STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. COUNTY OF CHARLESTON CIVIL ACTION NO: 2019-CP-10-00112 Mother Doe, individually and as parent of John Doe, a minor child rO COMPLAINT vs. 2 Demanded) i 2 NewSpring Church, Inc.; New Spring Community Church; and Jacop Hazlett, Defendants, APPLEGATE, IV, ESQUIRE, ATTORNEY FOR THE P! IE PLAINTIFFS ABOVE-NAMI TO: WILLIAM E AND TO NewSpring Church, Inc. and New Spring Community Church, herein files its Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint as to the allegations directed against NewSpring Church, Inc. and New Spring Community Church, and would respectfully show as follows: FORA FE 1, Each and every allegation of the Plaintifi°s Complaint not hereinafter admitted is, expressly denied, 2. NewSpring Church, Inc., which was previously known as NewSpring Community Church, is a not for profit, 501(¢)(3) charitable organization acting as a church with 14 campuses in South Carolina. ied for children from birth through 3. NewSpring has a ministry of the church de fifth grade called KidSpring, with its purpose being to teach children about Jesus on their level4, Jacop Hazlett was an unpaid volunteer who served in a non-leadership position of the KidSpring ministry of NewSpring Church at the Charleston campus from March 2018- November 2018. NewSpring performed a sereening process that included a criminal background check that showed no prior records and a one on one interview before Defendant Hazlett then went through training and was allowed to volunteer. 6. On Monday, November 26, 2018 NewSpring Church was made aware of a concern involving Defendant Hazlett and the possibility of inappropriate interaction with children, 7. NewSpring Church has video cameras in every KidSpring room at permanent campuses, and the footage from these videos was reviewed following the concern raised. 8. The appearance of inappropriate conduct by Defendant Hazlett was found in some of the video footage, and NewSpring Church immediately notified law enforcement, took steps to prevent Defendant Hazlett from volunteering in any capacity, and continues to fully cooperate with law enforcement’s ongoing investigation. FOR A SECOND DEFEN 9, Defendant NewSpring Church would show, upon information and belief, that claims within the Complaint fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and, therefore, those claims in Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed in whole or in part, with costs, under this standard. FOR A THIRD DEFENSE 10, Defendant NewSpring Church would show, upon information and belief, that any liability for this Defendant is limited by the provisions of the South Carolina Solicitation ofCharitable Funds Act, $.C. Code Ann. § 33-56-10, et seq., because Defendant is, or is agent of, a charitable organization as defined in § 33-56-170. FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE 11. Defendant NewSpring Church would show, upon information and belief, that any liability for this Defendant is limited or barred by the provisions of the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, 42 U.S.C. Section 14501, et seq., because Defendant is, or is a volunteer for or agent of, a non-profit organization FOR A FIFTH DEFENSE 12, Defendant NewSpring Church would show that any damages sustained by the Plaintiff were the result of an intervening or criminal act of a third person beyond the control of this Defendant and that such intervening or criminal act was not intended or directed by this Defendant and could not be foreseen by this Defendant, and any causal connection between any alleged negligence of this Defendant and the incidents with Plaintiff is broken by such intervening or criminal act. FOR A SIXTH DEFENS 13, Such injury or loss as the Plaintiff sustained, if any, as alleged in the Complaint, ‘was proximately caused and occasioned by the actions of a third party, which was the direet and proximate cause of injuries or losses suffered by the Plaintiff, if any, and without which the same would not have occurred. FOR A SEVENTH DEFENSE 14, Defendant NewSpring Church would show, upon information and belief, that punitive damages are barred in the present action pursuant to Constitutional and statutory law.