Keenan v. Holy See

• Decision Date: 22 February 2021
• Docket Number: File No. 19-cv-1272 (ECT/ECW)
• Citation: 521 F.Supp.3d 825
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
• Parties: James KEENAN, Manuel Vega, Luke Hoffman, Stephen Hoffman, and Benedict Hoffman, Plaintiffs, v. HOLY SEE (State of Vatican City; The Vatican), Defendant.

521 F.Supp.3d 825

James KEENAN, Manuel Vega, Luke Hoffman, Stephen Hoffman, and Benedict Hoffman, Plaintiffs,

v.HOLY SEE (State of Vatican City; The Vatican), Defendant.

File No. 19-cv-1272 (ECT/ECW)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Signed February 22, 2021

Michael G. Finnegan, Jeffrey R. Anderson, and Elin Lindstrom, Jeff Anderson & Associates, P.A., St. Paul, MN, for Plaintiffs James Keenan, Manuel Vega, Luke Hoffman, Stephen Hoffman, and Benedict Hoffman.

Alexis I. Haller, Law Office of Alexis Haller, Aptos, CA; Jeffrey S. Lena, Law Office of Jeffrey S. Lena, Berkeley, CA; Jennifer Bruno, Law Office of Jennifer Bruno, Soquel, CA; and Charles B. Rogers, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant Holy See.

OPINION AND ORDER

Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge

The five Plaintiffs in this case suffered sexual abuse committed against them in the United States by Roman Catholic priests, and they seek to recover damages from the Holy See, a sovereign nation located in the Vatican City State, Italy, and the supreme body of government of the Roman Catholic Church. "The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides that foreign nations are presumptively immune from the jurisdiction of United States courts. The statute, however, sets forth several specific exceptions." Fed. Republic of Ger. v. Philipp , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 703, 707, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2021). Plaintiffs here contend that two of these exceptions—one covering commercial activities and the other covering tortious acts—apply to authorize federal jurisdiction over the case, and they assert numerous claims under Minnesota law and one claim under international law.

The Holy See has moved to dismiss the case on several grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). These include insufficient service of process, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Article III of the United States Constitution, and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The Holy See's motion will be granted insofar as it challenges service because Plaintiffs failed to strictly comply with federal law governing service of process on a foreign state. Under the circumstances, the granting of this aspect of the Holy See's motion means there is not personal jurisdiction over the Holy See and precludes consideration of other grounds advanced in support of dismissal at this time. This result fairly may be criticized as impractical and inefficient, but the law requires it. To enable the case to proceed as efficiently as possible from this point forward, the Complaint will not be dismissed. Instead, Plaintiffs’ insufficient service will be quashed, and Plaintiffs will be given a reasonable time to serve process in compliance with federal law. The Holy See's motion will be denied in all other respects without prejudice to the Holy See refiling its motion and seeking dismissal on the unadjudicated grounds after service.

I

Plaintiffs, who are now adults, each suffered sexual abuse as children committed by Roman Catholic priests assigned to parishes in archdioceses in the United States. Father Curtis Wehmeyer sexually abused Plaintiffs and brothers Luke Hoffman, Stephen Hoffman, and Benedict Hoffman. The Hoffmans were parishioners at the Church of the Blessed Sacrament in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Compl. ¶¶ 167, 213 [ECF No. 1]. Father Wehmeyer was ordained as a priest in the St. Paul and Minneapolis Archdiocese in 2001 and worked at the Church of the Blessed Sacrament from 2006 to 2012. Id. ¶¶ 158, 167–68. Father Wehmeyer groomed and sexually abused the Hoffmans during that period. Id. ¶¶ 167–68, 178–80. Father Thomas Adamson sexually abused Plaintiff James Keenan. Keenan was a parishioner at Risen Savior Catholic Church, also located in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Id. ¶¶ 238, 252. Father Adamson was ordained as a priest in the Diocese of Winona, Minnesota, in 1958 and worked at Risen Savior Catholic Church from about 1981 to 1985. Id. ¶¶ 235, 238. Father Adamson sexually abused Keenan in 1981. Id. ¶ 239. Father Fidencio Silva-Flores sexually abused Plaintiff Manuel Vega. Vega was a parishioner at Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. See id. ¶¶ 218–19, 233. Father Silva-Flores was ordained as a priest in the Missionaries of the Holy Spirit order in 1978 and worked at Our Lady of Guadalupe from about 1978 to 1984. Id. ¶¶ 215, 218, 233. Father Silva-Flores sexually abused Vega between 1979 and 1984. Id. ¶ 219.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this case in May 2019. Plaintiffs allege that the Holy See "has known about the widespread problem of child sexual abuse committed by its clergy for centuries, but has covered up that abuse and thereby perpetuated the abuse" and that the Holy See's conduct was "a substantial factor in bringing about [their] abuse." Id. ¶¶ 57–61; see id. ¶¶ 82–145. Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action: nuisance in violation of common law and Minn. Stat. §§ 561.01 and 609.74 (Counts 1 and 2), id. ¶¶ 265–85; breach of contract (Count 3), id. ¶¶ 286–98; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count 4), id. ¶¶ 299–302; violation of the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn. Stat. § 325D.43, et seq. (Count 5), id. ¶¶ 303–16; violation of the Minnesota False Statement in Advertisement Act, Minn. Stat. § 325F.67 (Count 6), id. ¶¶ 317–19; intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count 7), id. ¶¶ 320–22; violation of customary international law of human rights (Count 8), id. ¶¶ 323–26; and negligence, negligent supervision, and negligent retention as to the Hoffman Plaintiffs (Counts 12–14), id. ¶¶ 338–44. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, see id. ¶¶ 327–37 (Counts 9–11), as well as damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and interest, id. at p. 76.

