Louisiana Supreme Court: Revival of Barred Sex Abuse Claims Violates Priest's Rights Under State Constitution

 In Bienvenu v. Defendant 1, (LA Sup. Ct., March 22, 2024), the Louisiana Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision held that a 2021 Louisiana statute that revived child sex abuse claims that had previously been time barred violates the Louisiana Constitution. The statute gave victims a 3-year window to file claims. The court said in part:

Essentially, plaintiffs alleged they were sexually molested by a Roman Catholic priest at various times between 1971 and 1979.   At the time of the alleged abuse, plaintiffs ranged in ages from eight to fourteen.  

Defendants responded by filing several exceptions, including a peremptory exception of prescription, arguing that plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the general one-year liberative prescriptive period for delictual actions under former La. Civ. Code art. 3536(1)....

The definite nature of accrued prescription has been repeatedly recognized in our jurisprudence, which makes it clear that, unlike statutes of limitations at common law, under civilian principles, prescriptive periods that have accrued act to extinguish the civil obligation to which they apply....

Guided by Louisiana’s civil law tradition, we decline to upend nearly a half of a century’s jurisprudence that recognizes the unique nature of vested rights associated with liberative prescription, which inure to the benefit of both plaintiffs (protecting an accrued cause of action) and defendants (protecting a defense of accrued liberative prescription).  Therefore, despite the sickening  and despicable factual allegations in this case, we must conclude that La. R.S. 9:2800.9, as amended by the revival provisions, cannot be retroactively applied to revive plaintiffs’ prescribed causes of action.  To find otherwise would divest defendants of their vested right to plead prescription in violation of Art. I, Section 2 of the Louisiana Constitution.

However the court remanded the case for the trial court to determine whether the one-year prescriptive period had tolled.

Justice Crichton filed a concurring opinion, as did Justice Griffin.

Chief Justice Weimer dissented, saying in part:

Given Louisiana’s legitimate interest in protecting its citizens who were sexually abused as minors and in providing them with the ability to seek redress in the courts, and the narrowly tailored nature of the relief provided–the legislation revives, for a short period of time, for a narrow category of tort victims, actions otherwise prescribed–I would find that the revival provision is consistent with the due process guarantee.  Under the due process clause, no rights–not even fundamental ones–are absolute.  The due process clause simply offers protection from arbitrary and unreasonable action by the government.  The revival provision at issue is not arbitrary (in fact, in this case it is arguable that the “arbitrary and unreasonable” conduct was the alleged sexual abuse perpetrated upon children by those in society who were placed in positions of authority).  And, the provision has been demonstrated to have a substantial relationship to public safety, morals and welfare.

Justice Crain also filed a dissenting opinion. Justice McCallum dissented without opinion.

Balls and Strikes reported on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Statutory Changes Allow Suit for Sex Abuse Against Jehovah's Witnesses Congregations

In C.P. v. Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, (NJ App., Nov. 15, 2023), a New Jersey appellate court affirmed a trial court's denial of summary judgement to Jehovah's Witnesses congregations and governing bodies. Plaintiff C.P. was sexually abused by Charles, her grandfather.  During the years the abuse was occurring, Charles also served as an elder at two Jehovah's Witnesses congregations.  In a 1994 lawsuit, plaintiff was awarded over $2.2 million in damages from her grandfather. Subsequently New Jersey's Charitable Immunity Act and statute of limitations were amended so that plaintiff could now sue the congregations involved, and this suit followed.  The court explained:

According to plaintiff, defendants knew Charles had engaged in sexual conduct with at least three minors—including herself—but did not discipline him and negligently retained him as an elder—a spiritual leader and mentor. Plaintiff claims defendants knew incidents of sexual abuse by their agents was prevalent within their organizations but nevertheless protected Charles and other sexual abusers from criminal prosecution through "mandated secrecy" policies and practices. Plaintiff also alleges defendants owed a "special duty" to protect her from her grandfather's sexual criminal acts because they held themselves out as "being able to provide a safe environment" for children. Ultimately, plaintiff contends Charles was disfellowshipped—excommunicated as a result of reports about and his admission to sexual misconduct, and therefore, defendants engaged in willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct.

Defendants claimed that the "entire controversy doctrine" and judicial estoppel bar the present suit. The court disagreed, saying in part:

As the trial court found, the two litigations involve separate claims. The 1994 action sought damages for harm directly inflicted by Charles; the 2021 action seeks damages from defendants for claims of negligent hiring and retention, alleging defendants knew and allowed Charles—a known child abuser—to serve as an elder in their church, exposing children to sexual molestation.

