Site Content
Our Mission
No School District Shall remove children from their homes, under any circumstances.
DHS
It is the responsibility of Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) to determine and remove children from their homes. Law Enforecment MAY assist when requested by DHS
Superintendent
Board of Directors
We want our Superintendent to focus on the Education of our children and not social engineering. The Current Superitendent Misty Whorton, should be FIRED.
Board of Directors
Board of Directors
Fire Misty Whorton or lose your position in Spring of 2025
Ypu had your chance. 4 have lost there Board positions. The new board has a new opportunity to do the right thing!
Donations are TAX DEDUCTABLE
Donations are TAX DEDUCTABLE
Help us keep the ability for help parent be informed and keep a watchful eye on the School District.
News UPDATES!
Donations are TAX DEDUCTABLE
Customers have questions, you have answers. Display the most frequently asked questions, so everybody benefits.
Federal Lawsuit pending
Federal Lawsuit pending
Federal Lawsuit pending
$250,000.00 should catch there attention. Fire Misty Wharton! Unqualified, racist, authoritarian.
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 1 of 20
Charles W. Woodward, IV, OSB No. 165001
London & Paris LLP
66 Club Rd., Ste. 200
Eugene, OR 97402
Tel: 971.206.4384
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
KIMBERLY JOHNS, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL
NESTUCCA VALLEY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, a public body, MISTY
WHARTON, an individual, BRIAN
HOOGENDIJK, an individual, DANIELA
MORENO GUTIERREZ, an individual,
KENNETH RICHWINE, and individual,
and CHRISTAL WINESBURGH, an
individual,
Case No.:
Judge:
Defendants.
COMES NOW, KIMBERLY JOHNS (“Plaintiff”), who hereby alleges the following
against NESTUCCA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, MISTY WHARTON, BRIAN
HOOGENDIJK, DANIELA MORENO GUTIERREZ, KENNETH RICHWINE, and
CHRISTAL WINESBURGH (collectively, “Defendants”):
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This action arises out of Defendants’ actions and omissions surrounding an
incident with Plaintiff’s daughter involving Nestucca High School employees/agents and NVSD
sanctioned actions of those employees off-campus. Additional actions and omissions by
Defendants following the original incident also form the basis for this action. Plaintiff does not
Page 1 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 2 of 20
waive or limit the other remedies to which it is entitled under both federal and Oregon state law,
and Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend and seek additional and/or alternate remedies
at a later date.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
2. At all times material herein, Plaintiff Kimberly Johns is an individual resident of
the state of Oregon.
3. At all times material herein, Defendant Nestucca Valley School District
(“Defendant NVSD” ) was a school district duly organized under the laws of the state of Oregon,
and said District is wholly located in Tillamook County, state of Oregon. Defendant NVSD
includes Nestucca High School (“NHS”) which is located in the City of Cloverdale, Tillamook
County.
4. At all times material herein, Defendant Misty Wharton (“Defendant Wharton”) is
an individual resident of the state of Oregon and an employee and/or agent of Defendant NVSD.
5. At all times material herein, Defendant Brain Hoogendijk (“Defendant
Hoogendijk”) is an individual resident of the state of Oregon and was an employee and/or agent
of Defendant NVSD.
6. At all times material herein, Defendant Daniela Moreno Gutierrez (“Defendant
Gutierrez”) is an individual resident of the state of Oregon and was an employee and/or agent of
Defendant NVSD.
7. At all times material herein, Defendant Kenneth Richwine (“Defendant
Richwine”) is an individual resident of the state of Oregon and was an employee and/or agent of
Defendant NVSD.
8. At all times material herein, Defendant Christal Winesburgh (“Defendant
Winesburgh”) is an individual resident of the state of Oregon and was an employee and/or agent
of Defendant NVSD.
Page 2 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 3 of 20
9. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because Plaintiff
herein alleges the deprivation of rights and privileges secured by the U.S. Constitution under
42 U.S.C. §1983.
10. Supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims is proper in this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) in that Plaintiff’s state law claims are so related to claims in the
action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.
11. Venue is appropriate in this court because the Defendants are residents of the
State of Oregon, and the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Tillamook
County, Oregon. 8 U.S.C. §1391(a)-(b)(1),(2); LR 3-2(b).
