1/31/2020 3:33 PM Debra Bynum WAYNE COUNTY CLERK STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE BRIEN DUX, MARIE DUX, PHYLLIS BAUSANO, oe AMY MCGUCKIN, MARY MCGUCKIN, CHARLIE MCGUCKIN; NANCY MCAULEY, DAVID KLEMMER, ROSMARIE ROBERTSON, JASON PYLAR, KAREN PYLAR, ROBERT REILLY, JEAN REILLY, TAMARA BERTOLLINI, DAVID ALLASIO, JOHN ALLASIO, EMILY ALLASIO, KATHRYN ALLASIO, SUE ALLASIO, and NANCY FLORES, Plaintiffs, G. MICHAEL BUGARIN and THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF DETROIT, an ecclesiastical entity, Defendants. James Varchetti (P79606) ROOSEN VARCHETTI & OLIVIER, PLLC Attorney for Plaintifis P.O. Box 2305 Mt. Clemens, MI 48046-2305 (586) 868-2737 james. varchetti@rvolaw.com A civil action between other parties arising out of the transaction or occurrence alleged in the complaint has been previously filed in this Court, where it was given case number 19-010951-NO and was assigned to Judge Dana M. Hathaway, The action remains pending. COMPLAINT 20-001579-NO FILED IN MY OFFICE Cathy M. Garrett Brien Dux, Marie Dux, Phyllis Bausano, Amy McGuckin, Mary MeGuckin, Charlie McGuckin, Nancy McAuley, David Klemmer, Rosmarie Robertson, Jason Pylar, Karen Pylar, Robert Reilly, Jean Reilly, Tamara Bertollini, David Allasio, John Allasio, Emily Allasio, KathrynAllasio, Sue Allasio, and Nancy Flores (“Plaintiffs”) state as follows for their Complaint and Jury Demand against G. Michael Bugarin (“Bugarin”) and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit (“AOD”) 1 Plaintiffs are members of The Ass imption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Parish (“Assumption Grotto”). Assumption Grotto is a Roman Catholic Parish within the AOD and Fr. Perrone served there from 1994 until the events giving rise to this Complaint. Fr. Perrone educated Plaintiffs and their children; baptized their babies; officiated at their Sacraments, including Marriage; and performed funeral rites when members of their family died. He was a daily, Holy presence in their lives. 2. In May 2018, a woman called in a complaint to the AOD, alleging that 40 years earlier her husband had been abused by a priest. A few months later and on the eve of the Pennsylvania grand jury report concerning clergy sex abuse, G. Michael Bugarin (who was charged with administering the AOD’s handling of sex abuse allegations) interviewed John Doe and, in that interview, John Doe categorically and repeatedly denied having been sexually abused by Fr. Perrone. However, John Doe told reporters from the Associated Press (“AP”) the AOD was allowing Fr, Perrone to remain in active ministry, although allegations of “inappropriate” conduct had been made ag stim. The reporters in turn contacted the AOD about John Doe's allegations. 3. Afraid of being tagged by the AP for not responding to allegations of clergy abuse, Bugarin twisted John Doe’s allegations and fabricated a rape charge against Fr. Perrone in order to force the AOD to remove Fr. Perrone and, thereby, shield the AOD and Bugarin from a negative AP story. On July 5, 2019, based on the false information provided by Bugarin, the AOD, through a press release and from the altar of Assumption Grotto, announced that Fr. Perrone had been o3a102921 2“credibly” accused of sexually abusing a minor, Fr. Perrone was barred from having any contact with parishioners of Assumption Grotto, including Plaintiff, 4, Plaintiffs were devastated by the announcement. Like Fr. Perrone, Plaintiff's are devout, traditional Roman Catholics. They were severely shocked, shamed, embarrassed and hur ated by the accusations against their priest and friend, Fr. Perrone, Bugarin and the AOD's actions caused Plaintiffs to experience severe emotional distress. They have questioned their loyalty to the current leadership of the AOD. 5. Bugarin is not a traditional Catholic and is opposed to many of Plaintiffs’ views and efforts to reform the Catholic Church. Bugarin knew that Plaintiffs would be especially harmed by the public repudiation of Fr. Perrone, Bugarin and the AOD’s conduct in creating false child-rape allegations against Plaintiffs’ long-time pastor and priest is the type of extreme and outrageous conduct Michigan law recognizes gives rise to a claim in tort, JURI ICTION AND VENUE 6. This court has jurisdiction over this action under MCL 600.605, ef. seq. Plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $20,000,000. 