Statute of Limitations Not Tolled on Navy Chaplains' Claims

In In re: Naval Chaplaincy, (D DC, Aug. 23, 2023), the D.C. federal district court held that plaintiffs have not shown that the running of the statute of limitations on their free exercise claims should be tolled because of fraudulent concealment. In the case, which has been in litigation for nearly 25 years, non-liturgical Protestant chaplains alleged discrimination against them by selection boards that control promotions and early retirements of Navy chaplains. (See prior posting.)

Expelled Church Members' Claims Barred by Statute of Limitations

In Boyett v. First Baptist Church of Bossier, (LA App., Aug. 9,2023), a Louisiana state appellate court in a 2-1 decision affirmed the trial court's holding that Louisiana's statute of limitations (called "prescription" in Louisiana law) barred a suit by members who had been expelled from the church.  Plaintiffs claimed that the Articles under which they were expelled had been improperly adopted.  Judge Hunter dissenting argued that the majority applied the wrong statute of limitations, so that the trial court should reach the merits of the case using the "neutral principles of law" approach.  He contended that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not require dismissal of the case, and that the court should reverse the trial court's dismissal and remand the case for the taking of additional evidence.

Colorado Window to Bring Expired Child Sex Abuse Claims Is Unconstitutional

In Aurora Public Schools v. A.S., (CO Sup.Ct., June 20, 2023), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the Child Sexual Abuse Accountability Act 

is unconstitutionally retrospective [under Art. II, Sec. 11 of the Colorado Constitution] to the extent that it permits a victim to bring a claim for sexual misconduct based on conduct that predates the Act and for which previously available causes of action were time-barred.

The Act created a 3-year window during which victims could bring claims for any child sexual abuse that occurred between 1960 and 2022. In the case, plaintiffs sued a former high school coach and his school district for sexual abuse that occurred between 2001 and 2005. The court said in part:

The legislature was careful with S.B. 21-088 not to directly revive time-barred claims, which would plainly impair vested rights.... Instead, it created a three-year window to bring a new cause of action to accomplish the same ends. But the retrospectivity clause prohibits the legislature from “accomplish[ing] that indirectly, which it could not do directly.”...

... Our holding does not affect claims brought under the CSAAA for which the previously applicable statute of limitations had not run as of January 1, 2022.

AP reports on the decision.

NY Child Victim Act Revives Claim Even Though Prior Order of Dismissal Did Not Specify Statute of Limitations Grounds

In D.P. v. Riverside Church in the City of New York, (NY Cnty. Sup. Ct., Nov. 14, 2022), a New York state trial court refused to dismiss on res judicata grounds a suit against Riverside Church alleging abuse of a teenage player by the founder of a Harlem basketball program sponsored by the church. A federal court lawsuit making similar allegations was dismissed in 2008 after plaintiff filed a stipulation of dismissal.  While the federal court's order of dismissal did not state the grounds for dismissal, plaintiff in this case filed an affidavit saying that the rationale was the statute of limitations.  The New York state court held that since the Child Victim Act revived causes of action that had previously been dismissed on limitations grounds, it would allow plaintiff to move ahead with the suit, saying in part:

As the Federal case was discontinued in 2008 and makes no mention as to why same occurred this court must give every deference to the party seeking an opportunity to proceed with this case under the CVA on the merits.

Synagogue's Suit Over Zoning Denial Is Dismissed

In Chabad of Prospect, Inc. v. Louisville Metro Board of  Zoning Adjustment,(WD KY, Aug. 23, 2022), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed a suit brought against zoning officials by a synagogue that was denied a conditional use permit to use a home purchased by it for religious services. When the property was put up for sale, zoning rules allowed its use for religious purposes.  However, before plaintiff purchased the property the city removed that provision and required a conditional use permit. Plaintiff was unaware of the change. The court held that plaintiff's Sec. 1983 claim alleging 1st Amendment violations was barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, it held that plaintiff failed to state a claim under RLUIPA, saying in part:

Chabad alleged only that it chose and purchased the property “specifically” to open a synagogue for the community given that there are “[v]ery few synagogues” in the area and having one in “Prospect is vital to its mission.”... It didn’t allege any delay, expense, and uncertainty due to the burden of the denial. And Chabad never alleged that alternatives are infeasible, nor any other facts that indicate a substantial burden.

The court also rejected a claim under RLUIPA's "equal terms" provision, saying in part:

Chabad hasn’t offered anything to rebut the prediction that a house of worship would be more likely to cause greater traffic problems than regular residential events, even if the religious services are currently smaller....

Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs' state law claims.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Challenge To California Time Extension For Sex Abuse Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court of the State of California, (Docket No. 21-1377, certiorari denied 6/21/2022). (Order List.) In the case, 9 dioceses and archdioceses challenged California legislation that extended the limitation period for suits alleging childhood sexual assault to plaintiff’s 40th birthday or 5 years after discovery; created a 3-year window to bring previously time-barred civil actions for for childhood sexual assault; and provided for treble damages in cover-up cases. Here is the Supreme Court case page.

