Frank Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation

Williams was able to elicit Though MARTINELLI, LIRR ladders to Frank Plaintiff-

Fleming that the chains locations, Appellee, at platforms other temporary avail- portable that there were ladders to the for the LIRR distribute able ROMAN BRIDGEPORT CATHOLIC worked, Dis- station where Williams CORPORATION, DIOCESAN inquiry prohibited any further trict Court Defendant-Appellant. feasibility chaining a ladder as to the Docket No. 98-7876. temporary platform. of Appeals, United States Court pro- feasibility and ease of Because the Circuit. Second directly ladder viding portable bears the LIRR breach- question of whether April Argued 1999. duty, its on remand Williams should ed Decided Nov. this line pursue questioning allowed (finding of discre- further. See id. abuse testi- prohibited where District Court

tion directly on the issue

mony bore case, reversing in FELA

causation of law judgment as matter

grant jury). gone case have to the

where should reasoning, similar Williams

Under further of inquire have able to

should been only other as to the conditions of the

Sboto getting permanent back

means plaintiffs It was central to the

platform. that, although to show there

case it was premises, been ladder on the

have safe,

not a reasonable alternative. in ex

Finally, there was no error

cluding report. the accident The redacted

version, section, excluding the remedial testimony. cumulative of the

CONCLUSION reasons, reverse foregoing

For of the District Court trial

remand case for consistent opinion.

this

claimed that a teenager he had been sexually assaulted on three occasions be- tween 1961 and 1963 Father Laurence Brett, one of the priests. Diocese’s $750,000 jury awarded Martinelli in com- Laviano, Ridgefield, M. Con- William pensatory damages and held the Diocese (Donna Laviano, L. D. necticut Jennifer punitive hable for damages. The district Laviano, Voog, Norman Laviano J. Law subsequently fixed puni- Martinelli’s P.C., Connecticut, Ridgefield, Offices $250,000, damages tive in the amount of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellee. and denied the Diocese’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) motion judgment renewed for as a Naftalis, York, Gary P. New New York matter of law. (Jonathan Harris, Wagner, M. A. Justine Kramer, Levin, Frankel, New Naftalis & We affirm the district ruling court’s de- York, York, Conway, New Matthew G. nying the Diocese’s motion for Danaher, Tedford, Neal, P.C., Lagnese & 50(b). as a of law matter under Rule We Hartford, Connecticut, Joseph Sweeney, T. conclude, however, that the district court LLP, Hartford, Sage Halloran & Connecti- respects erred in two in instructing the cut, Counsel), Defendant-Appellant. jury on the Connecticut fraudulent con- statute, tolling cealment Conn. Gen.Stat. Costello, Michael L. Dempf, Tobin and 52-595, § plaintiff which the invoked to York; Mark Albany, Chopko, New E. Jef- proceed untimely with his otherwise claim. (on Moon, frey Washington, Hunter D.C. First, by failing the district court erred brief), the for amici curiae United States jury instruct the the had the Conference, Catholic the Church Jesus burden to that he knowledge lacked Saints, Latter-Day Christ of the Rev. Clif- of the existence of his cause of action Kirkpatrick ton as Clerk of the Stated time he it during the claimed that Assembly Presbyterian of the General Second, fraudulently concealed from him. (U.S.A.), the Church General Conference erroneously the district court instructed Adventists, Seventh-Day the General jury tolling the statute did not Council on Finance and Administration of require that the defendant have actual Church, the United Methodist the First necessary awareness of facts to establish Christ, Scientist, Church of and the Evan- plaintiffs cause of action the defen- gelical Lutheran Church America. dant’s lack of resulted awareness SACK, Before: LEVAL and Circuit breach of duties it owed to the MORAN, Judges, and Judge.* District plaintiff. judg- We therefore vacate the ment and remand for a new trial on at SACK, Judge: Circuit (1) Martinelli, least whether the issues statute, in invoking tolling has met his Bridgeport Roman Catholic Dioce- proof as to his own lack of (the “Diocese”) burden Corporation appeals san knowledge; and whether the Diocese from the second amended of the has that it lacked demonstrated United District Court for the Dis- States of the cause of action such that (Janet Arterton, trict of Connecticut Bond apply. statute does not Judge) entered on June 1998 in favor following Frank Mаrtinelli BACKGROUND verdict. The found the Diocese breaching liable for fiduciary duties June Father Laurence Brett Martinelli, owed to who parishioner, began priesthood his Catholic as assistant Moran, Illinois, sitting by designation. *The Honorable James B. Senior Unit- trict of Judge ed States District for the Northern Dis- complaint year, the Diocese received Parish in that at St. Cecilia’s pastor to the a 19- sexually assaulted that Brett had Connecticut, operating Stamford, a church student, University Heart year-old Sacred Martinelli, Diocese. Bridgeport within “T.F.,” A month before. December at Stam- fourteen-year-old student then prepared the incident report School, a affiliat- High school Catholic ford Genuario, A. the Dio Monsignor William Diocese, was a Bridgeport ed with Chancellor, indicated that Dioc Vice cese’s at Cecilia’s. St. parishioner day confronted Brett esan officials at Ce- Brett’s tenure St. Father During Brett ad lodged and that complaint was than two cilia’s, a little more which lasted allega the truth of the student’s mitted spiritual a mentor acted as years, he the com report added tions. The including boys, group to a small advisor “T.F.,” student, “was worried plaining Martinelli, liturgi- were interested who gone [a] New boys about other who Church. Brett in the Catholic cal reforms Father Brett” but York Hotel with Maver- as “Brett’s group to the referred hap anything denies that “Father Brett icks.” The report occasions.” pened on those that Father Brett claims however, indicated, that Brett “admit also of trust and induced position abused his ... one other ted with Uni involvement in sexual group engage members of Msgr. boy,” perhaps, versity him. Martinelli testified relations pres official McGough, second Diocesan sexually on which Brett three occаsions Brett, meeting with recalled ent at the first, him as a minor. On assaulted conversation, [boys] other “one or two in a fellatio on Martinelli performed Brett According to the or two occasions.” one walkway grade school behind that he “dis Brett stated report, Diocese’s second, On the after confession. church Stamford, and had problem covered his fellatio perform Martinelli to Brett induced there,” “prob and that his involved been park- in him in Brett’s car St. Cecilia’s on a known to small number lem” was act a him that the was by telling lot ing pastor, including Brett’s Stamford people, The Holy Communion. way to receive to whom Stephen, “[s]omeone Father occurred allegedly abuse third incident of an reported incident.” [had] Stamford in a bath- fondled Martinelli when Brett that report The concluded made with trip a field the two during room Father Brett of his local would relieve Washington, Baltimore and boy to another hepatitis recurrence of “[a] duties and that Martinelli’s Although D.C. recollection in hospitalized Brett had been [for is not alleged dates of these incidents feigned any should early was 1964] clear, some- they he that occurred testified one ask.” 1962, 1963, or 1964. He further in time thereafter, Brett was Shortly Father he memory of abuse that his claims for several months’ sent to New Mexico recovered repressed and not suffered was Although the Dio- psychiatric treatment. a high- a conversation after with until requests to resume cese Brett’s refused during and in October 1991 school friend Connecticut, in it priest his work as subsequent therapy. him provide with financial continued to briefly parish Brett left as support. Father St. Brett served September In Mexico, in time spiritual priest spent in New Cali- in to become Stamford Cecilia’s fornia, Mary- eventually relocated University in and at Sacred Heart director where, in land addition ecclesiastical December nearby Bridgeport. On Guide, Episode Kelly), Maverick: An (played by and 1. “Bret Maverick” Jack www.xnet.com/ (James Garner), (1999). pic- were djk/Maverick_2.shtml A motion brother "Bart” popular ABC come- in television characters series re- ture on the television was based originally aired be- dy-Western that series in 1994. See id. leased Morton, See Alan 1957 and 1962. tween posi- Bishop apparently included a summer Curtis disagreed appointments assessment, however, Patrick, writing this at the Parish of St. Cumber- tion land, Chaplain a stint at Calvert boy ... himself said that he could Baltimore, developed he College, Hall bring parents] not himself to tell [his a writer and editor. career as I might tried to indicate that this why have been the reason the advice January while Father Brett was In them, given mainly not to tell Mexico, Bridgeport Dio still New boy up did not feel to it and was allegation of cese learned of another judged obligation there was no under Brett’s misconduct that was said to have the circumstances to do so. to the “T.F.” prior occurred Connecticut Accordingly, Bishop Curtis “made it and Brett’s transfer from St. Ceci episode parents clear” the Diocese boy It identified teenage lia’s. involved accept responsibility could not for Father in April as “M.F.” a letter written Brett’s conduct or for “the financial state Apostolic Delegate the matter to the on of this man young for the rest of his life.” States, Bishop Walter W. Cur United Bishop But that a agreed Curtis Father that in Brett had explained tis late 1963 Vaughan would remain contact with the allegedly something boy “said which the family and that the Diocese would consider interpreted as a solicitation to homosexual providing suggest- whatever assistance he “M.F.,” Mar- misconduct.” whom appropriate. ed was tinelli has identified as one “Brett’s Martinelli claims that he had no recollec- Mavericks,” declined Brett’s so reportedly tion of the he suffered abuse from Father his relationship licitation terminated Brett until a with a childhood conversation goes priest. bishop with the sparked friend October 1991 his memo- state that ry of events. Martinelli testified probably became aware [“M.F.”] alleged as a result of the abuse he has Father from the disappearance Brett’s experienced long-term emotional difficul- high is close diocese because school ties, including dif- depression, relationship However, university. to the I doubt ficulties, problems, work and a loss of reli- precise that he knew the reason since faith, gious requiring ongoing counseling involving university the incident stu- According to Marti- psychotherapy. known, dent did not become and the nelli, therapy proved his more successful departure of Father Brett was accom- once he discovered that he had been as- plished very quietly. teenager. saulted as a letter, By way of to the response 1993, the January In December 1992 or Apostolic Delegate suggested Bishop Martinelli, that lawyer, through his informed parents Curtis meet with “M.F.” ’s because allegations against of his Diocese expression pastoral an concern February, “[s]uch In met Brett. officials Brett, who, may request relieve them while an official attitude with at the of the 1, Diocese, laicization, A May leave them bitter.” 1967 for signed petition prepared by Bishop terminating priest memorandum Curtis his status as under meeting boy’s parents auspices Bridgеport after his with the Diocese. In Arch- reports they that believed that “the June the Diocese wrote the Baltimore, great responsibility informing Church bears in this diocese of that longer matter toward their son ... and Brett no had the faculties of the whole August In they expect help given.... Bridgeport will be Diocese. year, of Baltimore in- parents judge Both the Church or Archdiocese that, result, in the was at fault in formed Brett as a he was not someone Church advising boy report priest auspices not to this inci- to function as a under its dent, own happened, parents].” Having when it either. consulted [his fraudulently from Martinelli however, concealed Bridge- Brett wrote the

attorney, claims. the existence of his See petition for Diocese to withdraw port I, F.Supp. (citing at 114-17 Conn. Gen. trial in he the time of laicization. At 52-595). reaching § In that conclu Stat. to the incardinated priest remained a said, sion, court most the district “The Diocese, although there is no Bridgeport ... to the Diocese’s pertains difficult issue activities in record what his indication ac cause of actual then were. I, F.Supp. 115. tion.” Martinelli at resident, Martinelli, now a Wisconsin It “the name ‘Frank Martinelli’ noted that against diversity action present filed the in appeared nowhere the Diocese’s volumi Father Brett Diocese and Bridgeport prior to the file on Father Brett nous 27, 1993 on seven July seeking damages lawsuit,” and present initiation of (1) infliction of emo intentional counts: suggest offers no evidence to “[p]laintiff (2) defendants; as by distress both tional [prior aware to this that the Diocese was (3) Brett; battery by breach of sault and present which the upon facts action] of the for fail fiduciary duty by both defendants Id. at 116. The cause of is based.” action (4) abusе; negli ure disclose the sexual held that Martinelli court nonetheless by emotional distress gent infliction of tolling § “may [the demonstrate 52-595 (5) defendants; retention of negligent both notwithstanding applicable to be statute] (6) Diocese; liability vicarious by Brett cause of ignorance of his Diocese’s misconduct; and Diocese for Brett’s if can show that the Dio action training and negligent supervision the result of viola ignorance cese’s the Diocese. legal duty of a to investi tion by Martinel- could not be located Brett words, Id. In other gate and warn.” serving him purpose for the li’s counsel if the district took the view that even court and he did not file an with a summons know that Martinelli was a Diocese did not appear in this case. or otherwise answer abuse, it could not avoid the victim of ignorance its resulted statute moved for August In the Diocese fiduciary duty the from the of a breach the district summary judgment, which gave to Martinelli that rise Diocese owed part granted part denied or in investigate to a warn thoughtful opinion dated thorough form. Bridgeport Martinelli v. March Corp., summary judgment Diocesan As a Roman Catholic result (D.Conn.1997) (“Martinelli withdrawal, voluntary ruling, separate F.Supp. I”). as a summary judgment pre-verdict motion and a motion its law, the case went to trial argued all of Mar- matter of papers, the Diocese just two of claims, August 1997 on Martinelli’s brought years tinelli’s almost the Diocese: breach fidu- occurred, claims were alleged after the assaults emo- ciary duty2 negligent infliction of stat applicable barred Connecticut in- In the district court’s tional distress. limitations, required which Martinel ute of jury, structions to the accordance years li claim within 17 after bring ruling the Diocese’s motion for sum- its on reaching age majority. of See Conn. the court said: mary judgment, § 52-577d. The district GemStat. not concluding jury prove that a could Mr. Martinelli need disagreed, al- knowledge had actual of the find of tolled be the statute limitations leged incidents of his own individual evidence that the Diocese cause there was alleged complicated fraudulent appeal cese's concealment issues on this are The Diocese, claim by plaintiffs claim of the of his fact that the Martinelli second, fiduciary duty and as a substantive basis on of has a dou- Diocese’s breach first, diocese is liable to him determining whether the claims the ble Martinelli role: complains. injury by for the of which he was the Dio- statute of limitations tolled lay if find that the defendant on the you part filing abuse fiduciary duty on Diocese breached lawsuit his cause of action. Fa- investigation undertake additional verdict, By special jury found that alleged Brett’s sexual misconduct ther Martinelli had demonstrated that there ex- that would have revealed Mr. Martinelli a fiduciary relationship isted him between a victim. and the jury Diocese. The also found that the jury The court further instructed the Diocese had failed to by demonstrate that if Martinelli were to demonstrate that convincing clear and evidence that Marti- fiduciary relationship existed between nelli was aware of his own cause of action him and the Diocese the burden would or that the Diocese had not concealed the that it shift to the Diocese to did not action from Martinelli for the purpose of fiduciary duty by intentionally breach its delay. The statute of limitations was concealing Martinelli’s cause of action for therefore tolled and timely. the action purpose delaying his lawsuit. Oth- action, As to the merits еrwise, the statute of would limitations rejected negligent Martinelli’s claim for tolled. court also instructed the distress, ‍​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‍infliction of emotional but found plaintiff claiming while a fraudulent the Diocese liable for breach of its fiducia- normally concealment needs to demon- ry The jury duties. awarded Martinelli strate his or her own lack of $750,000 compensatory damages of and im- action, if the the cause Diocese owed posed punitive damages to be set fiduciary duty Martinelli also carried court at a later date. the burden to demonstrate that Martinelli trial, After the Diocese renewed mo- its knew about his cause action order to judgment pur- tion for as a matter of law application tolling provision avoid on 50(b). suant to Fed.R.Civ.P. The Diocese charged: that basis. The court argued that Martinelli’s claim principally If you fiduciary relationship find that a time-barred, there was insuffi- existed between the defendant Diocese cient evidence to support finding of a Martinelli, Frank plaintiff, and the fiduciary relationship between the Diocese find that you the defendant Diocese vio- Martinelli, and that the First Amend- relationship, lated its duties in that then precluded religious ment reliance on doc- you must decide whether the defendant support finding. trine such a The dis- met burden disproving Diocese has its ruling trict court denied the motion in a ... at least one of the elements of fraud- dated March 1998. Martinelli ulent concealment clear and convinc- Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan ing evidence.... These elements are (D.Conn.1998). F.Supp.2d Corp., as follows: On June the district court en 1) Martinelli, That Frank plaintiff, $250,- awarding tered the order alleged was not aware of the essential punitive damages. judgment 000 in Final fаctual of his elements cause action 11, 1998. was entered June fiduciary duty negli for breach of gent infliction of emotional distress The Diocese now from the final appeals 27, 1990; prior July Rule from the denial of its 2) intentionally That the defendant 50(b) argues principally motion. It that: concealed from the facts nec- applica- court erred in its the district essary for the know he statute, particularly tion of the against action the Dio- had a cause of respect jury to its instructions on the cese, legally that he had a action- i.e. of the burden of as to proof allocation injury; and able fiduciary’s concealment and a fraudulent 3) action, and that knowledge That the defendant concealed those of the cause of purpose obtaining tolling apply facts for the de- statute does not because ever, claim that with the Diocese’s related are time-barred as claims Martinelli’s (2) judgment a matter of law; it was entitled to as there was insufficient matter of that it finding of a fiducia- there was no evidence law because support evidence to Martinelli, specifically, had been the Diocese knew relationship between ry required. showing court’s reliance molested. No such and the lower Martinelli teachings support such religious on court’s therefore affirm district We Amendment; the First finding violated 50(b) Rule ruling denying the Diocese’s re- court committed the district jury light motion. In of the two erroneous jury that instructing the error versible however, instructions, judg- we vacate negative inference it could draw on at and remand for a new trial ment failure to Father produce the Diocese’s (1) whether Martinelli least the issues of disagree at trial. We Brett as witness to his own proof has mеt his burden of aspects two save for arguments with these in order to invoke the knowledge lack of of the first. statute, and tolling fraudulent concealment that the dis- with the Diocese agree We (2) whether the Diocese has demonstrated by charging jury trict court erred knowledge plaintiffs that it lacked of the prove that Martinelli the Diocese had to action, prevent applica- as to cause of so knowledge of the existence of possessed tolling statute. tion if the Diocese was to cause of action conceal- application of the fraudulent avoid DISCUSSION tolling on that basis. We ment statute the district court Connecti- agree with I. of Limitations Statute owing fiducia- requires cut law a defendant Generally A. under the ry duties to the fraudulently that it did not tolling statute fiduciary duty claims Con- Breach of of action. plaintiffs conceal cause ordinarily subject are to a three- necticut However, tolling to invoke the order year statute of limitations under Conn. statute, who must demon- it is the However, a different § 52-577. Gen.Stat. ignorant or she was strate that he to Connecti- applies statute of limitations her cause of action. existence of his or alleged sexual abuse such as cut cases of carry must therefore the burden Martinelli’s. un- establishing that he was proof per- for damages action to recover [N]o the existence of his claim aware of minor, including emo- injury sonal to a 27, 1990, July at the Diocese until least abuse, distress, caused sexual tional (the limitation or less years period) three exploitation sexual or sexual assault he suit. brought before than brought by person such later with the Diocese that the agree We also per- from the date such years seventеen by instructing district court erred age majority. son attains fraudulent concealment toll- that under the § statute, 52-577d. As the dis- period the limitation would be Conn. Gen.Stat. ing denying tolled, igno- opinion trict court observed its notwithstanding the Diocese’s 50(b) claim, motion if the the Diocese’s Rule renewed rance of the Dio- law, until as matter ignorance resulted from a breach cese’s majority in Con- age 1972 the fiduciary plaintiff. duties to the The October its twenty-one. Gen. Martinelli’s cause necticut was See Conn. Diocese’s Martinelli, § who Accordingly, 1-1d. remained an element of fraudu- Stat. of action twenty-one August turned under the statute lent conceahnent action; July filed in bring until 1985 to this Diocese owed duties even eight years out of have con- was therefore to Martinelli. The should running of the limitations disagree, how- time unless the sidered this element. We

