Doe v. Archdiocese of Phila.

• Docket Number: A-3636-21
• Decision Date: 27 December 2023
• Parties: JOHN DOE 1, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

1

JOHN DOE 1, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant-Respondent.

No. A-3636-21

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

December 27, 2023

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

Argued November 13, 2023

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Docket No. L-0108-20.

Ruxandra Maniu Laidacker argued the cause for appellant (Kline & Specter, PC, attorneys; Charles L. Becker, David Kehm Inscho, Ruxandra Maniu Laidacker, and Phillip Michael Pasquarello, on the briefs).

Nicholas M. Centrella argued the cause for respondent (Clark Hill PLC, attorneys; Nicholas M. Centrella, on the brief).

2

Before Judges Gilson, Berdote Byrne, and Bishop-Thompson.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff alleges that he was sexually abused in the late 1970s and early 1980s by Father John Mulholland, a Catholic priest.^[1] At the time of the alleged abuse, Mulholland was serving as a priest in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (the Archdiocese). Plaintiff appeals from an order granting the Archdiocese's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm because jurisdictional discovery established that the Archdiocese did not purposefully avail itself of any benefits in New Jersey related to Mulholland's alleged abuse of plaintiff. Therefore, New Jersey does not have personal jurisdiction over the Archdiocese related to this lawsuit.

I.

We discern the facts from the record developed during jurisdictional discovery. The Archdiocese is an unincorporated, religious, non-profit association that operates in Pennsylvania. Its principal place of administration is in Philadelphia, and it oversees Catholic parishes in five Pennsylvania counties. The Archdiocese does not oversee or operate any churches, parishes,

3

or religious facilities in New Jersey. It also does not assign priests to any parishes in New Jersey.

The Archdiocese does not currently own any real property in New Jersey. In the past, the Archdiocese did own several properties in New Jersey that were given to it, but those properties were sold before 2013. The Archdiocese also owned and operated two properties in Ventnor, New Jersey, which it used as vacation homes for priests. The Ventnor properties were acquired in 1963 and sold in 2012 and 2013.

Mulholland was ordained as a Catholic priest in the Archdiocese in 1965. Thereafter, he served as a priest in the Archdiocese at various parishes and facilities, all located in Pennsylvania. In 2008, the Pope "laicized" Mulholland, which meant that he was dismissed from the clerical state. See Glossary of Terms, The Dioceseof Springfield, Mass., https://diospringfield.org/osevaglossaryofterms/ (last visited Dec. 19, 2023) (defining "laicization").

Plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania. During his childhood, he attended and served as an altar boy at Blessed Virgin Mary Church (Blessed Mary) in Darby, Pennsylvania. While attending Blessed Mary, plaintiff met Mulholland, who served as a priest at Blessed Mary from 1973 to 1977. Plaintiff asserts that

4

Mulholland used his position as a priest to groom plaintiff and develop a relationship of trust with plaintiff and his family. Plaintiff further asserts that Mulholland then used that position of trust to gain permission from plaintiff's parents to take plaintiff on trips, including overnight trips to a home Mulholland owned in Mystic Island, New Jersey.

Plaintiff alleges that beginning in 1976, Mulholland engaged in various "games" and behaviors with plaintiff that involved bondage and activities that sexually aroused Mulholland. From approximately 1977 to 1980, when plaintiff was a teenager, Mulholland brought plaintiff to his home in Mystic Island about ten to twelve times. He alleges that each time, Mulholland had plaintiff engage in "master-servant" "games" involving sexual torture.

In January 2020, plaintiff sued the Archdiocese in New Jersey. Plaintiff contends that the Archdiocese is responsible for Mulholland's sexual abuse of him, and he asserted causes of actions for vicarious liability, negligence, negligent supervision, and negligent hiring and retention. Plaintiff also contends that the Archdiocese had known of Mulholland's "proclivities" since 1968 but did not restrict his activities with children. Instead, according to plaintiff, the Archdiocese had moved Mulholland to other parishes in Pennsylvania, including Blessed Mary.

5

The Archdiocese moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court initially denied that motion and directed the parties to engage in jurisdictional discovery. Following the completion of that discovery, the Archdiocese again moved to dismiss the complaint.

On June 28, 2022, after hearing arguments from counsel, the trial court issued an order granting the motion and dismissing plaintiff's claims against the Archdiocese for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff now appeals.

II.

On appeal, plaintiff makes two arguments. He contends that the Archdiocese is subject to specific jurisdiction in New Jersey because Mulholland was an agent of the Archdiocese. He also argues that the trial court erred by focusing narrowly on Mulholland's abusive actions in New Jersey, rather than considering all of Mulholland's actions and how the Archdiocese facilitated those actions.

Personal jurisdiction is a "'mixed question of law and fact' that must be resolved at the outset, 'before the matter may proceed.'" Rippon v. Smigel, 449 N.J.Super. 344, 359 (App. Div...