McManemy v. Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Worcester

• Decision Date: 19 November 2013
• Docket Number: No. 2:13–CV–00422–WJ/CG.,2:13–CV–00422–WJ/CG.
• Citation: 2 F.Supp.3d 1188
• Parties: Eran Joseph McMANEMY, Plaintiff, v. The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF the DIOCESE OF WORCESTER, aka The Diocese of Worcester, a Massachusetts corporation, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

2 F.Supp.3d 1188

Eran Joseph McMANEMY, Plaintiff,

v.The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF the DIOCESE OF WORCESTER, aka The Diocese of Worcester, a Massachusetts corporation, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:13–CV–00422–WJ/CG.

United States District Court,

D. New Mexico.

Filed Nov. 19, 2013.

Mark Jaffe, The Jaffe Law Firm, Albuquerque, NM, Talia Kosh, Merit Bennett, The Bennett Firm, Santa Fe, NM, for Plaintiff.

Geoffrey D. Rieder, Meghan Dimond Stanford, Sarah K. Downey, Travis G. Jackson, Foster, Rieder & Jackson, PC, Ryan M. Walters, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Michael L. Carrico, Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA, Douglas A. Baker, Atkinson, Thal & Baker, PC, Albuquerque, NM, Douglas B. Tumminello, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Denver, CO, Douglas Fohn, Joseph Brophy, Hohmann Taube & Summers, LLP, Austin, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS BASED ON LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

WILLIAM P. JOHNSON, District Judge.

THIS CASE involves claims of severe sexual abuse and molestation perpetrated upon Plaintiff Eran Joseph McManemy (“Plaintiff”) in the early 1990's by several Roman Catholic priests when Plaintiff was a minor child living in Alamogordo, New Mexico and attending church at Saint Jude Catholic Parish (“St. Jude”) in Alamogordo. Plaintiff filed a separate state court lawsuit against those Roman Catholic diocesan entities located in New Mexico and filed this federal lawsuit against Defendants all of which are Roman Catholic diocesan entities located outside of New Mexico. Subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Defendants, with the exception of the New Orleans Province of the Society of Jesus, assert that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. Accordingly, motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) were filed by Defendant Diocese of Amarillo (Doc. 31) on 7/12/2013; Defendant Diocese of San Angelo (Doc. 35) on 7/15/2013; Defendant Archdiocese of Denver (Doc. 43) on 7/26/2013; Defendant Diocese of Worcester (Doc. 57) on 8/12/2013; and Defendant Diocese of El Paso (Doc. 28) on 7/12/2013.¹ Parties have advised the Court that Plaintiff and Defendant Diocese of El Paso have reached a settlement, but the Court includes facts pertinentto this Defendant for context where necessary. Furthermore, Defendants Archdiocese of Denver and Diocese of Worcester also included motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) in their respective pleadings.

After a thorough examination of the Plaintiff's theories to establish personal jurisdiction, the Court finds that none of the moving Defendants have contacts with the forum state of New Mexico sufficient to subject these Defendants to the jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants' 12(b)(2) motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. As a result of the Court's ruling on the 12(b)(2) motions, the 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are denied as moot.

BACKGROUND

A motion to dismiss is the appropriate procedural vehicle for resolving a personal jurisdiction challenge by a defendant. SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). While such a motion is filed by the defendant, the plaintiff is the party with the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Kuenzle v. HTM Sport–Und Freizeitgerate AG, 102 F.3d 453, 456 (10th Cir.1996). Affidavits and similar evidentiary matter may be presented and are freely considered on a motion attacking jurisdiction. See Sunwest Silver, Inc. v. Int'l Connection, Inc., 4 F.Supp.2d 1284, 1285 (D.N.M.1998); Jones v. 3M Company, 107 F.R.D. 202, 204 (D.N.M.1984). When such evidence is presented to support personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing, Kuenzle, 102 F.3d at 456, and the district court must resolve all factual disputes in favor of the plaintiff. Far West Capital, Inc. v. Towne, 46 F.3d 1071, 1075 (10th Cir.1995).

Turning to the instant case, Plaintiff's Complaint, First and Second Amended Complaints, Responses to the Motions to Dismiss and attachments thereto all contain horrific allegations of sexual abuse and molestation by former priest David Holley (“Holley”) perpetrated upon Plaintiff and numerous other unnamed young boys in Catholic dioceses located in various states. Additionally, the Court conducted a Google search of “Father David Holley” which reveals a plethora of information about Holley and the young boys he molested in multiple dioceses in multiple states over multiple decades. Information sources include major television and print media organizations in and outside of New Mexico and these sources disclosed that in 1993 Holley was sentenced to 275 years in prison for sexually molesting young boys. Holley died in prison in 2008. While Defendants' objected to Holley's affidavit and other attachments submitted by Plaintiff, Defendants' objections are overruled as moot since the Court is granting their motions to dismiss.

