Doe v. Archdiocese of Phila.

• Docket Number: A-3634-21
• Decision Date: 27 December 2023
• Parties: JOHN DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant-Respondent
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

1

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

No. A-3634-21

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-2963-19.

M. Stewart Ryan argued the cause for appellant (Laffey Bucci &Kent, LLP, attorneys; Brian Dooley Kent and M. Stewart Ryan, on the briefs).

Nicholas M. Centrella (Clark Hill PLC) argued the cause for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM.

2

In 2019, plaintiff sued the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (the Archdiocese) in New Jersey.^[1] He alleged that in the early 1980s, when he was approximately twelve years old, Father John P. Schmeer, a priest of the Archdiocese, sexually abused him, and that some of the abuse occurred at a personal home co-owned by Schmeer and another priest in Mystic Island, New Jersey.

Plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing his complaint against the Archdiocese 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 Schmeer's alleged abuse of plaintiff. Thus, 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.

Schmeer was ordained as a Catholic priest in the Archdiocese in 1964. Thereafter, he served as a priest and teacher in the Archdiocese until 2004, when the Archdiocese restricted his activities.

Plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania. During his childhood, he attended St. Titus Parish (St. Titus) in East Norriton, Pennsylvania. While attending St. Titus, plaintiff met Father Francis Trauger and Schmeer, both of whom served as priests at St. Titus. Plaintiff alleges that in 1981, he was sexually abused by Trauger at a seminary in Pennsylvania. When plaintiff's father suspected plaintiff was abused by Trauger, he sent him to Schmeer for counseling. Thereafter, Schmeer sexually abused plaintiff on numerous occasions.

4

Plaintiff testified that most of the abuse by Schmeer occurred in Pennsylvania in the parish rectory or church. He also alleged that in the early 1980s, Schmeer sexually abused him twice at a home Schmeer co-owned in Mystic Island, New Jersey. Plaintiff explained that he would not have gone to New Jersey alone with Schmeer if his parents had not recommended he seek counseling from Schmeer concerning the alleged sexual abuse by Trauger.

In December 2019, plaintiff sued the Archdiocese in the Law Division in Ocean County. Plaintiff alleged that the Archdiocese was responsible for Schmeer's sexual abuse of him based on theories of vicarious liability, negligence, negligent supervision, and negligent hiring and retention.

The Archdiocese moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Initially, the trial court 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.

After hearing argument, on June 20, 2022, the trial court issued a written opinion and order granting the motion and dismissing plaintiff's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Archdiocese. Plaintiff now appeals.

5

II.

On appeal, plaintiff makes two arguments. He contends that the Archdiocese is subject to specific jurisdiction in New Jersey because Schmeer was an agent of the Archdiocese. He also argues that the Archdiocese had sufficient minimum contacts with New Jersey at the time of the alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff and,...