Isely v. Capuchin Province
| Decision Date | 16 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-CV-74820-DT.,93-CV-74820-DT. |
| Citation | 880 F. Supp. 1138 |
| Parties | Paul ISELY, Plaintiff, v. CAPUCHIN PROVINCE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Heidi L. Salter and Don Ferris, Ann Arbor, MI, for plaintiff.
James N. Martin and Michael R. Janes, Mt. Clemens, MI, for defendants Capuchin, St. Lawrence, Thiel, Hoelscher, Kowalsky, Werner Wolf and Smith
Frank W. Brochert, Detroit, MI, for Jim Wolf.
Gerald Boyle, Milwaukee, WI, for defendant Leifeld.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is presently before the Court on the Motion of Defendants Capuchin Province, St. Lawrence Seminary, Lloyd Thiel, Kevin Hoelscher, Myron Kowalsky, Werner Wolf and Ron Smith (the "non-abuser Defendants") for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 50 and, on the separate "Motion for Directed Verdict"1 filed by individual Defendant Jim Wolf. Both of these motions were submitted to the Court after Plaintiff concluded his proofs. The Court deferred ruling on the motions until the Defendants concluded their case, as well.
Having reviewed and considered the briefs filed by the moving Defendants and the opposition briefs filed by Plaintiff,2 and having heard the oral arguments of counsel at the hearing held on March 15, 1995, the Court is now prepared to rule on these motions. This Opinion and Order sets forth that ruling.
II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST THE VARIOUS DEFENDANTS
In his Complaint, Plaintiff has asserted 17 counts. With respect to the two individuals Plaintiff accuses of actually abusing him, Defendants Gale Leifeld and Jim Wolf, Plaintiff has alleged that these two Defendants sexually molested him while he was a student at St. Lawrence Seminary in Fond-du-Lac, Wisconsin and while he was a resident at the Pre-Novitiate house, in Detroit, Michigan. He has asserted three separate causes of action against each of these two individuals: "intentional misconduct" (Counts I and IX); "common law negligence" (Counts II and X); and "professional negligence" (Counts III and XI).
As to the non-abuser Defendants, Plaintiff has alleged the following claims:
Integral to his Complaint against all of the Defendants is Plaintiff's contention that he repressed the memories of most of Buser's, Leifeld's and Jim Wolf's abuse of him until late in 1992, thus tolling the statutes of limitations on his claims arising out of these incidents.3
III. DEFENDANTS' ARGUMENTS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.
Arguments of the Non Abuser Defendants
The non-abusing Defendants argue that a judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 should be entered in their favor on Plaintiff's breach of contract claims because Plaintiff has not presented evidence of a contract or its material terms with respect to either his education at St. Lawrence Seminary or his stay at the Detroit Pre-Novitiate House. With respect to Plaintiff's claims of statutory negligence for failure to report alleged sexual abuse by Fathers Buser and Leifeld, the non-abusing Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Wisconsin Reporting Statute was violated by any of them, and even if he has presented factual evidence to establish a breach of the statute's terms, a violation of the statute cannot, as a matter of law, support a private cause of action.
As for Plaintiff's claims of common law negligence, the nonabusing Defendants assert several arguments. First, they argue, with respect to Plaintiff's Wisconsin claims of negligent hiring and negligent supervision, that Wisconsin does not recognize such claims as independent causes of action. They further argue that, even if claims of negligent hiring/negligent supervision were cognizable under Wisconsin law, this Court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate such claims in this case because to do so would amount to excessive entanglement with religion and would violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution, as well.
With respect to Plaintiff's claim that the non-abusing Defendants are liable for failure to warn him of, and failure to prevent, his sexual abuse by Fathers Buser, Leifeld and Jim Wolf, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not presented evidence establishing that he reported his abuse by these priests, and he has not shown that any supervisory non-abusing Defendant was put on notice of Father Buser's, Leifeld's or Jim Wolf's sexual activities prior to Plaintiff's alleged abuse by them so as to impose liability upon the non-abusers, the seminary or the Order.
As to Plaintiff's claim of failure to have a sexual abuse policy in place, Defendants contend that this claim must be dismissed as well because Plaintiff has not shown that the Defendants had any statutory or common law duty to have a sexual abuse policy.
