### 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, 2023Before 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 (Laf fey 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PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.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 parti es in the case and its use in other cases is limite d. R. 1:36- 3.2 A- 3634

- 21

In 2019, plaintiff sued the Archdiocese of Philade lphia (the Archdiocese) in New Jersey. 1 He alleged that in the early 1980s, when he was app roximately 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 com plaint 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 all eged 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 dur ing jurisdictional discovery. The Archdiocese is an unincorporated, r eligious, non-profit association that operates in Pennsylvania. Its pri ncipal place of administration is in Philadelphia, and it oversees Catholic parish es in five Pennsylvania counties. The Archdiocese does not oversee or oper ate any churches, parishes,

1 Plaintiff identifies himself as "John Doe" in his c omplaint. We refer to him as plaintiff to protect privacy interests concernin g 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 doe s not assign priests to any parishes in New Jersey. The Archdiocese does not currently own any real property i n New Jersey. In the past, the Archdiocese did own several proper ties 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 J ersey, which it used as vacation homes for priests. The Ventnor properties were acquired in 1963 an d sold in 2012 and 2013. Schmeer was ordained as a Catholic priest in the A rchdiocese in 1964. Thereafter, he served as a priest and teacher in th e Archdiocese until 2004, when the Archdiocese restricted his activities. Plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania. During h is childhood, he attended St. Titus Parish (St. Titus) in East Norriton, Penn sylvania. While attending St. Titus, plaintiff met Father Francis Trauger and Sch meer, both of whom served as priests at St. Titus. Plaintiff alleges that in 1981, he was sexually abu sed by Trauger at a seminary in Pennsylvania. When plaint iff's father suspected plaintiff was abused by Trauger , he sent him to Schmeer for counseling. Thereafter, Schmeer sexually abused plaintiff on nu merous occasions.4 A- 3634

- 21

Plaintiff testified that most of the abuse by Schm eer occurred in Pennsylvania in the parish rectory or church. He a lso 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 no t recommended he seek counseling from Schmeer concerning the alleged sexu al abuse by Trauger. In December 2019, plaintiff sued the Archdiocese i n the Law Division in Ocean County. Plaintiff alleged that the Archdioce se was responsible for Schmeer's sexual abuse of him based on theories of vicarious liability, negligence, negligent supervision, and negligent hi ring and retention. The Archdiocese moved to dismiss plaintiff's compl aint 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 dism iss the complaint. After hearing argument, on June 20, 2022, the tria l court issued a written opinion and order gra nting the motion and dismissing plaintiff's complai nt for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Archdiocese. Plaintiff now appeals.5 A- 3634

- 21

II. On appeal, plaintiff makes two arguments. He cont ends that the Archdiocese is subject to specific jurisdiction in New Jersey because Schmeer was an agent of the Archdiocese. He also argues th at the Archdiocese had sufficient minimum contacts with New Jersey at the time of the alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff and, therefore, New Jersey can e xercise 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 proc eed.'" Rippon v. Smigel, 449 N.J. Super. 344, 359 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting Citi bank, N.A. v. Est. of Simpson, 290 N.J. Super. 519, 532 (App. Div. 1996)). We r eview a trial court's findings of fact with respect to jurisdiction "to d etermine 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 co urt's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from establish ed 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 o f the record and governing law, we reject them. The facts disclosed during jurisdictional6 A- 3634

- 21

discovery established that the Archdiocese is not s ubject to jurisdiction in New Jersey because it did not purposefully avail itself of activities in New Jersey sufficient to satisfy the "minimum contacts" requir ed 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 f orth the law on when a

non -resident diocese is subject to personal jurisdicti on 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). Li ke 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 b e subject to specific personal jurisdiction, courts examine the "relation ship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation." Lebel v. Everglades Ma rina, Inc., 115 N.J. 317, 323 (1989) (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 2 04 (1977)). "In order for a state court to exercise [specific] jurisdiction ove r a non[-]resident defendant, the lawsuit 'must aris[e] out of or relat[e] to the def endant's contacts with the forum.'" Jardim v. Overley, 461 N.J. Super. 367, 3 76 (App. Div. 2019) (third and fourth alterations in original) (quoting Daimle r AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S.7 A- 3634

- 21

117, 1 27 (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. 101 7, 1025 (2021). "The 'minimum contacts' requirement is satisfied s o long as the contacts resulted from the defendant's purposeful conduct an d 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 cont acts 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 defenda nt's own choice and not 'random, isolated, or fortuitous.'" Ford, 141 S. C t. at 1025 (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Mag., Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984)). Mor eover, 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 obtain ing 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 ef ficient resolution of controversies; and the shared interest of the sever al States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies." Ibid. (q uoting World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 292). Neither the Archdiocese's former ownership of prop erties in New Jersey nor its supervision over Schmeer as one of its prie sts established specific jurisdiction over the Archdiocese in New Jersey rel ated to Schmeer's alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff in New Jersey. There is no evidence that the Archdiocese's former ownership of real properties i n New Jersey had any relation to plaintiff's allegations of abuse by Sc hmeer. Plaintiff has testified that he was abused by Schmeer in the early 1980s at a pr ivate home Schmeer co owned in Mystic Island, New Jersey. The Archdiocese's forme r ownership of other properties in New Jersey was not related to S chmeer's use of the home in Mystic Island. Specific jurisdiction requires "a c onnection between the forum and the specific claims at issue." Bristol-Myers Sq uibb Co. v. Superior Ct., 582 U.S. 255, 265 (2017). Moreover, there was no evidence that the Archdioce se 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 tha t the Archdiocese purposefully availed itself of any benefit or activ ity in New Jersey in connection with plaintiff's allegations of abuse by Schmeer. For the reasons we detailed in D.T., we reject pla intiff's argument that Schmeer was acting as an agent of the Archdiocese w hen 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 o f 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.