In a refreshing but rare example of judicial humility, Judge Deborah Alessi of Saint Charles County told the attorneys in the case that she was a Catholic before hearing a substantive motion in a case against the St. Louis Archdiocese. Lowering her voice to but a whisper as she asked the attorneys to come forward, she disclosed the potential conflict and noted she had ruled on other cases. Both attorneys waived the issue and moved forward.
The case stems from a lawsuit filed on July 24, 2024, in the Circuit Court of Saint Charles County, Missouri, by three plaintiffs — M.O., A.D., and J.H. — against the Archdiocese of St. Louis and Archbishop Mitchell Rozanski. The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Ken Chackes, while the Archdiocese is represented by attorney Andrew Wheaton.
According to the lawsuit, the defendants have knowingly facilitated, concealed, and covered up the sexual abuse of minors by their employees for many decades. Additionally, the defendants have hidden their own deliberate misconduct in enabling this abuse by exploiting the trusting and confidential relationships they fostered with the plaintiffs when they were vulnerable children. This egregious cover-up lasted for years, allowing various clergy and employees to access and abuse many children, including the plaintiffs, while obstructing the plaintiffs from uncovering their legal claims against the defendants for both negligent and intentional actions.
The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit to hold the defendants accountable for the harm they have caused and to protect other children from the trauma of childhood sexual abuse.
The legal proceedings took a turn on November 14, 2024, when the defendants filed a motion to sever misjoined claims. The defendants requested the court to separate the claims brought by the three plaintiffs, who collectively allege ten distinct causes of action related to sexual abuse.
The defendants argue that the plaintiffs’ claims are improperly joined, as they do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence. Each plaintiff’s allegations involve different alleged abusers, varied timelines, and locations, spanning over 20 years and multiple venues in and outside St. Charles County. The motion emphasizes that the plaintiffs have named ten different alleged abusers, none of whom are connected to each other or to the claims of the other plaintiffs.
The defendants seek a court order to sever the claims, highlighting the lack of commonality among the allegations and the necessity for individualized legal arguments.
In response, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion on March 14, 2025, contesting the defendants’ request to sever misjoined claims. The plaintiffs assert that their claims against the defendants are interconnected and arise from a shared history of institutional misconduct that enabled the abuse.
The plaintiffs argue that their claims are properly joined under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 52.05, which permits multiple plaintiffs to join in one action if their claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence and share common questions of law or fact. They contend that the defendants engaged in a systematic cover-up of abuse, which created a common nucleus of facts binding their cases together.
Highlighting the broader policy in Missouri favoring permissive joinder, the plaintiffs emphasize that their claims are factually and legally interrelated, despite the differences in specific details. They assert that joining the claims promotes judicial economy, reduces litigation costs, and avoids inconsistent results that might arise from separate trials.
The plaintiffs reference the Ingham case, where the court upheld the permissibility of joinder despite significant differences among multiple plaintiffs’ claims. They argue that, similar to that case, their claims are rooted in the same underlying misconduct of the Archdiocese and that the evidence and legal issues are sufficiently similar to warrant a joined action.
The plaintiffs counter the defendants’ claims of prejudice, asserting that any potential issues regarding differing damages or proof can be adequately managed within a single trial. They argue that severance would lead to redundant discovery processes and unnecessary expenses.
Conclusively, the plaintiffs request that the court deny the motion to sever, advocating for the continuation of their claims in a unified manner to facilitate a more efficient judicial process.
At the end of the matter, Judge Alessi took the motion under advisement and joked, “I ruled for both of you today!”