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
12. Plaintiff ‘s daughter, Aggie Johns (“AJ”), is now an adult individual but was an
unemancipated minor female, born in 2006, at the time of the incidents described herein.
13. AJ was enrolled as a senior at NHS during the 2023-24 school year.
14. Plaintiff was awarded custody of AJ on December 5, 2022, as demonstrated by
the Supplemental Judgment Modifying a Domestic Relations Judgment and Money award
(Stipulated) (“Custody Judgment”). See Exhibit A.
15. The Custody Judgement was provided to Alex Croke, the office clerk at NHS on
or about December 6, 2022. Therefore, Defendants knew that Plaintiff was the custodial parent
of AJ.
16. On January 22, 2024, after school, AJ informed Plaintiff that she no longer felt
safe around Plaintiff, later explaining that she did not feel safe “sharing her feelings.”
17. On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff allowed AJ to leave the family home with two of
her classmates with the understanding that AJ would be staying with a particular friend that
night.
18. On January 23, 2024, two NVSD employees, Defendant Hoogendijk and
Defendant Gutierrez, went to Plaintiff’s house in an NVSD vehicle without Plaintiff’s approval
(“NVSD Visit”).
Page 3 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 4 of 20
19. On information and belief, Defendants ordered Defendant Hoogendijk and
Defendant Gutierrez to take and entice AJ to leave the custody of Plaintiff.
20. During the NVSD Visit, AJ also arrived at the property, returning a vehicle
belonging to Plaintiff.
21. During the NVSD Visit, Defendant Hoogendijk enters Plaintiff’s home and
removes some of AJ’s belongings.
22. Defendant Hoogendijk and Defendant Gutierrez then drove away with AJ in the
NVSD vehicle to an undisclosed location (“NVSD Taking”).
23. When the NVSD employees took AJ, she blocked her location on her phone such
that Plaintiff no longer had the ability to know where AJ, or at least AJ’s phone, was located.
24. On January 24, 2024, around 8:36 a.m., Plaintiff called and left a voicemail for
the school superintendent, Defendant Wharton, because Plaintiff did not know where the NVSD
employees had taken AJ.
25. On January 24, 2024, around 9:00 a.m., Plaintiff called the Oregon Elderly Abuse
Hotline because Plaintiff did not know where the NVSD employees had taken AJ, reporting that
AJ had been removed from his home by a public agency other than the Oregon Department of
Human Services (“DHS”) or law enforcement.
26. On January 24, 2024, around 12:10 p.m., Plaintiff filed a report with the
Tillamook County Sheriff’s Office (“TCSO”), and Deputy Berg followed up stating that he
would gather information and get back to Plaintiff.
27. On January 24, 2024, around 5:16 p.m., Plaintiff called the non-emergency 911
line to report AJ missing and to upgrade the previously filed report to runaway status.
28. On January 25, 2024, around 11:00 a.m., Plaintiff received a call from Detective
Kris Wood (“Det. Wood”) from the TCSO stating that Det. Wood would call Defendant Wharton
and call Plaintiff back.
29. On January 25, 2024, around 1:52 p.m., Det. Wood called Plaintiff stating that:
Page 4 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 5 of 20
a. Defendant Wharton was still trying to catch up and had asked Det. Wood to
act as intermediary;
b. DHS case worker Andrea Wanitschek (“Wanitschek”) would be calling
Plaintiff;
c. Defendant Richwine (“Richwine”) would be calling Plaintiff; and,
d. Defendant Wharton was unaware of the “incident.”
30. On January 25, 2024, around 2:35 p.m., Plaintiff received a call from Defendant
Richwine who declined to provide Plaintiff AJ’s location nor whether AJ was in school that day.
31. On January 26, 2024, around 10:18 a.m., Plaintiff called Wanitschek leaving a
voicemail explaining that Plaintiff still did not know where AJ was located.
32. On January 26, 2024, around 10:28 a.m., Plaintiff left Det. Wood a message
requesting a return call.
33. On January 26, 2024, around 10:34 a.m., Det. Wood called Plaintiff stating that
he would not be in that day and that “Det. Michelle” would be returning his call.
34. On January 26, 2024, around 11:35 a.m., Deputy Martinez from TCSO called
Plaintiff stating that he had spoken with Wanitschek who would be calling Plaintiff shortly.
