Doe v. Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-215
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-215,c/w 21-1238 |
| Decision Date | 03 March 2022 |
| Citation | 588 F.Supp.3d 698 |
| Parties | A.A. DOE, Plaintiff v. The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF the ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS, et al., Defendants Applies to: Both Cases |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Desiree M. Charbonnet, Law Office of Desiree M. Charbonnet, Bernard L. Charbonnet, Jr., David Matthew Fink, Law Office of Bernard L. Charbonnet, Jr., John H. Denenea, Jr., Shearman-Denenea, LLC, Joseph Edward Cain, Soren Erik Gisleson, Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC, Matthew P. Chenevert, Matthew Chenevert, Attorney at Law, New Orleans, LA, Richard Charles Trahant, Richard C. Trahant, Attorney at Law, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiff.
Allen C. Miller, Ashley Joy Heilprin, Sarah M. Smith-Clevenger, Sophie M. Gray, Phelps Dunbar, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant John Asare-Dankwah.
SECTION: "E" (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss and for Remand, filed by A. A. Doe.1 Father John Asare-Dankwah ("Asare") filed an opposition to the motion.2 A. A. Doe filed a reply.3
Also pending before the Court is a Motion to Stay Defamation Action, filed by A. A. Doe.4 Asare filed an opposition to the motion.5 A. A. Doe filed a reply.6
On May 1, 2020, The Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of New Orleans ("the Archdiocese") filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.7 The Bankruptcy Court established a March 1, 2021, deadline for filing sexual abuse proofs of claim.8
On January 27, 2021, A. A. Doe filed suit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans against Asare, the Archdiocese, Archdiocese of New Orleans Indemnity, Inc., and Blessed Trinity Catholic Church.9 A. A. Doe alleged that, when he was ten years old, he was raped by Asare while Asare was acting in his capacity as a Catholic priest serving in the Blessed Trinity Catholic Church Parish and "operating under the authority, supervision, and direction of the Archdiocese."10
On February 2, 2021, the Archdiocese removed A. A. Doe's state court suit to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 1452(a).11 That same day, in the chapter 11 case, the Archdiocese filed a motion for relief for willful violation of the automatic stay against A. A. Doe's lawyers, alleging the filing of A. A. Doe's state court lawsuit was a willful violation of the bankruptcy stay.12 On February 22, 2021, pursuant to an agreement reached between the Archdiocese and A.A. Doe's lawyers, the Bankruptcy Court ordered that, in full satisfaction of the Archdiocese's motion for relief for willful violation of the automatic stay, A. A. Doe's counsel will voluntarily dismiss the claims in the A. A. Doe removed lawsuit "against all parties affected by the automatic stay without prejudice."13
On March 1, 2021, this Court ordered the removed lawsuit stayed and administratively closed "pending the resolution of the Archdiocese's bankruptcy proceedings."14 On March 24, 2021, A. A. Doe filed a motion in the removed lawsuit, seeking leave to file an amended complaint "in order to dismiss, without prejudice, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans, Blessed Trinity Catholic Church Parish and Archdiocese of New Orleans Indemnity, Inc. as a parties defendant."15 This Court granted A. A. Doe's motion, ordering the dismissal of the Archdiocese, Blessed Trinity Catholic Church Parish and Archdiocese of New Orleans Indemnity, Inc.16 This Court also granted A. A. Doe leave to file an amended complaint.17 A. A. Doe's amended complaint in the removed lawsuit names Asare and Catholic Mutual Relief Society as Defendants.18
A. A. Doe filed a Proof of Claim in the Archdiocese's chapter 11 case.19 On May 3, 2021, Asare instituted an adversary proceeding20 in the Archdiocese bankruptcy case by filing a complaint for damages against A.A. Doe, which included an objection to the proof of claim. Asare brought claims against A. A. Doe for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.21
On June 24, 2021, A. A. Doe filed an answer to Asare's complaint in the adversary proceeding.22 On that same day, A. A. Doe filed a Motion to Withdraw the Reference, arguing Asare's adversary complaint should be withdrawn from the bankruptcy court and decided by this Court because Asare's claims are for "personal injury torts" under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5).23 A. A. Doe further argued Asare's claims should be consolidated with the removed lawsuit currently pending before this Court.24
On August 25, 2021, the Court issued an Order and Reasons withdrawing Asare's adversary complaint from the bankruptcy system.25 The Court found that withdrawal of the reference was mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) because "Asare's claims are based on personal injury torts" arising under Louisiana tort law, and his claims "do not sound in finance, business contract or property."26
On August 25, 2021, the Court lifted the stay and administratively opened A. A. Doe's removed lawsuit.27 On that same date, the Court consolidated Asare's withdrawn adversary complaint with A. A. Doe's removed lawsuit.28 On September 22, 2021, a motion for dismissal of Defendant Catholic Mutual Relief Society, without prejudice, was filed by A. A. Doe.29 On September 23, 2021, the Court granted the motion and dismissed Catholic Mutual Relief Society as a defendant without prejudice.30 The sole remaining parties in these consolidated actions are A. A. Doe and Asare.