Louisiana Legislature Clarifies Child Sex-Abuse Look-Back Window

The Louisiana legislature yesterday gave final passage to HB402 (full text). The law clarifies that the 3-year look-back window to bring child sex abuse claims that was enacted last year applies to sex abuse claims, no matter how long ago they arose.  As explained by Louisiana Illuminator:

[O]ver the past year, the Catholic Church has repeatedly argued in Louisiana courts that some of the claims being brought under the lookback window should be thrown out because the window only applies to abuse that has happened since 1993.  Attorneys for the church said last year’s law is restrictive because it references an old statute regarding child abuse that wasn’t enacted until that year....

HB402 eliminates that ambiguity. 

New York Enacts One-Year Window To Bring Old Adult Sex Abuse Cases

Yesterday New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed S66A (full text), a bill which creates a one-year window to bring previously time-barred civil actions for sexual assaults that were committed on an adult. New York Post reports on the bill. Previously, in 2019, New York enacted the Child Victims Act applying to prior child sexual abuse. (See prior posting.)

Cert. Filed In Challenge To California's Extension Of Time To Bring Childhood Sex Assault Claims

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed last month with the U.S. Supreme Court in Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court of the State of California,, (Docket No. 21-1377, filed 4/15/2022). In the case, 9 dioceses and archdioceses challenge California legislation that extended the limitation period for suits alleging childhood sexual assault to plaintiff’s 40th birthday or 5 years after discovery; created a 3-year window to bring previously time-barred civil actions for for childhood sexual assault; and provided for treble damages in cover-up cases. National Catholic Register reports on the cert. petition.

New York Child Victims Look-Back Period Ends

As reported by the New York City Patch, the two-year look-back period that allowed otherwise untimely suits to be filed under New York's Child Victims Act expired last Friday, Aug. 13. As of Aug. 9, some 9,241 cases had been filed during the look-back window. (Child USA Report).

Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Abuse Victim's Suit Against Diocese Barred By Limitations Statute

In Rice v. Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, (PA Sup. Ct., July 21, 2021), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a 5-2 decision held that the statute of limitations bars a suit against the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown and its bishops for their role in covering up and facilitating a series of sexual assaults by plaintiff's childhood priest. Suit was filed 35 years after the assaults. Plaintiff sued after a Pennsylvania grand jury report detailed clergy abuse. The court held that the discovery rule did not toll the statute:

Because her claims for damages against the Diocese are based on [her priest's] alleged conduct, she was on inquiry notice regarding other potentially liable actors, including the Diocese, as a matter of law.

The court also rejected a claim that fraudulent concealment tolled the statute:

Under our jurisprudence, before a plaintiff may invoke the principles of fraudulent concealment, the plaintiff must use reasonable diligence to investigate her claims.

Chief Justice Baer filed a concurring opinion. Justice Wecht, joined by Justice Todd, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The Majority’s conclusion that Rice failed to exercise reasonable diligence in investigating the Diocese’s role in her attack is based on nothing more than the fact that Rice knew that she was assaulted on church property by a priest employed by the Diocese.... This analysis dramatically oversimplifies the reasonable diligence inquiry.

AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

New York Child Victims Act Filing Window Is Extended

Yesterday New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law S7082 (full text) which extends the window for Child Victims Act lawsuits until August 14, 2021. (Press release). Originally, the window was for a one-year period ending this month. CNA, reporting on the new legislation, says that the change in the law was motivated by concern that the Covid pandemic has deterred many victims from coming forward in time to meet the prior deadline.

Pennsylvania Archdiocese Can Be Sued In New Jersey Courts For Priest's Abuse In New Jersey

Doe I v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, (NJ Super. Ct., Jan. 8, 2020) is a case in which plaintiff sued the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (PA) in a New Jersey court alleging that in the 1970's he was sexually abused by a now-deceased priest who was assigned to a Pennsylvania parish.  The abuse, however, took place in New Jersey.  The suit claims that the Archdiocese was negligent in hiring, supervising and investigating complaints against the priest. Apparently the suit was brought in New Jersey because the state had extended its statute of limitations in child sex abuse cases, while Pennsylvania's statute of limitations would bar the lawsuit.  The New Jersey trial court rejected the Archdiocese's claim that the suit should be dismissed either for lack of jurisdiction or on forum non conveniens grounds. As to jurisdiction, the court said in part:

Here, the alleged conduct by the defendants’ agent ..., while in New Jersey ... caused serious injury – in the form of sexual abuse – to plaintiff. Once the abuse began, Brugger purposely transported plaintiff from Pennsylvania to New Jersey on two additional occasions to continue the abuse....