35. On January 26, 20224 around 12:00 p.m., Plaintiff called the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to file a kidnapping report.
36. On January 26, 2024, around 12:26 p.m., Wanitschek called Plaintiff
(“Wanitschek Call”) stating that Wanitschek had spoked with AJ and Defendant Winesburgh, a
NHS teacher.
37. During the Wanitschek Call, Wanitschek provided Plaintiff with Defendant
Winesburgh’s address, stating that AJ was staying with Defendant Winesburgh and that both AJ
and Defendant Winesburgh were instructed to call Plaintiff to provide AJ’s location and a plan
for her future location.
38. Neither AJ nor Defendant Winesburgh called Plaintiff as required.
Page 5 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 6 of 20
39. On January 26, 2024, around 7:53 p.m., Plaintiff’s sister went to a NHS basketball
game where she confronted AJ and a friend, Maxwell Arnis (“Arnis”), as well as speaking with
Defendant Wharton and Defendant Winesburgh.
40. During the conversation at the basketball game, Defendant Wharton told
Plaintiff’s sister that school officials had spoken with AJ’s non-custodial parent and arranged for
Arnis to transport AJ to the non-custodial parent for visitation.
41. On January 26, 2024, around 9:49 p.m., a Deputy from TCSO spoke with Plaintiff
(“Deputy Call”) asserting that the parenting plan for AJ allows for weekend visitation to the non-
custodial parent.
42. During the Deputy Call, Plaintiff responds that the parenting plan only allows for
AJ to drive herself or for the parents to meet halfway, there are no provisions for NVSD staff to
coordinate with the non-custodial parent for anything regarding AJ, especially transportation and
lodging without the knowledge and consent of Plaintiff.
43. Having failed to find resolution directly with NVSD and Defendant Wharton, on
or about January 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed complaints with the Teacher Standards and Practices
Commission (“TSPC”) against Defendant Hoogendijk, Defendant Winesburgh, and Defendant
Gutierrez (“TSPC Complaints”).
44. On or about January 31, 2024, the DHS completed the investigation of the NVSD
Taking and the subsequent Actions by Defendants described above (“NVSD Custodial
Interference”), concluding in the Report (“DHS Report”) that when AJ stated the she felt
“unsafe” around Plaintiff, she was referring to feeling unsafe to “share her feelings,” that AJ was
never in any danger of neglect or abuse, and that no threat to her safety existed nor was there a
threat to her safety in the immediate future.
45. On February 22, 2024, Defendant NVSD, through a letter sent by Defendant
Wharton, sent Plaintiff a ‘No Trespass Order’ revoking his volunteer clearance for coaching,
prohibiting Plaintiff from attending any NVSD events, and prohibiting Plaintiff from entering
upon the premises of any NVSD property (“No Trespass Letter”).
Page 6 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 7 of 20
46. The No Trespass Letter stated that the decision had been made “in consultation
with the Tillamook County Sheriffs[sic] Office.”
47. The No Trespass Letter stated that Plaintiff ‘s volunteer coaching had not been
approved by the Defendants NVSD and Wharton.
48. Plaintiff, though counsel, provided evidence of Defendant NVSD’s and
Wharton’s approval of Plaintiff for volunteer coaching in a response letter dated December 5,
2024 (“Rebuttal Letter”).
49. Despite the clear evidence provide in the Rebuttal Letter, Defendants NVSD and
Wharton continue to prohibit Plaintiff from volunteer coaching with the NHS Football Team.
50. On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Discrimination Complaint with the
Northwest Regional Service District (“NRESD”) against Defendant Richwine and Defendant
Wharton regarding the NVSD Custodial Interference.
51. Plaintiff’s NRESD complaint and the TSPC Complaints provided notice to the
Defendants that tort claims would be brought against them pursuant to ORS 30.275(6) for the
Defendants’ actions and omissions occurring during the NVSD Custodial Interference.
52. On June 6, 2024, the NRESD issued their final report on the complaint filed by
Plaintiff (“NRESD Report”).
53. The NRESD Report summarized that the issues leading to the No Trespass Letter
likely resulted from a series of miscommunications between NVSD employees and Plaintiff, and
that NVSD and Plaintiff should work together to resolve the issues such that Plaintiff could
attend the high school graduation, AJ’s graduation.
