|
NEW YORK---A controversial attorney known for his sex abuse litigation against Roman Catholic leaders has been fined $8,000 by a federal judge for bringing a series of "utterly baseless" lawsuits which claimed that the church's actions constituted racketeering.
John A. Aretakis, who maintains offices in Albany and New York, represented the plaintiff, the Rev. Robert Hoatson, in suing 10 defendants in four groups, including the New York Archdiocese and Cardinal Edward Egan; the Newark Archdiocese and Archbishop John J. Myers; the Congregation of Christian Brothers, Father John O'Brien, Br. Laurence Boschetto,2 and Br. Paul Kevin Hennessy; and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany and Bishop Howard J. Hubbard.
Hoatson claimed that for years he witnessed and experienced sexual abuse at the hands of the clergy, and that after he publicly exposed the abuse and cover up and the Catholic Church's handling of sexual abuse scandals, the defendants fired him from his position as Director of Schools at a Catholic school in Newark.
Hoatson had brought nine causes of action, two of which were based on federal law under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The seven other causes of action are state claims including violation of New Jersey statutory whistleblower laws; intentional infliction of emotional distress; tortious interference with employment; sexual abuse; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; and hostile work environment.
Last May, the defendants had jointly moved for sanctions against Aretakis, contending that an amended complaint filed by Aretakis in January was frivolous, brought in bad faith and for an improper purpose.
In his decision U.S. District Judge Paul A. Crotty wrote that "Taking Mr. Aretakis's behavior in this case as a whole, it is clear that his conduct is sanctionable because it is sloppy and unprofessional; the pleadings are so far removed from adequate that they cannot be said to have been filed in good faith or after a reasonable inquiry; the bulk of the allegations dealing with sexual abuse are wholly irrelevant to the RICO claim, and; the Title VII claim is admittedly without basis in law. http://www.nylawyer.com/adgifs/decisions/021307crotty.pdf
Crotty wrote that in bringing the RICO and the Title VII actions, Aretakis violated court rules because "no reasonable attorney would have believed these claims were 'warranted under existing law' given the wholly deficient facts of the case".
"Plaintiff simply alleges a conclusory allegation that the defendants do in fact comprise an 'enterprise' under RICO," the judge wrote. "Obviously, simply stating it does not make it so." He said the complaint similarly failed to adequately allege predicate acts or a pattern of activity.
"The Title VII claim fails in every possible way", the judge wrote. "Mr. Aretakis brought the complaint knowing that his client had not previously sought the requisite administrative relief as required by law; that the matter was time barred; and more importantly, the alleged discrimination for which he seeks relief is clearly not within the scope of the statute. By no stretch of the imagination was this claim brought in good faith after a reasonable inquiry into the law".
The judge said that Aretakis' complaint was "sloppy and filled with mistakes, for example, it names a dead man as a defendant".
"Mr. Aretakis has brought RICO claims on a frequent enough basis that he ought now to be held to a professional standard. Mr. Aretakis's pleadings are wholly inadequate. He proceeded in the face of well established law in this Circuit which squarely held that his client had no standing. He did not cite that law or acknowledge or refer to it in any way in the amended complaint. At oral argument, he maintained that his client had not been terminated as alleged numerous times in the amended complaint, but rather that his job had been stolen from him. The make-believe answer is unworthy of someone claiming to be a professional", Judge Crotty wrote in his decision.
"Finally, further evidence of Mr. Aretakis's motives is the drumbeat of publicity which Mr. Aretakis has sought. The day he and his client filed this complaint, he held a press conference to announce his lawsuit. This appears to be his common practice. The immediate link between the filing of the complaint and the press conference support the inference that Mr. Aretakis's intention was to injure. That intent is confirmed by Mr. Aretakis's statements in which he describes himself as an activist for clergy sexual abuse victims and is quoted as intending to "continue to humiliate and embarrass the Church" by bringing incidents of sexual abuse to light, even if he cannot bring them in court. This intent to humiliate and embarrass is further manifested in the amended complaint which is littered with wholly irrelevant, inflammatory, and embarrassing facts concerning defendants and non-defendants alike that have no bearing on the actions brought, such as "it was widely known that he [one of the defendants] was an alcoholic." Accordingly, the Court finds that sanctions are necessary in this case".
The $8,000 fine represents $2,000 to be paid to each of the four law firms representing the defendants.
In addition to the monetary sanction, Judge Crotty admonished Mr. Aretakis that "if he brings another RICO action in this District, he must immediately call to the attention of the judge assigned to the case that he has filed numerous RICO actions to date, that none have succeeded and that he was sanctioned in the amount of $8,000 in this proceeding for violating Rule 11."
Aretakis was quoted as saying that he was going to appeal the ruling and that he would file a state action on the state claims. 2-16-07
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed by anyone without the express written permission of the publisher. This article is copyright protected.
© 2007 North
Country Gazette
|