II

The Holy See's motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process—and, derivatively, for lack of personal jurisdiction—implicates several federal statutes and administrative regulations. "A foreign state or its political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality must be served in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1608." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(1). Proper service under § 1608 is a prerequisite to a federal district court's personal jurisdiction over a foreign state. 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b). When a defendant contests the adequacy of service, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish proper service. See Hawkeye Gold, LLC v. China Nat'l Materials Indus. Import & Export Corp. , No. 4:16-cv-00355-JAJ, 2017 WL 10153534, at *3 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 6, 2017).

Plaintiffs acknowledge that the Holy See is a "foreign state" (as distinct from "its political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality"), see Compl. ¶¶ 6, 15; Pls.’ Mem. in Opp'n at 72–73 [ECF No. 31], and the rules governing service on a "foreign state" appear specifically in 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a). It provides:

(a) Service in the courts of the United States and of the States shall be made upon a foreign state or political subdivision of a foreign state:

(1) by delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint in accordance with any special arrangement for service between the plaintiff and the foreign state or political subdivision; or

(2) if no special arrangement exists, by delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint in accordance with an applicable international convention on service of judicial documents; or

(3) if service cannot be made under paragraphs (1) or (2), by sending a copy of the summons and complaint and a notice of suit, together with a translation of each into the official language of the foreign state, by any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state concerned, or

(4) if service cannot be made within 30 days under paragraph (3), by sending two copies of the summons and complaint and a notice of suit, together with a translation of each into the official language of the foreign state, by any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the Secretary of State in Washington, District of Columbia, to the attention of the Director of Special Consular Services—and the Secretary shall transmit one copy of the papers through diplomatic channels to the foreign state and shall send to the clerk of the court a certified copy of the diplomatic note indicating when the papers were transmitted.

As used in this subsection, a "notice of suit" shall mean a notice addressed to a foreign state and in a form prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulation.

28 U.S.C. § 1608(a).

In accordance with this statute's final paragraph, the Secretary of State has promulgated a regulation prescribing the form a "notice of suit" must follow. The regulation appears at 22 C.F.R. § 93.2. It says that the notice of suit "shall be prepared in the form that appears in the Annex to this section." 22 C.F.R. § 93.2(a). The Annex, in turn, identifies nine items to be included on the notice:

NOTICE OF SUIT ( OR OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT )

1. Title of legal proceeding; full name of court; case or docket number.

2. Name of foreign state (or political subdivision) concerned:

3. Identity of the other Parties:

JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS

4. Nature of documents served (e.g., Summons and Complaint; Default Judgment):

5. Nature and purpose of the proceedings; why the foreign state (or political subdivision) has been named; relief requested:

6. Date of default judgment (if any):

7. A response to a "Summons" and "Complaint" is required to be submitted to the court, not later than 60 days after these documents are received. The response may present jurisdictional defenses (including defenses relating to state immunity).

8. The failure to submit a timely response with the court can

...