879 F. Supp. 2d 416
D. Vt.2012Background
- Shovah sues Mercure and the Diocese for abuse, with a federal anchor claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and state-law claims against the Diocese; no federal claim against the Diocese.
- Discovery began in 2011; February 2012 interrogatories sought Diocese–Vermont contacts; the Diocese filed a protective order in response.
- The Diocese moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court held discovery should proceed on personal jurisdiction while the issue is pursued.
- The Diocese moved to dismiss for lack of supplemental jurisdiction, arguing only Mercure’s federal claim existed and state claims were separate; plaintiff argued supplemental jurisdiction is proper.
- The court denied the Diocese’s motion to dismiss for lack of supplemental jurisdiction, denied the personal jurisdiction motion as premature, and limited/ordered responses to interrogatories within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether supplemental jurisdiction is proper | Shovah contends the federal and state claims share a common nucleus of operative facts. | Diocese argues lack of a common nucleus and urges § 1367(c) dismissal. | Supplemental jurisdiction appropriate; claims share a common nucleus. |
| Whether the court should dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction | Shovah alleges Diocese acted within Vermont via agents and targeted Vermonters; discovery warranted. | Diocese argues insufficient contacts with Vermont and seeks dismissal. | Denied as premature; discovery to proceed to develop personal-jurisdiction record. |
| Whether interrogatories should be protected or limited | Interrogatories are needed to establish personal jurisdiction and Diocese’s Vermont contacts. | Interrogatories are burdensome, unrelated to jurisdiction, or duplicative. | Interrogatories controlled: some granted, some narrowed or struck; discovery extended with limits. |
| Whether parishes are subject to discovery as separate entities | Bishop can compel parish documents; Diocese is head entity. | Parishes are separate entities not ordinarily subject to discovery. | Disagreed with blanket separation; Diocese may be compelled to provide related information; discovery widened within limits. |
| Whether the Court should exercise/decline supplemental jurisdiction after considering § 1367(c) factors | State claims are closely related; should be heard together. | State-law issues are novel/complex and could predominate. | Declination not warranted; § 1367(c) factors do not require dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. Teamsters Local 272, 642 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 2011) (establishes supplemental jurisdiction requires an anchor and a common nucleus)
- Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697 (2d Cir. 2000) (claims must share common nucleus of operative facts to form same case)
- Achtman v. Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP, 464 F.3d 328 (2d Cir. 2006) (overrules use of separate-party status to deny related claims)
- Briarpatch Ltd. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2004) (extrinsic considerations for related-state claims)
- Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester, 12 N.Y.3d 764 (N.Y. 2009) (addressed fiduciary duties within religious institutions in New York)
- Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Rest. Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 2011) (§ 1367(c) factors and discretionary dismissal guidelines)
- Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. Madison Cnty., 665 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 2011) (guidance on 1367(c) discretionary considerations)