54. The Nestucca High School graduation, the ceremony where AJ graduated, was
held on June 7, 2024.
55. The NRESD Report was not provided to Plaintiff until August 29, 2024, not
through the NSVD (the entity required to provide the findings), but through NRESD after
Plaintiff made repeated inquiries as to the status of the investigation and requests for the final
report.
Page 7 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 8 of 20
56. On April 17, 2025, a Tort Claims Notice Letter was sent to the acting attorney for
Defendant NVSD regarding the potential claims related to the Defendants’ failure to act
according to the ultimate findings stated in the NRESD Report that resulted in Plaintiff missing
his daughter’s graduation from high school, a once in a lifetime event.
57. From October 18, 2021, until February 22, 2024, Plaintiff was a volunteer football
coach with the Nestucca High School football programs.
58. Plaintiff had a storied career as a kicker on the Oregon State University Football
Team, resulting in invitations to try out for Dallas Cowboys and New England Patriots of the
National Football League.
59. Plaintiff coached multiple students on the NHS Football Team to All-Regional
Awards for kicking.
60. In November 2022, the NVSD reached a settlement with a former teacher after a
Bureau of Labor and Industries investigation found that NVSD leadership, including Defendant
Wharton—who was directly involved in the incidents, failed to take corrective action when the
harassment was brought to their attention and violating the NVSD’s policies. See
https://www.tillamookheadlightherald.com/news/nestucca-school-district-pays-six-figure-
settlement-to-former-teacher/article_e5268a98-540f-11ee-a7b6-e7a28725d6a9.html.
61. On or about May 9, 2024, Defendant Hoogendijk was charged with eight (8)
counts of sexual abuse of a minor who was a student of his at NHS.
62. Defendants NVSD and Wharton failed to properly vet Defendant Hoogendijk
before hiring, leading to the NVSD allowing Defendant Hoogendijk to be in custody of AJ
during parts of the NVSD Custodial Interference.
63. Defendants NVSD and Wharton also hired David Michael Brandon in 2019, who
was indicted on five (5) counts of rape, nine (9) counts of sexual abuse in the third degree, and
four (4) counts of unlawful delivery of a marijuana item in connection with one of his female
freshman students. See, e.g., https://dailyastorian.com/2023/03/29/former-teacher-sentenced-for-
sex-crimes/ (description of the case involving a child at Jewell School).
Page 8 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 9 of 20
64. Defendants NVSD and Wharton also hired Chelsea Hill, who forced the mother
of a 12-year old child in her care to obtain a stalking order, which the Defendants NVSD and
Wharton refused to enforce, with the child eventually transferring out of the district out of
continuing concerns for the child’s safety. See, https://www.northwestobserver.com/index.php.
65. Defendants NVSD and Wharton also allowed Russ Sanders, who was arrested for
the rape of a minor out of state, to volunteer with the NVSD’s reading program, based on a state
background check (rather than utilizing the national background check to protect students).
66. As an entity under the state laws of Oregon, NVSD is a state actor.
67. As employees and/or agents of NVSD, Defendants Wharton, Richwine,
Hoogendijk, Gutierrez, and Winesburgh acting within the scope of their employment are state
actors.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Custodial Interference – ORS 30.868 – All Defendants)
68. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs listed above.
69. Pursuant to ORS 30.868(1)(b)(A), Plaintiff is entitled to damages related to
Defendants’ custodial interference as Plaintiff’s custodial rights were interfered with and
Plaintiff, in good faith, reported AJ missing to the authorities.
70. Defendants knew that Plaintiff was AJ’s custodial parent given Defendants’
receipt of the Custody Judgment.
71. Defendants knew, or had good reason to know, that they did not have a legal right
to take, entice, or keep AJ from Plaintiff.
72. Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s custodial rights when taking enticing and/or
keeping AJ from Plaintiff, when failing to keep Plaintiff apprised of AJ’s location, and when
Defendants reached out to the non-custodial parent for guidance concerning AJ.
73. Defendants’ acts and omissions caused AJ to be taken, enticed, or kept from
Plaintiff, the lawful custodian, in violation of ORS 163.257(1)(a).
Page 9 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 10 of 20
74. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of special and general damages, including damages
for emotional distress, under ORS 30.868(9)(a), because of Defendants’ acts and omissions.
75. Defendants’ acts and omissions caused Plaintiff severe emotional and physical
distress. The injuries to Plaintiff caused by Defendants, by and through their extreme and
outrageous conduct (here, custodial interference), was foreseeable and intentional.
76. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages, under ORS 30.868(9)(b),
because of Defendants’ reckless and outrageous acts and omissions demonstrating a conscious
indifference to the health, safety, and welfare of Plaintiff.
77. Defendants’ acts and omissions were especially reckless and outrageous
considering that the only “safety concern” for AJ was the lack of feeling safe to share her
feelings, as described in the DHS Report.
78. Given that the only safety concern regarding AJ was for her ability to share her
feelings, as opposed to her physical safety and well-being, Defendants have no justification for
their acts and omissions constituting custodial interference.
79. Additionally, Defendants are not the agency or entity that has been delegated the
function of safe guarding a minor students’ safety outside of school functions as that authority
and responsibility lies with DHS and local law enforcement, entities actually trained for such
situations.
80. Defendants acts and omissions went beyond mere carelessness to a willful or
reckless disregard of risk of harm to Plaintiff to a magnitude evincing a high degree of social
irresponsibility.
81. In this case, punitive damages are appropriate given:
a. b. Defendants knew or should have known about Defendant Hoogendijk’s
criminal tendencies for sexual abuse of minors through their hiring practices;
Defendants acts and omissions were not predicated on an actual physical
safety concern for AJ;
Page 10 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 11 of 20
c. Defendants used their position of authority and trust to take, entice, and keep
AJ from Plaintiff’s custody;
d. Defendants exceeded their training and authority to take, entice, and keep AJ
from Plaintiff’s custody;
e. Any combination of (a)-(d) or all of (a)-(d).
82. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in this action,
under ORS 30.868(10).
83. At all times during the NVSD Custodial Interference, Defendants Wharton,
Richwine, Hoogendijk, Gutierrez, and Winesburgh were employees and/or actual agents of
Defendant NVSD.
84. At all times during the NVSD Custodial Interference, Defendants Wharton,
Richwine, Hoogendijk, Gutierrez, and Winesburgh were working within the course and scope of
their employment and/or actual agency.
85. Defendant NVSD is liable to Plaintiff for the actions of its employees and/or
actual agents Defendants Wharton, Richwine, Hoogendijk, Gutierrez, and Winesburgh.
86. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff was subjected to severe
mental or emotional distress, extreme humiliation, embarrassment, and other highly unpleasant
mental or emotional reactions over a prolonged period of time that continues, which has caused
and continues to caused non-economic damages in the amount of $250,000.00 or an amount to
be proven at trial.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – All Defendants)
87. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs listed above.
88. Defendants intended to inflict severe mental and emotional distress, or such
distress was certain or substantially certain to result from Defendants’ conduct, specifically the
NVSD Custodial Interference and the continued prohibition on volunteer coaching.
Page 11 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 12 of 20
89. By failing to act to allow Plaintiff to attend his daughter’s once in a lifetime event,
her high school graduation, by continuing to keep Plaintiff from volunteer coaching the football
team, and through the above-described custodial interference, Defendants in fact caused Plaintiff
severe mental or emotional distress.
90. The Defendants’ acts and omissions were (and are) extreme and outrageous,
consisting of extraordinary transgressions of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct and far
exceeded, and continues to exceed, the reasonable limits of social toleration.
91. At all times during the NVSD Custodial Interference, Defendants Wharton,
Richwine, Hoogendijk, Gutierrez, and Winesburgh were employees and/or actual agents of
Defendant NVSD.
92. At all times during the NVSD Custodial Interference, Defendants Wharton,
Richwine, Hoogendijk, Gutierrez, and Winesburgh were working within the course and scope of
their employment and/or actual agency.
93. Defendant NVSD is liable to Plaintiff for the actions of its employees and/or
actual agents Defendants Wharton, Richwine, Hoogendijk, Gutierrez, and Winesburgh.
94. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff was subjected to severe
mental or emotional distress, extreme humiliation, embarrassment, and other highly unpleasant
mental or emotional reactions over a prolonged period of time that continues, which has caused
and continues to caused non-economic damages in the amount of $250,000.00 or an amount to
be proven at trial.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress – All Defendants)
95. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs listed above.