419 § under on that suspended arguing appeal 52-595 does was somehow period claims, long-delayed law. not save Martinelli’s Connecticut our attention principal Diocese directs of Connecticut law provision The Co., ly Day v. Robert L. Bartone of asserts tolled the statute that Martinelli (1995). 527, Conn. 656 A.2d In Bar claims is Con applicable limitations to his tone, Supreme the Connecticut Court held 52-595, § re necticut Gen.Stat. § that in order to benefit from the 52-595 of the stat operation a lieve tolling provision, must demon limitations for a claim that has been ute of strate: by him fraudulently concealed from against whom the claim is person (1) awareness, actual rath- defendant’s made. It reads: er imputed knowledge, than of the facts by an action any person,

If liable to necessary plaintiffs’ to establish the another, him fraudulently conceals from (2) action; of that defendant’s [sic] cause action, of such the existence of the cause intentional concealment of these facts deemed to cause of action shall be such (3) plaintiffs; from the [sic] against person accrue such so liable defendant’s concealment of the facts for person therefor at the time when delay of purpose obtaining on the its entitled to sue thereon first discovers plaintiffs’ part filing complaint existence. action. their cause of “constitutes a clear Because this statute (citations omitted); Id. at see also unambiguous general exception any 480, 451, Lippitt Ashley, v. 89 Conn. 94 A. specifi- of limitations that does not statute (actions of the defendant cally preclude application,” its Connell very point must be “directed to the of Colwell, 214 246 n. 571 A.2d Conn. obtaining delay, of which he afterwards (1990), n. 4 it to claims applies advantage by pleading seeks to take 52-577d, § governed by the sexual assault statute”). The Bartone court further held statute of limitations.3 § plaintiff seeking tolling that a under 52- tolling period has ended because Once by 595 must demonstrate these elements discovery of his or her of the “clear, precise, unequivocal evidence.” action, the statute of limitations cause 656 A.2d at 224. begins again. to run The district court if the statute of instructed B. on the Burden Jury Instructions limitations as to Martinelli’s claims Proof. by tolled reason of the Diocese’s been concealment, argues The Diocese that the dis he had three fraudulent instructing trict erred in facts un- court years discovery after his of the proof as to fraudulent those claims to assert them in a the burden derlying § under 52-595 shifts to the lawsuit the Diocese.4 concealment litigation begun prosecuted. suggests is Be that as “[t]he 3. The dissent that because legislature gаve long victims an ex- may, applies § Connecticut 52-595 its terms traordinary year period age after the periods alike. and short limitations bring regarding majority in which to claims - abuse,” dissent, ], post at [ sexual employed three-year limitations wary concluding that Martinelli’s should be plaintiff's period discov- from the date bring time to suit was further extended alleged ery basis for his causes of has, § It 52-595. seems us action. It is clear whether the court not anything, greater impact on brief limitations adopted period general from the breach periods legislature determined where the has limitations, fiduciary duty Conn. statute bring plaintiff ordinarily his or that the must elsewhere, 52-577, § but neither Gen.Stat. shortly her action after the events in issue challenged the Diocese has Martinelli nor ones, long occurred it does on such have than ruling. court's here, legislature applicable as that where many years may pass is content that before duties, fiduciary carries the bur- a fidu- dant owes finding a is upon defendant plaintiff.5 question plain- the Our of the respect proof to den of on the ciary with the district court the instructions review of of the ignorance oum of the existence tiffs by a well-estab- jury governed is gave the That does not cause of action. burden lished standard: shift to the defendant. The district if it misleads is erroneous jury charge A to requiring the Diocese therefore erred standard, legal as to the correct jury the the that Martinelli was unaware of prove inform the adequately if it does not or claim. Section existence of his See infra charge A must the law. court’s

jury of I.F. viewing it as a whole and by be tested if it is correct and not be disturbed will Elements Fraudulent Concealment C. of a the case so that sufficiently covers when a defendant is sued in the tempting Pahuta the burden tions, for such necessary to establish F.3d of the Bartone test: actual, concealment citation tion, trial. presented to can action; facts; and intelligently not To be ordinary omitted). unless purpose to extend ^[2] plaintiff imputed, with Massey-Ferguson, its is asserted sure, (2d harmless, it. An erroneous ^[3] intentional concealment of respect case Cir.1999) determine the is that the concealment is under Connecticut awareness of the obtaining required to shoulder in which fraudulent ^[1] statute requires a new the defendant’s by a (quotations all three delay. But person Inc., 170 party of limita questions instruc- cause parts facts law, at that it acted flict the burden shifts to the has an interests unique degree of trust and tial is well settled. between the burden of affords him of the confidence and is under sition of superior Our allegation fiduciary relationship recently of interest is made law on the relationship The Connecticut of the other. The knowledge, fairly: reiterated great opportunity fiduciary parties, fraud, proving obligations A is reposed fiduciary characterized self-dealing, its rule that where skill or or dominant one of whom has fiduciary fair is found Supreme Court represent in him. Once dealing of a superior po- or confiden- a confidence for abuse fiduciary, expertise fiduciary or con prove party prop- exist, by a erly fiduciary. shifts to the Further- duty and that fiduciary whom it owes a more, proof the standard of for estab- the limitations person trying is extend ordinary lishing dealing fair is not the requires that the period, Connecticut law preponderance to the defendant to of fair burden shift standard elements has not evidence, one of the three Bartone requires proof but either cоurt therefore did been met. The district evidence, clear and convincing clear and allocating to the Diocese not err clear, satisfactory convincing evidence or the Bartone ele proof burden of as to Proof unequivocal evidence. ments. therefore, fiduciary relationship, gener- burden on the ally imposes twofold Diocese, however, agree

We with the First, fiduciary. proof the burden of that a who invokes second, fiduciary; statute, the defen- shifts to the to whom even reasoning help explain will whether the discussion of our from the record It is unclear to, to, charge portions object or our views on the objected failed to defendant purposes disagree, we agreed which we assume with the district court’s instruc- objection proof this discussion that the Diocese's tions as to who had burden preserved. Were to these instructions second and third Bartone factors. Inas- objections were forfeited agree portions of the to hold that the waived, much as we with these would be the same. charge any and a the result district court's event convincing sure that acts proof consistently is clear and standard responsibilities with the such relationships evidence. “[A]ny acting fiduciary entail. one in a 396, 400, Wakelee, 247 Murphy v. Conn. permitted relation shall not be to use make (1998) (citation 1181, 721 A.2d 1183-84 personal of that relation to benefit his own omitted). quotation marks rule require interest. This is strict its a Murphy At issue in was whether operation. ments and its It extends to fiduciary negli a based on claim all transactions where the individual’s per proof the burden of to the gence shifts brought sonal interests be into con that it did not. fiduciary. The court held flict his acts in the fiduciary capaci with fraud, a claim of self- the absence of “[I]n ” ty.... (quoting Id. 721 A.2d at 1184 interest, the trial dealing or conflict of Culhane, 622, 629, v. Conn. A. State 78 63 required charge court was not to (internal (1906) 636, ‍​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‍quotation 638 marks prove had a to that the defendant omitted)). and citation dealing by convincing clear and evi fair (footnotes dence.” Id. 721 A.2d at 1183 sure, To fiduciary where the has omitted). But the court the occasion took not received some kind of benefit why proof out the burden of does spell to engender suspicion would and there is no fiduciary alleged. to the when fraud is shift wrongdoing, other evidence of the burden fiduciary, superior a who has knowl When proof plaintiff. of remains on the See id. edge and influence and who is accorded (no 721 A.2d at 1183 shift burden trust, benefits in its significant measure of claim proof fiduciary’s negli where sole is dealings with those to whom it owes duties gence failing preserve to ward’s assets candor, suspicion naturally of care and allegation and no of fraud or a conflict of fiduciary gained by has arises interest). routinely But Connecticut law taking advantage special of its relations proof, irrespective shifts the burden of hip.6 fiduciary required explain is to circumstances, fiduciary appears where itself, fair and thus to prove dealing to expense to have a benefit at the obtained “The full dispel suspicion. fiduciary whom it person owes possession; of the transaction is within his See, e.g., Development Konover duty. and he must the burden of he can assume Zeller, 206, 228 635 A.2d Corp. Conn. proof.” (quoting its Id. at 1184 Jordan v. (1994) (general partner who termi 798 181, Co., 384, 390, A. Jordan 94 Conn. partner with limited on agreement nates (1920)). longer no ground project is feasible dealing); fair Dunham has burden to show

