Judge Denies Ortolanis’ Motion To Dismiss COJ Suit

BOSTON – A motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against the parents of a former Community of Jesus member by the Community and two other nonprofits was denied in U.S. District Court earlier this month. But the court agreed with striking some of the language in the original complaint.

In his May 4 decision, Judge Leo Sorkin called Ellen and David Ortolani’s motion to dismiss the case brought against them by the Community, Arts Empowering Life, Inc. and Performing Arts Foundation, Inc. an “overly drastic” sanction that would also cause further delay in the proceedings. 

The Ortolanis’ son, Oliver Ortolani, filed suit against the organizations in U.S. District Court last July. In the suit, Oliver Ortolani alleges that he and other children in the Community were subjected to “forced labor and trafficking” through their involvement in helping build the Community’s performing arts center in Brewster. It is alleged that students were part of a work program in which they were kept out of school to work, sometimes for as long as 16 hours a day with minimal breaks. The suit also alleges that children were “abused” and “shunned” if they resisted or complained, and that Community members that oversaw the work hid children from government inspectors when they visited the worksite.

The three organizations in November filed their own suit against Ellen and David Ortolani, who they allege organized the work program that is the basis of their son’s suit. The plaintiffs are seeking compensation related to costs incurred in defending themselves in the suit brought by the younger Ortolani.

As part of their suit, the organizations point to waivers allegedly signed by Ellen and David Ortolani consenting to Oliver’s participation in the work on the performing arts center.

In their motion to dismiss, the Ortolanis claimed that the plaintiffs violated Rule 8(a) of the federal rules of civil procedure by failing to provide a “short and plain statement” of the facts of their case. Instead, they argue that the 20-page complaint is “replete with immaterial allegations about the defendants and their son.”

“These allegations have no substantive value,” the motion reads. “It is reasonable to ask for what purpose? It is not unreasonable to conclude that this complaint was drafted to publicly disparage and embarrass the defendants.”

But Sorkin said in his decision that despite the length of the complaint, it “has not veered into the territory of violating Rule 8(a).” He also noted that the plaintiffs would be entitled to file an amended complaint in the event of a dismissal, which he said would “result in additional delay, legal fees, and expenditure of judicial resources.”

Sorkin did rule in favor of striking select paragraphs from the organizations’ complaint as immaterial to the case. The three paragraphs in question address Oliver Ortolani’s alleged history of physical, psychological, emotional and behavioral issues, and allege that some of those issues were caused by his parents’ marital problems. The motion’s request to similarly strike other portions of the complaint was denied. 

In a response to the decision May 18, the Ortolanis again argued for the suit against them to be dismissed, this time claiming that the court did not have “personal jurisdiction” over them and that the plaintiffs failed “to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” They also seek “a trial by jury on all issues so triable.”