Lawsuit against Archdiocese of Philadelphia Alleging Priest Abuse Is Transferred to Pa. Federal Court

By Nicholas Malfitano
Pennsylvania Record
July 1, 2020

https://pennrecord.com/stories/541501517-lawsuit-against-archdiocese-of-philadelphia-alleging-priest-abuse-is-transferred-to-pa-federal-court

PHILADELPHIA – An Arizona man pursuing legal action against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia for sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of a priest when he was a boy growing up in Pennsylvania, has had his case transferred to a federal court here.

U.S. District Court Judge Freda L. Wolfson effectuated the transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 22.

John Doe first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Dec. 2, 2019 versus the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

The plaintiff, now 52, and his siblings grew up attending Catholic schools in Bucks County, within the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. He met Brzyski in 1977, who then became a “fixture” in his family’s home, routinely celebrating Mass there with the plaintiff and family.

“In 1978, when plaintiff was approximately 10 years old, he began serving as an altar boy. At that time, plaintiff claims that Brzyski began sexually grooming him. Plaintiff alleges that this sexual abuse continued through 1982, escalating from fondling to oral and anal rape. Plaintiff charges that the abuse continued even after Brzyski left St. John the Evangelist in 1981,” the suit states.

“The abuse allegedly took place in the sacristy, rectory and office of St. John the Evangelist, and on regular trips to a beach home in Forked River, New Jersey. Plaintiff alleges that Brzyski took him and other young boys to the shore house for about four to five days each month during the summer for three successive years.”

In 1982, when Doe was 14 years old, he disclosed the abuse to his parents, who then alerted Archdiocese personnel. He says he recalls a conference call with Archdiocese personnel to discuss the abuse, and his refusal to later speak to persons claiming to be representatives of the Archdiocese when they came to his home. Brzyski was eventually laicized 23 years later, in 2005.

Doe asserted charges of both negligence and vicarious liability against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia in his litigation, charging it failed to provide a safe environment, knew of priests who had abused children and retained them or transferred them to other parishes to conceal the abuse.

The archdiocese moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction in January.

“Plaintiff claims Brzyski’s sexual abuse of him numerous times in a home in Forked River, New Jersey, should be sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, because Brzyski was an agent of defendant,” Wolfson stated.

“In response, defendant argues that none of its conduct deliberately targeted New Jersey, the complaint does not allege any of defendant’s conduct took place in New Jersey, nor do the claims arise out of defendant’s contacts with New Jersey. Defendant also claims the unilateral acts of a third party, Brzyski, cannot create jurisdiction. I agree with defendant’s position.”

Wolfson explained at the time of the abuse, Doe was a resident of Pennsylvania and a parishioner of a Pennsylvania church in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, an entity whose principle place of business is Pennsylvania, and that he did not allege that any negligent conduct on the part of defendant took place in New Jersey.

While not finding specific jurisdiction for the case in New Jersey, Wolfson did not dismiss it. Rather, the judge transferred it to a Pennsylvania court instead.

“Because plaintiff brought this case in the incorrect forum, it is appropriate for the Court to transfer it to the forum where it could have originally been brought. Here, the Court finds that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1391(b)(1)-(2), because defendant’s principal place of business is in that district and a ‘substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred’ in that district,” Wolfson said.

For counts of negligence and vicarious liability, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional threshold for compensatory damages, punitive damages, delay damages, interest and allowable costs of suit.

The plaintiff is represented by Bethany R. Nikitenko and Mark W. Tanner of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig, plus Patricia V. Pierce and Ronald L. Greenblatt of Greenblatt Pierce Funt & Flores, all in Philadelphia.

The defendant is represented by Nicholas M. Centrella of Conrad O’Brien, also in Philadelphia.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-03024

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey case 3:19-cv-20934

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com