Shifting proof protects the burden of Dunham, to en- v. 204 Conn. 528 A.2d fiduciary relatiоnships by helping fairness, stated, Although always expressly party proving the burden of not such integrity honesty, and in the transaction or upon burden- basis aforementioned Therefore, only contract.... it is when the proof shifting and enhanced burden of rests relationship together is, is shown confidential essentially, that undue influence will not be circumstances, Colwell, suspicious or where with presumed; Connell v. 214 Conn. transaction, contract, or transfer there is a (1990) (fraud pre- 571 A.2d 116 is not fiduciary persons between in a confidential or establishing fraud rests sumed and burden of party relationship, the dominant is and where it); alleges pre- party that the who transaction, contract, beneficiary sumption of fraud does not arise from transfer, fiduciary that the burden shifts to the note, however, relationship itself. We fiduciary seeking prove dealing. fair A relaxed in cases where this rule is somewhat profit by con- a transaction with the one who parties fiduciary relation exists between showing burden of fided in him has the contract, to a transaction or and where one advantage of his influence or he has not taken controlling force or influ- has a dominant arrangement knowledge and that the is fair cases, over the other. In such if the ence and conscientious. benefit, party possible equi- superior obtains a (additional validity quotations, ty presumption against the at raises a Id. 721 A.2d contract, omitted). upon and alterations the transaction or and casts citations (executor shifting practice who consolidates all usual the burden of will prove it has acted proof name and leaves to a in his own property virtually nothing fairly allegation has burden extends to an of fraudu- brother statute, dealing); Royer, Alaimo v. under the prove fair lent concealment (1982) (real 448 A.2d think that under Connecticut law such 188 Conn. fair has burden compelled. estate broker an allocation is As the Con- woman dealing elderly many where disabled Supreme necticut Court observed purposes savings broker life gives years ago: spends and broker instead investment cases, accident, mistake, In all where money). otherwise, party a an unfair fraud or has advantage proceeding in in a court of an benefit if fiduciary A obtains obvious law, necessarily which make that must fiduciary a to whom it owes person the injustice, an of and it instrument action bringing a cause of delays therefore, is, that he against conscience fiduciary expiration the against beyond the a advantage, should use that court of limitations: The claim of the statute of interfere, him equity will and restrain barred. against fiduciary the is forever he using advantage from the which has fiduciary derives comes at The benefit the gained. improperly thus very party of the who has expense the fiduciary expects in the placed trust Howell, 565, 568-69, Folwell v. 117 Conn. in dealing. fair In this situation as others (1933) 199, (quoting A. 200 Tucker v. 169 fair involving fiduciary’s duty dealing, of Baldwin, 136, (1839)(empha- 13 144 Conn. court that agree with the district Con- added)). have no reason to believe sis We fiduciary to requires necticut law the show that courts would make an Connecticut trust, position not abused its of that has here, where, from “all cases” as exception by concealing influence knowledge and that a with a person asserts Indeed, plaintiff. claim from the would-be fiduciary duty toward him has taken unfair fiduciary’s of a possible concealment him advantage deprive of the to egregious enough give to wrongdoing own timely assertion of cause of action legal particularly rise to a claim seems nothing fiduciary. There is that law type requires of behavior requires about this circumstance fiduciary explain. special contrary. rule to the limitation ... were enacted [S]tatutes by This conclusion is bolstered our frauds; prevent prevent parties law observation under Connecticut after asserting rights lapse purposes fraudulent concealment destroyed impaired time or the evi tolling consistently treated as statute is rights dence which would show that such fraud, akin to other forms of with similar existed, satisfied, never or had been See, requirements proof. e.g., Puro v. transferred, extinguished, or ever they 301, 308, 176, Henry, 188 Conn. 449 A.2d by concealing did exist. To hold (1982) in a (observing, 179 discussion fraud, a fraud in a by committing or concealment, general rule fraudulent until manner that it concealed itself such “[fjraud presumed, is not to be but the fraud party committing time as the strictly proven. must be The evidence plead could the statute limitations clear, precise, unequivocal.”); must be it, protect is to make the law which was City Bound Brook Assocs. v. see also designed prevent fraud the means Norwalk, 660, 664-66, A.2d 198 Conn. 504 and secure. which it is made successful 1047, (1986); Beckenstein v. Pot 1050-51 Glover, 342, 342, 21 Bailey v. Wall. 88 U.S. Carrier, Inc., 150, 191 Conn. 162- ter (1874). 349, 22 L.Ed. (1983); 63, 18, 464 A.2d Armellino v. 92-0330634, Dowling, Although there is no Connecticut deci- No. CV WL 16, May *4 addressing (Conn.Super.Ct. at specifically sion whether 1995) proof fraudulent concealment as the elements of fraudulent (treating in If misrepresentation); the fraud of concealment set out Bartone. a form of Kelley, fiduciary application 5 Conn. Cir. Ct. is to avoid the Krupa (1968). 129-30, gen statute, See 245 A.2d 888-89 the defendant must show Dawson, P. Fraudulent Con erally John that one of these elements is not met. Limitation, 31 cealment and Statutes of Finally, as other instances in which (“[A]ny cir Mich. L.Rev. fiduciary the burden shifts to the to show cumstances, personal inequality such as dealing, proof fair such must be “clear ‘fiduciary’ relationships, or confidential evidence,” convincing Murphy, explain credulity would tend to seen, A.2d at 1184. As we have fraudulent on fraud will have the same actions based concealment context is fraudulently con effect in claims were simply many possible one of forms of un- cealed.”). dealing by fiduciary. fair have no We district arguing that the court erred reason to think that Connecticut courts instructing that the burden of adopt lighter would some proof burden of proof fiduciary, shifts to a the Diocese fiduciary for the to meet here. The dis- that emphasizes the statement Bartone trict court’s instructions to the with prove the to “plaintiffs [who] ha[ve] is respect to the second and third Bartone clear, ... pre- fraudulent concealment factors—intentional concealment the Bartone, cise, evidence.” unequivocal purpose obtaining for de- defendant (quoting A.2d at 224 Bound Brook 656 lay proper. therefore —were Assocs., 1051)(emphasis 504 A.2d at add- ed). Diocese, to this lan- According Knowledge D. Diocese’s The guage proof that the burden of establishes The first Bartone factor that must to all the elements of fraudulent con- in order to conclude that a be established plaintiff cealment is on the who invokes guilty is of fraudulent conceal defendant statute, may and that it not be tolling limitations ment so as to toll the statute shifted to defendant. in a claim it is that the defendant disagree. know of no Connecti- We We awareness, rather than im harbor “actual cut case that holds that the burden of to puted knowledge, necessary of the facts to fraudulent proof plaintiff is on the plaintiffs cause of action.” establish if brought by concealment the action is Bartone, ruling on the 656 A.2d at 225. fiduciary with a person against someone summary judgment, Diocese’s motion duty him or her that is related to toward court concluded that the Dio the district claim, to Murphy clearly is actual possess cese did not contrary. spoke While Bartone there was required under Bartone because burden, plaintiffs litigation, brought that to prior no evidence that the Diocese knew homeowner, against building con- by a lawsuit that Marti the institution this tractor and its subcontractors for the sexually Agreeing, nelli had been abused. faulty septic system, installation of did however, Martinelli that “the Diocese with fiduciary relationship. not involve permitted advantage not be to take should about opinion nothing said the allocation ignorance now its ignorance of its when proof burden of as to fiduciaries. duty a failure fulfill a was the result of to warn,” district court investigate that where a defendant to We conclude requirement that first of Bar- fiduciary duty owes a to a and the decided this I, could be Martinelli “relax[ed].” asserts under the fraudulent con- tone at 116. The court reasoned F.Supp. statute that the defendant cealment do not “[a]lthough concealed that Connecticut courts fraudulently has action, this squarely to have addressed requires appear cause of Connecticut law ample sup- claim ... particular [there is] bear the burden of the defendant the fact proposition despite for the tute an act of concealment port in the case law application not avoid the courts have also held that a defendant purpose the violation of a for the by relying §of 52-595 on concealment must be lawsuit); the onset of a A.M. v. duty.” delaying Id. The court concluded legal Church, could “demonstrate Roman Catholic 669 N.E.2d therefore (under law, notwithstanding (Ind.Ct.App.1996) § Indiana applicable 52-595 to be ignorance equitable tolling grounds of his cause of of fraudulent the Diocese’s an that the Diocese’s concealment can arise either from ac [he could] action show action or ignorance was the of a violation of tive effort conceal cause of result investigate fiduciary from the violation of a or confi legal duty to [him] as construc relationship, warn.” Id. at 116. Thus the district court dential described Lambert, fraud); fiduciary duty Koenig that if there is a tive v. decided warn, (S.D.1995), the first Bartone overruled on investigate and N.W.2d Stratmeyer Stratmeyer, ac- requirement relating grounds, defendant’s other (S.D.1997) (in Dako knowledge disappears. tual The district 567 N.W.2d 220 South jury accordingly. by party ta disclose court instructed the silence constitutes fraudulent concealment without with the that this was agree We any attempt need to show affirmative error. We are aware of no Connecticut plaintiff); hide facts from also Hamil see decision that can be made to stand for (2d Smith, ton v. 773 F.2d Cir. proposition. But see Bound Brook such a 1985) (“To establish fraudulent conceal (“In Assocs., 504 A.2d at 1052.n. 12 view of law, a plaintiff ment under Connecticut finding our evidence does not [the] ... must show that absent a conceal, establish an intent to we need not relationship, guilty the defendant was duty [the decide whether defendant] concealment.”) some affirmative act of warn, investigate or to or whether an added) (citations omitted). (emphasis in intentional failure to act such circum- a defendant’s silence in the facе Whether stances would be to establish sufficient duty speak of a constitutes an affirma concealment.”). fraudulent act of concealment is relevant to the tive court, holding, The district in so relied factor, second Bartone defendant’s in on cases that address whether a defen concealment, bearing but has no tentional dant’s silence is sufficient to constitute on the first with which we are now con concealment under Connecticut’s cerned, actual the defendant’s awareness and similar laws in other states. statute necessary of the facts to establish the I, F.Supp. See Martinelli 989 at 116-17. plaintiffs’ cause of action. We do not Those cases indicate that silence is insuffi agree with the district court that the cited cient to meet the concealment standard justify cases the elimination of the need to special duty absent a to disclose. See requirement. the first Bartone establish Hanover Trust Co. v. Manufacturers Partnership, Hotel Ltd. No. a policy CV The first Bartone factor reflects Stamford IS, 720368, by Supreme at *3-4 judgment WL Court Con- 1994) (consider (Conn.Super.Ct. necticut that a defendant should not be Dec. § ing special giving subjected tolling provided by whether circumstances to the 52- duty knowledge sig- rise to to disclose were and 595 unless it had actual present noting they may if were defendant nificant facts that it concealed from the plaintiff plaintiff; knowledge imputed have had a to disclose to law fraud); enough. Murphy requires giving Lapuk facts rise to the is not Simons, 0704542S, No. 1995 where the defendant owes the PJR CV 93 (Conn.Super.Ct. fiduciary duty, WL at *16 Jan. it is the defendant 1995) actual (acknowledging prove that Connecticut must the absence of such knowledge. Irrespective courts have found that silence consti- of who must tion, aware that it had to have been Father it, the defendant’s actual though, sexually assaulted Martinelli rather necessary order Brett knowledge remains Brett’s students. Such concealment. We than another of fraudulent establish necessary that the to es- knowledge the Diocese is not agree specific therefore first with the tablish Martinelli’s cause of action. dispensing erred Bartone factor. Bartone’s first element is import The knowledge must be actual that defendant’s Necessary To Establish the E. Facts imputed. Although not clause went Action Cause of to be to state that the needed since, as we argues that The Diocese necessary plain- to establish “facts hold, improp- Bartone factor was the first action,” language was tiffs cause the case the dis- erly eliminated from point the Bartone court beside court, as a it is entitled trict making. was no evidence that of law: There was matter ar- Supreme Court Connecticut’s had been knew that Martinelli the Diocese Bartone factor must ticulation of the first have it therefore could not injured and light of the Bartone facts. be understood have, as the first Bartone found to been straightforward: The issue in Bartone was ... of awareness requires, “actual factor defendants, building whether one of ... necessary to establish the the facts contractor, aware of defects general was Bartone, action,” 656 A.2d at cause of employees which it con- the work of its added). agree. do not (emphasis We a new plaintiffs, owners of cealed from the district review de novo We contractor, in by the order home built 50(b) Rule denial of the Diocese’s court’s The identi- liability plaintiffs. to the avoid Allen, Inc., v. Ethan motion. See EEOC as thе victims ty Cir.1994). (2d doing 44 F.3d any, obvious negligence, contractor’s so, light the evidence in the we “must view in the case. not an issue and therefore against which party favorable to the most involve, pres- did not as does Bartone making ... all credi the motion was made case, for harm to unknown potential ent drawing all infer bility assessments exacerbated the de- persons allegedly in the non-movant.” Id. ences favor of to fendant’s failure disclose. (internal marks and citations quotation present be similar to the Bartone would omitted). there if the defendant contractor only case in in- court erred Although the district something like the knowledge had actual aware- structing jury the that the “actual building dangerously defective delivery of fully not element of Bartone was ness” sites, did of its work but materials to one met, its agree to be we with required the which of several sites not know to 50(b) motion that on the Rule conclusion If that had gone. had defective materials not entitled to the Diocese is nonetheless case, that the the we are confident been issue, law on as a matter of the described would not have opinion Bartone for different reasons. but know needed to that which the defendant as the fraudulent concealment view, to establish parties In both the our necessary to establish what the “facts court misconstrue the district seriously doubt cause of action.” We awareness first Bartone factor—“actual would of Connecticut Supreme the Court necessary ... to establish of the facts action,” Bartone, thereby exempted the defendant have cause [Martinelli’s] simply statute operation the respect with to requires A.2d at 225— home had not know whose it because it did do not think knowledge. Diocese’s We and, materials with the defective have fraudu been built that for the Diocese to means potential the knowing not who cause of ac- lently concealed Martinelli’s was, hospitalization. Assuming, jury all of the “facts neces- as the did not know found, that the owed parishioners the claim. sary to establish” circumstances a Martinelli’s that, proper the We conclude duty, jury could also conclude case, Supreme Court the Connecticut duty by failing Diocese breached that Bar- hold that to establish the first would additional victims investigate who the to show that the tone factor it is sufficient were, by failing pa- to warn or inform concealed actual aware defendant had and rishioners Martinelli’s circumstances of likely potential ness of facts created Brett’s conduct so as to increase the likeli- harm, if the defendant was especially counseling hood that would seek victims likely victim. fiduciary for the and treatment. is, course, just such a case. The This fiduciary duty If the Diocese had a to- jury its award claim on based ward Martinelli and knew that at least one that, when the Diocese is young person to whom it owed such other sexually learned that Father Brett duty had been assaulted and one of them un- boys, molested at least Diocese’s failure to disclose Brett’s con- identified, boys within the owed would duct or discover who victim was including scope fiduciary obligations, of its likely compound injury, this victim’s Martinelli, and to investigate could conclude that the Diocese was actu- possible and future victims of past warn ally necessary” aware of the “facts to es- prevented the harm. Its failure to do so tablish Martinelli’s cause of action suffi- he receiving Martinelli from treatment ciently satisfy the first Bartone factor. required, thereby exacerbating injury. as a hit-and-run need not know Just driver identity injured pedestrian of an reasonably A could find that recognize pedestrian likely that the has a December 1964 the Diocese learned that driver, cause of the Dio- action sexually “T.F.” in Father Brett had abused identity cese’s of the actual Bridgeport, that Brett had “been in- an for it required assaulted child was not youth in volved” with another Stamford. likely to realize that there was an January the Diocese learned claim, actionable or for it to seek to con- minor, “M.F.,” about another whom Fa- potential plaintiff ceal from such a solicited; allegedly ther Brett had “M.F.” claim.7 underlying facts parents did not tell his about Father years, Brett’s for some two and at agree conduct We therefore the district required that an period the end of that “M.F.” court’s conclusion absence evi- think, question point, is at We dissent’s reliance on Bound It this dissent’s Norwalk, analysis goes awry. City dissent describes a Brook Associates v. 198 Conn. dissent, dissent, (1986). "early warnings,” post Diocese with storm A.2d 1047 See "hints,” [433-35], post at id. at Father at had no or that There the defendant boy, knowledge underlying plain have an or of the facts Brett molested unknown knowledge “potential injury.” ‍​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‍of the Id. tiffs cause of action defen "[w]ithout [which (emphasis original). hardly dant] at 435 The evidence could have intended to conceal rights suggests starkly contrary. jury A to facts to the now claim have.” Here, actually by could conclude the Diocese 198 Conn. at 504 A.2d at 1052. that —not contrast, jury by imputation that at least one uniden- a could conclude that the defen —knew necessary boy probably sexually knowledge dant had of the facts tified been abused action, by deliberately plaintiff's Father Brett and that it failed establish the cause of ex cepting only identity to disclose that fact or to the iden- his which it failed to determine determine, tity finding carefully of the victim or victims. Such a seek to and that it con investigate hardly actual cealed facts. Bound Brook awareness failure to those support finding "analog,” or disclose would for the seems to us an wise, or other "close[]” bar; factor, plaintiff on the first Bartons to the case at that there was no whether warnings” investigate possession "early duty to or warn in Bound Brook or not storm says by knowledge "potential for in- little about the duties owed the defen or "hints” or plaintiff jury” would suffice. dant to the here. factors, igno but as to Martinelli’s own that Marti- Diocese knew that the dence action the vic- rance of the existence of his cause of boy was than another nelli rather finding § 52-595 as well. The Diocese was under preclude did not tim of abuse ... fraudulently “disprove by concealed the court to required that the Diocese convincing action. Bartone does ... [t]hat cause of clear and evidence Martinelli’s pos- have that the Diocese not aware of the essential require [Martinelli] not the Diocese knowledge pri cause of action such factual elements of his sessed as 27, 1990,” therefore entitled July years prior was not or to three matter of law on that basis. agree of suit. with the institution We error. this was retrial, obliged to the court will be On jury on this issue. While charge the § does not ex Although 52-595 that, when similar with confidence predict so, plain plicitly say clearly implies it to the Connecticut presented are issues necessary ignorance tiffs of the facts is Court, Bar- the first it will allow Supreme A tolling under that statute. element by еvidence factor to be satisfied tone period be that tolls a limitations statute plaintiff adduced the character fraudulent con cause of the defendant’s case, safely predict precise- we cannot this obviously oper cealment of a fact or facts the test. the court will formulate ly how we think ates for the benefit of those—and would, we uncertainty, it In view of this of the facts only those—who are not aware think, judge the district prudent for be Moreover, concealed. be that have been as charge to adhere fashioning when that, provides after toll cause the statute facts on which possible to the closely be deemed to ing, “the cause of action shall at- rather than depends, claim Martinelli’s person accrue ... at the time when general- the more anticipate tempting to sue thereon first discovers its entitled that the Connecticut ized standard existence,” no effec plainly there can be in the ultimately adopt. suggest We will was aware of for a who tive district guidance margin8 for cause of action of his or her the existence think would that we approach court an accrued. originally time the claim from the that would come jury to a instruction lead conclude that We therefore likely rule as it is the Bartone within ignorant of the facts must be courts when the Connecticut interpreted for the sought has to conceal defendant facts similar to these. deal with § toll under 52- of limitations to statute Ignorance. F. Plaintiffs fidu Diocese owed a Because the instructed the

The district court principles and the ciary duty to Martinelli carried the burden the Diocese shifting some burdens Murphy call for to the Bartone only respect not proof likely beneficial to receive it therefore be less might instruct 8. The court ac- help whether the Diocese had Diocese failed must determine if the treatment 1) following: knowledge Father tual of Father Brett’s what it had learned disclose misconduct; leadership guidance provided that, to a 6) Brett the Diocese knew group male students at school of minor facts, of the first five despite its Diocese; 2) sexually he affiliated with Father Brett’s miscon- had failed to disclose boys iden- at one of those whose abused least victims, including potential duct to other tity Diocese and it was known to the Martinelli, The instruc- and their families. sexually with or likely he was involved that you that the might continue: "If find tion 3) boy; sexual sexually another such abused convincing proven by clear and has Diocese injurious to the could be abuse of a minor have actual knowl- that it did not evidence minor; 4) injury gravity of the the extent facts, you those six edge one or more of of the victim received treat- could be reduced if issue of the the Diocese on the must find for 5) help; a minor in such circum- ment or you knowledge; otherwise Diocese’s actual conceal, likely suppress or re- stances is to plaintiff issue.” on the must find for the and would press the facts of such abuse defendant, fiduciary the dis- information needed to establish unfair proof to a proof placed dealing; fiduciary trict the burden and the fact that the ignorance respect plaintiffs fiduciary the issue of relationship places to the under an think that on the defendant. We do not to information to obligation reveal such the justify the the Connecticut cases so hold or fiduciary duty whom is owed person to the having district court’s done so. for or her his benefit. the general, places the law bur nothing language But the or the rea- proof party

