PHILADELPHIA – The Archdiocese of Philadelphia has won dismissal of a lawsuit filed by an Arizona man for sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of a local priest when he was a boy, with a federal judge concluding that Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations stopped 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 53, and his siblings grew up attending Catholic schools in Bucks County, within the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. He met Rev. James 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, N.J. 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 removed from ministry 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 on Jan. 31, 2020, and a New Jersey federal judge transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 22 of last year.
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 – since the present action was filed over 27 years after the abuse allegedly occurred and over 21 years after the latest possible date when the statute of limitations on Doe’s claims possibly could have expired, in January 1988.
The Archdiocese added that the plaintiff filed a similar, unsuccessful suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in September 2005, based on the same allegations of sexual abuse – and feels the doctrine of res judicata, with respect to the 2005 action, should apply to the instant case and dismiss it with prejudice.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Gene E.K. Pratter issued an opinion on March 2, concurring with the Archdiocese and dismissing the plaintiff’s case.
Pratter cited Pennsylvania’s “borrowing statute”, relating to statutes of limitation, as part of her rationale.
“When part of the injury occurred in a foreign jurisdiction subject to a different limitations period, the borrowing statute provides that Pennsylvania applies the shorter period of limitations. The statute has been interpreted to apply when two conditions are met: (1) The claim accrues in another state and (2) The law of that state bars the claim before the Pennsylvania statute of limitations. Pennsylvania’s limitations period applies unless the foreign jurisdiction’s would bar the claim first,” Pratter said.
“Here, because Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations is shorter than New Jersey’s, the borrowing statute does not direct the Court to apply New Jersey law. The plain and unambiguous text of the statute provides that the shorter of the two limitations periods applies. When the shorter limitations period is the one provided by Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania does not need to borrow another state’s statute of limitation. That is the case here.”
As a result of this determination, Pratter ruled that the case would be dismissed.
“For tort claims involving personal injuries, the limitations period in Pennsylvania is two years. Doe does not raise a tolling argument, or one based on any discovery rule to suggest that the claims in Pennsylvania would otherwise be timely. Application of the Commonwealth’s statute thus precludes claims that accrued in the 1980’s, like Doe’s,” Pratter concluded.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-03024
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com