Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nielsen v. Archdiocese of Denver

February 7, 2006

DELBERT C. NIELSEN, III, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER, DEFENDANT.
GREG ROBERTS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER, DEFENDANT.
ROGER COLBURN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER, DEFENDANT.
JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER, DEFENDANT.
PAT HERGENRETER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER, DEFENDANT.
JANE DOE (3), PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER, DEFENDANT.
JOHN DOE (2), PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER, ST. CATHERINE'S CHURCH, ST. MARY'S CATHOLIC CATHEDRAL, AND ST. ANTHONY'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, DEFENDANTS.
JOHN DOE (3), PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER, DEFENDANT.
JOHN DOE (4), PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER, DEFENDANT.
LEONARD ROSKOP, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER, DEFENDANT.
JOHN DOE NO. 5, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER, ST. CATHERINE CHURCH, ST. MARY'S CATHOLIC CATHEDRAL, AND ST. ANTHONY'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, DEFENDANTS.
JOHN DOE NO. 6, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER, AND ST. CATHERINE CHURCH, DEFENDANTS.
JOHN DOE NO. 7, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER, ST. CATHERINE CHURCH, ST. MARY'S CATHOLIC CATHEDRAL, AND ST. ANTHONY'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lewis T. Babcock, Chief Judge

ORDER

These cases, removed here from Colorado courts and consolidated for the purpose of resolving the plaintiffs' motions to remand, present the narrow question whether claims arising out of neutral, state law of general applicability create a contested and substantial federal issue sufficient to establish jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 where, notwithstanding the existence of ecclesiastical recourse, secular norms govern the conduct of which the plaintiffs complain. For the reasons stated below, I find and conclude that no federal-question jurisdiction exists. The motions for remand, fully briefed and argued orally, are GRANTED.

I. Allegations

The sundry complaints in these cases contain substantially similar allegations, which may briefly be summarized. Each of the plaintiffs, while a minor and vulnerable, allegedly suffered abuse from either Harold Robert White or Leonard A. Abercrombie, former priests under the supervision of the defendants. The complaints are replete with explanations of the influence the priests had over the plaintiffs, the trust the plaintiffs placed in them, and the ostensibly "holy" aura with which the priests were endowed. Other allegations consist of generalizations about Church practice that have no bearing on the question now before me. Each plaintiff presses a single claim of negligence against the defendant the Archdiocese of Denver ("Archdiocese") or all of the defendants.

The defendants argue that the plaintiffs' claims challenge the boundary separating Church and State by engendering a legal standard for the Archdiocese's hiring, supervisory and retention practices for its clergy. I disagree.

II. Discussion

The defendants, citing Ayon v. Gourley, 47 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (D. Colo. 1998), aff'd, 185 F.3d 873 (10th Cir.1999) (unpublished), argue that determination of liability in these cases would violate the First Amendment and that federal question jurisdiction therefore exists. It is now axiomatic that jurisdiction cannot be predicated upon a defense that raises a federal question, no matter that the issue might prove to be dispositive. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 14, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed. 2d 420 (1983). This rule applies to invocations of both original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. Id. at 10 n.9. As the Tenth Circuit has explained,

For a case to arise under federal law, the federal question must be apparent on the face of a well-pleaded complaint, and Plaintiff's cause of action must be created by federal law or, if it is a state-law cause of action, its resolution must necessarily turn on a substantial question of federal law, and that federal law in turn must create a private cause of action.

Rice v. Office of Servicemembers' Group Life Ins., 260 F.3d 1240, 1245 (10th Cir. 2001).

The plaintiffs have pled claims for simple negligence. "An employer may be liable for harm to others for negligently employing an improper person for a task which may involve a risk to others." Moses v. Diocese of Colorado, 863 P.2d 310, 323-324 (Colo. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1137, 114 S.Ct. 2153, 128 L.Ed. 2d 880 (1994). A claim for negligent hiring or supervision consists of the usual elements of negligence -- duty, breach, injury, causation -- and the establishment of an agency relationship between the employer and alleged employee. Id. at 324. All of these elements consist of neutral standards arising out of Colorado State law of general applicability.

Citing Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. --, 125 S.Ct. 2363, 162 L.Ed. 2d 257 (2005), the defendants correctly point out that a state law claim might present on its face a federal issue creating federal question jurisdiction. Though this straw man provides no resistance, he guards no insight. Unlike the claim pressed in Grable, the elements of the claims presented here are amenable to establishment without reference to questions of federal law. Whether having their origins in state or federal law, claims giving rise to subject matter jurisdiction must raise on their face a stated federal issue. Grable,125 S.Ct. at 2368.

The defendants remonstrate that the First Amendment issues they intend to raise here are contested and substantial. Ibid at 2367. However, the substantiality inquiry must necessarily follow a determination that the federal issues are "essential parts of the plaintiffs' cause of action." Id. at 2368-2369, quoting Hopkins v. Walker, 244 U.S. 486, 490, 37 S.Ct. 711, 61 L.Ed. 1270 (1917). Thus, as the defendants concede, the Court in Grable did not in any way abrogate the well-pleaded complaint rule. Indeed, the Grable Court expressly disclaimed any intention to contradict prior jurisdictional authority, including Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 92 L.Ed. 2d 650 (1986). Grable,125 S.Ct. at 2369. Now, as before the Court's decision in Grable, though a federal cause of action is not a necessary predicate for federal-question jurisdiction, a federal question apparent on the face of the well-pleaded complaint is indispensable. Rice, 260 F.3d at1245.

No federal issues appear on the faces of the complaints, so I could end my analysis here. Nonetheless, I address briefly several of the defendants' creative arguments.

The defendants argue that the plaintiffs' negligence claims turn on a substantial federal question, which they find embedded in the duty element; the plaintiffs invoke the Archdiocese's special status as a religious entity presumably in order to demonstrate the defendants' heightened obligation. However, notwithstanding certain gratuitous references in the complaints, the defendants' duty is ascertained without reference to the defendants' religious ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.