96. Defendants acts and omissions described above were careless and demonstrated a
reckless disregard for socially tolerable behavior.
Page 12 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 13 of 20
97. Defendants extreme and outrageous behavior described above caused Plaintiff
severe emotional and/or physical distress.
98. Plaintiff’s severe mental and/or emotional distress caused by Defendants extreme
and outrageous conduct was foreseeable.
99. Defendants negligent acts and omissions, in fact, caused Plaintiff severe mental or
emotional distress.
100. At all times during the NVSD Custodial Interference, Defendants Wharton,
Richwine, Hoogendijk, Gutierrez, and Winesburgh were employees and/or actual agents of
Defendant NVSD.
101. At all times during the NVSD Custodial Interference, Defendants Wharton,
Richwine, Hoogendijk, Gutierrez, and Winesburgh were working within the course and scope of
their employment and/or actual agency.
102. Defendant NVSD is liable to Plaintiff for the actions of its employees and/or
actual agents Defendants Wharton, Richwine, Hoogendijk, Gutierrez, and Winesburgh.
103. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff was
subjected to severe mental or emotional distress, extreme humiliation, embarrassment, and other
highly unpleasant mental or emotional reactions over a prolonged period of time that continues,
which has caused and continues to caused non-economic damages in the amount of $250,000.00
or an amount to be proven at trial.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of First Amendment Rights – All Defendants)
104. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs listed above.
105. Defendants violated Plaintiff of Plaintiff’s constitutional First Amendment Right
to familial association.
106. Defendants were acting under the color of state law.
Page 13 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 14 of 20
107. Defendants’ custodial interference and failure to keep Plaintiff apprised of AJ’s
location did not serve a compelling state interest.
108. Defendants’ custodial interference and failure to keep Plaintiff apprised of AJ’s
location were not the least restrictive means to safeguarding AJ, even if such action was
warranted.
109. At all times during the NVSD Custodial Interference, Defendants Wharton,
Richwine, Hoogendijk, Gutierrez, and Winesburgh were employees and/or actual agents of
Defendant NVSD.
110. At all times during the NVSD Custodial Interference, Defendants Wharton,
Richwine, Hoogendijk, Gutierrez, and Winesburgh were working within the course and scope of
their employment and/or actual agency.
111. Defendant NVSD is liable to Plaintiff for the actions of its employees and/or
actual agents Defendants Wharton, Richwine, Hoogendijk, Gutierrez, and Winesburgh.
112. The Defendants’ violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment Rights, was an actual
cause of Plaintiff’s severe emotional distress, and Plaintiff suffered non-economic damages in
the amount of $250,000.00 or an amount to be proven at trial.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Hiring and Retention – Defendants NVSD, Wharton, and Richwine)
113. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs listed above.
114. As the entity charged with vetting and hiring teachers and employees that have
direct, and at times one on one supervision of minor students at NHS, Defendants NVSD,
Wharton, and Richwine had a duty to use reasonable care in the hiring of employees because it is
foreseeable that employees, in carrying out their employment, may pose an unreasonable risk of
injury to the minor students.
115. At the time Defendants NVSD, Wharton, and Richwine hired Defendant
Hoogendijk, Defendants NVSD, Wharton, and Richwine knew or should have known that
Page 14 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 15 of 20
Defendant Hoogendijk was not suited to safely supervise minor students and that his propensity
for reckless and dangerous conduct created a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff’s daughter.
116. On information and belief, Defendants NVSD, Wharton, and Richwine failed to
investigate complaints and information after Defendant Hoogendijk’s hiring suggesting
Defendant Hoogendijk’s employment should not continue. Defendants NVSD and Wharton have
shown a pattern of negligent hiring practices that have led to several incidents where students’
and parents’ well-being has been compromised, including here to Plaintiff.
117. Defendants NVSD, Wharton, and Richwine have shown a propensity for
negligent hiring given the unreasonable number of employees, as explained above, that have
been charged or convicted of criminal activity towards minor students under their supervision.
118. Defendants NVSD, Wharton, and Richwine were negligent in hiring and retaining
Defendant Hoogendijk in light of these facts, and in failing to implement policies to adequately
screen new hires and otherwise prevent sexually deviant individuals from becoming employed.
