Charles Anderson v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12657
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Charles Anderson alleged sexual abuse by priests and lay employees in the 1950s–1960s and sued the Catholic Bishop of Chicago and the Holy See in 2011.
- The district court dismissed claims against the Catholic Bishop with prejudice under Illinois’s childhood sexual-abuse statute of repose and dismissed claims against the Holy See without prejudice for lack of service.
- Anderson’s complaint conceded the abuse occurred decades earlier and acknowledged applicable statutes likely barred suit; he was born in 1951 and alleges abuse circa 1960.
- Illinois’s 1991 statute of repose (735 ILCS 5/13‑202.2) required filing by age 30 and operated as an absolute bar; the statute was later repealed but Illinois courts hold the repeal did not revive previously extinguished claims.
- Anderson argued equitable theories (estoppel, waiver, promissory and judicial estoppel, fraudulent concealment) based on communications and settlement-type overtures from the Catholic Bishop in 2003–2007.
- The district court rejected those equitable arguments and denied post-judgment relief (Rules 59(e), 60(b)); the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of statute of repose | Anderson: claims timely or defendants precluded from asserting repose by estoppel/waiver | Defendants: statute of repose bars claims; repeal does not revive extinguished claims | Court: statute of repose bars claims; dismissal affirmed |
| Equitable tolling/estoppel/promissory estoppel | Anderson: defendant communications induced delay and precluded repose defense | Defendants: communications came long after repose barred claims and did not promise to waive defense | Court: no plausible estoppel or promissory‑estoppel claim; communications acknowledged the repose and offered compassionate (not legal) relief |
| Waiver by settlement offers/compassionate relief | Anderson: considering relief equals waiver of limitations defense | Defendants: offering compassionate relief while stating claims are time‑barred does not constitute waiver | Court: no waiver; defendant expressly preserved legal defense and did not clearly relinquish right |
| Judicial estoppel based on Church’s conduct in other cases | Anderson: Church settled stale claims, so judicial estoppel should apply | Defendants: settlements are omissions, not contrary factual assertions; no conflicting factual positions by Catholic Bishop here | Court: judicial estoppel inapplicable; no conflicting factual statements alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- M.E.H. v. L.H., 685 N.E.2d 335 (Ill. 1997) (repeal of repose does not revive claims already extinguished; vested defense rights protect defendants)
- Doe A. v. Diocese of Dallas, 917 N.E.2d 475 (Ill. 2009) (limitations period governed by injury; discussion of childhood sexual‑abuse statutes)
- Orlak v. Loyola Univ. Health Sys., 885 N.E.2d 999 (Ill. 2007) (statute of repose operates regardless of discovery)
- Palka v. City of Chicago, 662 F.3d 428 (7th Cir. 2011) (appealability of certain dismissals without prejudice when refiling is barred by limitations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601 (7th Cir. 2000) (standard for Rule 59(e) manifest‑error relief)