archdiocese for
all or part of the claims asserted against the Archdiocese in the above-captioned action. 22. Pursuant to the doctrine of implied indemnity, defendant Archdiocese is entitled
to indemnity and/or contribution from defendant Christian Brothers for any judgment assessed against it in this case, as well as any other losses, attorney fees, court costs, expert costs,
9 litigation expenses, and any other expenses incurred by defendant Archdiocese as a result of the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 agreement. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

plaintiffs claims alleged in the Complaint D. 23. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: EQUITABLE INDEMNITY Defendant Archdiocese references the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs
Complaint, and incorporates all admissions, denials, and allegations in the Archdioceses Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint as set out in all the preceding paragraphs herein. 24. At all times material to Plaintiffs Complaint, ODea High School was a school
owned by defendant Archdiocese and operated by the Christian Brothers pursuant to a written
25.
Plaintiffs Complaint occurred at or near ODea High School. 26. Pursuant to the doctrine of equitable indemnity, a party may recover a damages
award of attorney fees expended as a result of being brought into litigation solely because of the actions of others. Manning v. Loidhamer, 13 Wn. App. 766, 538 P.2d 136 (1975).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
27.
Accordingly, the Christian Brothers are, or may be liable to the Archdiocese for
all or part of the claims asserted against the Archdiocese in the above-captioned action. 28. The acts or omissions of defendant Christian Brothers as herein alleged exposed
defendant Archdiocese to litigation in the present case. Pursuant to the doctrine of equitable indemnity, defendant Archdiocese is entitled to indemnity and/or contribution from defendant Christian Brothers for any judgment assessed against it in this case, as well as any other losses, attorney fees, court costs, expert costs, litigation expenses, and any other expenses incurred by defendant Archdiocese as a result of the plaintiffs claims alleged in the Complaint. IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ON CROSS-CLAIMS
Defendant Archdiocese requests that judgment be entered on its cross-claims as follows: 1. Awarding defendant Archdiocese damages on its cross-claims in an amount to
be established at trial. 2. 3. Awarding defendant Archdiocese its costs and attorney fees; and, Awarding defendant Archdiocese any further relief which the Court finds
appropriate, equitable or just. X. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This defendant reserves the right to amend its Answer by way of adding affirmative defenses, counterclaims, cross-claims, or third-party claims as the existence of such claims is discovered in the future. XI. DEFENDANTS PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiffs Complaint, this defendant prays for judgment as follows:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 // 9 // // //
1. For dismissal of the cause of action asserted against this defendant with prejudice; 2. For an award of attorneys fees, cists, and expenses incurred herein by this defendant to the fullest extent allowed by law; and 3. For such further and other relief as the court may deem just and equitable.
DATED this 9th day of February, 2012. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S.
By:_____/s/ Michael A. Patterson______________ Michael A. Patterson, WSBA No. 7976 Karen A. Kalzer, WSBA No. 25429 Of Attorneys for Defendant Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-8 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Declaration of Service Re: #3 Pg 1 of 2
Doc. 4
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 4
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 5
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 5
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 6
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 6
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-11 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Motion to Transfer Related Cases Pg 1 of 4
Doc. 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In re: 8 9 10 11 W.D., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 vs. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants. THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE, et al.. Debtors.
Judge: Timothy W. Dore Chapter: 11 Hearing Location: U.S. Courthouse Seattle, WA Hearing Date: March 23, 2012 Hearing Time: 9:30 AM Response Date: March 16, 2012
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County) Adv. Pro. 12-01112-TWD NOTICE OF MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattles motion to transfer venue of the above-referenced adversary proceeding to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, White Plains Division;
NOTICE OF MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (WHITE PLAINS DIVISION) - 1

215 Ent. 02/17/12 13:39:25 Pg. 1 of 4
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 7
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
IS SET FOR HEARING as follows: JUDGE: PLACE: DATE: TIME: Timothy W. Dore U.S. Courthouse, Seattle, WA Courtroom 8106 March 23, 2012 9:30 AM
IF YOU OPPOSE the Motion, you must file your written response with the Clerks Office of the Bankruptcy Court and deliver copies to the undersigned counsel for the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle NOT LATER THAN THE RESPONSE
9 DATE, which is March 16, 2012. If you file a response, you are also required to appear at the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

hearing. IF NO RESPONSE IS TIMELY FILED AND SERVED, the Court may, in its discretion GRANT THE MOTION PRIOR TO THE HEARING WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE, and strike the hearing. DATED this 17th date of February, 2012. PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S. Attorneys for Party-in-Interest Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle
By:_____/s/ Michael A. Patterson______________ Michael A. Patterson, WSBA No. 7976 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone:(206) 462-6700 Facsimile: (206) 462-6701 Email: map@pattersonbuchanan.com
216 Ent. 02/17/12 13:39:25 Pg. 2 of 4
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 7
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 17, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing Notice of Motion and Hearing on Motion to Transfer Related Cases From the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains Division) with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and served counsel by the below method indicated: Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael T. Pfau Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC Columbia House 403 Columbia Street, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Facsimile: (206) 623-3624 Telephone: (206) 462-4335 Attorneys for Debtor Scott S. Markowitz Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP 1350 Broadway, 11th Floor New York, NY 10018 Facsimile: (212) 216-8001 Telephone: (212) 216-8000 Congregation of Christian Brothers Jack Mostyn 33 Pryer Terrace New Rochelle, NY 10804 Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province a/k/a Western Province a/k/a Eastern Province a/k/a American Province Brother Daniel Casey 7412 Monroe Avenue Elizabeth, NJ 07201 (Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)

217 Ent. 02/17/12 13:39:25 Pg. 3 of 4
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 7
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Christian Brothers Institute of California Patrick D. Dunne, Agent for Service 919 Iverson Street Salinas, CA 93901 Christian Brothers Institute of Michigan John E. Birney, Agent for Service Brother Rice High School 7101 Lahser Rd. Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
(Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)
___/s/ Lee P. Gray__________________ Lee P. Gray Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch & Kalzer, Inc., P.S.

218 Ent. 02/17/12 13:39:25 Pg. 4 of 4
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 7
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-12 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Motion to Transfer Adversary Case Pg 1 of 8
Doc. 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In re: 8 9 10 11 W.D., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 vs. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants. THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE, et al.. Debtors.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County) Adv. Pro. 12-01112-TWD MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (WHITE PLAINS DIVISION)
The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a Party-in-Interest (hereinafter 23 24 25 Archdiocese) by and through its counsel, Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch & Kalzer, Inc., P.S., respectfully states as follows:
MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (WHITE PLAINS DIVISION) - 1

219 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 1 of 8
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.
On April 28, 2011 (the Petition Date), The Christian Brothers Institute and
The Christian Brothers of Ireland, Inc., the debtors and debtors-in-possession (the Debtors) filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. 101, et seq. (the Bankruptcy Code). The Debtors Chapter 11 case is pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court) before the Honorable Robert D. Drain under case number 11-22820 (RDD). 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5) and the order of reference, dated July 10, 1984
9 (Ward, C.J.) (the Order of Reference) issued by the United States District Court for the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1
Southern District of New York (the District Court), the Archdiocese hereby moves to transfer all personal injury tortclaims that are related to the Debtors Chapter 11 case (collectively, the Related Cases) from this Court1 to the Bankruptcy Court because (a) the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) is the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending, (b) other related cases have been previously removed and transferred from this Court to the Bankruptcy Court (collectively, the Transferred Cases)2, (c) pursuant to the order of reference, dated July 10, 1984 (Ward, C.J.) (the Order of Reference) issued by the District Court, all bankruptcy cases are automatically
The Related Cases have been removed pursuant to Rule 9027(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and CR 101(e) of the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the following adversary proceedings pending before this Court: ECF Docket No. 1 in Adv. Pro. 12-01111 (TWD) and ECF Docket No. 1 in Adv. Pro. 12-01112 (TWD). 2 The Transferred Cases have been removed pursuant to Rule 9027(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and CR 101(e) of the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and transferred to the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404 and 1412 to the following adversary proceedings now pending before the Bankruptcy Court: WAWD Adv. Pro. 11-01483/SDNY Adv. Pro. 11-08317, WAWD Adv. Pro. 11-01484/SDNY Adv. Pro. 11-08319, WAWD Adv. Pro. 11-01485/SDNY Adv. Pro. 1108320, WAWD Adv. Pro. 11-01486/SDNY Adv. Pro. 11-08321. PATTERSON BUCHANAN MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S. THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701 DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (WHITE PLAINS DIVISION) - 2

220
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8
Filed 02/17/12
Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45
Pg. 2 of 8
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
referred to the Bankruptcy Court and (d) the Bankruptcy Court is the home court for the Debtors Chapter 11 case. The Related Cases currently pending in this Court are: Case Caption F.C., B.C., D.K., J.S., J.M., and M.Y. v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a sole corporation; Congregation of Christian Brothers; Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province a/k/a Western Province a/k/a Eastern Province a/k/a American Province Case No. Adv. Pro. 11-01111 (TWD) No. 11-2-40601-6 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County) District United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington
W.D. v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a sole corporation; Congregation of Christian Brothers; Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province a/k/a/ Western Province a/k/a Eastern Province a/k/a American Province; Christian Brothers Institute of California; Christian Brothers Institute of Michigan
Adv. Pro. 11-01112 (TWD) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County)
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington
3.
The Related Cases are all personal injury/tort cases where all plaintiffs are all
making claims (collectively, the Claims) that at some time in the past they were sexually abused or otherwise injured by one or more persons allegedly associated with the Debtors. The
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Debtors potential liability with regard to similar personal injury/tort claims has caused it to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Code. 4. The Transferred Cases currently pending in the Bankruptcy Court are: Case Caption L.W., T.J., H.W., and H.V. v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a
Case No. SDNY Adv. Pro. 11-01483 (TWD)
District

221 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 3 of 8
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
sole corporation; Congregation of Christian Brothers Brother Rice Province, Eastern American ProvinceCongregation of Christian Brothers, f/k/a Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province; and Christian Brothers Institute, a New York not for profit corporation
WAWD Adv. Pro. 11-01483 (RRD) No. 11-2-40601-6 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County and Transferred from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington)
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
R.P. v. Congregation of Christian Brothers Brother Rice Province, Eastern American Province-Congregation of Christian Brothers, f/k/a Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province; and Christian Brothers Institute, a New York not for profit corporation
SDNY Adv. Pro. 11-01484 (TWD) WAWD Adv. Pro. 11-01483 (RRD) No. 08-2-43603-9 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County and Transferred from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington)
G.W., A.C., P.C., D.C., and T.M. v. Congregation of Christian Brothers Brother Rice Province, Eastern American Province-Congregation of Christian Brothers, f/k/a Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province; and Christian Brothers Institute, a New York not for profit corporation
SDNY Adv. Pro. 11-01485 (TWD) WAWD Adv. Pro. 11-01483 (RRD) No. 09-2-11108-1 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County and Transferred from the

222 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 4 of 8
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington)
K.A. and J.S. v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a sole corporation; Congregation of Christian Brothers Brother Rice Province, Eastern American Province-Congregation of Christian Brothers, f/k/a Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province; and Christian Brothers Institute, a New York not for profit corporation; and Congregation of Christian Brothers, a worldwide organization
5.
The Transferred Cases are also all personal injury/tort cases where all plaintiffs
are all making claims that at some time in the past they were sexually abused or otherwise injured by one or more persons allegedly associated with the Debtors. The Debtors potential liability with regard to the Claims has caused it to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Code. 6. Under 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2)(B), the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over the
Transferred Cases, the Related Cases and the Claims alleged therein for the purposes of core proceedings, e.g., allowance or disallowance of a claim, and estimate of the claims for purposes such as determining the feasibility of a reorganization. See Robert v. Johns-Manville Corp., 45 B.R. 823, 825-26 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). The District Court, however retains jurisdiction over the Related Cases regarding the liquidation or estimation of the Claims for purposes of distribution in the Debtors Chapter 11 case. 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2)(B). Granting the

223 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 5 of 8
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Archdioceses motion would result in unified jurisdiction by the Bankruptcy Court over the Claims for all purposes except for trial, and would facilitate the Debtors reorganization efforts. 7. Since the Debtors Chapter 11 case is pending before the Honorable Robert D.
Drain in New York, and no bankruptcy case is pending in Seattle, it would promote judicial economy for this Court to transfer venue of the Related Cases to Judge Drain in White Plains, New York. Judge Drain would then hear any motions for remand filed by any party. 8. This motion is supported by the concurrently filed memorandum in support, as
well as the pleadings and other records on file with the Court. 9 DATED this 17th day of February, 2012. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S. Attorneys for Party-in-Interest Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle
224 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 6 of 8
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 17, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing Motion to Transfer Related Cases From the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains Division) with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and served counsel by the below method indicated: Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael T. Pfau Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC Columbia House 403 Columbia Street, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Facsimile: (206) 623-3624 Telephone: (206) 462-4335 Attorneys for Debtor Scott S. Markowitz Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP 1350 Broadway, 11th Floor New York, NY 10018 Facsimile: (212) 216-8001 Telephone: (212) 216-8000 Congregation of Christian Brothers Jack Mostyn 33 Pryer Terrace New Rochelle, NY 10804 Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province a/k/a Western Province a/k/a Eastern Province a/k/a American Province Brother Daniel Casey 7412 Monroe Avenue Elizabeth, NJ 07201 (Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)

225 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 7 of 8
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)

226 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 8 of 8
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-13 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Memorandum of Law Pg 1 of 15
Doc. 8-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In re: 8 9 10 11 W.D., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 vs. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (WHITE PLAINS DIVISION) - 1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County) Adv. Pro. 12-01112-TWD CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (WHITE PLAINS DIVISION)
THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE, et al.. Debtors.