119. Defendant NVSD’s, Wharton’s, and Richwine’s extreme and dangerous conduct
caused Plaintiff severe emotional and physical distress. The injuries to Plaintiff caused by
Defendants NVSD, Wharton, and Richwine, by and through their employees’ extreme and
outrageous conduct, was foreseeable.
120. Defendants NVSD, Wharton, and Richwine were negligent in failing to take the
necessary precautions in hiring and retention of employees to ensure the legally protected
interest of Plaintiff, as the parent of a child entrusted to the public schools, of being free from
emotional trauma caused by Defendants NVSD, Wharton and Richwine acts and omissions as
well as trusting that pedophiles would be screened out of employment in the public schools their
children attend.
121. Plaintiff’s interest in being free from negligently caused emotional trauma from
Defendant NVSD’s, Wharton’s, and Richwine’s, hiring and retention practices is an interest of
sufficient importance as a matter of public policy to merit protection from emotional impact
Page 15 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 16 of 20
122. Plaintiff, is a member of the class of individuals to be protected by reasonable
hiring and retention practices and policies, in addition to proper supervision.
123. At all times during the NVSD Custodial Interference, Defendants Wharton and
Richwine were employees and/or actual agents of Defendant NVSD.
124. At all times during the NVSD Custodial Interference, Defendants Wharton, and
Richwine were working within the course and scope of their employment and/or actual agency.
125. Defendant NVSD is liable to Plaintiff for the actions of its employees and/or
actual agents Defendants Wharton and Richwine.
126. As a result of Defendants NVSD’s and Wharton’s negligent hiring policies,
Plaintiff was subjected to pain and suffering, extreme humiliation, embarrassment, mental
anguish, and other highly unpleasant mental or emotional reactions lasting over a prolonged
period of time. Said injuries have caused Plaintiff to be non-economically damaged in the
amount of $250,000.00 or an amount to be proven at trial.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Relief - ORS 28.010 et seq. – Defendants NVSD and Wharton)
127. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs listed above.
128. Pursuant to ORS 28.010 et seq., this Court has the “power to declare rights, status,
and other legal relations, whether or not further relief is or could be granted.”
129. Plaintiff has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law.
130. Defendants NVSD and Wharton are continuing to prohibit Plaintiff from
volunteer coaching with the NHS Football Team supposedly based on the Plaintiff’s reasonable
reactions to the Defendants’ tortious conduct outlined above and false premises of fact
concerning Plaintiff’s approval to be a volunteer football coach as authorized by Defendants
NVSD and Wharton.
131. Defendants NVSD and Wharton have cited to various reasons for continuing this
prohibition, many of which have been proven to be patently false.
Page 16 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 17 of 20
132. There now exists a ripe, substantial, and justiciable controversy because of
Defendants’ continued prohibition of Plaintiff from volunteer coaching.
133. Declarations by the Court on Plaintiff’s requests and contentions will resolve the
controversy between the parties and eliminate uncertainty as to the rights of the parties.
134. By Defendants’ continued and unreasonable prohibition on Plaintiff’s volunteer
coaching, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer injury in Plaintiff’s reputation in the
community and in the personal enjoyment of mentoring and teaching young athletes with the
considerable, unique, and acknowledged expertise developed over the course of Plaintiff’s
football career.
135. As volunteer coaching is a means to gain experience, a necessary predicate to
obtaining paid coaching positions and/or coaching positions with more permanent authority and
responsibility, Defendants unreasonable prohibition on Plaintiff’s volunteer coaching, in such a
small community with limited opportunities, prevents Plaintiff from advancing in his coaching
career.
136. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment declaring the following:
a. b. c. The prohibition on Plaintiff’s volunteer coaching activities was improperly
and illegally imposed;
The Plaintiff’s clearance for volunteer coaching with the football team and for
any other school activities is hereby reinstated; and,
Any other declarations the Court would deem appropriate and helpful given
the facts, circumstances, and issues in this case.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Rights – 42 U.S.C. §1983 – All Defendants)
137. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all the allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs listed above.
138. Defendants’ acts and omission violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment
substantive due process right to familial integrity.
