Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston Ex Rel. Dinardo
362 S.W.3d 803
Tex. App.2012Background
- Doe sued in 2010 for sexual abuse by Brinkman during 1974–1976, seeking vicarious liability against the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston and asserting various claims including negligence and fiduciary duties.
- Defendants asserted statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and moved for summary judgment; they also sought to stay or limit discovery.
- Doe sought discovery and continuances to develop theories (discovery rule, fraudulent concealment, equitable estoppel) to defeat limitations.
- Rule 11 agreement deferred some discovery responses; Doe sought a continuance to obtain further discovery.
- Trial court granted summary judgments on limitations on November 8, 2010; denied Doe’s continuances; Doe appealed.
- Appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion and limitations barred Doe’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying continuances for discovery | Doe | Archdiocese/Brinkman | No abuse; continuances properly denied |
| Whether limitations accrual/doctrines tolling apply to prevent accrual | Doe | Archdiocese/Brinkman | Accrual triggered by knowledge of abuse; tolling doctrines not shown to apply |
| Whether Doe’s knowledge of abuse affects accrual against the archdiocese | Doe | Archdiocese | Knowledge of abuse starts accrual; does not toll against archdiocese; claims barred |
| Whether discovery evidence could create a fact issue to defeat limitations | Doe | Archdiocese/Brinkman | No, discovery sought not shown to be material to tolling/defeat limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.1996) (discovery rule limited to inherently undiscoverable injuries)
- Stephanie M. v. Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate Diocese of the So. U.S., 362 S.W.3d 656 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (five-year limitations for church/diocese sexual-abuse claims by minor)
- Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 (Tex.2004) (abuse of discretion standard for continuances; factors nonexclusive)
- Laughlin v. Bergman, 962 S.W.2d 64 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997) (continuance necessary where discovery critical)
- Levinthal v. Kelsey-Seybold Clinic, P.A., 902 S.W.2d 508 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (discovery necessary to support conspiracy claim; distinguishable)
- Verkin v. Sw. Ctr. One, Ltd., 784 S.W.2d 92 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1989) (early summary judgment posture; difference between plaintiff/defendant)
- Borderlon v. Peck, 661 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.1983) (fraudulent concealment/equitable estoppel principles)
- Marshall v. First Baptist Church of Houston, 949 S.W.2d 504 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (discovery rule/estoppel not applied where knowledge existed)