Doe v. Hartz

52 F.Supp.2d 1027

Jane DOE, Plaintiff, v. Father Gerald HARTZ, Bishop Lawrence Soens, St. Lawrence Church, and Roman Catholic Diocese of Sioux City, Iowa, Defendants.

No. C98-4084-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

May 5, 1999.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Tiffany B. Klosener, Roxanne Barton Conlin, Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C., Des Moines, Iowa, for Jane Doe, plaintiff.

Scot L. Bauermeister, Fitzgibbons Law Firm in Estherville, Iowa, for Father Gerald Hartz, defendant.

Maurice B. Nieland of Rawlings, Nieland, Probasco, Killinger, Ellwanger, Jacobs & Mohrhauser, Sioux City, Iowa, St. Lawrence Church, Bishop Soens, and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sioux City, Iowa, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

BENNETT, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 1035
   A. Synopsis .......................................................... 1035
   B. The Claims ........................................................ 1036
   C. Procedural Background ............................................. 1038
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ...................................................... 1038
    A. Procedural Bars .................................................. 1038
       1. Lack of diversity jurisdiction ................................ 1038
          a. Rules of diversity jurisdiction ............................ 1039
           b. Diversity here ............................................ 1039
       2. Timeliness of Doe's claims .................................... 1040
          a. Iowa's "savings" statute ................................... 1041
          b. Applicability of the statute ............................... 1041
              i. Negligence ............................................. 1041
              ii. Other prerequisites ................................... 1043
              iii. The same cause of action ............................. 1044
       3. Failure to sue in plaintiff's proper name ..................... 1044
          a. Pertinent factors .......................................... 1045
          b. Application of the factors ................................. 1047
    B. Substantive Challenges ........................................... 1049
       1. Standards for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal ....................... 1049
       2. Sexual abuse .................................................. 1050
          a. "Sexual abuse" within the meaning of § 709.1 .......... 1050
          b. "Sexual exploitation" within the meaning of § 709.15 .. 1051
          c. Assault and battery ........................................ 1052
       3. Fraud ......................................................... 1054
          a. Elements and pleading ...................................... 1055
          b. Doe's allegations .......................................... 1056
       4. Breach of fiduciary duty ...................................... 1058
          a. When does the duty arise? .................................. 1058
          b. Breach of fiduciary duty of clergy ......................... 1059
          c. Duty and breach here ....................................... 1062
              i. The Diocese and Soens .................................. 1062
              ii. Defendant Hartz ....................................... 1062
       5. Assault ....................................................... 1066
       6. Tortious infliction of severe emotional distress .............. 1067
          a. Elements of the claim ...................................... 1068
          b. "Outrageousness" of Hartz's conduct ........................ 1069
       7. Negligence claims against defendant Hartz ..................... 1070
          a. Count VII .................................................. 1071
          b. Count VIII ................................................. 1072
       8. Negligence claims against the Church Defendants ............... 1072
       9. Premises liability ............................................ 1074
       10. Respondeat superior liability ................................ 1074
           a. The Godar decision ........................................ 1075
           b. Does Godar foreclose respondeat superior liability here? .. 1076
       11. A constitutional bar? ........................................ 1078
III. CONCLUSION ......................................................... 1079

What are the consequences of an unsolicited kiss and a rub on the back? When the person who allegedly imposed such a kiss and a rub is a parish priest, the plaintiff contends it is liability of the priest, bishop, church, and diocese for the priest's misconduct. Not content with asserting a claim for simple assault or battery as a basis for defendants' liability, the plaintiff has advanced a startling dozen theories of liability. The defendants contend that the plaintiff's outrage has gotten the better of her judgment, because they argue that none of the plaintiff's many causes of action states a claim upon which relief can be granted. As is too often true, in their zeal, both sides of the controversy have overstated their case. Lacking a Herculean solution to plaintiff's Hydra-headed¹ complaint and the defendants' multi-pronged attack attempting to dismiss it, the court must address each of the contentions raised by the parties.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Synopsis

Anonymous plaintiff Jane Doe filed her complaint in this action on September 16, 1998, naming as defendants Father Gerald A. Hartz, who is a priest at St. Lawrence Church, in Carroll, Iowa; St. Lawrence Church itself; the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sioux City, Iowa; and Bishop Lawrence Soens, the bishop of the defendant Diocese. Where circumstances warrant, the latter three defendants will be referred to as the "Church Defendants." The gravamen of Doe's complaint is that, on December 3, 1994, when she arrived at St. Lawrence Church to sing during evening mass, defendant Hartz "came up behind her, grabbed her with both of his hands and pulled her back into his body, held her tightly and kissed her neck." Complaint, ¶ 12. Later that same evening, after mass, "Defendant Hartz rubbed Plaintiff's back up and down with his hand." Id. at ¶ 15. Doe asserts twelve state-law claims based on these incidents or related events.

The present lawsuit is a reincarnation of a lawsuit filed on August 29, 1996, see Doe v. Hartz, 970 F.Supp. 1375 (N.D.Iowa 1997), but dismissed at the behest of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on July 8, 1998. See Doe v. Hartz, 134 F.3d 1339 (8th Cir. 1998). Indeed, all of Doe's factual allegations in the renewed complaint are verbatim repleadings — with only incidental corrections of typographical errors — of the facts alleged in support of Doe's original complaint. Compare Complaint of August 29, 1996 (hereinafter "Original Complaint"), ¶¶ 9-28; with Complaint of September 16, 1998 (hereinafter "Present Complaint"), ¶¶ 10-29.

In her Original Complaint, Doe alleged thirteen claims, based on state and federal law, including a claim under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), 42 U.S.C. § 13981, which was the basis for her assertion of federal question jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found the VAWA claim wanting — thus eliminating a federal question as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction — and directed that the Original Complaint be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. Doe, 134 F.3d at 1344. However, Doe has instead refiled the Present Complaint — omitting only her VAWA claim — in this federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, because she is now a citizen of Illinois. Doe specifically alleges that the present action is "saved" from the bar of the applicable statute of limitations pursuant to IOWA CODE § 614.10, because her Original Complaint was dismissed without prejudice through no fault of her own, then refiled within six months, and thus must be considered to be a continuation of the first action for statute of limitations purposes.

B. The Claims

With the exception of the VAWA claim, which has been eliminated from the present lawsuit, the claims of the Present Complaint "track," but are not necessarily identical to, the claims of the Original Complaint. Thus, Doe once again asserts claims of sexual abuse by defendant Hartz; fraud by all defendants; breach of fiduciary duty by defendants, Diocese and Soens; breach of fiduciary duty by defendant Hartz; assault by defendant Hartz; tortious infliction of emotional distress by defendants Hartz, Soens, and Diocese; two separate claims of negligence by defendant Hartz; negligent supervision by the Church Defendants; another claim of negligence by defendants Church and diocese; premises liability of defendant St. Lawrence Church; and respondeat superior liability of defendant St. Lawrence Church. In the table that follows, the claims of the Original and the Present Complaints are correlated, with a recitation of the gravamen of each claim and the manner, if any, in which the claim has been revised in the Present Complaint.

Count of Shorthand Count of Gravamen of Claim) Revision in Present
Original Description Present (With references to the Present Complaint Complaint
Complaint Complaint
    1        VAWA claim               —             Violation of the civil remedies provision of the             Deleted
                                                  VAWA, 42 U.S.C. § 13981
    2        Sexual abuse             I             "On December 3, 1994, at approximately 4:35                    None
                                                  p.m. in the sacristy of the St. Lawrence Church,

...