PHILADELPHIA – The Archdiocese of Philadelphia is seeking dismissal of a lawsuit filed by an Arizona man for sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of a priest when he was a boy, saying that the statute of limitations and the doctrine of res judicata should preclude the case from proceeding.
John Doe first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Dec. 2, 2019 versus the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
The plaintiff, now 52, and his siblings grew up attending Catholic schools in Bucks County, within the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. He met Brzyski in 1977, who then became a “fixture” in his family’s home, routinely celebrating Mass there with the plaintiff and family.
“In 1978, when plaintiff was approximately 10 years old, he began serving as an altar boy. At that time, plaintiff claims that Brzyski began sexually grooming him. Plaintiff alleges that this sexual abuse continued through 1982, escalating from fondling to oral and anal rape. Plaintiff charges that the abuse continued even after Brzyski left St. John the Evangelist in 1981,” the suit stated.
“The abuse allegedly took place in the sacristy, rectory and office of St. John the Evangelist, and on regular trips to a beach home in Forked River, New Jersey. Plaintiff alleges that Brzyski took him and other young boys to the shore house for about four to five days each month during the summer for three successive years.”
In 1982, when Doe was 14 years old, he disclosed the abuse to his parents, who then alerted Archdiocese personnel. He said he recalled a conference call with Archdiocese personnel to discuss the abuse, and his refusal to later speak to persons claiming to be representatives of the Archdiocese when they came to his home. Brzyski was eventually laicized 23 years later, in 2005.
Doe asserted charges of both negligence and vicarious liability against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia in his litigation, charging it failed to provide a safe environment, knew of priests who had abused children and retained them or transferred them to other parishes to conceal the abuse.
The archdiocese moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction in January.
“Plaintiff claims Brzyski’s sexual abuse of him numerous times in a home in Forked River, New Jersey, should be sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, because Brzyski was an agent of defendant,” U.S. District Court Judge Freda L. Wolfson stated.
“In response, defendant argues that none of its conduct deliberately targeted New Jersey, the complaint does not allege any of defendant’s conduct took place in New Jersey, nor do the claims arise out of defendant’s contacts with New Jersey. Defendant also claims the unilateral acts of a third party, Brzyski, cannot create jurisdiction. I agree with defendant’s position.”
Wolfson explained at the time of the abuse, Doe was a resident of Pennsylvania and a parishioner of a Pennsylvania church in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, an entity whose principle place of business is Pennsylvania, and that he did not allege that any negligent conduct on the part of defendant took place in New Jersey. Wolfson transferred the case to a Pennsylvania court instead on June 22.
Counsel for the Archdiocese responded to the litigation on July 20, denying many of its tenets and asserting 10 separate affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and plaintiff’s claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitations. The act alleged in the complaint, if true, were criminal acts performed outside of Brzyski’s scope of employment, agency or authority. The Archdiocese had no prior knowledge of Brzyski’s criminal conduct and plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages,” the answer read, in part.
UPDATE
The Archdiocese filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on Sept. 10, seeking to dismiss the case with prejudice due to both applicable statute of limitations and the doctrine of res judicata.
Doe filed the present action in December 2019:
• Over 27 years after the abuse allegedly occurred;
• Over 21 years after the latest possible date when the statute of limitations on Doe’s claims possibly could have expired in January 1988, even assuming the application of Pennsylvania’s minor tolling statute;
• Over 13 years after allegations against the same priest were made public through the issuance of the 2005 grand jury report issued by the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office; and
• Over 12 years after Doe himself and other victims filed suit against the Archdiocese alleging abuse by the same priest during the same time period.
“The allegations in Doe’s 2019 complaint expressly demonstrate that the alleged abuse occurred more than 27 years before this action was filed, and that Doe turned 18 years old more than 21 years before this action was filed,” according to the Archdiocese’s motion.
“As a result, regardless of whether the 1984 minor tolling statute applies to his claims or not, Doe’s claims against the Archdiocese are time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations under Pennsylvania law. On that basis, the Archdiocese is entitled to the entry of judgment on the pleadings in its favor and against Doe.”
The Archdiocese added that the plaintiff filed a similar suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in September 2005, based on the same allegations of sexual abuse.
On June 26, 2006, the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granted the Archdiocese’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in the 2005 action and dismissed Doe’s complaint, on the grounds that Doe’s claims were barred by the applicable Pennsylvania statute of limitations.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld that ruling in May 2007 and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied hearing an appeal to that Superior Court decision.
The Archdiocese now feels the doctrine of res judicata, with respect to the 2005 action, should apply to the instant case and dismiss it with prejudice.
For counts of negligence and vicarious liability, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional threshold for compensatory damages, punitive damages, delay damages, interest and allowable costs of suit.
The plaintiff is represented by Bethany R. Nikitenko and Mark W. Tanner of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig, plus Patricia V. Pierce and Ronald L. Greenblatt of Greenblatt Pierce Funt & Flores, all in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Nicholas M. Centrella of Conrad O’Brien, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-03024
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey case 3:19-cv-20934
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com