7. Venue is appropriate in this Court under MCL 600.1627 because all or part of the courses of action occurred in Wayne County. In the alternative, venue is appropriate under MCL. 600.1621 because the AOD is headquartered in Wayne County THE PARTIE! 8. Plaintiffs are each members of Assumption Grotto parish in Detroit, Michigan where Fr, Perrone served as pastor from 1994 until his abrupt and unjust temporary restriction from public ministry on July 5, 2019. Plaintiffs were each present for the AOD’s announcement o3a102921 dthat “credible” allegations of sex abuse of a minor had been made against Fr. Perrone or heard about the announcement soon thereafier. 9. Bugarin is a Catholic priest entrusted by Archbishop Vigneron with investigating and prosecuting claims of sex abuse made against clerics and others in the AOD. Bugarin assumed the role of spiritual advisor to John Doe. Despite this conflict, Bugarin maintained direct control over the investigation into John Doe's accusation against Fr. Perrone. 10. The AOD is an archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church covering several counties, including Wayne County. DEFENDANTS’ TORTIOUS CONDUCT i On May 24, 2018, John Doe’s wife called in a complaint to the AOD, asserting that her husband claimed to have been abused by Fr. Perrone 40 years earlier. John Doe did not want to make the complaint and declined to provide any additional information in response to the AOD’s efforts to follow up. In the May 24, 2018 call, statements were made by John Doe and his wife that suggested John Doe was atthe time under significant mental distress and, in September 2018, John Doe stated to Bugarin that he had no recollection of many of the things he is alleged to have said on the May 24, 2018 call. 12, During the summer of 2018, the prospective report of historic clergy sex abuse from the Pennsylvania grand jury was constantly in the news, Archbishop Allen Vigneron published two open letters addressed to clergy sex abuse on August 13, 2018, on the eve of the Pennsylvania grand jury report. This created an impetus to make sure the AOD was not a target for any similar report or the attendant bad press. On information and belief, a directive was issued to clean up any open complaints of abuse o3a102921 413. Therefore, and pursuant to Bugarin’s direction, on August 17, 2018, AOD Investigator James Smith went to John Doe’s home, without a warning o im ition, and told John Doe that the AOD was referring his May 24, 2018 call to the Macomb County Sheriff, whether John Doe wanted it to or not, Smith assured him that, once John Doe’s complaint was made public, others would come forward to join in his complaint about Fr. Perrone. John Doe told Smith that he wanted it to just go away. 14, Smith immediately contacted Macomb County Detective Sergeant Nancy LePage, a member of Bugarin’ s parish. LePage was not the person charged with investigating claims of clergy abuse at Macomb County Sheriff's Office, but Smith chose her as the person to investigate the claim. 15. LePage contacted John Doe for a brief phone interview and agreed to interview him in person on a different date. Contrary to the procedures set forth in the Michigan Model Policy: The Law Enforcement Response to Sexual Assault for Adults and Young Adults ("Model Policy"), LePage did not record this or any other interview with John Doe. She also shredded all of the notes she took of any interview conducted in connection with her investigation. 16, Other than confirming that John Doe's wife’s complaint was about Fr. Perrone, LePage recalls the discussion was limited to John Doe asking LePage whether she was Catholic. 17. LePage interviewed John Doe in person on August 27, 2018. Again, that interview was not recorded and LePage shredded the notes taken during the interview. 18, The report made by LePage contained lurid and bizarre details that John Doe refuuted a few weeks later in a recorded interview with Bugarin and Smith, The false “enhancements” LePage made to John Doe's statement include: o3a102921 5