2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-26-2004 

# H a r t z v . D io cese of Gr ee nburg P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2536

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" H a r tz v . Dioc e s e of Gr e e nburg " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 909. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/909* Honor able Milton I . Shadur, Senior District Judgefor the United St ates District (continued. . . ) NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No. 03-2536

___________ CH AR LE S H AR TZ , JR ., Appellant

v. THE DI OCESE OF GREE NSBURG; THE CAT HOLI C FOUNDAT ION OFTHE DI OCESE OF GREE NBURG; FATH ER GR EGO RY F. PREM OSHIS; AN THO NY G . BOSCO , as

Trustee of the Dioc ese of G reenburg

___________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FO R T HE WE STE RN DIST RIC T O F PE NN SY LV AN IA

(D.C. Civi l No. 02-cv- 01347) District Judge: T he H onorab le Terrence F. M cVerry

___________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

March 11, 2004
BE FO RE : SL OV ITE R a nd N YG AA RD , Circu it Judges .

andSHADUR, * Distri ct Judge .(. . . continued)

Cour t for the Norther n District of I lli nois, sitting by des ignati on. 1. Bishop Bosco recentlyretired and is no longer t he Trusteeof the Dioces e. As of March 4, 2004, Bis hop Lawrence E. Brandt i s the Dioces e Trustee . 2. Th e sc hoo l wa s op erate d by th e D ioce se a nd f inan ced by the Fo und ation . 2 (Fil ed : March 26, 2004)

___________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

___________ NY GA AR D, Circu it Judge .

Appellant Charles Hartz, Jr. al leges that he was the victi m of sexual abuse between 1980 and 1982. He brought suit in 2002 agai nst appel lees, the Diocese of Greensburg (“ the Diocese ”), t he Catholi c Foundation of the Diocese of Greensburg (“ the Foundation”) , Bishop AnthonyBosco, 1 and Father Gregory Pre moshis. The Distri ct Court dis missed the case for f ailure to st ate a cl aim, concluding that (1) the two-y ear stat ute of l imit ations had expire d and cannot be tolled, and (2) priest s are not subject to a mand at or y re porti ng r equ iremen t. Har tz app eal s a nd we wil l a ffirm. I. Be cau se w e w rite o nly fo r the par ties, o ur d esc riptio n of the f acts is bri ef. In 19 80, H artz w as a six teen-yea r-old stu dent a t Geib el Ca tholic H igh S choo l, 2 and Father Prem oshis w as on e of h is teach ers. H artz an d Pre mo shis de velop ed a c lose re lationsh ip3. We r equested s upplementalbriefing on the issueof diversity of citizenship.

See Nesbit

v. Gears Unlimite d, Inc. , 347 F . 3d 72, 76-77 (3d Cir. 2003) (noting our obligation to satisfy ourselves that subject-matter jurisdiction exist s). Based upon these briefs, we are satisfi ed that the parties have diversity of citizenship. Har tz is a citizen of Michigan and the appel lees are cit izens of the Comm onwealth of Pennsyl vania. 3 that H artz alleg es w as ultim ately violate d. A ccord ing to H artz, Pre mo shis sex ually abused him on multiple oc casions , ofte n after ply ing him with alcohol . Hartz c ontends he repressed the shame associated with the abuse and discovered the link between the abuse and h is psycho logica l injuries o nly years later, w hen a psycho logist ex plaine d that h is
em otio nal p rob lem s stem me d fr om the e xpe rien ces wit h F athe r Pre mo shis .

On July 31, 2002, Hartz f iled s uit against

the appel lees, advancing se veral clai ms includi ng neglige nce per se , battery , ass ault, intent ional i nflic tion of e motional distress, n eglige nce, a nd b reach of fid uciary du ty. The D istrict Co urt refe rred th e case to a magistrate judge, whose report and recommendation concluded that the appellees’ motion t o dismis s under Feder al Rule of Civi l Procedure 12(b)( 6) should begranted. The District Cou rt adopted the m agistrate judge’s repo rt and recom mend ation as the C ourt’s opinion. App. at A4. Hartz now ap peals. II.