I. Facts Regarding Plaintiff and Diocesan Defendants

Plaintiff was born in October of 1978 in Albuquerque and is still a resident of New Mexico. In 1987, at the age of nine, Plaintiff and his grandparents moved to Alamogordo, New Mexico and joined St. Jude, a Catholic Church within the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Las Cruces.² There, Plaintiff became an altar boy for Father Wilfred Diamond (“Diamond”) who was the parish priest of St. Jude. Plaintiff states in his complaint that he was sexually molested by Diamond on numerous occasions until Diamond retired in 1988.

In approximately 1990, Father Daniel Barfield (“Barfield”) was appointed permanent pastor of St. Jude. Plaintiff asserts he was also sexually abused by Barfield who was responsible for inviting Holley to stay as a guest in the St. Jude facility. Plaintiff recounts being physically restrained by Barfield while at the same time being sexually molested and raped by Holley. In 1991, Plaintiff moved back to Albuquerque. While Plaintiff has asserted he was sexually molested by Holley, Barfield and Diamond, Holley was the only former priest who had any association with the Diocesan Defendants in this lawsuit.

Holley was a priest incardinated ³ to the Diocese of Worcester since 1967. At that time, Bishop Bernard Flanagan (“Bp. Flanagan”) was the bishop of the Diocese of Worcester. In the early 1960's, Bp. Flanagan received reports that Holley had sexually molested boys in various parishes. The diocese sent Holley to local mental health practitioners to receive treatment for his sexual disorder. Thereafter, Bp. Flanagan refused to let Holley return to active ministry in the Diocese of Worcester. Instead, Bp. Flanagan attempted to secure an assignment for Holley in the Diocese of Wilmington, Delaware, which declined to accept Holley.

In 1971, Bp. Flanagan sent Holley to receive more treatment at the Servants of the Paraclete in Jemez Springs, New Mexico, a New Mexico Catholic Religious Order affiliated with the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. Once in New Mexico, Holley received parish assignments within the Archdiocese of Santa Fe.

In 1972, Holley received permission from the Diocese of Worcester to perform priestly duties at St. Jude in Alamogordo, which at the time was within the jurisdiction of the Diocese of El Paso. Upon Diamond's request in mid–1975 that Holley stay at St. Jude for longer periods of time, Holley worked at St. Jude continuously for nearly four years. During that time, additional allegations of sexual abuse by Holley surfaced. Holley was transferred to be an assistant pastor at the Catholic Church of St. Raphael in El Paso, Texas, a parish of the Diocese of El Paso.

In April 1976, a priest of St. Raphael Church terminated Holley's assignments with the Diocese of El Paso due to Holley's relapse. Subsequently, the bishop of the Diocese of El Paso appointed Holley to work at the Church of Our Lady of the Valley of El Paso, Texas, which is another parish of the Diocese of El Paso. When Holley committed acts of sexual misconduct, the bishop terminated Holley's priestly faculties in his diocese.

In 1977, Holley transferred to the Diocese of San Angelo. He worked there for four years before the bishop of the Diocese of San Angelo dismissed Holley due to his acts of sexual molestation of young boys.

In 1984, Holley transferred to the Diocese of Amarillo to work at St. Joseph Church until he was dismissed in late 1984, presumably because of his relapse. Holley then transferred to the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, which assigned him to serve as a chaplain at St. Joseph Hospital and Vista Sandia Hospital in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

In 1987, Holley transferred to the Archdiocese of Denver to work as a Catholic chaplain at St. Anthony Hospital Central in Denver, Colorado. The Archdiocese of Denver revoked Holley's priestly faculties sometime in 1988, again presumably due to his relapse. There is nothing in the record indicating that Holley worked again as a priest.

DISCUSSION

In view of the challenges to personal jurisdiction, the following are issues common to all moving Defendants.

I. Whether Further Jurisdictional Discovery Should Be Allowed

“When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, either party should be allowed discovery on the factual issues raised by that motion.” Sizova v. Nat'l Inst. of Standards and Tech., 282 F.3d 1320, 1326 (10th Cir.2002). “The trial court, however, is vested with broad discretion and should not be reversed unless discretion is abused.” Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Heliqwest Intern., Ltd., 385 F.3d 1291 (10th Cir.2004). A court abuses its discretion if denial of discovery prejudices a litigant. Sizova, 282 F.3d at 1326. However, the district court is not “required to permit plaintiff to engage in a ‘fishing expedition’ in the hope of supporting his claim.” Martinez v. Cornell Corr. of Tex., 229 F.R.D. 215,...