On September 29, 2021, the Court held a telephone preliminary conference with the parties.31 During the September 29, 2021 conference, the Court ordered the parties to send a joint letter to the Court addressing any outstanding issues that needed to be discussed, and set a telephone status conference for Tuesday, October 26, 2021.32
On October 1, 2021, the Court issued an Order33 requiring the parties to submit briefing on the following three issues: whether Asare is a party in interest for purposes of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3007(b) ;34 whether Asare's objection to A. A. Doe's proof of claim is combined with a demand for relief of a kind specified in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001 ;35 and whether the debtor in Bankruptcy Case No. 20-10846 was given notice of Asare's objection to A. A. Doe's proof of claim.36 On October 15, 2021, Asare filed his memorandum37 in response to the Court's October 1, 2021 Order. In his memorandum, Asare contends he is a party in interest; that his adversary complaint combines an objection to A. A. Doe's proof of claim with claims that properly form the basis of an adversary proceeding under Rule 7001 ; and that he provided the Debtor with notice of his adversary complaint and the claim objection included therein by notice of electronic filing and via a conversation call between Asare's counsel and debtor's counsel.38 On October 22, 2021, A. A. Doe filed his memorandum39 in response to the Court's October 1, 2021 Order. In his memorandum, A. A. Doe contends Asare is not a party in interest; that Asare's objection is not combined with any demand for relief as specified under Rule 7001, but that, even if Rule 7001 does apply, Asare's objection was not properly filed in the bankruptcy or properly served under Rule 3007 ; and that "factual support is lacking as to whether the debtor was put on notice of the objection."40 In addition, Asare filed a reply memorandum41 to respond to and address the issues raised by A. A. Doe in his memorandum.
On October 26, 2021, the Court held a telephone status conference.42 During the conference, "[t]he parties agree[d] that Asare's objection to A. A. Doe's proof of claim, included in the complaint in the adversary action, is before this Court."43
In his motion to dismiss and for remand, A. A. Doe argues this matter "should be dismissed and remanded based on 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) as there is no subject matter jurisdiction."44 A. A. Doe argues, alternatively, this matter should be remanded for the following "non-exclusive" reasons: (1) the mandatory abstention doctrine requires remand; (2) alternatively, the permissive abstention doctrine strongly favors remand; and (3) equity requires remand.45
In his opposition to A. A. Doe's motion to dismiss and for remand, Asare argues the Court should deny A. A. Doe's motion because the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding, because mandatory abstention is inapplicable, and because the permissive abstention and equitable remand factors weigh against remanding this action.46
"The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants."47 The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.48 In his motion to stay, A. A. Doe argues Asare's counterclaims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false light invasion of privacy should be stayed pending resolution of A.A. Doe's sexual abuse claims pursuant to the Court's inherent authority to control its docket.49 A. A. Doe argues Louisiana courts consistently apply the rule that a defamation action based on allegations made in a judicial proceeding cannot be brought until the underlying judicial proceeding is terminated.50 In his opposition, Asare argues his the Court should not stay his counterclaims because his counterclaims are not based upon statements made in a judicial proceeding.51
Federal courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction, and they possess only the power authorized by the Constitution and by statute.52 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant may remove an action from state court to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial