The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently heard oral arguments in D.T. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia (088966), which will decide whether the Archdiocese of Philadelphia must face child sexual abuse claims in New Jersey. The plaintiff brought the suit under the Child Victims Act, which provides a two-year revival window for victims to file otherwise time-barred claims for sexual abuses committed against them while minors. Pennsylvania does not have a similar law.
Facts of D.T. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia
Plaintiff D.T. alleges that Michael McCarthy, a former Catholic priest, sexually abused him in New Jersey in 1971. At that time, plaintiff was fourteen years old, and McCarthy was serving as a priest and teacher in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (the Archdiocese). As detailed in court documents, McCarthy invited plaintiff to go with him to a home McCarthy used in Margate, New Jersey. The Plaintiff’s mother gave permission, and McCarthy and the Plaintiff then drove to the Margate home. When they arrived, the Plaintiff alleges that McCarthy showed him pornography, encouraged him to drink alcohol, and sexually assaulted him.
In May 2020, the Plaintiff filed suit against McCarthy and the Archdiocese in New Jersey. Plaintiff alleged that defendants negligently provided pastoral services to him when McCarthy sexually abused plaintiff in New Jersey. Plaintiff also contended that the Archdiocese was vicariously liable for McCarthy’s tortious acts and that the Archdiocese was negligent in hiring and supervising McCarthy.
After conducting discovery regarding the Archdiocese’s ownership of property in New Jersey, the trial court granted its motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court found that the Archdiocese’s past ownership of property in New Jersey did not constitute purposeful availment of any benefit from New Jersey related to McCarthy’s alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff. The trial court also found that the Archdiocese had not purposefully availed itself of any benefit in New Jersey related to plaintiff’s allegations because those allegations “only involve[d] the unilateral act[s] of [McCarthy]” and did not involve deliberate conduct by the Archdiocese.
Appellate Division’s Decision in D.T. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia
The Appellate Division affirmed. “Because there are no facts establishing that the Archdiocese purposefully availed itself of any benefits in or from New Jersey related to McCarthy’s alleged abuse of plaintiff, we affirm,” the appeals court wrote.
The Appellate Division agreed that neither the Archdiocese’s former ownership of properties in New Jersey nor its supervision over McCarthy as one of its priests established specific jurisdiction over the Archdiocese in New Jersey related to McCarthy’s alleged sexual abuse of the Plaintiff in New Jersey. It further found the decision was consistent with rulings by other courts that have considered whether Catholic dioceses, including the Archdiocese, are subject to personal jurisdiction because of alleged sexual abuses committed by priests.
Issues Before the NJ Supreme Court in D.T. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia
The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification on April 8, 2024. The justices agreed to consider the following question: “Under the circumstances presented, is the Archdiocese of Philadelphia subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey?”
The Court held oral arguments on October 7, 2024. It was the first oral argument hearing for newly sworn in Associate Justice John Jay Hoffman.