LEGAL DOCUMENTS


November 4, 1994
Sr. Plante v. the Samaritans/FRNB

August 27, 1996
Summary Judgment Decision by Judge Volterra

February 26, 1997
Sr. Plante v. the Samaritans/FRNB and the Diocese of Fall River

July 3, 1997
Decision on Samaritans/FRNB's Motion to Dismiss

August 26, 1997
Sr. Plante's Motion to Amend Complaint

September 11, 1997
Decision on Diocese's Motion to Dismiss

February 26, 1998
Decision on Relief from Judgment Motion

September 23, 1998
Sr. Plante v. Robert George

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

NORFOLK,ss TRIAL COURT
SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT

BEVERLY PLANTE,
Plaintiff
v.
ROBERT GEORGE,
Defendant.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT
  1. The plaintiff is Beverly Plante. She is also known as Sister Michaelinda, RSM. Ms. Plante is a member of the Sisters of Mercy, a Rhode Island based religious order. She resides in Tiverton, Rhode Island.
  2. From July 1, 1985, through July of 1994, Ms. Plante was assigned by her order to the Diocese of Fall River, where Ms. Plante was Associate Superintendent for Elementary Schools. This employment was pursuant to serial yearly written employment agreements between Ms. Plante and the Diocese, which were renewed annually from 1985 to 1994.
  3. Prior to this employment, Ms. Plante worked as a principal of a religious school in Winchester, Massachusetts.
  4. Previous to July of 1994, Ms. Plante was contacted by a person named Yvonne George, regarding a dispute between the Samaritans of Fall River/New Bedford (the "Samaritans"), and would-be donors to that charity, many of whom lived in Winchester. The donors, who were offering donations to the Samaritans in the name of a young man named "Michael", who had attempted suicide, and eventually died of his wounds, despite the Samaritans' attempts at counseling him. The Samaritans had refused these donations.
  5. After being contacted by Ms. George, Ms. Plante attempted to mediate between the groups. Despite many attempts at mediation, Ms. Plante was never able to determine the reasons for the charity's refusal of donations on behalf of Michael.
  6. Ms. Plante never attended or organized any event, fundraising or otherwise, relating to this matter, and never raised money or solicited finds from anyone on behalf of the donors, or Michael. Ms. Plante never engaged in mail solicitation of funds for donation in Michael's name or otherwise.
  7. Ms. Plante's activity concerning this matter was strictly related to mediating a disagreement between what Ms. Plante then thought were two groups of well-meaning charities that had come into conflict.
  8. On August 15, 1994, Ms. Plante was asked to meet with her immediate supervisor, Father Beaulieu, and her community supervisor, Sister Rosemary Laliberte, who told her she was being put on leave because she was "stressed and tired." She was also told that Bishop O'Malley was threatened with a lawsuit by the Samaritans relating to her conduct, and that this was another reason she was being put on leave.
  9. Ms. Plante was locked out of her office immediately after her meeting with Father Beaulieu. Ms. Plante was also evicted from her home by the Diocese violating the terms of her contract with them.
  10. Ms. Plante was forced by the Diocese to submit to a medical and psychological evaluation, and it was implied that Ms. Plante was irrational and perhaps had lost her mental competence.
  11. Ms. Plante was humiliated, shamed, and suffered enormous emotional damages as a result of this and other conduct of the Diocese.
  12. This evaluation reflected that Ms. Plante was in perfect mental condition, except for the stress of the events described above. Ms. Plante had never been evaluated or treated for a mental illness before this insult, and Ms. Plante has had no mental treatment since. Ms. Plante has never been found to have any mental illness or lack of competency. Ms. Plante believed this "evaluation" was a pretext to discredit her and support her planned firing.
  13. After being put "on leave," Ms. Plante was forced to submit a letter of resignation. Ms. Plante was told by Father Beaulieu that her personal phone calls had been tape recorded, her mail had been read, and Ms. Plante had been under observation. Ms. Plante never wanted to leave her job of nine years, which Ms. Plante loved dearly.
  14. To Ms. Plante's knowledge, the Diocese had never had any complaints about her or her work up until these events.
  15. Since Ms. Plante was terminated by the Diocese, she has sent out scores of resumes and letters seeking employment in religious and public schools. In spite of credentials regarded as impressive, Ms. Plante has not received one offer of employment appropriate for her expertise. On information and belief, the Diocese is actively standing in her way of getting such employment.
  16. On November 4th, 1994, Ms. Plante brought an action in Norfolk Superior Court, known as Beverly Plante v. The Samaritans of Fall River/New Bedford, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 94-2369. This action asserted a claim for defamation against the Samaritans only. Ms. Plante initially retained Patrick McCormack to represent her in that case. About five months later, on April 3, 1995, Ms. Plante retained Attorney Robert George as counsel.
  17. During 1995, the Samaritans took numerous depositions, including Ms. Plante's deposition which took place on November 10 and November 17, 1995. The only deposition taken on Ms. Plante's behalf was of Barbara Makowski, a Samaritan volunteer. That deposition was conducted by Mr. McCormack. Although Mr. George scheduled the Bishop's deposition twice, he failed to appear each time.
  18. Ms. Plante repeatedly called Attorney George's office to inquire about how her case was going. Ms. Plante inquired orally and in writing about when and if additional defendants would be added, and also asked about when other conduct that was at issue would come up.
  19. Ms. Plante called Mr. George's office at least twice a week, on average, but only actually spoke to him twice that she remembers. Ms. Plante was always told that Attorney George was doing everything possible to assert any and all claims she had related to her termination by the Diocese.
  20. Despite Ms. Plante's repeated requests the primary actors in that case, including the Bishop and her former superiors Father Beaulieu and Sister Laliberte were never deposed, despite their intimate knowledge of the relevant events.
  21. The Bishop was present when Ms. Plante was defamed by the Samaritans, and could have testified as to their statements. In addition, Ellie Leite, Mike Moran, Pam Pollack, Lou Cabral, Paul Foster, Peter Paull, Esq., and Ann Denards were all present on behalf of the Samaritans. None of these people was deposed by Ms. Plante's counsel in the Norfolk action.
  22. In March of 1996, over eleven months after Ms. Plante retained Attorney George, the Samaritans filed a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the case. See Exhibit 1. Ms. Plante responded with a brief and affadavit. The Samaritans moved to strike key paragraphs of her affadavit on the basis that it was filled with unsupported hearsay. See Exhibit 2.
  23. Five months after the submission of the motion, briefs, her affadavit, and the motion to strike, the Court agreed with the defendants that she had not submitted enough non-hearsay factual support of her contentions, and dismissed her case. See Exhibit 3. In the five months between the filing of the motion to strike, and the Court's ruling, no depositions, supplemental affadavits, or other materials were proffered by Attorney George, even though he was aware of the motion to strike and the issues it raised.
  24. Mr. George neglected to engage in discovery, and when confronted with a motion for summary judgment filed flawed affadavits which were deemed by the Court to be insufficient to withstand the motion.


    Count 1: Breach of Contract

  25. Ms. Plante incorporates by reference in their entirety the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 above.
  26. The defendant expressly promised to represent Ms. Plante to the best of his ability and skill.
  27. Ms. Plante relied on this promise.
  28. The conduct above constitutes a breach of Attorney George's promise to represent Ms. Plante zealously.
  29. As a direct result of the defendant's breaches of contract, Ms. Plante suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.


    Count 2: Misrepresentation

  30. Ms. Plante incorporates by reference in their entirety the allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 29 above.
  31. By at least the errors and omissions described above the defendant made misrepresentations to Ms. Plante regarding the status of her case, and his intention to pursue all remedies available to her.
  32. Ms. Plante relied on those misrepresentations.
  33. As a direct result of the Defendant's misrepresentations and failures to disclose Ms. Plante suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.


    Count 3: Negligence

  34. Ms. Plante incorporates by reference in their entirety the allegation put forth in paragraphs 1 through 33 above.
  35. Attorney George assumed a duty of care towards Ms. Plante by at least the acts described above.
  36. Attorney George was negligent and breached that duty of care in his representation of Ms. Plante by at least the errors, acts and failures to act described above.
  37. Ms. Plante relied on Attorney George's legal advice to her detriment.
  38. As a direct and foreseeable result of the Defendant's conduct Ms. Plante suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.


    Count 4: Legal Malpractice

  39. Ms. Plante incorporates by reference in their entirety the allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 38 above.
  40. Attorney George held himself out as practicing law, and as competent [in] the areas of law involved in Ms. Plante's case.
  41. Ms. Plante engaged Attorney George to represent her, and he agreed to assume such representation.
  42. Attorney George was obligation to exercise skill and reasonable diligence in his representation of Ms. Plante. Attorney George negligently rendered service[s] to her by at least the errors, acts, and failures to act described above.
  43. Ms. Plante relied on Attorney George's legal advice to her detriment.
  44. As a direct result of the Defendant's conduct Ms. Plante suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.


    Count 5: Negligent infliction of emotional distress

  45. Ms. Plante incorporates by reference in their entirety the allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 44 above.
  46. By at least the acts described above Attorney George caused Ms. Plante extreme emotional distress, accompanied by physical symptoms.
  47. The emotional distress caused by Attorney George's negligence was foreseeable.
  48. Ms. Plante relied on Attorney George's legal advice to her detriment.
  49. As a direct and foreseeable result of the Defendant's conduct Ms. Plante suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.


    Count 6: M.G.L.c. 93A section 9

  50. Ms. Plante incorporates by reference in their entirety the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 through 38 above.
  51. The defendants each are engaged in the trade or commerce as defined by the M.G.L. c. 93A.
  52. Ms. Plante is engaged in business as defined by M.G.L. c. 93A.
  53. The defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees engaged in at least the willful and knowing unfair acts and/or practices detailed above in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A resulting in a loss of money or property to Ms. Plante, and entitling her to double and up to treble his damages together with his costs and attorney's fees.
  54. As a direct result of the Defendants' unfair and deceptive acts and/or practices, including their failure to make a reasonable offer of settlement in this matter despite their clear liability, Ms. Plante suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

WHEREFORE, Ms. Plante respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment against the defendants as follows:

  1. Award her damages suffered as a result of the Defendants' breach of contract, misrepresentations, negligence, and legal malpractice on Counts 1-4 above;
  2. Award her damages for emotional distress in an amount to be proved at trial on Count 4 above;
  3. Award her treble damages, costs and attorneys fees as a result of the defendant's unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices on Count 5.
  4. Award such other damages as shall be proven at trial, together with interest such as provided by law; and
  5. Enter such further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
JURY CLAIM

THE PLAINTIFF REQUESTS A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL COUNTS SO TRIABLE.

Plaintiff,
by her attorneys,


(signed)



Daniel Gindes, BBO 557499
5 Bessom Street
Marblehead, MA 01945-4000
(781) 639-5100
Susan Correia BBO
Correia-Champa & Mailhot
295 Devonshire Street
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 422-0400

Dated September 23, 1998

VERIFICATION

I, Beverly Plante, being also known as Sister Michaelinda, RSM, hereby affirm that I have read the Verified Complaint filed herewith, and that the factual statements made in that Complaint are true, based on my personal knowledge.


| BACK | GO TO TOP |
1