Anderson v. Holy See

• Decision Date: 19 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11 C 7188.,11 C 7188.
• Citation: 878 F.Supp.2d 923
• Parties: Charles ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. HOLY SEE, a foreign sovereign; The Catholic Bishop of Chicago, a corporation sole, individually, and on behalf of all other Roman Catholic Archdioceses, Dioceses, Exarchates, and/or Eparchies, as Agents of the Holy See and Necessary Parties Herein, in the United States of America, the District of Columbia, and Its Territories and Protectorates within the U.S. Commonwealth, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

878 F.Supp.2d 923

Charles ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,

v.HOLY SEE, a foreign sovereign; The Catholic Bishop of Chicago, a corporation sole, individually, and on behalf of all other Roman Catholic Archdioceses, Dioceses, Exarchates, and/or Eparchies, as Agents of the Holy See and Necessary Parties Herein, in the United States of America, the District of Columbia, and Its Territories and Protectorates within the U.S. Commonwealth, Defendants.

No. 11 C 7188.

United States District Court,

N.D. Illinois,

Eastern Division.

July 19, 2012.

James Lowell Glass, Jr., Law Office of James L. Glass, Jeffrey J. Antonelli, Law Office of Jeffrey J. Antonelli Ltd., Robert A. Holstein, Holstein Law Offices LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs.

James Charles Geoly, Susan M. Horner, Susan J. Miller Overbey, Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RUBEN CASTILLO, District Judge.

Charles Anderson, individually and on behalf of a putative class, brings this action against the Holy See, the Catholic Bishop of Chicago (“Bishop”), and all administrative units of the Roman Catholic Church (“Church”) in the United States (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that he was sexually abused by priests and other employees of the Church in the 1950s and 1960s. (R. 1, Compl.) ¹ Presently before the Court is the Bishop's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (R. 18, Def.'s Mot.) For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.

RELEVANT FACTS²

Anderson is currently an inmate at Shawnee Correctional Center in Vienna, Illinois. (R. 1, Compl. ¶ 1.) The Holy See is a foreign sovereign that directs the activities of the Church in the United States. ( Id. ¶¶ 6–7.) Such direction includes assigning and supervising bishops who are vested with authority to oversee and remove clergy within local Archdioceses. ( Id. ¶¶ 6, 12.) The Bishop is appointed by the Holy See and administers the Church's Chicago Archdiocese (“Archdiocese”). ( Id. ¶ 6.)

During the 1950s and 1960s, Anderson was a minor resident of Maryville Academy in Des Plaines, Illinois, and St. Joseph's Orphanage in Lisle, Illinois. ( Id. ¶ 1.) Anderson alleges that during his term of residency at these facilities, two priests and four laymen, all employees of the Church, sexually abused him on numerous occasions, starting before he was ten years old. ( Id. ¶¶ 63–73.) Since reaching the age of majority, Anderson has spent much of his life in penal institutions and has required continuous psychological and psychiatric counseling; Anderson traces these circumstances to the abuse he suffered as a minor. ( Id. ¶ 74.)

In 2002 or 2003, Anderson retained counsel to seek redress for the abuse. ( Id. ¶ 75.) He did not immediately commence an action against the Bishop; instead, he first attempted to reach an out-of-court settlement. ( Id. ¶ 79; Ex. A.) Anderson wrote the Archdiocese on April 15, 2005, and stated that he would agree not to file a lawsuit if the Bishop agreed not to invoke the relevant Illinois statute of limitations, which he admits “would or could” bar his sexual abuse claim because the sex abuse “occurred a sufficient number of years in the past.” ( Id. ¶¶ 1, 79; Ex. A.)

The Archdiocese then initiated an investigation. On November 4, 2005, employees of the Archdiocese visited Anderson at Shawnee Correctional Center and obtained statements from him that describe the abuse in detail. ( Id. ¶ 77; Grp. Ex. D.) Anderson signed a transcribed version of these statements on July 16, 2006. ( Id.) The Archdiocese subsequently informed Anderson in a letter on December 15, 2006, that his claim as to one of the priests, Father Thomas Windham, was invalid because Windham had already been removed from the clergy. ( Id.; Ex. B.) On March 28, 2007, the Archdiocese wrote Anderson and informed him that the remaining investigations were not yet complete, but that it was “interested in learning what [Anderson] need[ed] in order to heal.” ( Id. ¶ 78; Ex. B.) In a subsequent letter to Anderson dated May 11, 2007, the Archdiocese noted that his claims were barred by the statute of repose, but that it would nevertheless discuss the claims with Anderson after receiving his demand and completing its review of the allegations. ( Id. ¶ 78; Ex. C.) Anderson submitted a written monetary demand on June 6, 2007, requesting $6,500,000. ( Id. ¶ 80; Ex. F.) The Archdiocese responded on June 23, 2010, and offered “support services” to Anderson without accepting his demand. ( Id. ¶ 80; Ex. G.)