den of on the asserts soning Murphy similarly calls for shift- contention and seeks to benefit from it. the issue ing the burden on See, and Rub e.g., Goodyear Katz Tire Here, by the ignorance. contrast with (2d Cir.1984) Co., ber 737 F.2d factors, “superior Bartone the defendant’s (burden proving residency under New knowledge, expertise” skill ... and “domi- borrowing placed York statute party position nant” do not deter the terms). seeking advantage to take of its that he establishing did not learn the however, time, From time to for reasons of necessary facts for his or her cause of policy involving par often fairness to the source; action from some other with re- ties, Thus, in the shifts the burden. law spect plaintiffs knowledge, to the defen- involving fiduciary relationship, cases not knowledge dant’s and access are inferior places § of proving 52-595 the burden fiduciary to the plaintiffs; defen- plaintiffs ignorance both the and the de know, expected dant cannot be to and has fendant’s fraudulent concealment on a learn, knowledge no what the plaintiff who seeks to assert and benefit plaintiff may have obtained from others. finding from a of the defendant’s fraudu There is therefore no reason to shift the Bartone, A.2d lent concealment. See proof fiduciary burden of to the defendant. policy at 224-25. For the reasons ex wrongly Because district court plored Murphy, when seeks jury tolling instructed the that to avoid tolling provided by the statute and the had statute limitations fiduciary duty defendant owes a to the had prove of his plaintiff, proof the burden of on the issue action, on a cause of deliberated propriety of the defendant’s conduct lеgal critical issue under an erroneous defendant; is shifted to the it must say standard. And because we cannot dealing. its own fair The reasons that would have reached the same justify shifting the burden to the required conclusion Martinelli been do question apply defendant on not establishing igno the burden of bear his plaintiffs ignorance. the issue of underlying rance of the facts his cause of Murphy burden-shifting relates action, the error was not harmless. We fiduciary’s dealing. Murphy, fair See therefore reverse the and re (“the at proving A.2d burden of mand for a new trial on the issue of wheth fair dealing properly shifts the fiducia- er under the statute Martinelli can (citations ry”) quotation and internal preponderance demonstrate omitted). dealing marks Fair is also evidence that he was unaware of the exis issue Bartone’s three-factor addressed July cause of action until after tence awareness, relating test to the defendant’s 27, 1990. conduct and motivation. Several factors justify shifting proof the burden of on fair Sufficiency II. of the Evidence dealing, including fiduciary’s “superior ... knowledge, expertise” argued skill and “domi- The Diocese also in its Rule 50(b) great nant” him motion that there was insufficient position “afford[] abuse,” id.; opportunity difficulty support jury’s finding evidence to fiduciary relationship a there a between gathering such have was (internal (1982) 41, 207, quo- asserting 448 A.2d Martinelli. Diocese and omitted). in and citation We court erred tation marks that the district appeal ground, specific require- this are disinclined to read motion on denying the that Martinelli the Diocese offers into Con- principally claims ments 300,000 merely parishioners one of necticut law. was duty. particular no We whom it owed argues forcefully The Diocese with the district agree court. be held was not and must not to have been in not resolved whether This Circuit has in with all of its fiduciary relationship a sufficiency of the diversity action the parishioners. But that is not the issue by state or question governed is a evidence express before us and we no view with Hotel Willis v. Westin federal law. See with the district respect agree to it. We Cir.1989). (2d Co., n. F.2d the duties of the irrespective court that in this instance because We need not do so parishioners generally, the Diocese to its material difference between there is no reasonably have found that the could application here.9 two standards’ Martinelli, relationship Diocese’s with particulars based on the of his ties to Brett law, a fidu Under Connecticut sponsor- Diocese’s that is relationship relationship is a ciary ship relationship, fiduciary of that was of a of trust degree a unique “characterized nature: parties, one and confidence between (cid:127) Martinelli attended Stamford Catholic knowledge, skill or ex superior whom has School, a school where he High diocesan represent and is under pertise were em- taught by priests was who Dunham, 528 of the other.” the interests ployed by the Diocese. say that 1133. are unable to A.2d at We (cid:127) reasonably support had, evidence did not and the Diocese knew fiduciary relation jury’s finding had, privileged relation- special he Brett, the Diocese and Martinelli. ship between with Father another of the ship although not a Dioce- priests Diocese’s Relying primarily on cases as a member of “Brett’s employee, san states, that for a other the Diocese asserts Mavericks,” boys in- group the small arisen, relationship have fiduciary reform in the Cath- liturgical tеrested in clearly have had to have Diocese would Brett acted as a olic Church to whom re fiduciary to act as a with undertaken spiritual mentor and advisor. Martinelli and to have had individ spect (cid:127) Martinelli, Diocese was of as the him; and that there was ual contact with aware, grade in taught course so here. are evidence that it did We no and thereafter school catechism classes Supreme The Connecticut unpersuaded. bishop of the respect to trust to define a specifically has “refused Court diocese; bishop his he considered his relationship precise detail and authority. and moral caretaker a manner as to exclude new situa in such (cid:127) him to parents allowed tions, leave the bars Martinelli’s choosing instead to Father Brett and others participate is a with in which there down for situations and extracurricular church-sponsored side and a justifiable trust confided on one Brett in- they trusted on the activities because resulting superiority and influence a priest. asmuch as he was Royer, v. 188 Conn. other.” Alaimo ("In Warde, (2d appeal an from a 80 n. 8 A.2d Compare SEC v. 151 F.3d verdict, Cir.1998) ("We jury’s upon will overturn a verdict judgment rendered support- light favor of a evidence in the evidence in the case review the verdict, light favor- ing the viewed in the most party prevailing to de- favorable to the most support plaintiff, is insufficient able to the supports jury’s reasonably if it termine favor.”), finding plaintiff's reasonable omitted). verdict.”) (citation Barrett, 256, 266, 640 229 Conn. Blanchette (cid:127) including spon- time with those which the Diocese spent Father Brett more sored, boys than group particularly relationship this identifiable with had a close to more formal con- fiduciary others. In addition with thе Diocese from which a tacts, Diocese, turn, and Father Brett went in group duty might arise. The walks, dinners, cream, ice and on for and occupied superior position of influence together. car These rode around authority and over Martinelli. It was also in the school conclude, contacts were well known jury reasonable for based Msgr. and Diocesan communities. Cu- specific on evidence as to the information sack, guidance counselor at the Dioc- the Diocese received Brett’s about attend- high esan school misconduct, including the existence and lo- ed, Father specifically knew about likely of other and the ease cation victims Brett’s contacts with Martinelli and the might with which the Diocese have deter- boys. other who the precisely likely mined victims (cid:127) were, Martinelli, encouraged The Father Brett Diocese owed youth youths relationship with the of the church. and with a similar work Diocese, duty including another responsibility, His shared with of care priest, conducting investigate for the activities of and warn or inform so Organiza- prevent the Diocese’s Catholic Youth as to or alleviate harm to addition- tion, sponsored weekly social al agree victims. We with the district court, therefore, high pa- jury’s finding educational activities for school that the of a rishioners, widely fiduciary relationship was known. under Connecticut (cid:127) supported by law was the evidence. Brett, surely Father with the knowl- Diocese, edge approval also III. First Amendment Claim boys on church trips,