227 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 1 of 15
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8-1
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I. INTRODUCTION The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a Party-in-Interest (hereinafter Archdiocese), has filed two motions (the Motions) to transfer all personal injury tortclaims that are related to the above-captioned Chapter 11 case (collectively, the Related Cases) from this Court1 to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court), as permitted by 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5) and/or Rule 7087 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the Bankruptcy Rules).2 Transfer of the Related Cases to the Bankruptcy Court is appropriate because (a) the
9 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) is the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending, (b) other related cases have been previously removed and transferred from this Court to the Bankruptcy Court (collectively, the Transferred Cases)3, (c) pursuant to the order of reference, dated July 10, 1984 (Ward, C.J.) (the Order of Reference) issued by the District Court, all bankruptcy cases are automatically referred to the Bankruptcy Court and (d) the Bankruptcy Court is the home court for The Christian Brothers Institutes (the Debtor) Chapter 11 case. The Related Cases currently pending in this Court are:
1
The Related Cases have been removed pursuant to Rule 9027(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and CR 101(e) of the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the following adversary proceedings pending before this Court: ECF Docket No. 1 in Adv. Pro. 12-01111 (TWD) and ECF Docket No. 1 in Adv. Pro. 12-01112 (TWD). 2 In the alternative, the Archdiocese respectfully requests that this Court submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and a proposed order to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington transferring the Related Cases to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, White Plains Division. 3 The Transferred Cases have been removed pursuant to Rule 9027(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and CR 101(e) of the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and transferred to the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404 and 1412 to the following adversary proceedings now pending before the Bankruptcy Court: WAWD Adv. Pro. 11-01483/SDNY Adv. Pro. 11-08317, WAWD Adv. Pro. 11-01484/SDNY Adv. Pro. 11-08319, WAWD Adv. Pro. 11-01485/SDNY Adv. Pro. 1108320, WAWD Adv. Pro. 11-01486/SDNY Adv. Pro. 11-08321. PATTERSON BUCHANAN MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S. TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701 BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (WHITE PLAINS DIVISION) - 2

228
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8-1
Filed 02/17/12
Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45
Pg. 2 of 15
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Case Caption F.C., B.C., D.K., J.S., J.M., and M.Y. v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a sole corporation; Congregation of Christian Brothers; Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province a/k/a Western Province a/k/a Eastern Province a/k/a American Province
Case No. Adv. Pro. 11-01111 (TWD) No. 11-2-40601-6 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County)
District United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington
W.D. v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a sole corporation; Congregation of Christian Brothers; Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province a/k/a/ Western Province a/k/a Eastern Province a/k/a American Province; Christian Brothers Institute of California; Christian Brothers Institute of Michigan
Adv. Pro. 11-01112 (TWD) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County)
The Transferred Cases currently pending in the Bankruptcy Court are: Case Caption L.W., T.J., H.W., and H.V. v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a sole corporation; Congregation of Christian Brothers Brother Rice Province, Eastern American ProvinceCongregation of Christian Brothers, f/k/a Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province; and Christian Brothers Institute, a New York not for profit corporation Case No. SDNY Adv. Pro. 11-01483 (TWD) WAWD Adv. Pro. 11-01483 (RRD) No. 11-2-40601-6 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County and Transferred from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington) United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York District

229 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 3 of 15
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8-1
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 K.A. and J.S. v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a sole corporation; Congregation of Christian Brothers Brother Rice Province, Eastern American Province-Congregation of Christian Brothers, f/k/a Congregation of Christian Brothers North American
R.P. v. Congregation of Christian Brothers Brother Rice Province, Eastern American Province-Congregation of Christian Brothers, f/k/a Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province; and Christian Brothers Institute, a New York not for profit corporation
G.W., A.C., P.C., D.C., and T.M. v. Congregation of Christian Brothers Brother Rice Province, Eastern American Province-Congregation of Christian Brothers, f/k/a Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province; and Christian Brothers Institute, a New York not for profit corporation
SDNY Adv. Pro. 11-01486 (TWD) WAWD Adv. Pro. 11-01483 (RRD) No. 09-2-39247-1 SEA
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of

230 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 4 of 15
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8-1
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Province; and Christian Brothers Institute, a New York not for profit corporation; and Congregation of Christian Brothers, a worldwide organization
New York (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County and Transferred from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington)
The general venue rule creates a presumption that litigation related to a bankruptcy case should occur in the court in which the bankruptcy case is filed (i.e., the so-called home court). See e.g., Gulf States Exploration Co. v. Manville Forest Products Corp. (In re
Manville Forest Products Corp.), 896 F.2d 1384, 1390-91 (2d Cir. 1990); PermaLife Products, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 437 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2000) (most important factor); In re Enron Corp., 274 B.R. 327, 348 19 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002) (most important factor). 20 21 22 23 24 25 Under 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2)(B), the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over the Related Cases and the Claims (defined below) alleged therein, just as this Court found that it did for the Transferred Cases, for purposes of core proceedings, e.g., general administration of the Chapter 11 case, including such matters as allowance or disallowance of a claim, and

LLC v. TSJ Dirt, LLC (In re PermaLife Products, LLC), 432 B.R. 503, 516 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2010); Oglebay Norton Company v. Port (In re Onco Invest. Co.), 320 B.R. 577, 580 (Bankr. D. Del. 2005). The presumption protects a debtor from defending actions in different forums and ensures that administration of the debtors estate is not disrupted by conflicting orders entered by different courts. The most important factor in considering a motion for change of venue to a home court is whether the adversary proceeding may have an impact on economical and efficient administration of the estate. In re Harnischfeger Industries, Inc., 246 B.R. 421,
231 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 5 of 15
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8-1
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
estimation of the Claims for purposes such as determining the feasibility of a reorganization. See Robert v. Johns-Manville Corp., 45 B.R. 823, 825-26 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). The District Court however, retains jurisdiction over the Related Cases regarding the liquidation or estimation of the Claims for purposes of distribution in the Debtors Chapter 11 case. 28 U.S.C.
157(b)(5)(B). Granting the motion would result in unified jurisdiction by the Bankruptcy Court over the claims for all purposes except for trial. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On April 28, 2011 (the Petition Date), the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. 101, et seq.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

(the Bankruptcy Code). The Debtors Chapter 11 case is pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court) before the Honorable Robert D. Drain under case number 11-22820 (RDD). Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, along with the Archdiocese and other Christian Brothers defendants, settled several lawsuits and attempted to reach a global resolution of the Related Cases through mediation. Despite these attempts the Debtor was unable to reach a resolution of the Related Cases. As a result, and according to the Debtor, the proceedings in the Transferred Cases continued to drain the Debtors limited resources. The Debtor states that because a single substantial jury verdict or settlement could leave Debtor without the financial ability to resolve the Claims set forth in the Transferred Cases or the claims of other legitimate claimants, such as the Related Cases, the Debtor was required to commence its Chapter 11 case. To accomplish a global resolution of the claims of all legitimate claimants, including the
232 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 6 of 15
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8-1
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Claims set forth in the Related Cases, the Debtor asserts that it will be required to liquidate some of its assets in an orderly fashion to resolve all claims in a fair manner. As set forth above, after the Petition Date, the Archdiocese removed the Related Cases to this Court. Removal was appropriate because: (a) the Claims were asserted against Christian Brothers entities that are in some way affiliated and/or related to the Debtor; (b) the Claims were not exempt from removal; and (c) this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the removed claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1452 and 1334. The Claims raise federal questions and are related to Debtors bankruptcy proceeding. See Calumet Natl Bank v. Levine, 179 B.R. 117, 120 (N.D. Ind. 1995) (stating that related to jurisdiction includes tort claims that
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
4
might result in a substantial judgment against [the debtor] and, in turn, a claim against the bankruptcy estate). III. ARGUMENT A. Venue of the Related Cases is Proper in the Bankruptcy Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5) The Debtors Chapter 11 is currently pending before the Bankruptcy Court, which, by virtue of 28 U.S.C. 1334(a) and the Order of Reference, has exclusive jurisdiction over the Debtors Chapter 11 case. Under 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5), venue is proper in the district court in the district in which the bankruptcy case is pending.4 This Court should therefore centralize the Related Cases, with the Transferred Cases, in the Bankruptcy Court. As the Second Circuit has observed, Congress enacted section 157(b)(5) to expand the district courts venue-fixing powers with an eye to centralizing the adjudication of a bankruptcy case. Murray v. Pan Am.
Under 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5), trial may alternatively had in the district court in the district in which the claim arose. Nevertheless, apart from trial, the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over the Related Cases, including all pretrial matters. PATTERSON BUCHANAN MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S. TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701 BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (WHITE PLAINS DIVISION) - 7

24 25
233
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8-1
Filed 02/17/12
Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45
Pg. 7 of 15
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
World Airways (In re Pan Am Corp.), 16 F.3d 513, 516 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1994); See also Lindsey v. OBrien, Tanski, Tanzer & Young Health Care Providers (In re Dow Corning Corp.), 86 F.3d 482, 497 (6th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that 157(b)(5) transfers harmonize with the oftstated goal of centralizing the administration of a bankruptcy estate); Calumet Natl Bank, 179 B.R. at 121 ([A] purpose behind section 157(b)(5) is making it possible for a single forum to oversee the many claims and proceedings that might arise in or affect a bankruptcy case.). Here, centralization of the Related Cases, with the Transferred Cases, in the Bankruptcy Court will promote the efficient administration and resolution of the Debtors Chapter 11 case, as well as the Related Cases. If the Related Cases are not transferred, this Court will be
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
5
required to oversee the extensive discovery and pretrial matters associates with those Cases, and will likely be required to work in tandem with the Bankruptcy Court in conjunction with the Bankruptcy Courts administration of the Debtors Chapter 11 case. Such dual
administration will waste judicial time and effort, increase attorneys fees and expenses, and result in a decreased distribution to creditors. Under 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5), the District Court has the exclusive authority to determine the trial venue for any personal injury tort claims involving Debtor because it is the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending.5 See also A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994, 1010 (4th Cir. 1986) (Unquestionably the district court in this [bankruptcy] case had the power under the statute to fix the trial venue in its district for all the Dalkon Shield cases.) B. Transfer of the Related Cases will Promote Efficiency
24 25
28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5) states that [t]he district court shall order that personal injury tort and wrongful death claims shall be tried in the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending, or in the district court in the district in which the claim arose, as determined by the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending. PATTERSON BUCHANAN MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S. TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701 BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (WHITE PLAINS DIVISION) - 8

234
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8-1
Filed 02/17/12
Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45
Pg. 8 of 15
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Transfer of the Related Cases to the Bankruptcy Court will allow the Bankruptcy Court to oversee discovery and all pretrial matters through the lodging of pretrial orders. This oversight will considerably reduce duplicative discovery expenses and efforts by the Debtor, the Archdiocese, other Christian Brothers defendants, other claimants, and the federal court system. The Debtor has stated that duplicative depositions, other discovery, and motion
practice will likely consume estate assets that would otherwise be available for creditors. Just like the Transferred Cases, transfer of the Related Cases will prevent the unnecessary travel and related expenses of the Debtors members for duplicative discovery requests or other court proceedings. Virtually all of the Debtors books and records are located in the Southern
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 along with the Transferred Cases, with respect to issues such as damages, statutes of 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 limitations, and the viability of negligent supervision claims. Some plaintiffs may claim repressed memories, and the lack of science supporting the admissibility of such testimony must be tested through pre-trial Daubert hearings. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow District of New York, as are the Debtors members. Also like the Transferred Cases, transfer of the Related Cases will allow the Bankruptcy Court to streamline pretrial procedure in a way that could not otherwise be accomplished with four separate discovery proceedings on different timetables in this Court. Administration of the Related Cases in the Bankruptcy Court will also prevent the entry of inconsistent orders regarding discovery or other issues. Transfer also helps prevent inconsistent legal rulings. For example, the same substantive law will be applied in each of the Related cases,
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993); In re Young Broad, Inc., 430 B.R. 99, 121 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010). The existence of these legal issues and

235 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 9 of 15
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8-1
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
others creates a compelling need for consideration of the pretrial portions of the Related Cases in the Bankruptcy Court. Because mediation or other means of alternative dispute resolution of the Claims will be helpful if not necessary to the efficient resolution of this Chapter 11 case, consistency is vital to the equitable treatment of all legitimate claimants. If litigation of the Related Cases is allowed to proceed independently, the Related Cases may be at procedurally distinct junctures, or be subject to disparate legal rulings. Moreover, if alternative dispute resolution proceedings are commenced separately and on different timetables, independent litigation of the Related
9 Case would likely give one set of plaintiffs superior leverage relative to other plaintiffs. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 at 998. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

The Fourth Circuits decision in A.H. Robins Co., Inc. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994 (4th Cir. 1986), is instructive on the issue of transferring related-to personal injury cases. In A.H. Robins, the debtor sought protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to stem the mounting tide of claims and suits related to the Dalkon Shield, a birth control product sold by A.H. Robins between 1971 and 1974. Pursuant to the debtors motion and 28 U.S.C.
157(b)(5), the district court ordered that the personal injury actions relating to the Dalkon Shield would be tried in the district court in which the bankruptcy proceeding was pending. Id.
Two parties appealed the order. The Fourth Circuit held that the purpose of [28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5) wasto centralize the administration of the estate and to eliminate the multiplicity of forums for the adjudication of parts of a bankruptcy case. Id. at 1011 (quoting 130 Cong. Rec. H. 7492, June 29, 1984, reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News at 579). In
236 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 10 of 15
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8-1
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
particular, the Fourth Circuit expressly held that there are very real considerations that support a centralization of all the [personal injury] claims[.] Id. As the Fourth Circuit explained: The single focal point of this proceeding is the development of a reasonable plan of reorganization for the debtor, one which will work a rehabilitation of the debtor and at the same time assure fair and non-preferential resolution of the Dalkon Shield claims. . . . These Dalkon Shield claims . . . represent what are characterized in the Act as contingent or unliquidated claims. . . . Ordinarily such claims would be estimated by the bankruptcy court as a core proceeding,. . . for purpose of allowance if failure to do so would unduly delay the administration of the case.. . . That duty of estimation in a proper case under section 502(c) is not a permissive one; it is a mandatory obligation of the bankruptcy court. This customary process of estimation of contingent claims is, however, different where the unliquidated, contingent claims are personal injury tort claims. Section 157(b)(2)(B) excepts from the definition of core proceedings personal tort claims against the debtor. The bankruptcy court thus is without authority under the Act over the liquidation or estimation of contingent or unliquidated personal injury or wrongful death claims against the estate for purposes of distribution under Title 11 . . . It will be observed, however, that the statute denies authority to the bankruptcy court to estimate contingent claims only if the purpose is to make a distribution of the assets of the debtor; the statute does not in express terms deny to the bankruptcy court the authority, or relieve it of the duty, to estimate the contingent personal injury claims for purposes of determining the feasibility of a reorganization. And such has been the construction of the statute which has been adopted by the courts which have had to face the issue[.] Id. at 1011-12. (citations omitted, emphasis in original). Additionally - and again with import for the various Related Cases and Transferred Cases here - the Fourth Circuit observed that the personal injury cases plainly had the potential to diminish the debtors assets, thereby unnecessarily depriving claimants of recovery. The court further noted the realities of modern litigation and in particular that [p]re-trial

237 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 11 of 15
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8-1
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
discovery under modern federal practice has become a monster on the loose . . . . " Id. at 1013, quoting JohnsManville Corp. v. the Asbestos Litigation Group (In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 40 B.R. 219, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). The financial burden of that monster could be
considerably reduced if duplicative discovery was avoided. Id. The court concluded that transfer was in all parties financial interest: [i]f the claimants as a whole are to realize reasonable compensation for their claims, it is obviously in the best interest of the class of claimants as a whole to obviate the tremendous expense of trying these cases separately. Id. The Fourth Circuit held that transfer was warranted because [n]o progress along estimating these contingent claims . . . can be made until all Dalkon Shield claims and suits are centralized
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 117 B.R. 942, 950 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1989) (following A.H Robins and transferring to Indiana a personal injury case pending in California). If, in future proceedings in this Chapter 11 case, events transpire that require any of the Related Cases (together with any co-defendants) to proceed to trial, any individual party could request that such Related Case be transferred from the Bankruptcy Court to the district in which

before a single forum where all interests can be heard and in which the interests of all claimants with one another may be harmonized." Id. at 1014. The Fourth Circuit's approach has been followed by various other courts. See, e.g., In re Dow Corning Corp., 187 B.R. 919, 932 (E.D. Mich. 1995) (For the purpose of determining the trial venue of the breast implant cases or furthering the estimation process, the Court transfers the claims against the Debtor Dow Corning to this Court.); Lindsey, 86 F.3d at 497 (reversing the district court and finding that 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5) permitted the district court to fix venue for cases pending against nondebtor defendants which are related to a debtor's bankruptcy case); In re Federal Press Co.,
238 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 12 of 15
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8-1
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
the Claim arose. See A.H Robins, 788 F.2d at 1011 (And there are very real considerations that support a centralization of all the Dalkon Shield claims, at least at first, in the district court having jurisdiction of the bankruptcy.) (emphasis in original); In re Dow Corning Corp., 187 B.R. at 932 ([T]he Court will not rule on the trial venue issue, at this time but will make that determination following the close of the estimation process.). At the close of the estimation process, all parties will be able to evaluate whether they oppose or join such a future motion to transfer trial venue to the district court in which the claim arose. Such a determination, however, need not be made during the initial stage of this Chapter 11 case, when the focus must
9 be on the efficient administration of the Debtors Chapter 11 case. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

IV. CONCLUSION Because efficiency is best achieved by this Courts transfer of the Related Cases to the Bankruptcy Court, at least at first, id., the Archdiocese respectfully requests that this Court enter an order transferring the Related Cases to the Bankruptcy Court, or, in the alternative, issue findings of fact and recommendations to the District Court for the Western District of Washington to enter a corresponding order. DATED this 17th day of February, 2012. PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S. Attorneys for Party-in-Interest Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle By:_____/s/ Michael A. Patterson______________ Michael A. Patterson, WSBA No. 7976 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone:(206) 462-6700 Facsimile: (206) 462-6701 Email: map@pattersonbuchanan.com

239 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 13 of 15
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8-1
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 17, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Transfer Related Cases From the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains Division) with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and served counsel by the below method indicated: Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael T. Pfau Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC Columbia House 403 Columbia Street, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Facsimile: (206) 623-3624 Telephone: (206) 462-4335 Attorneys for Debtor Scott S. Markowitz Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP 1350 Broadway, 11th Floor New York, NY 10018 Facsimile: (212) 216-8001 Telephone: (212) 216-8000 Congregation of Christian Brothers Jack Mostyn 33 Pryer Terrace New Rochelle, NY 10804 Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province a/k/a Western Province a/k/a Eastern Province a/k/a American Province Brother Daniel Casey 7412 Monroe Avenue Elizabeth, NJ 07201 (Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)

240 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 14 of 15
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8-1
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 8-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)

241 Ent. 02/17/12 13:47:45 Pg. 15 of 15
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 8-1
Filed 02/17/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-14
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Proposed Order Pg 1 of 2
Doc. 8-2
1 2 3 4 5 In re:
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40601-6 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County) Adv. Pro. 12-01111-TWD
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Upon the motion, dated February 17, 2012 (the Motion) to transfer the above17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - 1

F.C., B.C., D.K., J.S., J.M., and M.Y., Plaintiffs, vs. CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
referenced adversary proceeding from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York; and upon the memorandum of law, dated February 17, 2012 in support thereof; and authorities and argument have been presented to this Court; and it appearing to the Court that the Motion is one properly brought under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5) and/or Rule 7087 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure; and it further appearing that the transfer of
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-14
Doc. 8-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the above-captioned adversary proceeding will facilitate the economical and efficient administration of the Debtors estate; and good cause appearing therefore; it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the above-captioned adversary proceeding be and it is hereby transferred from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains Division). Dated: Seattle, Washington March ___, 2012 ________________________________________ THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY W. DORE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - 2

11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-15 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Motion to Extend Time Pg 1 of 3
Doc. 9
1 2 3 4 5 In re:
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA Plaintiffs, vs. Adv. Pro. 12-01112-TWD CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants. MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County)
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. 101 et seq. 23 24 25
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS - 1

W.D.,
The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (the Archdiocese), party-ininterest, by and through its counsel, Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch & Kalzer, Inc., P.S., respectfully states as follows: 1. On April 28, 2011 (the Petition Date), the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for
(the Bankruptcy Code). The Debtors Chapter 11 case is pending in the United States
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court) before the Honorable Robert D. Drain under case number 11-22820 (RDD). 2. By Notice of Removal dated February 2, 2012 (ECF No. 1), the Debtor removed
the above-referenced state court action to this Court. 3. Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9027-1(c), the removing party shall within
21 days of filing a notice of removal, file a report of the proceedings from the court from which the action was removed. As such, the Archdiocese was required to file the report of
proceedings on February 23, 2012. 9 4. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 possible that this Court will not retain jurisdiction, as the primary Chapter 11 case related to 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

By motion dated February 17, 2012 (ECF No. 8), the Archdiocese sought to
transfer venue of the removed proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York where the Debtors Chapter 11 case is pending. The motion to transfer venue is scheduled to be heard on March 23, 2012. 5. By this application, the Archdiocese requests that this Court extend its time to
file the report of proceedings to April 2, 2012 in the event this Court retains jurisdiction over the removed proceedings. It would be burdensome upon the Court and the Archdiocese to file pleadings and other proceedings from the state court action in a situation where it is reasonably
this case is pending in New York. The only reason the removed proceedings are in this Court is that the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure require removal of a state court proceeding to be in a district court where the state court is located. Local Bankruptcy Rule 9027-1(c) seems to implement a policy of not filing a report of proceedings in the event the Court may not retain jurisdiction. Although Local Rule 9027-1(c) refers to remand, the reasoning applies
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
herein the result will be the same, i.e., the Court may not return jurisdiction if the motion to transfer venue is granted. WHEREFORE, the Archdiocese respectfully requests that the Court grant the Archdiocese an extension of time to file its report of proceedings to April 2, 2012 pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b) and 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. DATED this 23rd day of February, 2012.

11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-16
Doc. 9-1
1 2 3 4 5 In re:
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA Plaintiffs, vs. Adv. Pro. 12-01112-TWD CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants. ORDER GRANTING THE ARCHDIOCESE AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County)
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
ORDER GRANTING THE ARCHDIOCESE AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS - 1

W.D.,
Upon the motion, dated February 23, 2012 (the Motion) of the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (the Archdiocese), seeking an extension of time to file a report of proceedings in the above-referenced adversary proceeding; and good cause appearing therefor; it is hereby
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-16
Doc. 9-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Archdiocese is granted an extension of time to file its report of proceedings in the above-referenced adversary proceeding to April 2, 2012. Dated: Seattle, Washington February ___, 2012 ________________________________________ THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY W. DORE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-17 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Amended Answer and Cross Claim Pg 1 of 40
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6
HONORABLE TIMOTHY W. DORE
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON In re: THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE, et al.. Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA Plaintiffs, vs. Adv. Pro. 12-01112-TWD CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants. (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County)
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
DEFENDANT ARCHDIOCESES AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND CROSS-CLAIMS - 1
W.D.,
AMENDED ANSWER AND CROSS-CLAIM Defendant, Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (Archdiocese), a corporation sole, and in answer to Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages, hereby admits, denies and alleges as follows:
2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1.2, and therefore, denies same. 9 1.3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 denies the same. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1.4 1.1
I. INTRODUCTION In answer to paragraph 1.1 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is
without sufficient knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the allegations therein, and therefore, denies same. 1.2 In response to paragraph 1.2 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
admits Edward Courtney (Courtney) worked at ODea. Defendant Archdiocese is without sufficient knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the remainder of the allegations in paragraph
admits that ODea High School is a school owned by defendant Archdiocese and operated by the Christian Brothers (the Christian Brothers as used herein is a collective reference to the following organizations: Congregation of Christian Brothers, Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province a/k/a Western Province a/k/a Eastern Province a/k/a American Province, Christian Brothers Institute of California, Christian Brothers Institute of Michigan). As to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1.3, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and, therefore,
admits that the Christian Brothers is a teaching order that contracts to provide teachers and administrators in some schools. As to the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 1.4, the Archdiocese is without sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies the allegations contained therein.

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.5
In response to paragraph 1.5 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and, therefore, denies the same. 1.6 In response to paragraph 1.6 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies any knowledge that Courtney was molesting students at ODea. Defendant Archdiocese also denies any knowledge regarding Courtneys alleged molestation of minors or the reasons for assignments by the Christian Brothers. As to the remainder of the allegations contained therein, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
9 as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies the same. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 denies any knowledge that Courtney suffered from psychological problems or that Courtney abused minors. Defendant Archdiocese also denies any knowledge regarding Courtneys alleged abuse of minors or reasons for assignment by the Christian Brothers. As to the remainder of the allegations contained therein, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies same.
1.7
denies any knowledge that Courtney was molesting students at ODea. Defendant Archdiocese also denies any knowledge regarding Courtney or reasons for assignment by the Christian Brothers. Defendant admits Courtney worked at St. Alphonsus Parish School. As to the remainder of the allegations contained therein, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies same. In response to paragraph 1.8 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1.9
denies any knowledge that Courtney abused students prior to and during his time at ODea. Defendant Archdiocese also denies any knowledge regarding Courtneys alleged abuse of minors or reasons for assignment by the Christian Brothers. As to the remainder of the allegations contained therein, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies same. 1.10 In response to paragraph 1.10 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies any knowledge that Courtney abused students prior to and during his time at ODea. Defendant Archdiocese also denies any knowledge regarding Courtneys alleged abuse of
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1.12 To the extent the allegations in paragraph 1.12 of Plaintiffs Complaint are minors or reasons for assignment by the Christian Brothers. Defendant admits Courtney worked at St. Alphonsus Parish School. As to the remainder of the allegations contained therein, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, denies same. 1.11 To the extent the allegations in paragraph 1.11 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese denies the same. To the extent any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 1.11 calls for a legal conclusion, defendant
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese denies the same. 1.13 To the extent the allegations in paragraph 1.13 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese denies the same. To the extent any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 1.13 calls for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto.

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.14
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese denies the same. To the extent any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 1.14 calls for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. II. 2.1 PARTIES
In answer to paragraph 2.1 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is
9 2.2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 denies the same. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2.3 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 2.3 of Plaintiffs Complaint are admits it is a sole, non-profit corporation with its principal place of business located in King County, Washington and that it owns ODea High School. As to the remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.2, the terms and phrases owned, operated, managed and controlled ODea High School call for legal conclusions, and as such are referred to the Court, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. As to any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 2.2, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, In answer to paragraph 2.2 of plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese


11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 2.5 In answer to paragraph 2.5 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 2.6 In answer to paragraph 2.6 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3.2 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3.1 In answer to Paragraph 3.1 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
admits that its primary administrative offices are located in King County, Washington. To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.1 of Plaintiffs Complaint calls for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers the same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. As to any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 3.1, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.2 of Plaintiffs Complaint,
calls for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers the same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. As to any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 3.2, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to from a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same.

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4.1
IV. FACTS To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.1 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese admits that Edward Courtney attended Catholic schools within the Seattle Archdiocese. Defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.2 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.2 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information 9 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 denies the same. 4.4 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.4 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.2 refer to Courtneys and other persons testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.2 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.3 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.3 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.4 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.5 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.5 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
9 directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 paragraph 4.7 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.8 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.8 of Plaintiffs Complaint are sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.7 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.7 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.9 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.9 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
denies the same. 4.11 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.11 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.12 refer to Courtneys and other persons testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.12 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto.

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4.13
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.13 refer to Courtneys and other persons testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.13 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto.
9 4.14 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.15 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.16 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.16 of Plaintiffs Complaint are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.15 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.15 of Plaintiffs Complaint are To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.14 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.16 refer to Courtneys and other persons testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.16 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.17 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.17 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
9 denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.17 refer to testimony, the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.18 refer to testimony, the 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.18 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.19 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.19 of Plaintiffs Complaint are testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.17 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.18 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.18 of Plaintiffs Complaint are


11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.20 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.20 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information 9 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.23 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.23 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denies the same. 4.22 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.22 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.23 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.24 In answer to paragraph 4.24 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
admits Courtney worked at ODea. To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.24 of Plaintiffs Complaint are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same.
9 4.25 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 4.26 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.25 refer to Courtneys and other persons testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.25 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.26 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.27 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.27 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.29 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.30 In answer to the allegations in paragraph 4.30 of Plaintiffs Complaint,
defendant Archdiocese denies any knowledge of Courtneys alleged molestation of minors and his alleged visits to therapists. Defendant Archdiocese also denies any knowledge of the Christian Brothers alleged history of abuse at Briscoe Memorial School and ODea. Defendant Archdiocese also denies any knowledge of Courtneys alleged sexual abuse of minors at ODea. As to the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 4.30, defendant
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 pedophilia. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4.32 In answer to the allegations in paragraph 4.32, defendant Archdiocese denies any knowledge that Courtney molested minors at ODea and other schools. Defendant Archdiocese also denies that it immediately became aware of the abuse alleged in paragraph 4.32. As to the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.32, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same.
Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.31 In answer to the allegations in paragraph 4.31, defendant Archdiocese is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. Defendant Archdiocese denies any alleged long history of harboring pedophiles and in fact the Archdiocese of Seattle was, and still is, a recognized leader among religious organizations in addressing concerns over detection of

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4.33
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.33 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.33 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto.
9 4.34 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 4.35 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.36 In answer to paragraph 4.36 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.34 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.35 In answer to paragraph 4.35 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is In answer to paragraph 4.34 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.36 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
paragraph 4.36 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.37 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.37 of Plaintiffs Complaint are

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.39 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.40 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.40 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.40 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant
9 Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.42 refer to testimony, the 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.43 In answer to paragraph 4.43 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese 4.41 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.41 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
denies any knowledge regarding any alleged decision to place any alleged pedophile at ODea. As to the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 4.43, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.44 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.44 In answer to paragraph 4.44 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies any knowledge of Courtneys alleged molestation of students at ODea. The Archdiocese admits Courtney worked at ODea. To the extent the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.44 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained
9 therein and, therefore, denies the same. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.46 refer to testimony, the 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.46 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.47 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.47 of Plaintiffs Complaint are 4.45 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.45 of Plaintiffs Complaint are


11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.47 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.47 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.48 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.48 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.48 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.48 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.49 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.49 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.49 refer to testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.49 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto.

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4.50
denies any knowledge of Courtneys alleged molestation of students at ODea. The Archdiocese admits Courtney worked at ODea. To the extent the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.50 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.51 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.51 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information 9 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 denies the same. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4.54 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.54 of Plaintiffs Complaint are denies the same. 4.52 In answer to paragraph 4.52 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.53 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.53 of Plaintiffs Complaint are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore,
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.55 In answer to paragraph 4.55 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies any knowledge of Courtneys alleged molestation of boys before and at ODea. The

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Archdiocese admits Courtney worked at ODea. To the extent the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.55 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.56 To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.56 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same.
9 4.57 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurate y cited, and therefore, defendant 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.58 call for legal conclusions, such as mandatory reporting laws, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 4.59 In answer to paragraph 4.59 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.58 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.58 of Plaintiffs Complaint are To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.57 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.58 refer to McGraws testimony,
admits Courtney worked at ODea. To the extent that the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.59 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.59 call for legal conclusions, such as mandatory reporting laws, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 4.60 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.60 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
9 documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4.62 In answer to paragraph 4.62 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.61 In answer to paragraph 4.61 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies any knowledge or awareness of Courtneys alleged abuse of minors at ODea. To the extent that the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.61 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.61 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when
admits it did not report Courtney to the authorities or try to prevent Courtney from teaching because it denies having knowledge of Courtneys alleged abuse of minors. To the extent that the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.62 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same.

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4.63
To the extent that the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.63 of Plaintiffs
Complaint are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.63 refer to Courtneys testimony, the testimony speaks for itself when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answers thereto. 4.64 In answer to paragraph 4.64 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies any knowledge of Courtneys alleged abuse of minors at ODea. To the extent that the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.64 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 denies the same. The Archdiocese denies any knowledge that Courtney was a serial sexual 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 predator. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.65 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 4.66 In answer to paragraph 4.66 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.64 call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers the same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 4.65 To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 4.65 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
admits Courtney was arrested for felony indecent liberties with a minor. To the extent the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.66 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 4.67 In answer to paragraph 4.67 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
admits Courtney pled guilty to a felony charge of indecent liberties with a minor. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 4.67 refer to documents, the documents speak for themselves when fully and accurately cited, and therefore, defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. To the extent the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.67 are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
9 truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 specifically denies the allegations therein. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4.68
admits that in the past five years men have made claims of being physically and sexually abused by Courtney, thirty years after the alleged conduct. As to the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.68, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. V. CAUSES OF ACTION 5.1 In answer to paragraph 5.1 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
5.1 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.2 In answer to paragraph 5.2 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
specifically denies the allegations therein.

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
5.3
specifically denies the allegations therein. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.4 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.5 In answer to paragraph 5.5 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
9 specifically denies the allegations therein. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 incorporates all relevant prior and subsequent responses and, to the extent this paragraph 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
5.5 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.6 In answer to paragraph 5.6 of plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies the allegations therein. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.6 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.7 In answer to paragraph 5.7 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
requires any separate or additional response, denies the same. 5.8 In answer to paragraph 5.8 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
specifically denies the allegations therein. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.8 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto.

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
5.9
specifically denies the allegations therein. The Archdiocese further states that with regard to policies and procedure regarding the allegations of sexual abuse, the Archdiocese of Seattle was, and still is, a recognized leader among religious organizations in trying to protect and heal victims of such abuse and addressing concerns over detection of pedophilia. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.9 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.10 In answer to paragraph 5.10 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
9 specifically denies the allegations therein. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 specifically denies the allegations therein. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
5.11
To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.11 of Plaintiffs
Complaint are directed towards defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.11 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.12 In answer to paragraph 5.12 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
5.13
specifically denies the allegations therein. 5.14 In answer to paragraph 5.14 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
incorporates all relevant prior and subsequent responses and, to the extent this paragraph requires any separate or additional response, denies the same.

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
5.15
specifically denies that Courtney was acting within the course and scope of employment during his alleged abuse, and that defendant Archdiocese is liable under the doctrine of respondent superior. Defendant Archdiocese also denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 5.15. To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.15 call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.16 In answer to paragraph 5.16 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies all the allegations therein. In addition, the terms and phrases, actual and apparent agents call for a legal conclusion, and as such, are referred to the Court and therefore,
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.19 In answer to paragraph 5.19 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese defendant Archdiocese makes no answer thereto. 5.17 In answer to paragraph 5.17 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies the allegations. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.17 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.18 In answer to paragraph 5.18 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies the allegation therein. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.18 of Plaintiffs Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the
incorporates all relevant prior and subsequent responses and, to the extent this paragraph requires any separate or additional response, denies the same. 5.20 To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.20 of Plaintiffs
Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
makes no answer thereto. To the extent the remaining allegations in paragraph 5.20 of Plaintiffs Complaint are directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 5.21 To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.21 of Plaintiffs
Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. Defendant Archdiocese specifically denies having any knowledge of Courtneys alleged violations of Chapter 9.68A RCW and therefore, denies having violated Chapter 9.68A RCW. To the extent the remaining allegations in paragraph 5.21 are directed to
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RCW 9.68A.130. 5.23 In answer to paragraph 5.23 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. 5.22 To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.22 of Plaintiffs
Complaint call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. Defendant Archdiocese specifically denies having any knowledge of Courtneys alleged violations of Chapter 9.68A RCW and therefore, denies plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorneys fees and costs against defendant Archdiocese, pursuant to
denies the allegations therein. To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.24 call for

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.25 In answer to paragraph 5.25 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
denies the allegations therein. To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.25 call for a legal conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 5.26 In answer to paragraph 5.26 of Plaintiffs Complaint, defendant Archdiocese
incorporates all relevant prior and subsequent responses and, to the extent this paragraph 9 requires any separate or additional response, denies the same. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 conclusion, defendant Archdiocese refers same to the Court and makes no answer thereto. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
5.27
Paragraph 5.27 of Plaintiffs Complaint appears to consist of rhetoric and allege
no actual facts and therefore, defendant Archdiocese is unable to admit or deny and therefore denies the same. 5.28 To the extent the allegations in paragraph 5.28 of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to defendant Archdiocese, defendant Archdiocese is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, denies the same. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 5.28 call for a legal
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER, defendant Archdiocese denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought in their Prayer for Relief against defendant Archdiocese. Defendant Archdiocese denies any allegations not expressly admitted herein.

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
VII. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER and without waiving any allegations previously denied, the following affirmative defenses are asserted: 1. 2. 3. The Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. To the extent that the Plaintiffs allege inappropriate conduct by the alleged
Christian Brothers Perpetrators, any such acts were outside the scope of his duties, responsibilities, and mission as a Christian Brother.
9 4. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 caused by the intentional misconduct of others. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Damages, if any, sustained by the Plaintiffs were proximately caused by their
own actions or omissions so as to bar or reduce recovery herein. 5. Damages, if any, sustained by the Plaintiffs were proximately caused by persons
other than defendant Archdiocese and for whom defendant Archdiocese has no responsibility, either direct or vicarious. 6. Damages, if any, were caused in whole or in part by other non-parties at fault,
including the State of Washington and King County. 7. Damages, if any, sustained by the Plaintiffs must be segregated from those
8. 9.
Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. Plaintiffs damages, if any, were proximately caused by an intervening cause,
which was the superseding cause of the alleged damages. 10. Plaintiffs have failed to join necessary parties without whom complete relief
cannot be granted, to wit, Courtney.