[P]laintiff is now, and was at all relevant times, a resident of Pennsylvania. Thus, plaintiff’s choice of forum in New Jersey is granted substantially less deference.... Additionally, the majority of potential witnesses are domiciled in Pennsylvania.... The Archdiocese’s principal office is located in ... Pennsylvania.... [However] the Archdiocese previously owned two properties in ... Atlantic County, New Jersey – the very county where the instant litigation pends....The New Jersey property ownership took place during the times relevant to this litigation, although no alleged abuse by Brugger occurred at either location....

Under this set of facts, it would not be a violation of defendants’ due process rights to subject them to the long-arm jurisdiction of the Courts of New Jersey, given their contacts with this State.....

Denying defendants' forum non conveniens defense, the court said in part:

the alternate forum, Pennsylvania, is inadequate as there remains no remedy there for the plaintiff due to its strict statute of limitations.

Former Cardinal McCarrick and Newark Archdiocese Sued By Sex Abuse Victim

Just minutes after a new New Jersey law went into effect opening a 2-year window in which previously time-barred sex abuse cases can be filed, suit was filed in a New Jersey state trial court against former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and the Catholic Archdiocese of Newark. The complaint (full text) in Bellocchio v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, (NJ Super. Ct., filed 12/1/2019), states claims for sexual battery against McCarrick, and for negligence against the Archdiocese. It alleges in part:

31. In approximately 1995 or 1996, when Plaintiff was approximately 13 or 14 years old, McCarrick engaged in unpermitted sexual contact with Plaintiff.

32. McCarrick engaged in a similar course of conduct and pattern of sexual predation of devout Catholic youth under his control.

Washington Post and America report on the lawsuit.

Sex Abuse Lawsuit Against Jehovah's Witnesses To Be Filed Today

The provision in Sec. 3 of New York's Child Victims Act that creates a one-year window for filing previously time-barred child sex abuse lawsuits is triggered as of today.  New York Post reports that two former Jehovah's Witnesses will file suit in state court today:

Lawyers for Heather Steele, 48, and John Michael Ewing, 47, alleged at a press conference Monday that the Witnesses and its eight-member leadership council even maintain a database of church sex offenders that it’s kept secret....

Ewing claims in his lawsuit that a Jehovah’s Witness elder molested him “approximately four to six times per week” for four years, starting when he was 14 — including while his abuser was on vacation with his family.

Steele, who grew up in New York and is now living in Orlando, Florida, claims she was still in diapers when Jehovah’s Elder Donald Nicholson, a family friend, started molesting her in the mid-1970s.

NY Archdiocese Sues Insurers For Coverage of Anticipated Sex Abuse Claims

As reported by Church Militant and Lower Hudson News, the Catholic Archdiocese of New York last week filed suit in a state trial court against 32 of its insurance companies to force them to cover the costs of defending cases likely to be filed when the state's new Child Victims Act set to take effect in August. The suit was filed after a subsidiary of the Chubb Group refused to defend an upcoming lawsuit that alleges the Archdiocese knew or should have known about the sexual abuse that was suffered by the plaintiff. The insurance company claims that this is an event that was expected or intended by the Archdiocese, and so is not covered by its liability policy.

Pennsylvania Appeals Court Reverses Statute of Limitations Dismissal of Clergy Abuse Case

In Rice v. Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, (PA Super., June 11, 2019), a 3-judge appellate panel allowed plaintiff, who was a victim of clergy sexual abuse in the 1970's and 1980's, to move ahead with her suit alleging that the Diocese and its bishops committed fraud, constructive fraud, and civil conspiracy to protect their reputations and that of her childhood priest and alleged abuser. She sued after a Pennsylvania grand jury report detailed clergy abuse.  The trial court dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. However the appeals court reversed holding that only a jury may determine whether, for purposes of tolling of the statute of limitations, plaintiff reasonably investigated the Diocesan Defendants for their intentional torts.  It also held that since the statute of limitations may be tolled by fraudulent concealment, the Church's silence may constitute fraudulent concealment when a jury finds that plaintiff had a fiduciary relationship with a religious institution or its leadership. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette yesterday reported that the Diocese will seek en banc review.

New Jersey Governor Signs Statute of Limitations Extension For Sex Abuse Claims

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy on Monday signed S. 477 (full text) (Governor's signing statement) (press release). The new law extends the statute of limitations for suits for sex abuse of claims by minors and adults. The accompanying statement of the Senate Judiciary Committee explains the new law's complex provisions in detail.  It summarizes the changes as follows:

This substitute bill would extend the statute of limitations in civil actions for sexual abuse claims, as well as create a two-year window for parties to bring previously time-barred actions based on sexual abuse. The bill would also expand the categories of potential defendants in civil actions, and for some actions permit retroactive application of standards of liability to past acts of abuse for which liability did not previously exist.