According to Anderson, the Church has settled numerous time-barred claims of sexual abuse “with the Pope's authority or approval for well in excess of 15 years.” ( Id. ¶ 54.) At the same time, however, the Holy See has “arbitrarily required” or “encouraged” less wealthy Dioceses to assert the statutes of limitations or repose “to deny sexual abuse claims outright.” ( Id. ¶ 58.) Anderson contends that this “selective enforcement policy” for statutes of limitations and repose “creates judicial estoppel” and results in the Holy See's waiver of its right to interpose the statutes of limitations and repose in sexual abuse claims against the Church throughout the United States. ( Id. ¶ 59.) He further contends that the actions of the Archdiocese in his case have similarly resulted in the waiver of the right to assert the relevant statutes of limitations and repose and amounted to equitable and judicial estoppel with respect to Anderson's claims. ( Id. ¶¶ 57–59, 76–80.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Anderson filed a five-count putative class action complaint on October 10, 2011. (R. 1, Compl.) In Count I, Anderson brings an individual state law tort claim seeking monetary damages from the Holy See for the harm caused by the abuse he allegedly suffered as a minor; he relies on Section 1605(a)(5) of the FSIA to override the Holy See's sovereign immunity. ( Id. ¶¶ 60–82.) The remaining counts are class claims for declaratory and injunctive relief that seek to prevent Defendants from asserting statutes of limitations and repose to defend against sexual abuse claims, or threatening to do so in anticipation of litigation. ( Id. ¶¶ 114–31.)

On February 17, 2012, the Bishop filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or alternatively under Rule 8(a). (R. 18, Def.'s Mot.) In its supporting memorandum, the Bishop argues that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is warranted because Anderson's claims are barred by the applicable statute of repose, the Bishop never waived its defenses, and its conduct does not amount to equitable or judicial estoppel with respect to Anderson's claims. (R. 19, Def.'s Mem. at 4–13.) The Bishop also argues that Anderson's complaint should be dismissed under Rule 8 because it fails to plead facts that connect the Bishop to the alleged abuse. ( Id. at 13–14.) ³

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) “challenges the sufficiency of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Hallinan, 570 F.3d at 820. In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court construes the complaint “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, accept[ing] well-pleaded facts as true, and draw[ing] all inferences in her favor.” Reger Dev. LLC v. Nat'l City Bank, 592 F.3d 759, 763 (7th Cir.2010). To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the complaint must overcome “two easy-to-clear hurdles”: (1) “the complaint must describe the claim in sufficient detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds on which it rests”; and (2) “its allegations must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a ‘speculative level[.]’ ” Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1084 (7th Cir.2008). “Plausibility” in this context does not imply that a court “should decide whose version to believe, or which version is more likely than not.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir.2010). Rather, to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the “plaintiff must give enough details about the subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds together.” Id. In other words, “the court will ask itself could these things have happened, not did they happen.” Id.

A plaintiff's failure to timely file a complaint under the governing statute of limitations is an affirmative defense; as such, it need not be anticipated by the complaint in order to survive a motion to dismiss. Indep. Trust Corp. v. Stewart Inf. Servs. Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 935 (7th Cir.2012). However, when a complaint sets forth “everything necessary to satisfy the affirmative defense” and plainly reveals that an action is untimely, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate. Id. (citing Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir.2009)); Jay E. Hayden Found. v. First Neighbor Bank, N.A., 610 F.3d 382, 383 (7th Cir.2010) (citations omitted) (“[I]f it is plain from the complaint that the [statute of limitations] defense is indeed a bar to the suit dismissal is proper without further pleading.”). When reviewing a motion to dismiss a claim based on a state statute of limitations, courts look to state law regarding the statute of limitations and apply any state rules such as equitable estoppel that are an “integral part” of that law. Indep. Trust Corp., 665 F.3d at 935 (citing Parish v. City of Elkhart, 614 F.3d 677, 679 (7th Cir.2010)).

ANALYSIS

The Bishop contends that Anderson's claims, all of which are predicated on the abuse he allegedly suffered in the 1950s and 1960s, must be dismissed because they are barred by the Illinois statute of repose. (R. 19, Def.'s Mem. at 2.) Anderson does not dispute that his claims are all premised on the abuse he suffered in the 1960s and therefore “would or could be” barred by the statute of repose. (R. 1, Compl. ¶ 1.) Nevertheless, he argues that the...