IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA * * * * APPEAL NO: 26939, 26940, 26941, 26942, 26943, 26944 * * * * Ralph Eagleman, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants , v. Wisconsin Province of the Society of Jesus and Rosebud Educational Society/ St. Francis Mission, et al. Defendants and Appellees * * * * APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT PENNINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA * * * * HONORABLE RODNEY J. STEELE Judge Pro Tem * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BRIEF OF APPELLANTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Gregory A. Yates Michael P. Shubeck Law Offices of Gregory A. Yates, PC 550 N. 5 th Street, Suite 318 Rapid City, SD 57701, Attorneys for plaintiffs and Appellants , Thomas G. Fritz Attorneys for defendant Rosebud Barbara Anderson Lewis Educational Society/St. Francis Mission and Lynn Jackson Shultz & Lebrun, PC Appellees PO Box 8250 Rapid City, SD 57709 Terry Pechota Pechota Law Offices Attorneys for defendant Wisconsin 1617 Sheridan Lake Road Province of the Society of Jesus and Rapid City, SD 57702 Appellees Gene Bushnell Costello, Porter, Hill, Heisterkamp, Bushnell and Carpenter LLP PO Box 290 Attorneys for defendant Father Kenneth Rapid City, SD 57709 Walleman * * * * Notices of Appeal filed January 6, 2014 * * * * TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................. iv JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ...................................................................... vi JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ...................................................................... vi LEGAL ISSUES .................................................................................................... vi STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ............................................................................ 1 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 9 I. IF THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED HB 1104 TO APPLY TO PENDING LITIGATION, THEN IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO THESE CASES ………………………………………………………………………………9 A. HB 1104 Is An Unconstitutional Bill of Attainder Because the Legislature Crafted the Bar of HB 1104 on the Facts of the Specific Cases Before This Court, These Plaintiffs Received Trial by the South Dakota Legislature .................................. 9 B. The South Dakota Legislature Specifically Targeted Plaintiffs’ Cases Because They Crafted Their Legislation Based on Testimony of Twisted Versions of the Facts of These Specific Plaintiffs’ Cases ................................................................ 10 C. Plaintiffs Are Being Punished Through Trial By Legislature .................. 11 D. If The Legislature Had Intended HB 1104 To Apply To Pending Litigation, It Would Be An Unconstitutional Targeting Of These Plaintiffs’ Right To Choose Out Of State Counsel ....................................................................................... 13 i E. If The Legislature Had Intended HB 1104 To Apply To Pending Litigation, It Would Be An Unconstitutional Direction Of A Rule Of Decision In Pending Litigation ......................................................................................................... 14 F. HB 1104 Cannot Be Applied To Litigation Pending Prior To Its Effective Date Because A Grace Period Is Constitutionally Required When A Statute Of Limitations Is Altered ................................................................................................... 15 G. This Court is bound by the United States Supreme Court interpretation of the US Constitution as to the relevance of legislative history for considering intentional discrimination by the South Dakota legislature in violation of the Constitution.......... 15 II. SDCL 26-10-25 APPLIES TO THE CASES AT HAND BECAUSE INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL CONDUCT BY WPSJ AND SFM HAS BEEN ALLEGED AND DEMONSTRATED ................................................................................................ 17 A. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether WPSJ and SFM were principals to childhood sexual abuse in this case because Defendants breached a legal duty to act ............................................................................................................. 18 B. Even if State v. Jucht requires an aider and abettor have the mental culpability of the crime, statutory rape is a general intent crime and WPSJ and SFM had the intent necessary ................................................................................................ 20 C. There is evidence that WPSJ and SFM had the intent to conceal under the separate theory that they perpetrated a criminal act currently punishable under SDCL 22-22-46 as a felony accessory ..................................................................................... 20 III. THERE IS A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO WHETHER SDCL 26-10-25 BARS PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS BECAUSE WPSJ AND ii SFM DID NOT ADDRESS THEIR BURDEN UNDER ZEPHIER................................ 21 IV THERE IS A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT TOLLING UNDER THE STRASSBERG STANDARD ……………………………………………………………………………21 A. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a reasonable person would be on notice of their causes of action for the abuse in this case. ....................... 23 B. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a reasonable person would be on notice of causes of action based on concealment and failure to prevent childhood sexual abuse by WPSJ and SFM. ................................................................. 31 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 31 REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT .................................................................. 1 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 1 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................. 2 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Cases Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp ., 429 U. S. 252, 266-268 (1977) ................................................................................................................................ 16 Boggs v. Adams , 45 F.3d 1056 (7 th Cir. 1995) ............................................................. vi, 15 Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. , 508 U.S. 520, 540 (1993) ....................................... 16 City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. , 473 US 432 (1985) ............................ 17 Cummings v. Missouri , 71 US 277, 323 (1867) .................................................... 10, 11, 12 Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp ., 2008 Ohio 546 (OH 2008) ................................................. 15 HP Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond , 336 US 525 (1949) .................................................. 16 In ex parte Garland , 71 US 333 (1866) ............................................................................ 12 Londoner v. City and County of Denver , 210 US 373 (1908) .......................................... 15 Nichols v. Bowersox , 172 F.3d 1068, 1073 (8th Cir. 1999) .............................................. 15 Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department Of Environmental Quality Of The State Of Oregon , 511 U.S. 93 (1994).............................................................................................. 13 Piotrowski v. City of Houston , 237 F. 3d 567 (5th Cir. 2001) .......................................... 31 Romer v. Evans , 517 US 620 (1996)................................................................................. 17 Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman , 487 U.S. 59 (1988) ..................................... vi, 14 United States v. Brown , 381 US 437, 447 (1965) ............................................................. 10 United States v. Klein , 80 U.S. 128 (1871) ............................................................ vi, 14, 16 United States v. Lovett , 328 U. S. 303, 315-316 (1946) ................................. 10, 11, 12, 16 Wilson v. Iseminger , 185 U. S. 55, 62-63 (1902).............................................................. 15 State Cases Bernie v. Abbey , 2012 S.D. 64, 821 N.W.2d 224 ............................................................. 17 Dunker v. Brown County Board of Education , 121 NW 2d 10 (SD 1963)....................... 15 Grover Curtis Mallory v. Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament, et al . (Civ. 09-700). Bradley Zell, May 25, 2010, Mem Op, pp. 10-12 .......................................................................... 24 Hinkle v. Hargens , 81 NW 2d 888 (SD 1957) .................................................................. 22 Holmes v. Wegman Oil Co. , 492 NW 2d 107 (SD 1992) ........................................... vii, 23 Koenig v. Lambert , 527 NW 2d 903 (1995). .................................................... 5, 22, 23, 30 State v. Austin , 172 NW 2d 284, 289 (SD 1969) ........................................................ vii, 19 State v. Fulks , 160 NW 2d 418, 420 (SD 1968) ............................................................... 20 State v. Hy Vee Food Stores, Inc ., 533 NW 2d 147, 149 (SD 1995) ................................ 18 State v.