Page 17 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 18 of 20
139. Defendants, as employees of NVSD, are state actors.
140. Defendants’ custodial interference, as described above, was not based on a
reasonable investigation of AJ’s safety nor upon a reasonable presumption that “not feeling safe
to shar her feelings” somehow rose to the level of a danger to AJ’s physical safety and well-
being.
141. Defendants did not have reasonable or articulable evidence giving rise to a
reasonable suspicion of abuse, imminent abuse, or that Plaintiff’s custody and knowledge of AJ’s
location somehow represented a threat to AJ’s safety.
142. Defendants’ failure to keep Plaintiff apprised of AJ’s location was not narrowly
tailored to achieve the goal of safeguarding AJ’s safety.
143. Defendants’ acts and omissions, including Defendants’ consultation with the non-
custodial parent, were so egregious and outrageous that the acts and omissions shock the
contemporary conscience.
144. At all times during the NVSD Custodial Interference, Defendants Wharton,
Richwine, Hoogendijk, Gutierrez, and Winesburgh were employees and/or actual agents of
Defendant NVSD.
145. At all times during the NVSD Custodial Interference, Defendants Wharton,
Richwine, Hoogendijk, Gutierrez, and Winesburgh were working within the course and scope of
their employment and/or actual agency.
146. Defendant NVSD is liable to Plaintiff for the actions of its employees and/or
actual agents Defendants Wharton, Richwine, Hoogendijk, Gutierrez, and Winesburgh.
147. The Defendants’ violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Rights, was an
actual cause of Plaintiff’s severe emotional distress, and Plaintiff suffered non-economic
damages in the amount of $250,000.00 or an amount to be proven at trial.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
148. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury of all issues so triable that are raised herein
or which hereafter may be raised in this action.
Page 18 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 19 of 20
*******
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a money judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. As to Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants in the
amount of $250,000.00; together with prejudgment interest at the highest statutory
rate;
As to Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants in the
amount of $250,000.00; together with prejudgment interest at the highest statutory
rate;
As to Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants in the
amount of $250,000.00; together with prejudgment interest at the highest statutory
rate;
As to Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants in the
amount of $250,000.00; together with prejudgment interest at the highest statutory
rate;
As to Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants in the
amount of $250,000.00; together with prejudgment interest at the highest statutory
rate;
a. 7. As to Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action, a declaratory judgment stating:
The prohibition on Plaintiff’s volunteer coaching activities was improperly
and illegally imposed;
b. The Plaintiff’s clearance for volunteer coaching with the football team and
for any other school activities is hereby reinstated.
c. Any other declarations the Court would deem appropriate and helpful
given the facts, circumstances, and issues in this case.
As to Plaintiff’s Seventh Cause of Action, judgment against Defendants in the
amount of $250,000.00; together with prejudgment interest at the highest statutory
rate;
Page 19 – COMPLAINT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case 3:25-cv-00850-JR Document 1 Filed 05/19/25 Page 20 of 20
8. With regard to Plaintiff’s First through Fifth and Seventh Causes of Action, an
award of post-judgment interest at the highest statutory rate from the date of the
judgment until paid;
9. With regard to Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action, an award of punitive damages,
pursuant to ORS 30.868(10);
10. With regard to Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action, an award of all costs and
disbursements, including attorney fees incurred in this proceeding, pursuant to
ORS 30.868(10);
11. With regard to Plaintiff’s Fourth and Seventh Causes of Action, an award of all
costs and disbursements, including attorney fees incurred in this proceeding,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988(b);
12. With regard to all remaining claims, an award of all costs and disbursements,
including attorney fees incurred in this proceeding, pursuant to ORS 20.105;
13. An award of a prevailing party fee under ORS 20.190(2); and,
14. Such additional relief as the Court may deem just, equitable, and appropriate.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15th day of May, 2025.
/s/ Charles W. Woodward, IV
Charles W. Woodward, IV, OSB No. 165001
London & Paris LLP
66 Club Rd., Ste. 200
Eugene, OR 97402
Tel: 971.206.4384
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
Page 20 – COMPLAINT
Leave our Children out of your personal agenda
STOP REMOVING CHILDREN FROM HOMES
Your Superintendent, Misty Whorton, has been using School District vehicles, assets and personnel for many years, to carry out personal vendettas against selected parents. Discriminates against ethnic families in the District, places minor runaways with teachers, hires sexual predators as fails to notify parents