escorted field on taking occasion one Martinelli and an- us, argues The Diocese it did boy other to Baltimore and Washington 50(b) in its Rule motion to the district stayed seminary. where the three at a court, that the Free Exercise Clause of the (cid:127) The Diocese was entrusted with re- prohibits First Amendment the court’s ports young they victims that finding fiduciary relationship of a between Brett, been abused Father who had the Diocese and Martinelli because the position used his to influence them and finding religious was based on doctrine victim, “T.F.,” injury. inflict specif- One practices. The Diocese draws our at ically informed the Diocese of his con- tention to evidence at trial concerning reli matters, cerns other students who had accom- gious including testimony that panied Father Brett on his trips. taught bishop Martinelli was is (cid:127) learned, “shepherd” like a to his “flock” of parishio rep- Diocese also after its ners, Brett, testimony about the status and resentatives confronted Father responsibilities bishop under Canon boys that he had assaulted other Law. The Diocese makes the “M.F.,” point related Stamford. a second victim who appeal Diocese, sustaining jury’s on complained to the was also a finding of a relationship its member of Brett’s Mavericks. 50(b) motion, ruling denying the Rule agree We with the district court that unconstitutionally district relied there was thus sufficient evidence from doctrine, interpretation religious its own reasonably which the could have thereby determining for the church the special found that there existed a relation- religious parishioners. duties owes to its ship of trust and confidence between Mar- Brett, tinelli and only arguments not Father but the These are meritless. As our clear, Diocese. It preceding is reasonable for the discussion makes Martinelli, through par- jury’s finding fiduciary duty sup- conclude that of a was involved, ticular in which he evidence from the ported ample apart activities betweеn the The obvious distinction out singled nature religious of a evidence principles as facts religious use of proper Diocese. by the improper religious decision that and an did the extent To a are true or false bears certain principles tenets, teachings and religious consider to the more mundane family resemblance moreover, not their to determine it did so of a statement hearsay. rules of Evidence fact, whether, matter of as a validity but may be inadmissible made out of and teachings following of Martinelli’s the truth of the facts hearsay to rise to a gave in the tenets belief it, may be admissible for asserted but Di and the relationship between proving non-hearsay purposes does not First Amendment The ocese. made or that other facts the statement was civil deciding secular prevent courts making inferred from the can be institutions involving religious disputes 801(c). Fed.R.Evid. Simi- statement. See require they for the reason when and by partic- larly, proposition advanced See, e.g., matters. religious to reference bishop ‘shep- “a is like a religion ular 603, 595, 99 S.Ct. Wolf, 443 U.S. v. Jones parishioners” the ‘flock’of cannot herd’ to (court 3020, permit L.Ed.2d 775 its truth by jury to assess be considered property issue as to church to decide ap- ted extent of its divine validity or or the to examine required court though it authority, may even be considered or but proval documents). “First Although charac- religious jury to determine the by the same jeopardized plainly parishio- values are relationship Amendment between ter of made to turn litigation ... is bishop. when her ner and his or controversies by civil courts of resolution score, we find no merit Finally on this Pres practice,” doctrine and religious over that the vio- the Diocеse’s claim Church, v. Hull 393 U.S. byterian Church by determin- the First Amendment lated 21 L.Ed.2d 658 89 S.Ct. obligations parish- to its the Diocese’s ing (1969), court nor we the district neither of church doctrine. ioners as a matter any for or any made decision have brought under Con- Martinelli’s claim was The Dio practice. doctrine or religious law; law, church law is not church necticut issue religious points disputed to no cese to enforce. Martinel- to assess or not ours judge this jury or the district which the sought nor upon relied li’s claim neither was asked to resolve. case according duties of the enforce the beliefs, require did it religious nor teaching cite the Su Amici Dio- whether the involve resolution Constitution, that under preme Court with them. was consistent cese’s conduct and is commit heresy, law knows no “[t]he of church doctrine jury’s consideration estab dogma, no support to the ted First under permissible was both here Jones, v. no sect.” Watson lishment of required and principles Amendment Wall.) (13 679, 728, L.Ed. 666 U.S. law. Connecticut truism, (1871). American That is now an Jones, involving a decision In Watson aWhere appeal. it is unrelated to this but is property that over church dispute give rise to alleged are person’s beliefs above, quoted upon by amici relied him relationship between legal special made an observation Supreme Court church, required to we and his think, the tort case fully, we applies relevant evidence with other consider us: now before beliefs order person’s of that nature must called on when so courts [T]he the assert determine whether properly to cases involv- [in their functions perform so, doing In relationship in fact exists. ed cases. as in other ing churches] heresy, support no nothing to be judge us come before organizations Religious no beliefs or acknowledge dogma, voluntary other attitude as in the same the law. any sect to be practices him associations for benevolent or charitable with as late as in and after the rights property, claim; purposes, brought their date that Martinelli [or, add, we would their address, or of contract telephone Diocese knew Brett’s from the commission of a liability arising number, place of employment; and a tort], equally protection are under the Warick, Ms. apparently acting on the Dio- law, and the actions of their mem- behalf, cese’s also had more recent contact its restraints.... subject [W]e bers priest. light the of evidence of this upon appeal’s] enter consideration nature, [the arewe unable to conclude that the knowing of that the with the satisfaction district court’s instruction was an abuse of principles on which we are to decide so discretion. decision, proper

much of it as is for our all applicable are those alike to of its CONCLUSION class, is the duty simple and that our reasons, foregoing For the we affirm the one applying principles those to the district court’s denying order the Diocese’s facts before us. 50(b) Rule renewed motion for judgment 80 at 714. U.S. aas matter of law. We vacate also the judgment and remand for a new trial on Missing Charge IV. Witness (1) the issues of whether Martinelli has final argument

The Diocese’s is that it met his burden of proof as to his own lack was reversible error for the district court knowledge of his cause of action and charge the it could a draw statute; therefore can tolling ‍​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‍invoke the negative inference from the Diocese’s fail- whether the Diocese has demon- produce ure to Brett Father as witness. by strаted convincing clear and evidence that it lacked plaintiffs the

We need not determine wheth action, cause of so as to avoid application diversity missing er in a case a witness the statute on that basis. While charge governed by is federal or state law necessary a new trial is on these two because here the two standards are simil points, we leave it to the district court’s ar,10 and charge, only the which we review discretion to determine the extent to which discretion, for abuse of see United States may fairly these issues be Torres, (2d tried isolation 1165, v. 845 F.2d 1170-71 Cir. from aspects other of the case. If 1988); Lewis, the 779, State v. 245 Conn. 813- district judge preferable, may thinks it 14, 1140, (1998), she 717 A.2d 1159 was plainly conduct a broader retrial on remand. proper under both standards. The parties shall bear their own on costs principal complaint Diocese’s is that appeal. Martinelli did not show that Father Brett available produced to be at trial. The MORAN, Judge, District dissenting: shows, however, record that Brett re- Bridgeport

