Uncategorized

A plaintiff filed suit against the Catholic Church for the abuse he allegedly suffered from a bishop in the 1960s. The Catholic Church attempted to invoke a now-abolished law—charitable immunity—to claim its status as a non-profit prevented it from being sued. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) recently ruled on the case, rejecting Holy See’s argument. Below is a brief explanation of the matter, according to GBH News.

The Case

As per its own court rules, the SJC issues opinions on cases within 130 days of oral arguments. In John Doe v. the Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, an unnamed plaintiff filed a claim against the Catholic Church based on allegations that he was sexually abused by the bishop of Springfield at the time when he was an altar boy in the 1960s. The plaintiff sought damages for negligent hiring and supervision of the bishop as well as monetary compensation for the sexual abuse. The Catholic Church challenged the claims and sought to block the lawsuit from going to a trial by jury.

The Church’s basis for the challenge rests on two arguments. First, under church autonomy, the Church argued that trial judges in civil matters may not significantly interfere with the religious activities of faith-based entities because of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Second, the Church claims charitable immunity a doctrine that protected charities from certain lawsuits if the underlying action was related to the organization’s charitable mission. The rationale behind the doctrine—which was abolished by the legislature in 1971—was that permitting such legal claims could deplete the organizations’ funding and upend their charitable goals.

The SJC’s Decision

When charitable immunity was abolished, it was done so for incidents that occurred after 1971. In short, the abolishment did not occur retroactively. So, essentially, the Church’s legal argument on this basis is valid even after all these years and even though the doctrine no longer exists because of when the alleged sexual abuse occurred in this particular acase.

The SJC did not address the first issue of church autonomy, stating it was not ripe for review, but did address the second issue of charitable immunity. After reviewing the pre-1971 caselaw on charitable immunity, the SJC held that the bishop’s alleged activities did not correlate with the Catholic Church’s charitable mission but, rather, simply had to do with his own behavior. Accordingly, the Church was not immune to a civil lawsuit related to the bishop’s activities. The plaintiff’s claims regarding negligent hiring and supervision of the bishop, however, were covered under charitable immunity because hiring and supervising fell in line with the Church’s charitable mission of its personnel. Accordingly, the claim could not proceed.

To read more about the case, click here.

For assistance with service of process; both locally and internationally, visit us at Ancillarylegal.com

For assistance with court reporting, transcripts, and videography. visit us at Georgiareporting.com

When someone is served with a lawsuit that originated overseas, they may not know how different this type of litigation can be from a domestic lawsuit. In such scenarios, if the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s home country is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial & Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague Service Convention”), then the standardized method of delivering legal documents is often used.

The Hague Service Convention is an international treaty created to provide a streamlined method of serving legal documents to provide the parties with notice of pending litigation between the treaty’s signatories. This treaty provides the most widely recognized method of international service of process. In some U.S. service statutes, this method had been added as a required method of service of process. There are only about 68 countries around the world, however, are signatories to the Hague Service Convention.

Why the Hague Service Convention Matters

If a creditor has a favorable U.S. judgment or order that needs to be enforced, due process is critical. Consequently, properly serving an overseas defendant under the Hague Serice Convention is imperative. This is because if service is determined to be defective under the laws of a foreign nation it typically cannot be fixed and will negatively affect any later enforcement of a judgment or order. It is important to understand that the requirements of international service of process differ from country to country. Because it can take a few months or even a few years for international service of process to be completed, it is necessary to get it right the first time. Improper service could occur for various reasons—such as mistranslation—and will require you to start over again, increasing costs and causing delays.

What You Should Know

International service of process can sound daunting. While it is important to understand the importance of the Hague Service Convention, it is just as important to be aware that international service of process methods vary depending on the particular circumstances. An attorney should ensure that all the necessary documents are properly prepared and served via the correct avenue. Moreover, attorneys should update the court and client on the progress of international service.

In countries that are not signatories to the Hague Service Convention letters rogatory and private service of process are available options. Letters rogatory is a request signed by the forum court in the United States and sent through diplomatic channels to the courts of a foreign nation asking for judicial assistance on the international level. If the plaintiff’s counsel believes that a U.S. judgment may ultimately need to be enforced, this is the formal process that should be considered. Some countries—such as Austria—require letters rogatory. Private service of process, on the other hand, typically does not exist as an industry outside of the United States. While there are some private service options available, it is more difficult to enforce a U.S. judgment in a foreign country if service of process occurs privately.

If you need litigation support for an international lawsuit, contact Ancillary Legal today. We can provide assistance for all your litigation needs.

For assistance with depositions, videography, or transcripts, contact us at Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting.