Page 1
Lawyer’s Suit Against Archbishop, Two Bishops Reinstated
Ninth Circuit Says District Court Erred in Dismissing Action Based on Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a matter argued in Pasadena, yesterday reinstated an action brought by a Florida lawyer against a Catholic archbishop in Pennsylvania, a bishop in Ohio, and a bishop in New Jersey, and their respective dioceses, based on communications that allegedly caused him to be fired by a diocese in Arizona.
Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon wrote for a three-judge panel in reversing a dismissal with prejudice by the District Court of the District of Arizona of the action filed by North Miami attorney Dean Burri. The dismissal was based on a lack of personal jurisdiction.
“Where a defendant directs communications that are defamatory toward a forum state and seeks to interfere with a forum state contract, the defendant has purposefully directed conduct at the forum state, and the defendant knows or should know that such conduct is likely to cause harm in the forum state,” Berzon wrote. “The dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction therefore rested on a legal error.”
She also declared that the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention does not apply and rejected the contention that Archbishop William Skurla of Pittsburgh, Bishop Milan Lach of Parma, Ohio, Bishop Richard Burnett of Passaic, New Jersey cannot be liable because it was actually Pope Francis who ordered that Burri’s services be terminated.
Meanwhile, Burri is suing the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy (diocese) of Phoenix for more than $700,000 in attorney fees and costs and it’s suing him for malpractice.
Lawyer’s Discovery
Burri was hired in 2015 to go over the eparchy’s Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) health care benefits plan. He uncovered facts showing that plan administrators had commingled funds, converted assets, and placed plan funds in offshore accounts.
Aware of what he discovered, the administrators proceeded to merge the Phoenix plan with those of the eparchies in Pittsburgh, Parma and Passaic. On behalf of the Phoenix Eparchy, Burri filed an ERISA action against the plan, leading to alleged defamation of the lawyer by Skurla, in particular, and by the two bishops.
There is a precept of canon law that church officials cannot breach without papal authorization. Pope Francis ordered that the ERISA action be dropped and that Burri be fired.
Berzon’s Opinion
In her opinion reversing the dismissal of Burri’s action, Berzon directed most of her attention to Skurla’s conduct. As to whether the action may be pursued against Lach and Burnett, she said the District Court may “assess” that “afresh” on remand.
She wrote:
“Some of Skurla’s allegedly defamatory communications—including phone calls and written correspondence—were sent to Arizona, circulated within Arizona, and had an Arizona ‘focus,’ as they concerned Burri’s activities in Arizona. Skurla’s actions were therefore aimed at the forum state itself.
“In addition, Skurla’s acts were allegedly intended to interfere with an Arizona lawsuit and an Arizona contract.”
Berzon declared that the plaintiff “has carried his burden to establish a prima facie case that Skurla, and by extension the Eparchy of Pittsburgh, ‘purposefully directed’ conduct at Arizona.’ ”
That goes part way toward establishing “minimum contacts,” she said. A further determination must be made on remand as to whether the claims arise from the defendants’ contacts with Arizona and whether an exercise of jurisdiction by the District Court in Arizona would be reasonable.
Abstention Doctrine
The defendants maintained that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies. Berzon disagreed, saying that the doctrine bars a civil court from meddling in church governance or policies or interpreting canon law.
“The doctrine is not relevant here,” the judge said. “Burri is not asking us to adjudicate the sort of issues covered by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.”
Nor is the case subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction based on the actions on non-parties, including the pope, she noted, explaining:
“Causation is a merits question, not an issue relevant to the jurisdictional inquiry. Skurla may assert arguments going to the merits of Burri’s causes of action at later stages of the proceeding….”
She suggested that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim might be tried, but added:
“We express no view on such issues.”
The case is Burri Law PA v. Skurla, 21-15271.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company