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
11.
Pursuant to the laws of the state of Washington, defendant Archdiocese is
entitled to an allocation of fault under the determination of proportionate share of entities/individuals causing damages if recovery is sought. 12. Plaintiffs claims touch on issues of the nature, extent and administration of the
religious ministry, including application of Canon Law to the service of priests and clergy and, therefore, are barred from consideration and/or are not actionable in this forum pursuant to the mandates of the United States and Washington State Courts and additional provisions regarding separation of church and state.
9 13. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 A. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1. Defendant Archdiocese references the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint, and incorporates all admissions, denials, and allegations in the Archdioceses Amended Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint as set out in all the preceding paragraphs. 2. Representation of Existing Fact: The Christian Brothers repeatedly represented, FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUD relief can be granted. 14. In the event these Plaintiffs have filed a petition for bankruptcy, this State Court Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against defendant Archdiocese upon which
has no jurisdiction over this claim. 15. 16. The imposition of punitive damages is not recognized under Washington law. The imposition of punitive damages would violate the Washington State
Constitution and United States Constitution. VIII. DEFENDANT ARCHDIOCESES CROSS-CLAIMS
as fact, that they possessed no knowledge of alleged abusers who had previously engaged in sexual misconduct with children and/or of their dangerous propensities, yet were brought to

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
work in the Seattle Archdiocese at Briscoe Memorial School and ODea High School. Defendant Christian Brothers acted in concert to conceal and suppress their knowledge concerning the known dangerous propensities of such abusers. The Christian Brothers made false representations regarding existing material facts to the Archdiocese, specifically including but not limited to the following: 2.1 In 1954, a Christian Brother who was believed to have abused children at Briscoe was allowed to remain at Briscoe where ten years later the Christian Brothers noted that this Brother should not be permitted to
9 return and that he keeps certain boys with himself. The handling of 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Christian Brothers failed to communicate with the Archdiocese these 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3. facts regarding Brother Courtney prior to his transfer to ODea. Materiality: The Christian Brothers misrepresentations regarding their 2.2 this Brother was never shared with the Archdiocese. Prior to Brother Courtneys transfer to ODea High School, the Christian Brothers received a complaint by a parent that Brother Courtney had a sexual encounter with his son at St. Laurence High School in Chicago. They referenced another complaint involving a similar episode with another student and Brother Courtney the previous year. Brother Courtney was removed from St. Laurence and accepted at ODea. The
knowledge and information that alleged abusers at Briscoe and ODea had previously engaged in sexual misconduct with children and/or knew of their dangerous propensities, and that the Christian Brothers concealed and suppressed that abuse or knowledge of the abusers dangerous propensities, were material because the Seattle Archdiocese would not have entered

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
into a joint defense agreement and/or would not have listed and provided for the Christian Brothers liability insurance coverage if they had known of this knowledge. 4. Falsity: The representation that the Christian Brothers possessed no knowledge
or additional information that showed the alleged abusers had either previously engaged in sexual misconduct with children and/or knew of the abusers dangerous propensities was false, as was the representation that the Christian Brothers had no evidence that showed they had concealed and suppressed the abuse or knowledge. As the Archdiocese only learned after several lawsuits and numerous discovery productions, the Christian Brothers did in fact have
9 this knowledge and information, but they simply chose not to disclose that information or 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 that sexual abuse and/or dangerous propensities was false. They knew or should have known 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that these representations were false because they produced evidence after the Archdiocese entered into a joint defense agreement and provided for liability insurance coverage. 6. Intent: The Christian Brothers intended that the Archdiocese rely upon their knowledge prior to the Archdioceses agreement regarding settlements and liability insurance coverage. 5. Knowledge of Falsity: The Christian Brothers knew or should have known that
their representation that they had no knowledge or additional information that showed the alleged abusers had either previously engaged in sexual misconduct with children and/or knew of the abusers dangerous propensities was false. They also knew or should have known that their representation that they had no evidence showing that they had concealed and suppressed
misrepresentations when the Archdiocese entered into their joint defense agreement with them and provided for liability insurance coverage because they knew that they would not agree to the split in monetary responsibility, the joint defense, or coverage of liability insurance if they

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
maintained that they had no knowledge or information regarding the abusers previous engagement in sexual misconduct with children or such dangerous propensities, and that no evidence existed regarding their concealment or suppression of that knowledge. The Christian Brothers intended that joint defense agreement terms and liability insurance coverage would reflect the statements that the Christian Brothers had no knowledge or information showing that the abusers had previously engaged in sexual misconduct with children or showed such dangerous propensities, and that they had no evidence showing that they had concealed and suppressed that knowledge.
9 7. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 relied upon the Christian Brothers to truthfully represent what knowledge and information they 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 possessed regarding the abusers previous sexual misconduct with children or such dangerous propensities, as well as their concealment and suppression, and the Archdioceses reliance caused them to enter into a joint defense agreement and provide for liability insurance coverage. 9. Archdiocese had a right to rely upon the Christian Brothers: The Archdiocese Christian Brothers were making false representations when they repeatedly indicated that they had no knowledge or information showing that the abusers had engaged in sexual misconduct with children or showing such dangerous propensities, and that they had no evidence that showed the Christian Brothers had concealed and covered-up that misconduct. This is particularly true where the Archdiocese did not have access to the internal records of the Christian Brothers and such evidence should have been produced upon requested discovery. 8. Archdioceses Reliance on the Truth of the Representations: The Archdiocese Archdioceses Ignorance of Falsity: The Archdiocese had no idea that the
had a right to rely upon the Christian Brothers to truthfully represent what knowledge or

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
information they possessed regarding the abusers previous sexual misconduct with children or such dangerous propensities, as well as their concealment and suppression of such knowledge or information, because the Archdiocese had a agreement with the Christian Brothers to operate Briscoe and ODea (schools within the Seattle Archdiocese), the Archdiocese did not have access to the Christian Brothers internal records, such evidence should have been produced upon requested discovery, and the Christian Brothers were in the best position to assert the existence or non-existence of that knowledge or information. The Archdiocese had no way of knowing that the statements and representations of the Christian Brothers were misleading and
9 fraudulent. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 B. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11. Defendant Archdiocese references the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint, and incorporates all admissions, denials, and allegations in the Archdioceses Amended Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint as set out in all the preceding paragraphs. 12. At all times material to Plaintiffs Complaint, ODea High School was a school SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: CONTRIBUTION 10. Consequent Damage: As discussed above, the Archdiocese has suffered
damages because of the misrepresentations by the Christian Brothers. The Archdiocese was damaged because the misrepresentations of the Christian Brothers caused them to enter into a joint defense agreement and provided for the Christian Brothers liability insurance coverage they had no idea that knowledge or information existed that the abusers previously engaged in sexual misconduct with children and/or possessed such dangerous propensities and that the Christian Brothers concealed and suppressed this knowledge and information.
owned by defendant Archdiocese and operated by Christian Brothers pursuant to a written agreement.

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
13.
Plaintiffs Complaint occurred at or near ODea High School. 14. Pursuant to RCW 4.22.040, a right of contribution exists between two or more
parties who are jointly and severally liable upon the same indivisible claim for the same injury or harm. 15. Accordingly, the Christian Brothers are, or may be liable to the Archdiocese for
all or part of the claims asserted against the Archdiocese in the above-captioned action. 16. Pursuant to the above statute, defendant Archdiocese is entitled to contribution
9 from defendant Christian Brothers for any judgment assessed against it in this case, as well as 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
any other losses, attorney fees, court costs, experts costs, litigation expenses, and any other expenses incurred by defendant Archdiocese as a result of the plaintiffs claims alleged in the Complaint. C. 17. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: IMPLIED INDEMNITY Defendant Archdiocese references the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs
Complaint, and incorporates all admissions, denials, and allegations in the Archdioceses Amended Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint as set out in all the preceding paragraphs herein. At all times material to Plaintiffs Complaint, ODea High School was a school
owned by defendant Archdiocese and operated by the Christian Brothers pursuant to a written agreement. 19. Many or all of the alleged acts or omissions giving rise to the allegations in
Plaintiffs Complaint occurred at or near ODea High School.

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
20.
A claim for implied indemnity arises when the relationship between the parties
is such that one party has incurred an obligation that the other should discharge. Central Washington Refrigeration, Inc. v. Barbee, 133 Wn.2d 509, 513, 946 P.2d 760 (1997). 21. Accordingly, the Christian Brothers are, or may be liable to the Archdiocese for
all or part of the claims asserted against the Archdiocese in the above-captioned action. 22. Pursuant to the doctrine of implied indemnity, defendant Archdiocese is entitled
to indemnity and/or contribution from defendant Christian Brothers for any judgment assessed against it in this case, as well as any other losses, attorney fees, court costs, expert costs,
9 litigation expenses, and any other expenses incurred by defendant Archdiocese as a result of the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 agreement. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
plaintiffs claims alleged in the Complaint D. 23. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: EQUITABLE INDEMNITY Defendant Archdiocese references the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs
Complaint, and incorporates all admissions, denials, and allegations in the Archdioceses Amended Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint as set out in all the preceding paragraphs herein. 24. At all times material to Plaintiffs Complaint, ODea High School was a school
owned by defendant Archdiocese and operated by the Christian Brothers pursuant to a written
25.
Plaintiffs Complaint occurred at or near ODea High School. 26. Pursuant to the doctrine of equitable indemnity, a party may recover a damages
award of attorney fees expended as a result of being brought into litigation solely because of the actions of others. Manning v. Loidhamer, 13 Wn. App. 766, 538 P.2d 136 (1975).

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
27.
Accordingly, the Christian Brothers are, or may be liable to the Archdiocese for
all or part of the claims asserted against the Archdiocese in the above-captioned action. 28. The acts or omissions of defendant Christian Brothers as herein alleged exposed
defendant Archdiocese to litigation in the present case. Pursuant to the doctrine of equitable indemnity, defendant Archdiocese is entitled to indemnity and/or contribution from defendant Christian Brothers for any judgment assessed against it in this case, as well as any other losses, attorney fees, court costs, expert costs, litigation expenses, and any other expenses incurred by defendant Archdiocese as a result of the plaintiffs claims alleged in the Complaint. IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ON CROSS-CLAIMS Defendant Archdiocese requests that judgment be entered on its cross-claims as follows: 1. Awarding defendant Archdiocese damages on its cross-claims in an amount to
be established at trial. 2. 3. Awarding defendant Archdiocese its costs and attorney fees; and, Awarding defendant Archdiocese any further relief which the Court finds
appropriate, equitable or just. X. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This defendant reserves the right to amend its Answer by way of adding affirmative defenses, counterclaims, cross-claims, or third-party claims as the existence of such claims is discovered in the future. XI. DEFENDANTS PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiffs Complaint, this defendant prays for judgment as follows:

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 10 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1. prejudice; 2.
For dismissal of the cause of action asserted against this defendant with
For an award of attorneys fees, cists, and expenses incurred herein by this
defendant to the fullest extent allowed by law; and 3. For such further and other relief as the court may deem just and equitable.
DATED this 9th day of February, 2012.
By:
/s/ Michael A. Patterson_____________ Michael A. Patterson, WSBA No. 7976 Karen A. Kalzer, WSBA No. 25429 Of Attorneys for Defendant Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 11 -
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 11 -
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 12 -
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 12 -
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-20 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Unsigned Order Re: #9 Pg 1 of 2
Doc. 13 -
1 2 3 4 5 In re:
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA Plaintiffs, vs. Adv. Pro. 12-01112-TWD CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants. ORDER GRANTING THE ARCHDIOCESE AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County)
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

W.D.,
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 13 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Archdiocese is granted an extension of time to file its report of proceedings in the above-referenced adversary proceeding to April 2, 2012. Dated: Seattle, Washington March ___, 2012 ________________________________________ THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY W. DORE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

11-22820-rdd Docket 312-2114,Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Entered on Doc March 2012 Submitted But Not Entered Pg 1 of 2
Doc. 14 -
Submitted But Not Entered.
1 2 3 4 5 In re: 2.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT _______________________ WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTONDore Timothy W.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
1. Missing attorney's signature. FRBP 9011. Chapter 11 Does not comply with the formatting requirements of LBR 9021-1(d).
Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
__________________________________________________________________
W.D., Plaintiffs, vs. Adv. Pro. 12-01112-TWD CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants. ORDER GRANTING THE ARCHDIOCESE AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County)
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-21 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Submitted But Not Entered Pg 2 of 2
Doc. 14 -
Submitted But Not Entered.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Archdiocese is granted an extension of time to file its report of proceedings in the above-referenced adversary proceeding to April 2, 2012. Dated: Seattle, Washington March ___, 2012 ________________________________________ THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY W. DORE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Debtors. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON In re: THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE, et al.. Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA Plaintiffs, vs. Adv. Pro. 12-01112-TWD CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants. ORDER GRANTING THE ARCHDIOCESE AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County)
W.D.,
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 15
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Archdiocese is granted an extension of time to file its report of proceedings in the above-referenced adversary proceeding to April 2, 2012. ///End of Order///
Presented by: /s/ Michael A. Patterson ______________ Michael A. Patterson, WSBA No. 7976 Attorneys for Party-in-Interest Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S. 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: (206) 462-6700 Facsimile: (206) 462-6701 Email: map@pattersonbuchanan.com
11-22820-rdd Docket 312-2315,Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Doc. 16 Entered on Doc March 2012 Order Granting Extension of Below is the Order of the Court. Time Pg 1 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Debtors. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

__________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON In re: THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE, et al.. Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA Plaintiffs, vs. Adv. Pro. 12-01112-TWD CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants.

W.D.,
(Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County)
ORDER GRANTING THE ARCHDIOCESE AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-23 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Order Granting Extension of Time Pg 2 of 2
Doc. 16 -
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Archdiocese is granted an extension of time to file its report of proceedings in the above-referenced adversary proceeding to April 2, 2012. ///End of Order///
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-24
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Objection Re: #8 Pg 1 of 13
Doc. 17 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
HONORABLE TIMOTHY W. DORE IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON In re: Chapter 11 THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE, et al., Debtors. W.D., NO. 11-2-40600-6 SEA Plaintiffs, v. CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants. (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County) Adv. Pro. 12-01112 (TWD) DEBTORS OBJECTION TO THE CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLES MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (WHITE PLAINS DIVISION) Case No. 11-22820 (RDD) (Jointly Administered)
The Christian Brothers Institute (CBI), one of the above-captioned debtors (the Debtor), hereby files this objection (the Objection) to The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattles (the Archdiocese) motion to transfer related cases from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
DEBTORS OBJECTION TO THE CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLES MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (WHITE PLAINS DIVISION) - 1
{Client/001718/BANK376/00467367.DOC;1 }
TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP 1350 Broadway, 11th Floor New York, New York 10018 Phone (212) 216-8000 Fax (212) 216-8001
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-24
Doc. 17 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Southern District of New York (White Plains Division) (the Motion). In support of the Objection, the Debtor respectfully states as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. In its papers, the Archdiocese is attempting to remove the Non-Debtor Action (as
defined below) from this Court to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the SDNY Bankruptcy Court). Such proposed removal is wholly improper and should be denied. As a basis for the proposed relief and as a jurisdictional hook, the Archdiocese asserts that the Non-Debtor Action is a core proceeding which is somehow related to the Debtors Chapter 11 case. It wrongfully asserts that the SDNY Bankruptcy Court has
jurisdiction over the Non-Debtor Action just as it did with respect to other cases that were removed from this Court to the SDNY Bankruptcy Court at the bequest of the Debtor. 2. What the Archdiocese seems to be missing here is that the Debtor CBI was a
named defendant in each of the cases that CBI sought to remove. Those actions certainly would affect the Debtors Chapter 11 case. With respect to the Non-Debtor Action, that is simply not the case. Indeed, as demonstrated below, the Debtor is not named as a party in the Non-Debtor Action and the Debtor submits that such action has nothing to do with the Debtor or its operations. The Debtor is a separate legal entity that is distinct from each of the named defendants. By way of example, the Christian Brothers Institute of California (one of the named defendants) is distinct from the Debtor. It has its own assets (i.e., fee ownership of Palma High School) and separate legal existence. Similarly, the Christian Brothers Institute of Michigan (another named defendant) has its own assets (i.e., fee ownership of Brother Rice High School)
{Client/001718/BANK376/00467367.DOC;1 }
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-24
Doc. 17 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
and separate legal existence. The outcome of the Non-Debtor Action will have no (or minimal impact) on the Debtors estate and its administration. 3. As such, the Archdiocese will be hard pressed to demonstrate the necessary
jurisdictional hook i.e., that the Non-Debtor Action arises in, or under, or is related to the Debtors Chapter 11 case for the simple reason that it is not. The Debtor submits that the SDNY Bankruptcy Court lacks jurisdiction over the Non-Debtor Action, and, as such, the Archdioceses request is defective. 4. Accordingly, the Debtor respectfully requests that the Archdioceses Motion be
denied in its entirety and the Court remand the Non-Debtor Action back to Washington State Court (as defined below). GENERAL BACKGROUND 5. On April 28, 2011 (the Petition Date), CBI and The Christian Brothers of
Ireland, Inc. (CBOI and together with CBI, the Debtors) each commenced their respective Chapter 11 case by filing a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code) in the SDNY Bankruptcy Court. 6. Pursuant to 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtors continue to
operate as debtors-in-possession. No trustee has been appointed. 7. The Debtors cases were consolidated for administrative purposes only, by order
dated May 2, 2011. Thereafter, by order dated May 18, 2011, the Debtors were authorized to retain Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP as bankruptcy counsel. 8. On May 11, 2011, the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of
{Client/001718/BANK376/00467367.DOC;1 }
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-24
Doc. 17 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Unsecured Creditors (the Committee). The Committee retained Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP as its counsel which was approved by an order of this Court dated July 14, 2011. 9. CBI is a domestic not-for-profit 501(c)(3) corporation organized under
102(a)(5) of the New York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law. CBI was formed in 1906 pursuant to Section 57 of the then existing New York Membership Law. The Not-for-Profit Corporation Law replaced the Membership Law effective September 1, 1970. The purpose for which CBI was, and continues to be, formed was to establish, conduct and support Catholic elementary and secondary schools principally throughout New York State. As a not-for-profit corporation, the assets, and/or income are not distributable to, and do not inure to, the benefit of its directors or officers. CBI depends upon grants and donations to fund a portion of its operating expenses. 10. The cause for the filing of these cases has been extensively detailed in the affidavit
pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-2 filed with the original petitions, and is referred to as if fully set forth herein. In short, the Debtors Chapter 11 cases were filed in an effort to resolve in one forum, the onslaught of litigation and claims asserted by alleged sexual abuse plaintiffs against the Debtors. Most, if not all, of the sexual abuse claims date back to the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. RELEVANT BACKGROUND A. Certain Tort Actions Transferred from this Court to SDNY Bankruptcy Court at CBIs request 11. In June of 2011, CBI filed four separate motions (the CBI Transfer Motions)
seeking to transfer the following four tort actions (the Removed Actions) from this Court to the SDNY Bankruptcy Court:
{Client/001718/BANK376/00467367.DOC;1 }
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-24
Doc. 17 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Case Caption L.W., T.J., R.T., H.W., and H.V. v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a sole corporation; Congregation of Christian Brothers-Brother Rice Province, Eastern American Province-Congregation of Christian Brothers, f/k/a Congregation of Christian Brothers-North American Province; and Christian Brothers Institute, a New York not for profit corporation
Case No. Adv. Pro. 11-01483 (TWD) No. 09-2-23995-9 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County) Adv. Pro. 11-01484 (TWD)
District United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington
R.P. v. Congregation of Christian Brothers-Brother Rice Province, Eastern American Province-Congregation of Christian Brothers, f/k/a Congregation of Christian BrothersNorth American Province; and Christian Brothers Institute, a New York not for profit corporation
No. 08-2-43603-9 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County) Adv. Pro. 11-01485 (TWD)
G.W., A.C., P.C., D.C., and T.M. v. Congregation of Christian Brothers-Brother Rice Province, Eastern American Province-Congregation of Christian Brothers, f/k/a Congregation of Christian Brothers-North American Province; and Christian Brothers Institute, a New York not for profit corporation K.A. and J.S. v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a sole corporation; Congregation of Christian BrothersBrother Rice Province, Eastern American ProvinceCongregation of Christian Brothers, f/k/a Congregation of Christian BrothersNorth American Province; Christian Brothers Institute, a New York not for profit corporation; and Congregation of Christian Brothers, a worldwide organization
No. 09-2-11108-1 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County) Adv. Pro. 11-01486 (TWD) No. 09-2-39247-1 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County)
12. Actions. 13.
Importantly, the Debtor was named as a defendant in each of the Removed
By order dated July 21, 2011, this Court granted one of the CBI Transfer Motions.
The other three CBI Transfer Motions were granted by this court via separate orders entered on July 22, 2011. Shortly thereafter, the Removed Actions were transferred from this Court to the SDNY Bankruptcy Court.
{Client/001718/BANK376/00467367.DOC;1 }
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-24
Doc. 17 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
B.
Archdiocese Attempts to Improperly Remove Tort Action 14. By the Motion, the Archdiocese is attempting to remove from this Court to the
SDNY Bankruptcy Court the following action (the Non-Debtor Action):1

Case Caption W.D. v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a sole corporation; Congregation of Christian Brothers; Congregation of Christian Brothers-North American Province a/k/a Western Province a/k/a Eastern Province a/k/a American Province; Christian Brothers Institute of California; Christian Brothers Institute of Michigan Case No. Adv. Pro. 12-01112 (TWD) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County) District United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington
15.
By way of background, on or about February 2, 2012, the Archdiocese filed a
Notice of Removal (the Removal Notice) with this Court with respect to the Non-Debtor Action (Docket No. 1).2 By filing such, the Archdiocese removed the Non-Debtor Action which was pending in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County (the Washington State Court) to this Court. The Removal Notice, however, was defective as it was only served on counsel to the plaintiff.3 16. Subsequently, on February 17, 2012, the Archdiocese filed the Motion seeking to
transfer the Non-Debtor Action from this Court to the SDNY Bankruptcy Court where the Debtors Chapter 11 case is pending.
Additionally, by separate motion, the Archdiocese is attempting to remove from this Court to the SDNY Bankruptcy Court the following action: F.C., B.C., D.K., J.S., J.M., and M.Y. v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a sole corporation; Congregation of Christian Brothers; Congregation of Christian BrothersNorth American Province a/k/a Western Province a/k/a Eastern Province a/k/a American Province; Adv. Pro. 1201112 (TWD) (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County; No. 11-2-4061-6 SEA). Contemporaneously herewith, the Debtor is filing an objection to the relief requested in that motion. 2 A copy of the Removal Notice is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. 3 A copy of the Declaration of Service (Docket No. 2) with respect to the Removal Notice is annexed hereto as Exhibit B. DEBTORS OBJECTION TO THE CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLES MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (WHITE PLAINS DIVISION) - 6
{Client/001718/BANK376/00467367.DOC;1 }
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-24
Doc. 17 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
17.
Importantly, the Debtor is not named as a defendant in the Non-Debtor Action. In
fact, the Debtor is a separate legal entity from any of the named defendants. 18. The Debtor submits that the Archdioceses proposed removal of the Non-Debtor
Action to the SDNY Bankruptcy Court is improper and should not be allowed by this Court. OBJECTION A. SDNY Bankruptcy Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Non-Debtor Action 19. By the Motion, the Archdiocese is attempting to remove the Non-Debtor Action
from this Court to the SDNY Bankruptcy Court. Such proposed removal is wholly improper and should be denied. As a basis for the proposed relief and as a jurisdictional hook, the Archdiocese seemingly relies upon 28 U.S.C. 157(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2)(B).4 Indeed, the Archdiocese asserts the following in Motion: [u]nder 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2)(B), the [SDNY] Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over the [Non-Debtor Action] . . . and the Claims . . . alleged therein, just as this Court found that it did for [Removed Actions], . . . for purposes of core proceedings, e.g., general administration of the Chapter 11 case, including such matters as allowance or disallowance of a claim and estimation of the Claims for purposes such as determining the feasibility of a reorganization.
4
Those sections provide in pertinent part as follows: (a) Each district court may provide that any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 shall be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district. (b)(1) Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11, referred under subsection (a) of this section, and may enter appropriate orders and judgments . . . (2) Core proceedings include, but are not limited to *** (B) allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate or exemptions from property of the estate . . .
{Client/001718/BANK376/00467367.DOC;1 }
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-24
Doc. 17 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Memorandum of Law at pp. 5-6; lines 21-24 (p.5); line 1 (p.6). The Archdioceses assertion, however, is wrong. The SDNY Bankruptcy Court does not have jurisdiction over the NonDebtor Action as it does over the Removed Actions. 20. What the Archdiocese seems to be missing here is that the Debtor CBI was a
named defendant in each of the Removed Actions and the outcome of that case would certainly affect the Debtors Chapter 11 case. Here, that is simply not the case. As noted above, the Debtor is not named as a party in the Non-Debtor Action and the Debtor submits that such action has nothing to do with the Debtor or its operations. The Debtor is a separate legal entity that is distinct from each of the named defendants. By way of example, the Christian Brothers Institute of California (one of the named defendants) is distinct from the Debtor. It has its own assets (i.e., fee ownership of Palma High School) and separate legal existence. Similarly, the Christian Brothers Institute of Michigan (another named defendant) has its own assets (i.e., fee ownership of Brother Rice High School) and separate legal existence. The outcome of the Non-Debtor Action will have no (or minimal impact) on the Debtors estate and its administration. See, e.g., Gordon v. Shirley Duke Assocs. (In re Shirley Duke Assocs.), 611 F.2d 15, 18 (2d Cir. 1979) (noting [a]s a general rule, a bankruptcy court has no jurisdiction to decide controversies between third parties which do not involve the debtor or [its] property, unless the court cannot complete its administrative duties without resolving the controversy); Coffey v. Anderson (In re PSLJ, Inc.), 873 F.2d 1140, 1989 WL 42477, *3 (4th Cir. April 27, 1989) (finding that because claims could not possibly affect the assets of the debtor or otherwise impact on the
{Client/001718/BANK376/00467367.DOC;1 }
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-24
Doc. 17 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
administration of the bankruptcy estate . . . [such] claims cannot be related to the bankruptcy proceeding . . .). 21. As such, the Archdiocese will be hard pressed to demonstrate the necessary
jurisdictional hook i.e., that the Non-Debtor Action arises in, or under, or is related to the Debtors Chapter 11 case for the simple reason that it is not. The Debtor submits that the SDNY Bankruptcy Court lacks jurisdiction over the Non-Debtor Action, and, as such, the Archdioceses request is defective. 22. B. Accordingly, the Debtor respectfully requests that the Motion be denied.
Removal of the Non-Debtor Action from the Washington State Court was Improper 23. The Archdioceses Removal Notice is similarly defective. Indeed, such Removal
Notice is wholly premised on the fact that the SDNY Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over the Non-Debtor Action. For the reasons stated above, such court does not. See Cook v. Cook, 220 B.R. 918, 923 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1997) (quoting Jennigan v. Ashland Oil Inc., 989 F.2d 812, 815 (5th Cir. 1993) (noting that the removing party must establish that the court has jurisdiction to hear the removed case). 24. Additionally, the Removal Notice is defective as it was not served on any of the
parties to the Non-Debtor Action (other than plaintiffs counsel) as required under Rule 9027(b) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the Bankruptcy Rules). Bankruptcy Rule 9027(b) provides that [p]romptly after filing notice of the removal, the party filing the notice shall serve a copy of it on all parties to the removed claim or cause of action. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027(b). Because the Archdiocese failed to comply with such rule, the removal was defective
{Client/001718/BANK376/00467367.DOC;1 }
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-24
Filed 05/01/12 Objection Re: #8
Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Pg 10 of 13
Doc. 17 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
and remand of the Non-Debtor Action to the Washington State Court is warranted. See In re Ellis (Mills v. Ellis), Adv. No. 10-6015, 2010 WL 3218590, *3 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Aug. 12, 2010) (noting that [t]he failure to properly serve the Notice of Removal results in remand of the case to the state court). 25. Accordingly, the Debtor respectfully submits that the Removal Notice was
defective, and, as such, the relief requested in the Motion should be denied. C. The Archdiocese Improperly Applies 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5) 26. The majority of the Archdioceses Motion focuses on 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5) and
its application. The Archdioceses focus, however, is misplaced. Section 157(b)(5) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides as follows: [t]he district court shall order that personal injury tort and wrongful death claims shall be tried in the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending, or in the district court in the district where the claim arose, as determined by the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending. 27. Reading the statutory language, one quickly realizes that there is an underlying
premise which first must be satisfied prior to applying this section i.e., that the district court / bankruptcy court have appropriate jurisdiction. As discussed supra, that is certainly not the case with respect to the Non-Debtor Action. 28. Accordingly, the Debtor submits that the Archdioceses Motion papers are
defective and should be denied.
{Client/001718/BANK376/00467367.DOC;1 }
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-24
Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Pg 11 of 13
Doc. 17 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
CONCLUSION 29. WHEREFORE, the Debtor respectfully requests that this Court deny the Motion
in its entirety and grant such other and further relief as is just and appropriate. DATED this 16th day of March, 2012. TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP Attorneys for The Christian Brothers Institute Debtor and Debtor-in-Possession By: /s/ Scott S. Markowitz Scott S. Markowitz Eric H. Horn 1350 Broadway, 11th Floor New York, New York 10018 Telephone: (212) 216-8000 Facsimile: (212) 216-8001 Email: smarkowitz@tarterkrinsky.com ehorn@tarterkrinsky.com
{Client/001718/BANK376/00467367.DOC;1 }
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-24
Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Pg 12 of 13
Doc. 17 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 16, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing Debtors Objection to the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattles Motion to Transfer Related Cases From the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains Division) with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and served counsel below by the method indicated: Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael T. Pfau, Esq. Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC Columbia House 403 Columbia Street, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Attorneys for Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle Michael A. Patterson, Esq. Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch & Kalzer, Inc., P.S. 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121 Congregation of Christian Brothers Jack Mostyn 33 Pryer Terrace New Rochelle, NY 10804 Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province a/k/a Western Province a/k/a Western Province a/k/a Eastern Province a/k/a American Province Brother Daniel Casey 7412 Monroe Avenue Elizabeth, NJ 07201 (Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)
{Client/001718/BANK376/00467367.DOC;1 }
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-24
Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Pg 13 of 13
Doc. 17 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Christian Brothers Institute of California Patrick D. Dunne, Agent for Service 919 Iverson Street Salinas, CA 93901 Christian Brothers Institute of Michigan John E. Birney, Agent for Service Brother Rice High School 7101 Lahser Road Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
(Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)
/s/ Karen Menendez Karen Menendez Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP
{Client/001718/BANK376/00467367.DOC;1 }
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-25
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibit A Pg 1 of 6
Doc. 17-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-25
Doc. 17-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-25
Doc. 17-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-25
Doc. 17-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-25
Doc. 17-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-25
Doc. 17-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-26
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibit B Pg 1 of 3
Doc. 17-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-26
Doc. 17-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-26
Doc. 17-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-27 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Reply to Debtors Objection Pg 1 of 8
Doc. 18 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In re: 8 9 10 11 W.D., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 vs. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants. THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE, et al.. Debtors.
Judge: Timothy W. Dore Chapter: 11 Hearing Location: U.S. Courthouse Seattle, WA Hearing Date: April 27, 2012 Hearing Time: 9:30 AM Response Date: March 16, 2012
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County) Adv. Pro. 12-01112-TWD ARCHDIOESES REPLY TO DEBTORS OBJECTION TO CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLES MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (WHITE PLAINS DIVISION)
The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (the Archdiocese), as party-ininterest, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby replies (the Reply) to the Debtors Objection to the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattles Motion to Transfer
ARCHDIOCESES REPLY TO DEBTORS OBJECTION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - 1

323 Ent. 03/20/12 14:34:34 Pg. 1 of 8
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 18
Filed 03/20/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 18 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Related Cases From the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains Division). In support of its Reply, the Archdiocese respectfully states as follows: REPLY1 A. All Parties Were Served With The Notice of Removal 1. The Debtor The Christian Brothers Institute (Debtor CBI) misleads this Court
by incorrectly stating that the Notice of Removal was only served on counsel for the plaintiffs. Rule 9027(b) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure allows for service [promptly] after filing [the] notice of removalon all parties to the removed claim or cause of
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 B. Christian Brothers Entities Are Related 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3. In the Transferred Actions, Debtors, defendant NAP and the Archdiocese are action. Plaintiffs counsel was served with the Notice of Removal on February 6, 2012, in accordance with the Rule. The remaining parties to the removed action were then later served on February 16, 2012, also in accordance with the Rule. The Declaration of Service providing proof of such service can be found at Docket No. 5 and attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Rule specifically allows for service in this manner and service was therefore timely and proper. 2. Moreover, the Archdiocese properly removed the Related Actions to this Court
and where jurisdiction for the Related Actions is proper for the reasons stated below.
named defendants in those civil actions originally filed in King County Superior Court, alleging childhood sexual abuse at Briscoe Memorial School and ODea High School. In the course of
1
Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Reply shall have the meanings and definitions ascribed to them in the Motion to Transfer Related Cases from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains Division) (the Motion). Rather than repeat arguments raised by the Archdiocese in the Motion, the Archdiocese incorporates the Motion by reference for all purposes. PATTERSON BUCHANAN ARCHDIOCESES REPLY TO DEBTORS FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S. OBJECTION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER RELATED CASES FROM THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TO Seattle WA 98121 Tel. 206.462.6700 Fax 206.462.6701 THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - 2

324
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 18
Filed 03/20/12
Ent. 03/20/12 14:34:34
Pg. 2 of 8
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 18 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
such actions, Debtor CBI seems to distinguish CBI from NAP. Debtor CBI has asserted that CBI was not responsible for the operation of Briscoe or ODea, but that NAP was. Prior motions have sought the dismissal of CBI as a defendant but not NAP. 4. Based on the above conflicting positions, the issue of the relationship between
defendant NAP and Debtor CBI is currently being addressed by the Honorable Robert D. Drain for the SDNY Bankruptcy Court and has been identified from the beginning of the Debtors Chapter 11. See excerpts of proceedings before Judge Drain attached hereto as Exhibit B. Judge Drain is looking at which entity is really just a pseudonym for the debtor, or legally might be responsible for the debtor or not and recognizes that it needs to be dealt with in a
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 6. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

definitive way. Id. 5. Debtor CBI argues and submits that the Related Actions have nothing to do
with the Debtor or its operations. At the same time, Debtor CBI states that its Chapter 11 cases were filed in an effort to resolve in one forum, the onslaught of litigation and claims asserted by alleged sexual abuse plaintiffs against the Debtors. In Washington State, those alleged sexual abuse plaintiffs assert allegations similar to those plaintiffs in the Related Actions and at the very same schools ODea High School and Briscoe Memorial School. Plaintiffs in two of Transferred Actions, currently before the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York (the SDNY Bankruptcy Court), stated in their Complaints that [CBI]received compensation for the Christian Brothers who served at ODeaand other schools in the United States and at all relevant times acted as the principal organization in the supervision of the [other] Christian Brothers [defendants]. See Complaints for K.A., et al and L.W., et al attached hereto as Exhibit C.
325 Ent. 03/20/12 14:34:34 Pg. 3 of 8
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 18
Filed 03/20/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 18 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
7.
Moreover, while two of the Transferred Actions (K.A., et al. v. Corporation of
the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, et al and L.W., et al. v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, et al.) were pending in state court, counsel for defendant NAP asserted that the Automatic Stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362 stays any further action against both Debtor CBI and defendant NAP. In asserting this argument, NAP cited to In re Johns-Manville Corp., 26 B.R. 420, 436-37 (Bankr., S.D.N.Y. 1983) where that court held that a stay applies to co-defendants where action could affect property of debtor (emphasis added). 8. Additionally, in the Notice of Bankruptcy Petition and Automatic Stay filed in
9 the state court, Debtor CBI asked the court to stay the claims against them and defendant NAP 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

because they asserted that any decisions or judgments against the NAP may also adversely affect Debtor CBI. 9. The contract governing the operation of ODea High School, a Catholic high
school operated and administered by the Christian Brothers in Seattle, Washington and part of both the Transferred Actions and the Related Actions, was signed in 1973 by the VicePresident and Provincial for the Debtor, as well as, the Superior General for the Congregation of the Brothers of the Christian Schools of Ireland. See contract attached hereto as Exhibit D. Additionally, the contract states that it is an agreement entered into between the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattleand the Congregation of Christian Brothers Western Province. Id. Moreover, Debtor CBI and defendant NAP have jointly participated in payment of liability settlements for abuse occurring at ODea High School. See Excepts from state court filings attached hereto as Exhibit E. Although Debtor CBI has asserted that it is an entity apart and unconnected to NAP, past documents and events show otherwise.
326 Ent. 03/20/12 14:34:34 Pg. 4 of 8
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 18
Filed 03/20/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 18 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10.
In addition, the contract governing the Christian Brothers operation of Briscoe
Memorial School, the now closed school for boys located in Kent, Washington and part of the Transferred Actions and Related Actions, was signed in 1914 by trustees designated by the head of the religious order of the Catholic Church, known as the Christian Brothers of Ireland. See contract attached hereto as Exhibit F. Two of the three signatories to the Briscoe contract were signatories to Debtor CBIs articles of incorporation. Id. and articles of incorporation attached hereto as Exhibit G. The Debtor has had a large amount of involvement with Briscoe along with the unincorporated Christian Brothers entity, NAP.
9 11. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Christian Brothers is clearly named in both policies, the Debtor has disclosed these policies as 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Among the insurance policies that were issued to the Seattle Archdiocese also
naming the Congregation of Christian Brothers, two have been disclosed as assets in Debtor CBIs Schedules. A Maryland Casualty Company policy stated the named insured as,
Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle[and]Congregation of the Christian Brothers, but only with respect to the operation of ODea High School. See policy attached hereto as Exhibit H. A Pacific Indemnity policy stated the named insured as Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, Briscoe Memorial School and Congregation of Christian Brothers. See policy attached hereto as Exhibit I. Although defendant Congregation of the
assets in its Chapter 11. See Schedule B attached hereto as Exhibit J. While Debtor CBI states that this action, naming defendant Congregation of Christian Brothers, has nothing to do with the Debtor; it lists policies naming that same defendant as an insured as its own asset. 12. Additionally, the Archdiocese is in the process of filing a Proof of Claim against
the Debtors, as well as against parties that may be divisions, alter egos, related entities or
327 Ent. 03/20/12 14:34:34 Pg. 5 of 8
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 18
Filed 03/20/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 18 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
effectively subsidiaries of the Debtors, based upon certain alleged abuse cases brought against the Archdiocese as a joint defendant with the Debtors and other related parties. The factual background in the Removed Actions, two of the Transferred Actions, and other actions that are in the process of removal and transfer are the subject of the Archdioceses Proof of Claim. 13. Debtor CBI has asserted an unsupported argument regarding lack of jurisdiction
by failing to show how the jurisdiction is not proper for this action so clearly related to the Debtor and their Chapter 11 case. The Archdiocese properly established jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5) where the transfer of all personal injury tortclaims that are related to the above-captioned Chapter 11 case from this Court to the SDNY Bankruptcy is
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

