Doe v. See
| Decision Date | 02 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-128 |
| Parties | JOHN DOE I v. HOLY SEE, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Before the Court are three motions: (1) Holy See's motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, insufficient process and lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) motion to limit discovery to prescription by defendants The Society of the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Lake Charles, the Most Reverend Glen J. Provost, and the Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans; and (3) the plaintiff's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of Holy See's defense of foreign sovereign immunity. For the reasons that follow, Holy See's motion is GRANTED, but the plaintiff's request for a reasonable time to attempt service of process is GRANTED; the Diocese, Archdiocese, and Bishop Provost's motion for limited discovery is DENIED; and the plaintiff's motion to stay discovery is GRANTED.
This case arises out of troubling allegations that a Catholic priest sexually abused a young parishioner, and that leadership within the Roman Catholic Church concealed and covered-up the sexual abuse.
John Doe alleges that he has suffered damages as a result of being sexually abused by former Catholic Priest Mark Anthony Broussard at various locations in Louisiana from 1985 to 1988 and again in 1992, when Doe was a young boy. Doe alleges that he was so severely traumatized by Broussard's deviant sexual conduct that he lost all recollection and memory of the specific incidents and acts of sexual abuse until March 2012.1
On January 23, 2013 plaintiff, suing pseudonymously as John Doe, sued Most Reverend Gregory M. Aymond, his predecessors and successors as Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans; the Holy See (State of the Vatican); the Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans; the Society of the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Lake Charles; Most Reverend Glen J. Provost, his predecessors and successors as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lake Charles; and Mark Anthony Broussard. In his original complaint, the plaintiff details the history of concealment of sexual abuse by the Roman Catholic Church, and presents various claims against each of the defendants, including a claim that the defendants were aware ofthe harm to the plaintiff and that the concealment effort was part of a civil conspiracy to keep the rampant sexual abuse in the church a secret; he charges the defendants committed fraud in their concealment of Broussard's sexual misconduct; that the Archdiocese and Diocese defendants negligently employed Broussard, failed to provide reasonable supervision, failed to investigate, used deception to conceal his sexual misconduct, and breached their fiduciary duty to plaintiff; the Holy See breached its duties to protect and warn plaintiff, and to provide reasonable supervision of its employees, as well as concealed child sexual abuse, breaching its duties under federal common law, state law, and international law; and that the Holy See, Broussard, and the Archdiocese and Diocese defendants are liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks $6,000,000 in damages and $12,000,000 in exemplary damages.
The original summons directed to the Holy See issued on February 13, 2013; a revised summons, correcting the amount of time allowed for the Holy See to respond under the Foreign Services Immunities Act, issued on February 26, 2013.
On March 19, 2013 the Lake Charles Diocese and Bishop Provost filed an answer. A few days later, the New Orleans Archdiocese and Archbishop Aymond filed motions requesting dismissal. On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff requested that the Clerk of Court transmit his complaint and other related service documents to the head of theHoly See's foreign ministry pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3). The next day, the Court granted Archbishop Aymond's motion to dismiss the claims against him (as well as the claims asserted against "the Archbishops" generally or Archbishop Aymond's "predecessors and successors"); the Court also granted the Archdiocese of New Orleans' motion to dismiss the punitive damages claims asserted against it. The next day, on April 25, 2013, the Clerk of Court sent the plaintiff's service documents by registered mail to the Holy See's Secretary for Relations with States; but on May 20, 2013 the service documents were returned to the Clerk of Court, marked "refused."
On May 23, 2013, Bishop Provost and the Society of the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Lake Charles requested judgment on the pleadings; Bishop Provost requested that the plaintiff's claims against him be dismissed for the same reasons that the Court dismissed the claims against Archbishop Aymond; and the Diocese requested dismissal of the punitive damages claims asserted against it. Thereafter, the Court granted the plaintiff's "emergency" motion to reset the submission date on the Bishop's and Diocese's motion; the plaintiff insisted that an amended complaint would be forthcoming.2
On July 5, 2013 the plaintiff requested, and the Clerk of Court entered, an entry of default as to Mark Broussard. That same day, the plaintiff requested that the Clerk of Court dispatch the original complaint and other service documents to the State Department to effect service upon the Holy See via diplomatic channels under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4). Less than two weeks later, on July 16, 2013, the plaintiff requested leave to file an amended complaint and responded to the motion for judgment on the pleadings, urging the Court to consider the proposed amended pleading.
In connection with the plaintiff's efforts to serve the Holy See, on July 22, 2013 the Clerk of Court filed its return receipt for the dispatch of the service materials (including the original complaint) to the Office of Legal Affairs at the Department of State.
Two days later, on July 24, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Bishop's and the Diocese's motion for judgment on the pleadings: the Court granted the Diocese's request that the punitive damages claim asserted against it be dismissed, but denied, without prejudice, the Bishop's request that theplaintiff's claims be dismissed, pending the outcome of the plaintiff's motion to amend his pleadings set before the magistrate judge. The Court observed: "By waiting until July 16, 2013 to request leave to file an amended complaint, counsel for plaintiff did not heed this Court's admonishment... 'not to delay any request to amend the complaint that was filed on January 23, 2013'"; the Court noted the "dilatory conduct" of plaintiff's counsel, and pointed out that the plaintiff had been placed on notice of the deficiency of the original complaint "as early as March 22, 2013."
On August 21, 2013 the magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint. The magistrate judge granted the plaintiff's amendment to the extent that (i) the plaintiff removed all defendants except Broussard from his claim for punitive damages; (ii) the plaintiff removed the generic terms "Archbishops" and "Bishops" from the amended complaint; and (iii) the plaintiff adds numerous factual allegations "regarding Broussard's...training...that clarify the direct liability claims against the Holy See and the Archdiocese and its Archbishops"; however, the magistrate judge denied the amendment to the extent the plaintiff sought to reinstitute an individual claim against Archbishop Aymond because "[t]he new allegations in the amended complaint fail to cure the deficiencies outlined in the District Court's Order dated April 24, 2013." The magistrate judge ordered that the plaintiff file his amendedcomplaint within 14 days.
After the plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 4, 2013, Bishop Provost renewed his motion for judgment on the pleadings, focusing on the allegations from the plaintiff's original complaint. On October 9, 2013, this Court denied the motion, observing: "The [plaintiff's] allegations might or might not be provable, or even true, but the defendant simply has not demonstrated that the plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face."
The plaintiff has not attempted to serve the Holy See with the amended complaint or any revised service documents. On December 6, 2013 the Embassy of the United States of America to the Holy See transmitted the original complaint and related service documents to the Holy See's Secretariat of State via diplomatic note. The service documents included the original complaint; the notice of suit described the allegations in the original complaint and stated that $18,000,000 in damages and exemplary damages were sought; the notice also identified the plaintiff's original complaint as the nature of documents served, and stated that a response to the complaint was due not later than 60 days after these document[s] are received.
Holy See now seeks dismissal of the plaintiff's lawsuit for insufficient service of process, insufficient process, and lack of personal jurisdiction. The Archdiocese, the Diocese of LakeCharles, and Bishop Provost now seek discovery limited to the issue of prescription. And, the plaintiff requests a stay of all discovery pending this Court's resolution of the Holy See's defense of foreign sovereign immunity.
Holy See invokes its immunity and seeks dismissal of the plaintiff's lawsuit on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2); insufficient process under Rule 12(b)(4); and insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5).
Holy See is indisputably a foreign sovereign. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act is the sole basis for personal and subject matter jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign in United States courts. Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial