Others may have to fill me in a little about the details of this case, although it is obviously yet another incidence of sexual abuse within the JW world. Also, two different congregations appear to have been involved?
Reading through all the legalese, it appears from the above notes that:
1) The WTS attempted to gain a "summary judgement motion / motion for summary adjudication" by claiming that there was no "triable issue of fact" involved.
- It tried to make an issue out of the fact that Jose Lopez (the complainant) had "released" the agent (congregation), while still pursuing action against the principal (WTS). The WTS claimed that this "release" also applied to itself, the principal.
- That argument, however, was dismissed by the court.
- The WTS further tried to argue that as a religious organisation, it could not be held liable for "negligent hiring" - which in this instance, meant appointing a known pedophile to the position of elder.
- The court, however, cited precedents in California law in which churches can be held liable for negligent hiring.
2) As a consequence, the civil case will proceed against the WTS on 09/15/2017.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, or fill in any details I may have missed!