permitted.
DATED this 20th day of March, 2012. PATTERSON BUCHANAN FOBES LEITCH & KALZER, INC., P.S. __/s/ Michael A. Patterson______________ Michael A. Patterson, NYSBA Reg. No. 3615283 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: (206) 462-6700 Facsimile: (206) 462-6701 Email: map@pattersonbuchanan.com Attorneys for the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle Party-In-Interest
328 Ent. 03/20/12 14:34:34 Pg. 6 of 8
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 18
Filed 03/20/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 18 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 20, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing Motion to Transfer Related Cases From the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains Division) with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and served counsel by the below method indicated: Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael T. Pfau Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC Columbia House 403 Columbia Street, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Facsimile: (206) 623-3624 Telephone: (206) 462-4335 Attorneys for Debtor Scott S. Markowitz Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP 1350 Broadway, 11th Floor New York, NY 10018 Facsimile: (212) 216-8001 Telephone: (212) 216-8000 Congregation of Christian Brothers Jack Mostyn 33 Pryer Terrace New Rochelle, NY 10804 Congregation of Christian Brothers North American Province a/k/a Western Province a/k/a Eastern Province a/k/a American Province Brother Daniel Casey 7412 Monroe Avenue Elizabeth, NJ 07201 (Via Regular Mail)
(Via ECF)
(Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)

329 Ent. 03/20/12 14:34:34 Pg. 7 of 8
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 18
Filed 03/20/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 18 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(Via Regular Mail)
(Via Regular Mail)

330 Ent. 03/20/12 14:34:34 Pg. 8 of 8
Case 12-01112-TWD
Doc 18
Filed 03/20/12
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-28
Doc. 18-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-28
Doc. 18-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-28
Doc. 18-1
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-29
Doc. 18-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-29
Doc. 18-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-29
Doc. 18-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-29
Doc. 18-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-29
Doc. 18-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-29
Doc. 18-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-29
Doc. 18-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-29
Doc. 18-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-29
Doc. 18-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-29
Doc. 18-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-29
Doc. 18-2
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-30
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibit C Pg 1 of 10
Doc. 18-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-30
Doc. 18-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-30
Doc. 18-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-30
Doc. 18-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-30
Doc. 18-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-30
Doc. 18-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-30
Doc. 18-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-30
Doc. 18-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-30
Doc. 18-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-30
Doc. 18-3
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-31
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibit D Pg 1 of 4
Doc. 18-4
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-31
Doc. 18-4
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-31
Doc. 18-4
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-31
Doc. 18-4
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-32
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibit E Pg 1 of 4
Doc. 18-5
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-32
Doc. 18-5
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-32
Doc. 18-5
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-32
Doc. 18-5
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-33
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibit F Pg 1 of 8
Doc. 18-6
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-33
Doc. 18-6
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-33
Doc. 18-6
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-33
Doc. 18-6
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-33
Doc. 18-6
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-33
Doc. 18-6
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-33
Doc. 18-6
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-33
Doc. 18-6
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-34
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibit G Pg 1 of 4
Doc. 18-7
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-34
Doc. 18-7
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-34
Doc. 18-7
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-34
Doc. 18-7
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-35
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibit H Pg 1 of 2
Doc. 18-8
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-35
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibit H Pg 2 of 2
Doc. 18-8
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-36
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibit I Pg 1 of 2
Doc. 18-9
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-36
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibit I Pg 2 of 2
Doc. 18-9
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-37
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibit J Pg 1 of 2
Doc. 18-10
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-37
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibit J Pg 2 of 2
Doc. 18-10
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-38 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Second Motion to Extend Time Pg 1 of 3
Doc. 19
1 2 3 4 5 In re:
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA Plaintiffs, vs. Adv. Pro. 12-01112-TWD CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants. SECOND MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County)
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. 101 et seq. 23 24 25
SECOND MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS - 1

W.D.,
The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (the Archdiocese), party-ininterest, by and through its counsel, Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch & Kalzer, Inc., P.S., respectfully states as follows: 1. On April 28, 2011 (the Petition Date), the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for
(the Bankruptcy Code). The Debtors Chapter 11 case is pending in the United States
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court) before the Honorable Robert D. Drain under case number 11-22820 (RDD). 2. By Notice of Removal dated February 2, 2012 (ECF No. 1), the Debtor removed
the above-referenced state court action to this Court. 3. Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9027-1(c), the removing party shall within
21 days of filing a notice of removal, file a report of the proceedings from the court from which the action was removed. As such, the Archdiocese was originally required to file the report of proceedings on February 23, 2012.
9 4. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Extension to File Report of Proceedings (ECF No. 13) allowing the Archdiocese until April 2, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2012 to file its report of proceedings in the above-referenced adversary proceeding. 7. On March 19, 2012, with agreement from The Christian Brothers Institute, Inc., transfer venue of the removed proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York where the Debtors Chapter 11 case is pending. The motion to transfer venue is scheduled to be heard on March 23, 2012. 5. By separate motion dated February 23, 2012 (ECF No. 9), the Archdiocese By motion dated February 17, 2012 (ECF No. 8), the Archdiocese sought to
sought to extend its time to file the report of proceedings to April 2, 2012 in the event this Court retains jurisdiction over the removed proceedings. 6. On March 15, 2012, this Court entered the Order Granting the Archdiocese an
the Archdioceses Motion to Transfer Venue was continued to be heard on April 27, 2012. 8. By this application, the Archdiocese requests that this Court again extend its
time to file the report of proceedings to May 11, 2012 in the event this Court retains jurisdiction over the removed proceedings. It would be burdensome upon the Court and the Archdiocese to

11-22820-rdd
Doc. 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
file pleadings and other proceedings from the state court action in a situation where it is reasonably possible that this Court will not retain jurisdiction, as the primary Chapter 11 case related to this case is pending in New York. The only reason the removed proceedings are in this Court is that the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure require removal of a state court proceeding to be in a district court where the state court is located. Local Bankruptcy Rule 9027-1(c) seems to implement a policy of not filing a report of proceedings in the event the Court may not retain jurisdiction. Although Local Rule 9027-1(c) refers to remand, the
reasoning applies herein the result will be the same, i.e., the Court may not return jurisdiction if 9 the motion to transfer venue is granted. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

WHEREFORE, the Archdiocese respectfully requests that the Court grant the Archdiocese an extension of time to file its report of proceedings to May 11, 2012 pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b) and 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. DATED this 28th day of March, 2012.
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-39
Doc. 19-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Debtors. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
ORDER GRANTING THE ARCHDIOCESE A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS - 1

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON In re: THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE, et al.. Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA Plaintiffs, vs. Adv. Pro. 12-01112-TWD CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants. ORDER GRANTING THE ARCHDIOCESE A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County)
W.D.,
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-39
Doc. 19-1
1 2 3 4
Upon the motion, dated March 28, 2012 (the Motion) of the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (the Archdiocese), seeking a second extension of time to file a report of proceedings in the above-referenced adversary proceeding; and good cause appearing therefor; it is hereby
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Archdiocese is granted an extension of time to file its report of proceedings in the above-referenced adversary proceeding to May 11, 2012. ///End of Order///
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-40
Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Unsigned Order Pg 1 of 2
Doc. 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Debtors. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
ORDER GRANTING THE ARCHDIOCESE A SECOND EXTENSION TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS - 1

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON In re: THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE, et al.. Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40601-6 SEA (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County) Adv. Pro. 12-01111-TWD CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE, Defendants. ORDER GRANTING THE ARCHDIOCESE A SECOND EXTENSION TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
F.C., B.C., D.K., J.S., J.M., and M.Y., Plaintiffs, vs.
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-40
Doc. 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Upon the motion, dated March 28, 2012 (the Motion) of the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (the Archdiocese), seeking a second extension of time to file a report of proceedings in the above-referenced adversary proceeding; and good cause appearing therefor; it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Archdiocese is granted an extension of time to file its report of proceedings in the above-referenced adversary proceeding to May 11, 2012. ///End of Order///
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
ORDER GRANTING THE ARCHDIOCESE A SECOND EXTENSION TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS - 2

11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-41
Doc. 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Debtors. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON In re: THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE, et al.. Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA Plaintiffs, vs. Adv. Pro. 12-01112-TWD CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants. ORDER GRANTING THE ARCHDIOCESE A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County)
W.D.,
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-41
Doc. 21
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11-22820-rddDocket March 30, 2012 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Doc. 22 Doc 312-42 Filed Entered on Below is Order 2 Order Granting Second Extension of TimethePg 1 ofof the Court.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Debtors. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

__________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON In re: THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE, et al.. Chapter 11 Case No. 11-22820-RDD Southern District of New York (Jointly Administered) No. 11-2-40600-8 SEA Plaintiffs, vs. Adv. Pro. 12-01112-TWD CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLE, a sole corporation; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS; CONGREGATION OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS-NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCE a/k/a WESTERN PROVINCE a/k/a EASTERN PROVINCE a/k/a AMERICAN PROVINCE; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants.

W.D.,
(Removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County)
ORDER GRANTING THE ARCHDIOCESE A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-42 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Order Granting Second Extension of Time Pg 2 of 2
Doc. 22
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

11-22820-rdd
Doc 312-43 Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Notice of Appearance Pg 1 of 4
Doc. 23
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 23
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 23
11-22820-rdd
Doc. 23

Below Is The Order of The Court.: Entered On Docket May 1, 2012

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Below Is The Order of The Court.: Entered On Docket May 1, 2012

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

11-22820-rddon Docket MayFiled 05/01/12 Doc 312 1, 2012 Entered

_________________________ Timothy W. Dore U.S. Bankruptcy Court

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Ent. 05/01/12 10:38:52

Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Pg 2 of 2

/// End of Order///

Ent. 05/01/12 10:38:52

V. Defendant Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a sole corporation

Defendant Congregation of Christian Brothers

represented by Congregation of Christia PRO SE

represented by Congregation of Christia PRO SE

represented by Christian Brothers Instit PRO SE

Defendant Christian Brothers Institute of Michigan

represented by Christian Brothers Instit PRO SE

CrossClaimant Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, a sole corporation

represented by Michael A Patterson (See above for address)

V. Cross Defendant Congregation of Christian Brothers

represented by Congregation of Christia PRO SE

6 Case 12-01112-TWD Doc 1 Filed 02/02/12 Ent. 02/02/12 12:21:11 Pg. 1 of 5

7 Case 12-01112-TWD Doc 1 Filed 02/02/12 Ent. 02/02/12 12:21:11 Pg. 2 of 5

8 Case 12-01112-TWD Doc 1 Filed 02/02/12 Ent. 02/02/12 12:21:11 Pg. 3 of 5

9 Case 12-01112-TWD Doc 1 Filed 02/02/12 Ent. 02/02/12 12:21:11 Pg. 4 of 5

10 Case 12-01112-TWD Doc 1 Filed 02/02/12 Ent. 02/02/12 12:21:11 Pg. 5 of 5

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 1 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 2 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 3 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 4 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 5 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 6 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 7 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 8 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 9 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 10 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 11 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 12 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 13 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 14 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 15 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 16 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 17 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 18 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 19 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 20 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 21 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 22 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 23 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 24 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 25 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 26 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 27 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 28 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 29 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 30 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 31 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 32 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 33 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 34 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 35 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 36 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 37 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 38 of 50

Filed 05/01/12 Entered 05/03/12 17:29:09 Exhibits Part 1 Pg 39 of 50