F.C. v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Phila.

• Docket Number: A-2955-22
• Decision Date: 24 January 2024
• Parties: F.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ST. HELENA PARISH, ST. HELENA CHURCH, ST. JOSEPH PARISH, and ST. JOSEPH CHURCH, Defendants-Respondents, and FATHER THOMAS SHEA, Defendant.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

1

F.C., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ST. HELENA PARISH, ST. HELENA CHURCH, ST. JOSEPH PARISH, and ST. JOSEPH CHURCH, Defendants-Respondents,

and FATHER THOMAS SHEA, Defendant.

No. A-2955-22

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

January 24, 2024

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 December 18, 2023

On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cape May County, Docket No. L-0474-19.

2

John W. Baldante argued the cause for appellant (Levy, Baldante, Finney, & Rubenstein, PC, attorneys; John W. Baldante and Mark R. Cohen, on the briefs).

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

Before Judges Gilson and Berdote Byrne.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff alleges that in the 1970s, when he was between the approximate ages of eleven and fifteen, he was repeatedly sexually abused by Father Thomas Shea, who was then a Roman Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (the Archdiocese).^[1] In 2019, plaintiff filed suit in New Jersey alleging that the Archdiocese, St. Helena Parish, St. Helena Church, St. Joseph Parish, and St. Joseph Church (collectively, the Archdiocese defendants) were civilly liable for the abuse by Shea. Shea was also named as a defendant, but he is now deceased. Plaintiff appeals from an order granting the Archdiocese defendants' motion to

3

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm because jurisdictional discovery established that the Archdiocese defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of any benefits in New Jersey related to Shea's alleged abuse of plaintiff. Therefore, New Jersey does not have personal jurisdiction over the Archdiocese defendants 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. St. Helena Parish and Church and St. Joseph Parish and Church are all located in Pennsylvania and are within the geographic area controlled by the Archdiocese. The Archdiocese does not oversee or operate any churches, parishes, 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

4

vacation homes for priests. The Ventnor properties were acquired in 1963 and sold in 2012 and 2013.

In the 1970s, Shea was a Catholic priest serving in the Archdiocese. He served at various parishes and facilities, all located in Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania. During his childhood, he attended and served as an altar boy at St. Helena Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There, plaintiff met Shea, who served as a priest at St. Helena in the 1970s. Plaintiff asserts that Shea used his position as a priest to groom plaintiff and develop a relationship of trust with plaintiff and his family.

Plaintiff alleges that beginning in 1972 and continuing for approximately the next five years, Shea sexually abused him hundreds of times. Most of the abuse occurred in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff also contends that in 1975, Shea took him to a motel in Cape May, New Jersey. Plaintiff testified that Shea sexually assaulted him approximately six times during the weekend trip to Cape May.

In December 2019, plaintiff sued the Archdiocese defendants in New Jersey. Plaintiff contends that the Archdiocese defendants are responsible for Shea's sexual abuse of him, and he asserted causes of action for negligence, negligent supervision, negligent hiring and retention, gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duties.

5

Plaintiff also contends that the Archdiocese defendants knew of Shea's history of sexual abuse of children but did not restrict his activities with children.

The Archdiocese defendants 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 defendants again moved to dismiss the complaint.

On April 25, 2023, after hearing arguments from counsel, the trial court issued an order granting the motion and dismissing plaintiff's claims against the Archdiocese defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.^[2] Plaintiff now appeals.

II.

On appeal, plaintiff contends that the Archdiocese defendants are subject to specific jurisdiction in New Jersey because Shea was an agent of the Archdiocese defendants. He argues that the Archdiocese defendants facilitated

6

Shea's actions in New Jersey by not restricting the conduct of Shea and other priests of the Archdiocese as it related to children.

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. 2017) (quoting Citibank, N.A. v. Est. of Simpson, 290 N.J.Super. 519, 532 (App. Div. 1996)). We review a trial court's findings of fact with respect to jurisdiction "to determine if those findings are supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record," but conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Id. at 358. "A trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are...