The Distri ct Court ha d juri sdiction pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1332. 3 Our juri sdiction ari ses under 28 U.S. C. § 1291. We exerci se plenary r eview over the dism issal und er R ule 1 2(b )(6) o n sta tute o f lim itatio ns a nd o ther gro und s. See Krantz v. Pru den tial In vs. F und M gm t. LL C, 305 F.3d 140 , 142 ( 3d C ir. 2002 ); La ke v . Arn old , 2324

F.3d 360, 365 ( 3d Cir. 2000) . We must give Hartz the benefi t of al l infe rences bas ed on the f acts des crib ed in his p lead ing s an d de term ine w heth er h e m ay be entit led to relie f. Kra ntz , 305 F.3d at

142. On appeal, Hartz rais es thr ee primary i ssues. First , he ass erts that t he Distri ct Court e rred when it dismis sed his ne gligenc e per se clai m on the basis that t he Dio cese h ad no duty to rep ort abu se. H artz cites ame ndm ents to P enns ylvania’s C hild Protective Servi ces Law (“CPSL”) that c ulminat ed in 1995 with c lergybeing added t o the list of ind ivid uals wh o m ust re por t sus pec ted c hild abu se. 2 3 P a. C ons . Sta t. An n. § 631 1(b). H artz, ho we ver, do es no t show that be fore 1 995 , clergy w ere rea sona bly expe cted to repo rt suspe cted c hild ab use. M ore im portan tly, Hartz d oes n ot dem onstra te that t he D ioce se h ad r eas on t o su spe ct F athe r Pre mo shis of c hild abu se in the 1 980 s. Faili ng to demonstr ate, or even al lege, such thr eshold fac ts, Hartz’s neglige nce per se clai m fails to state a clai m on which reli ef can be granted. Thus, the Dist rict Court was correct to dismiss tha t claim unde r Rule 12 (b)(6).

Hartz’s next argument

is that theDistri ct Court s hould have t olled the twoyear st atute of lim itatio ns th at ap plies to h is cla ims of a bus e. 42 Pa. C ons . Sta t. An n. § 5524(7). Without the benefit of toll ing, Hartz brought hi s clai ms almost twenty y ears t oo late. Th e D istrict Co urt con clude d that H artz fa iled to d emo nstrate th at it shou ld app ly eithe r the fr audulent

concealment

doctri ne or the principl e of delay ed accrualunder the discovery rule to toll t

he stat ute of l imit ations . App. at A10-14, A23-25. We agree.5 Hartz ci tes i nstances where courts have been will ing to toll t he stat ute of limi tati ons because drugs or al cohol were i nvolved that prevented the vi ctim fr om being
aw are o f the abu sive situa tion . See , e.g., Greenberg v. McCabe , 4 53 F .S upp . 7 65 ( E. D. Pa. 19 78). H artz fa ils, how ever, to fit the fa cts of h is case with in suc h a sc enario . Hartz doe s no t a ll ege th athe wa s no t c ogn iz ant of t he abus e at

th e t ime it

occ urre d or

anyti me thereafter. Despite alcohol being involved in “many, but not al l” of the abusive events, App. at 43, Hartz was aw are of the possibili ty t hat something untoward w as occurr ing. Hartz concedes in his Amended Com plaint that, on severaloccasions after awaking from an alcohol ic st

upor, he as ked Father Premoshis i f ill egal sexua l activities were t aking plac e. A pp. a t A4 5. B y mak ing this c onc essio n, H artz d oom s his tollin g ar gum ent. See E.J.M . v. Arc hdio cese o f Phila delph ia , 622 A.2d 1388, 1395 (Pa. Super . Ct. 1993) (refus ing to toll t

he stat ute of l imit ations despite all eged fraudul ent conceal ment by t he accused when “the pl ainti ff’s own common sense shoul d inform him that he has be en injured”). Finall y, Hartz cont ends that the Dist rict Court mist akenlyrefused to engage in a conflict-of-l aw analysis to potentially apply another st ate’s stat ute of limitations’
accru al rules. H artz hig hlights his alleg ation th at Fath er Pre mo shis tran sporte d him to other s tate s incl uding Ohio, Virginia, and South Caroli na to perf orm abusive ac ts. Even if we make infere nces in fa vor of Hartz, as we are obli gated t o do, and ass ume that t he alleged conduct accrued in those states and a conflict of law with Pennsylvania exists ,6

Ha rtz can not av ail him self of a mo re lenie nt statute of lim itations ru le. In a d iversity
cas e, w e ap ply the for um state ’s ch oice of la w r ules . Ross v. Johns -Manvill e Corp. , 766 F.2d 823, 826 ( 3d Cir. 1985) . Pennsy lvania ’s borr owing stat ute provi des that

“[t]he period of l imit ation applicable to a clai m accruing out side t his Commonwealth shal l be eithe r that

provided or

prescribed bythe la w of the place where t he clai m accrued or by the la w o f this Co mm onw ealth , wh ichev er first ba rs the c laim .” 42 Pa. C ons . Sta t. An n. § 5521(b) (e mphasis added) . Thus, no c onflic t-of- law analy sis was nece ssary , and the Distri ct Court c orrectlyapplie d Pennsyl vania’s accrualrule. III. For th e reaso ns set f orth, w e w ill affirm the D istrict Co urt’s jud gm ent in favor of appellees.

_________________________