RECORD IMPOUNDED 

 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-3634-21

JOHN DOE, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

ARCHDIOCESE OF 

PHILADELPHIA, 

 

Defendant-Respondent. 

________________________

Argued November 13, 2023 – Decided December 27, 2023 

Before Judges Gilson, Berdote Byrne, and BishopThompson. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Ocean County, Docket No. L-2963-19.

M. Stewart Ryan argued the cause for appellant (Laffey 

Bucci & Kent, LLP, attorneys; Brian Dooley Kent and

M. Stewart Ryan, on the briefs). 

Nicholas M. Centrella (Clark Hill PLC) argued the 

cause for respondent. 

PER CURIAM 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-3634-21

 In 2019, plaintiff sued the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (the Archdiocese) 

in New Jersey.1 He alleged that in the early 1980s, when he was approximately 

twelve years old, Father John P. Schmeer, a priest of the Archdiocese, sexually 

abused him, and that some of the abuse occurred at a personal home co-owned 

by Schmeer and another priest in Mystic Island, New Jersey. 

 Plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing his complaint against the 

Archdiocese for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm because jurisdictional 

discovery established that the Archdiocese did not purposefully avail itself of 

any benefits in New Jersey related to Schmeer's alleged abuse of plaintiff. Thus, 

New Jersey does not have personal jurisdiction over the Archdiocese related to 

this lawsuit. 

 I.

 We discern the facts from the record developed during jurisdictional 

discovery. The Archdiocese is an unincorporated, religious, non-profit 

association that operates in Pennsylvania. Its principal place of administration 

is in Philadelphia, and it oversees Catholic parishes in five Pennsylvania 

counties. The Archdiocese does not oversee or operate any churches, parishes, 

1

 Plaintiff identifies himself as "John Doe" in his complaint. We refer to him 

as plaintiff to protect privacy interests concerning allegations of child sexual 

abuse. See R. 1:38-3(c)(9); see also N.J.S.A. 2A:61B-1(f). 
3 A-3634-21

or religious facilities in New Jersey. It also does not assign priests to any 

parishes in New Jersey. 

 The Archdiocese does not currently own any real property in New Jersey. 

In the past, the Archdiocese did own several properties in New Jersey that were 

given to it, but those properties were sold before 2013. The Archdiocese also 

owned and operated two properties in Ventnor, New Jersey, which it used as 

vacation homes for priests. The Ventnor properties were acquired in 1963 and 

sold in 2012 and 2013. 

 Schmeer was ordained as a Catholic priest in the Archdiocese in 1964. 

Thereafter, he served as a priest and teacher in the Archdiocese until 2004, when 

the Archdiocese restricted his activities. 

 Plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania. During his childhood, he attended 

St. Titus Parish (St. Titus) in East Norriton, Pennsylvania. While attending St. 

Titus, plaintiff met Father Francis Trauger and Schmeer, both of whom served 

as priests at St. Titus. Plaintiff alleges that in 1981, he was sexually abused by 

Trauger at a seminary in Pennsylvania. When plaintiff's father suspected 

plaintiff was abused by Trauger, he sent him to Schmeer for counseling. 

Thereafter, Schmeer sexually abused plaintiff on numerous occasions. 
4 A-3634-21

 Plaintiff testified that most of the abuse by Schmeer occurred in 

Pennsylvania in the parish rectory or church. He also alleged that in the early 

1980s, Schmeer sexually abused him twice at a home Schmeer co-owned in 

Mystic Island, New Jersey. Plaintiff explained that he would not have gone to 

New Jersey alone with Schmeer if his parents had not recommended he seek 

counseling from Schmeer concerning the alleged sexual abuse by Trauger. 

 In December 2019, plaintiff sued the Archdiocese in the Law Division in 

Ocean County. Plaintiff alleged that the Archdiocese was responsible for 

Schmeer's sexual abuse of him based on theories of vicarious liability, 

negligence, negligent supervision, and negligent hiring and retention. 

 The Archdiocese moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of 

personal jurisdiction. Initially, the trial court denied that motion and directed 

the parties to engage in jurisdictional discovery. Following the completion of 

that discovery, the Archdiocese again moved to dismiss the complaint. 

 After hearing argument, on June 20, 2022, the trial court issued a written 

opinion and order granting the motion and dismissing plaintiff's complaint for 

lack of personal jurisdiction over the Archdiocese. Plaintiff now appeals. 
5 A-3634-21

 II. 

 On appeal, plaintiff makes two arguments. He contends that the 

Archdiocese is subject to specific jurisdiction in New Jersey because Schmeer 

was an agent of the Archdiocese. He also argues that the Archdiocese had 

sufficient minimum contacts with New Jersey at the time of the alleged sexual 

abuse of plaintiff and, therefore, New Jersey can exercise jurisdiction consistent 

with due process. 

 Personal jurisdiction is a "'mixed question of law and fact' that must be 

resolved at the outset, 'before the matter may proceed.'" Rippon v. Smigel, 449 

N.J. Super. 344, 359 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting Citibank, N.A. v. Est. of 

Simpson, 290 N.J. Super. 519, 532 (App. Div. 1996)). We review a trial court's 

findings of fact with respect to jurisdiction "to determine if those findings are 

supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record," but conclusions of 

law are reviewed de novo. Id. at 358. "A trial court's interpretation of the law 

and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to 

any special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 

140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). 

 Having considered plaintiff's arguments in light of the record and 

governing law, we reject them. The facts disclosed during jurisdictional 
6 A-3634-21

discovery established that the Archdiocese is not subject to jurisdiction in New 

Jersey because it did not purposefully avail itself of activities in New Jersey 

sufficient to satisfy the "minimum contacts" required for personal jurisdiction. 

See Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316-17 (1945). 

 We have recently published two opinions that set forth the law on when a 

non-resident diocese is subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey for the 

alleged past sexual abuse of a minor by a priest. See D.T. v. Archdiocese of 

Phila., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2023); JA/GG Doe 70 v. Diocese of 

Metuchen, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2023). Like in those cases, plaintiff 

concedes that he must show New Jersey has specific personal jurisdiction over 

the Archdiocese. 

 To determine whether a non-resident defendant may be subject to specific 

personal jurisdiction, courts examine the "relationship among the defendant, the 

forum, and the litigation." Lebel v. Everglades Marina, Inc., 115 N.J. 317, 323 

(1989) (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977)). "In order for a 

state court to exercise [specific] jurisdiction over a non[-]resident defendant, the 

lawsuit 'must aris[e] out of or relat[e] to the defendant's contacts with the 

forum.'" Jardim v. Overley, 461 N.J. Super. 367, 376 (App. Div. 2019) (third 

and fourth alterations in original) (quoting Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 
7 A-3634-21

117, 127 (2014)); accord Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 138 N.J. 106, 

119 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1183 (1995); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. 

Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1025 (2021). 

 "The 'minimum contacts' requirement is satisfied so long as the contacts 

resulted from the defendant's purposeful conduct and not the unilateral activities 

of the plaintiff." Lebel, 115 N.J. at 323 (citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. 

v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297-98 (1980)); see also Waste Mgmt., 138 N.J. at 

126 (explaining that "the existence of minimum contacts turns on the presenc e 

or absence of intentional acts of the defendant to avail itself of some benefit of 

a forum state"). The contacts "must be the defendant's own choice and not 

'random, isolated, or fortuitous.'" Ford, 141 S. Ct. at 1025 (quoting Keeton v. 

Hustler Mag., Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984)). Moreover, courts determine, 

based on the defendant's "'conduct and connection' with the forum state . . . 

whether the defendant should 'reasonably anticipate being haled into court [in 

the forum state].'" Bayway Refin. Co. v. State Utils., Inc., 333 N.J. Super. 420,

429 (App. Div. 2000) (alteration in original) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen, 

444 U.S. at 297). 

 A court "must consider the burden on the defendant, the interests of the 

forum State, and the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief." Asahi Metal Indus. 
8 A-3634-21

Co. v. Superior Ct., 480 U.S. 102, 113 (1987). So, a court weighs "the interstate 

judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of 

controversies; and the shared interest of the several States in furthering 

fundamental substantive social policies." Ibid. (quoting World-Wide 

Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 292). 

 Neither the Archdiocese's former ownership of properties in New Jersey 

nor its supervision over Schmeer as one of its priests established specific 

jurisdiction over the Archdiocese in New Jersey related to Schmeer's alleged 

sexual abuse of plaintiff in New Jersey. There is no evidence that the 

Archdiocese's former ownership of real properties in New Jersey had any 

relation to plaintiff's allegations of abuse by Schmeer. Plaintiff has testified that 

he was abused by Schmeer in the early 1980s at a private home Schmeer coowned in Mystic Island, New Jersey. The Archdiocese's former ownership of 

other properties in New Jersey was not related to Schmeer's use of the home in 

Mystic Island. Specific jurisdiction requires "a connection between the forum 

and the specific claims at issue." Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct., 582 

U.S. 255, 265 (2017). 

 Moreover, there was no evidence that the Archdiocese knew of, approved, 

or sanctioned Schmeer taking plaintiff to a private home in Mystic Island. 
9 A-3634-21

Accordingly, there is no evidence demonstrating that the Archdiocese 

purposefully availed itself of any benefit or activity in New Jersey in connection 

with plaintiff's allegations of abuse by Schmeer. 

 For the reasons we detailed in D.T., we reject plaintiff's argument that 

Schmeer was acting as an agent of the Archdiocese when Schmeer sexually 

abused plaintiff. ___ N.J. Super. at ___ (slip op. at 14-19). In short, there is no 

evidence that Schmeer was acting within the scope of his responsibilities as a 

priest when he sexually assaulted plaintiff. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 582 

U.S. at 265; Shaffer, 433 U.S. at 204; Lebel, 115 N.J. at 323. 

 Affirmed.