HARRISBURG – A California attorney who lodged a class action lawsuit in response to the redaction of 19 Pennsylvania priests’ names accused of sexual abuse says a pending bankruptcy case involving the Diocese of Harrisburg and ongoing legislation could affect how numerous lawsuits against the Catholic Church proceed.
Timothy N. Hale of Nye Stirling Hale & Miller in Santa Barbara, Calif. serves as class co-counsel in the action, pending since late 2018, which seeks to compel the Catholic Church in Pennsylvania to release records and other files connected to incidents of sexual abuse over the past 70+ years and in doing so, to abide by mandatory reporting statutes.
However, the Diocese of Harrisburg filing for bankruptcy in February 2020 put the brakes on such a solution. While the bankruptcy matter is being resolved, the class action suit has been stayed.
“Our lawsuit was, much to our frustration, sucked into the Harrisburg bankruptcy and thus became subject to the stay order, even though our clients are seeking only transparency, and not any financial compensation,” Hale stated.
“On the bright side, I understand that bankruptcy process is moving along, and we are hopeful that this year we’ll be able to resume pursuing full disclosures by the remaining dioceses through that lawsuit.”
The Diocese of Harrisburg sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection just six months after it revealed in August 2019 that it paid 106 individuals more than $12 million in compensatory damages, for sexual abuse they suffered at the hands of diocese clergy.
Hale also pointed to recently-introduced legislation House Bill 14 from Pennsylvania Rep. Jim Gregory (R–80), which would provide “an individual for whom a statutory limitations period has already expired, [to] have a period of two years from the time that this subsection becomes effective to commence an action arising from childhood sexual abuse, in such cases as provided by law at the time that [the legislation] becomes effective.”
The bill recently passed the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee by a 24-1 vote, and is similar to legislation passed in other states extending civil statutes of limitation for victims of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.
“This is the two-year window statute legislation that would give the thousands of out of statute Pennsylvania child sex abuse victims 2 years to come forward. It would be the first real chance at justice for most of them, and like our lawsuit, would be a great tool to make today’s children safer by identifying previously unreported perps and the men who concealed their crimes,” Hale stated.
“Because criminal statutes of limitation cannot be amended retroactively, these civil windows are the only remaining tools to survivors to seek justice and to force transparency on entities that have for decades and much longer prioritized institutional reputation ahead of child safety.”
Meanwhile, a forthcoming Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decision in another action will also help determine statutes of limitation for sexual abuse against the Catholic Church statewide.
In Rice v. Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, the Blair County Court of Common Pleas initially granted the Catholic Church judgment on the pleadings, finding that plaintiff Renee Rice’s claims were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations – since the last instance of alleged abuse occurred in 1981, when Rice was only 14 years old.
With a two-year statute of limitations beginning to toll upon her 18th birthday, the Blair County trial court said the statute of limitations for her claims expired in 1987 and was therefore compelled to dismiss the lawsuit.
On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania disagreed and reversed the decision in June 2019.
“Rice does not allege that the conspiracy’s only harm was the molestation she suffered in the 1970s and 1980s. She claims to have suffered a host of new injuries upon learning of the Diocesan defendant’s intentional, tortious conduct from the [2016] Grand Jury Report,” Superior Court Judge Deborah A. Kunselman said.
“These alleged facts and resultant harms, if proven at trial, indicate the statute of limitations for her count of civil conspiracy did not begin to run until January 2016, at the earliest. If Ms. Rice proves all of this to a jury, she filed her lawsuit well within the two-year statute of limitations for civil conspiracy on June 21, 2016.”
After arguments took place in October, a state Supreme Court decision in the Rice case remains pending, but is expected to be handed down soon.
Attorney John W. Baldante, a partner at Levy Baldante Finney & Rubenstein in Philadelphia, also represents victims of sexual abuse against the Catholic Church. He is now serving as counsel for approximately 600 plaintiffs located throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey, who are now litigating abuse claims.
“There’s a truce being called by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and the various dioceses, to basically put these cases on hold, pending the Supreme Court decision in the Rice appeal,” Baldante said.
“Depending on the Supreme Court’s opinion in that case, the cases that we’ve all filed suit on will either proceed forward – or if the Supreme Court overrules the lower court decision, then those cases will not be deemed to be within the statute of limitations, and we’ll all have to voluntarily withdraw those claims. That’s kind of where it sits right now.”
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com