mained incardinated to the Di- agree While I with a great deal of the ocese; Diocesan officials were in contact majority’s thorough and thoughtful opin- circuit, (internal charge “permits quotation In this marks citation omit party ted). Connecticut, to draw an adverse inference In an adverse inference failing to call a witness when the witness’s given instruction where a witness “is testimony would be material and the witness available; reasonably and ... could be ex peculiarly party.” is within the control of that pected, by relationship party to or the Caccia, 136, (2d United States v. 122 F.3d 138 issues, peculiar superior to have or informa 1997). determining Cir. whether witness that, favorable, tion material to the case pаrty, was available to be called Lewis, party produce.” would State v. 245 court considers "all the facts and circum 779, 813-14, Conn. 717 A.2d bearing upon stances the witness's relation to (1998) (citing Secondino v. New Haven Gas parties, merely physical rather than on Co., (1960)) 147 Conn. 165 A.2d 598 presence accessibility.” United States v. omitted). (quotation and additional citations Torres, (2d Cir.1988) 845 F.2d high court stated accept previously if we Even ion, I must dissent. alleged duty to involving an in a inquire case unidentified victims. investigate thus and warn misconduct into Brett’s further City Nor Brook Associates In Bound an with awareness the defendant charge (Conn. walk, earli- 504 A.2d action based on Conn. cause Martinelli’s 1986), analog to the arguably the fact remains the closest warnings,”1 “storm er hand, sought Martinelli’s knowledge of subdivision residents case at the Diocese’ Bar- knowledge. City, building its chief from the imputed damages trauma is still tone, for latent city Connecticut and other officials inspector, the last word point: Court, clear on this the subdi very homes. Part of damage to their Supreme is to toll swamp insufficient knowledge is on been constructed imputed vision had limitations. table and settle fluctuating statute of water the untreat resulted law, problems ment when fraudulent our case Under homes re- were pilings concealment, were ed wood agreed (l)[the] decay. parties All ac- to began defendant’s built to show: quired conceal awareness, imputed finding a of fraudulent rather than that absent tual es- The ment, to be necessary facts suits would time-barred. knowledge, of the the action; for cause of Court set aside plaintiffs’ Supreme tablish (2)[the] finding intentional conceal- insufficient after defendant’s the homeowners in plaintiffs; building inspectors from the these facts that ment of evidence (3)[the] of concealment regarding defendant’s conceal information tended to obtaining purpose of to for the an intent piling the facts defects with potential a filing part their plaintiffs’ discovery on the delay plaintiffs’ delay the action. cause of complaint consequently on their The of action. Court cause the defendants whether to decide declined Co., 232 Conn. Day, L. v. Robert Bartone (al warn investigate and duty to (Conn.1995) (empha- 527, 533, 221 A.2d 656 investigation and obvious that though it is omitted). (citations added) sis pur was a core enforcement standards actual that majority contends The department) municipal of the pose here can met knowledge requirement act failure to an intentional whether of the Diocese knew that by showing to would be sufficient such circumstances rise to Martinelli’s giving facts essential Bound fraudulent concealment. establish investigate duty to of “breach of claim nn.12, 13, Brook, & at Conn. 669-70 words, the first Bartone In other warn.” instructive, however, It is 504 A.2d actual if the Diocese had is satisfied prong de argument despite plaintiffs’ investigate it failed to knowledge investigate and duty owed fendants one abused at Father Brett least hints that inspec after the homeowners other warn spec- The boy. majority parish other need homes the first three tors learned 40-41, facts ulates, that on different at reassign the did not the Court repiling, ing victim the Bartone involving an unknown actual or reformulate proof burden test stated the not have would defen focus on knowledge requirement knowledge require defendant’s flags. the red knowledge of dants’ establish necessary to “facts action,” second and that this cause of rea- where it is “Knowledge” imputed is Bar- point that the clause “was beside with informatiоn charge party sonable making.” tone court was by agency, respon- whether know it should duty to inves- or breach of superior, deat ac- not take into hypothesis does the defen- category, In this last tigate. of the test that this formulation count does not make Securities, Inc., who imputed to an investor 12 F.3d Cigna 1. See Dodds denied, Cir.1993) U.S. (1993) (2d (noting inquiry), cert. such an (1994). trig- warnings" will of fraud L.Ed.2d sufficient "storm 114 S.Ct. knowledge will be duty ger inquiry always dant can be said to have actual anyone injured in an auto accident who “warning” facts that claims design defective can argue now imputing knowledge make of the ultimate the manufacturer potential knew of the victim, facts a thing major- injury, reasonable to do. The not the and the statute ity’s theory effectively will be tolled. Back pains may would eliminate the materialize years after a knowledge requirement any actual collision. time allegation there an is that the defendant We should not let sad disrupt this case duty had a investigate. There no is carefully balanced framework Legislature indication that the or the Su- established the State of Connecticut. preme Court of Connecticut would favor As the United Supreme States ex- Court liberalizing the period limitations for such Railway Express Johnson v. plained contrary, by claims. On the refusing to Agency, Inc.: imputed knowledge satisfy allow Any period of limitation ... under- is first prong, Supreme the Connecticut only stood fully in the context of the implicitly rejected theory Court has various suspend circumstances that Furthermore, majority which the relies. running against particular cause breach duty of a to disclose is foreseeably Although action. any statute of limi- implicated by 52-595, § Conn. Gen.Stat. tations is necessarily arbitrary, its terms involves concealment of length pеriod allowed for institut- actionable information. Breach of a ing suit inevitably judg- reflects a value investigate, hand, to warn or on the other ment concerning point at which the tenuously is more pur- connected to the interests in favor protecting of valid poses of the statute.2 outweighed by claims are the interests in prohibiting prosecution the of stale Father Brett’s reprehensi- conduct was ones. In and, virtually all ble statutes of limita- assuming Martinelli’s account is accurate, chronological tions the length of the lim- I don’t doubt that it has caused itation period is provi- him interrelated with significant pain. This is not a claim revival, sions Brett, regarding however; tolling, and against nor is it a claim questions application. of against parish the It leadership. is actual- ly a rather remote claim the re- 454, 421 468-464, 1716, U.S. 95 S.Ct. 44 gional diocese. The result here will mean (1975). L.Ed.2d 295 Spinozzi v. See also organization that if an may owe a fiduciary ITT Corp., Sheraton (7th 842, 174 F.3d 848 someone, duty to anyone, it must investi- Cir.1999) ((“[A]ccrual and tolling rules ... gate any possible source of harm and dis- reciprocals are of length of the period. close the potential details to all plaintiffs. A short period limitations can be offset not, If it does of statute limitations will generous rules, accrual and tolling and a protection offer no when the unknown long period limitations by miserly offset claim ripens years later. Given that the ones”)). The legislature Connecticut gave duty source of the investigate here is victims an extraordinary year 17 period not the master-servant relationship with after the age majority in bring which to Brett but the relationship Diocese’ with claims regarding sexual doing abuse. Martinelli, obligations what new does this so, it has rendered its “value holding impose boys clubs, girls and concerning point at which the interests YMCAs, organizations and other who in favor of protecting valid claims are out regularly shelter children at risk? More- weighed by interests prohibiting over, if awareness that Johnson, might someone or prosecution of stale ones.” 421 would be standard, 463-464, harmed is the then U.S. at 95 S.Ct. 1716. I do not See, 451, e.g., Lippitt 2. Ashley, v. jurisdiction) 89 Conn. 94 other in which defendant's 995, (Conn.1915) (no A. 1005 fraudulent con- investigate breach of a was sufficient cealment where directors of bank failed to knowledge requirement meet the actual embezzlement). ongoing discover treasurer's fraudulent concealment. (or We can find any no case from Connecticut

435 on the exclu- Worse, have intruded will we the State belief majority’s share control the State prerogative sive at- follow such an would Supreme Court Etc., Factors of its laws. See development from to release path tenuated (2d 278, Arts, Inc., F.2d 282 Inc. v. Pro or to file his claim timely obligation Cir.1981) sitting di- (noting courts un- “clear, precise, any “inter- to minimize seek versity should Bartone, A.2d at evidence.” equivocal orderly development ruption law.”); of state exposition authoritative diversity, we sitting a federal As Co., Rubber Tire & Goodyear v. Torres predic our circumspect be should Cir.1988) (9th 1293, Inc., F.2d scope they expand tions, particularly (“We to extend prematurely hesitate Trust Guaranty liability. See Co. of in the liability absence products law of York, 65 S.Ct. 326 U.S. N.Y. v. courts or the Arizona an indication (“In fed giving 89 L.Ed. an exten- that such legislature the Arizona equity suits ‘cognizance’ courts limited eral We have desirable. sion would Congress adopt jurisdiction, diversity case ‘to diversity in a cases discretion brought courts ev theories under legal federal did the untested gave, nor never ”). my belief law.’ Given state rubric claim, deny substantive ery power I wrong, guessed has majority or to create law by State created rights dissent. respectfully must law.”); by State rights denied substantive S.A., Bic, 21 F.3d Todd v. Societe Cir.) (“When be (7th a choice given law of Illinois interpretation

tween an liability, reasonably restricts liability, expands greatly one which BICKERSTAFF, Plaintiff- Joyce rea and more narrower should choose Appellant, (at the Illinois until least path sonable differently).”), cert. tells Court us Supreme COLLEGE, Defendant- VASSAR 359, 130 denied, S.Ct. U.S. Appellee. (1994). wrong, guess If L.Ed.2d No. 98-7702 Docket “inevitably skew do,3we and we sometimes rely [our on who [those] the decisions Appeals, States Court United losing affect the inequitably opinion] Second Circuit. deci appeal the who cannot litigant federal 16, 1999. Argued Feb. court; [we] supreme state’s sion 12, 1999. Decided Nov. courts lower state mislead may even Rehearing Denial of on As Amended predic federal accept may be inclined 22, 1999. Dec. Sloviter, precedent.” applicable as tions quoted at supra, 78 Va.L.Rev. Inc., Knopp, Rugg & v.

Lexington Ins. Co. Cir.1999). (7th 1087, 1092-93

165 F.3d Sloviter, of limitations applicable statute See, dard A Federal e.g., Dolores K. Circuit, through the but Diversity by the Second predicted ‍​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‍Judge Jurisdiction the one Views Federalism, 1679- 78 Va.L.Rev. for the post-judgment Lens relief refusing any (1992) (collecting erroneous &80 nn.48-51 finality of doctrine plaintiff because the Circuit); Poindexter guesses” the 3rd "Erie "any injustice DeW- outweighed judgments 1052, 1056 Armstrong, F.Supp. v. litigating suffered she has believes eerth (W.D.Ark.1994) (noting Circuit Court that 8th state opposed her case in federal "apparently mistaken” Appeals was least, II, plain- forum.”). at In DeWeerth Su- by Arkansas subsequent light of decision Here, the forum. federal chosen the tiff had (DeW- Court); Baldinger preme DeWeerth opportunity to secure never had the Cir.1994) (2d II), F.3d eerth Gen.Stat. interpretation Conn. state Ap- York Court (acknowledging that New § 52-595. stan- a different subsequently applied peals

Case Details

Case Name: Frank Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Nov 10, 1999

Citation: 196 F.3d 409

Docket Number: 1998

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.