Defendants further argue with regard to all of Plaintiff's theories of common law negligence, that even if Plaintiff has shown that they were negligent, dismissal of the negligence claims is nonetheless required because Plaintiff has not established that the negligence of the non-abusers proximately caused his alleged damages.
Finally, the non-abusing Defendants contend that the evidence presented does not support Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages. Therefore, they seek dismissal of all of Plaintiff's allegations of punitive damages as to the non-abuser Defendants.
Defendant Jim Wolf has separately moved for entry of judgment as a matter of law in his favor. His argument is that Plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence to warrant submitted the case against him to the jury because he has not presented sufficient evidence to establish that the alleged sexual abuse by Jim Wolf occurred or that Plaintiff could not have discovered the alleged abuse less than three years before he filed this lawsuit. With respect to this latter issue, Defendant Jim Wolf argues that the testimony of Plaintiff's psychological experts is insufficient to allow a reasonable juror to conclude that the repressed memory theory is scientifically valid, and therefore, a directed verdict on this basis alone is required.
IV. DISCUSSION
Motions for entry of judgment as a matter of law (formerly known as "directed verdict" motions) are governed by Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 50(a), which provides:
Although the issue of whether the court should enter a judgment as a matter of law is a matter usually raised by a party by way of motion, it is well-settled that the district court also has the power to grant such judgments sua sponte, even when no motion is made. Safeway Stores v. Fannan, 308 F.2d 94, 99 (9th Cir.1962); Peterson v. Peterson, 400 F.2d 336, 343 (8th Cir.1968).
It is well-established in this Circuit that a federal district court sitting in diversity is to apply the standard for judgment as a matter of law used by the courts of the state whose substantive law governs the action. American & Foreign Ins. Co. v. General Electric Co., 45 F.3d 135 (6th Cir.1995); Potti v. Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 938 F.2d 641, 645 (6th Cir.1991).5 In this case, Michigan law applies to the claims predicated upon events that allegedly occurred at the Detroit Pre-Novitiate House, and Wisconsin law applies to the claims arising out of events that occurred in Wisconsin.
According to Michigan law, "a trial court may direct a verdict on an issue if the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CJC v. Corporation of Catholic Bishop
...courts hold that such claims may be allowed if questions of church law and policy need not be determined, e.g., Isely v. Capuchin Province, 880 F.Supp. 1138, 1151 (E.D.Mich.1995) (negligent supervision claim), here the church document must be interpreted in order to glean directives for per......
-
Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee
...church government are at the core of ecclesiastical affairs and as such are beyond the province of judicial review); see also Isely, 880 F.Supp. at 1150-51 (E.D.Mich. applying Wisconsin Although state inquiry into the training and supervision of clergy is a closer issue than inquiry into hi......
-
NH v. Presbyterian Church (USA)
...Catholic Diocese of Burlington, see note 47, infra; Nutt v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocese, see note 47 at 73, infra; Isely v. Capuchin Province, see note 47, infra; Smith v. O'Connell, see note 47, infra; Bear Valley Church of Christ v. DeBose, see note 47 at 1326, infra; Van Osdol v. Vogt......
-
325-343 E. 56TH STREET CORP. v. Mobil Oil Corp.
...at the time this suit was filed, the Plaintiff has labeled the regulations as "D.C. Regulations." 30 See Isely v. Capuchin Province, 880 F.Supp. 1138, 1150 n. 14 (E.D.Mich.1995) (stating that because no private right of action existed, issue of negligence per se does not arise); Rodriguez v......
-
The First Amendment: churches seeking sanctuary for the sins of the fathers.
...921 F. Supp. 66 (D. Conn. 1995); Sanders v. Casa View Baptist Church, 898 F. Supp. 1169 (N.D. Tex. 1995); Isely v. Capuchin Province, 880 F. Supp. 1138 (E.D. Mich. (6.) Malicki, 814 So. 2d at 365. (7.) JOHN LOCKE, A LETTER CONCERNING TOLERATION (1689), reprinted in 35 GREAT BOOKS OF THE WES......
-
Staying Neutral: How Washington State Courts Should Approach Negligent Supervision Claims Against Religious Organizations
...Iowa 1997) (applying neutral principles analysis in negligent supervision claim against Iowa diocese); Isely v. Capuchin Province, 880 F. Supp. 1138, 1151 (E.D. Mich. 1995) (applying neutral principles analysis in negligent supervision claim against Michigan and Wisconsin 93. See supra Part......