Keenan v. Holy See

Background

Five plaintiffs alleged that they suffered sexual abuse as children by Roman Catholic priests assigned to parishes in the United States. They sued the Holy See, which the opinion describes as a foreign state and the supreme governing body of the Roman Catholic Church. The plaintiffs alleged that the Holy See knew about widespread child sexual abuse by clergy, concealed the abuse, and contributed to their injuries.

The complaint asserted claims under Minnesota law, including nuisance, breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, false advertising, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence-related claims for some plaintiffs, and claims for injunctive relief. It also asserted a claim under customary international human-rights law. The plaintiffs relied on exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a federal law that generally protects foreign states from lawsuits in United States courts but provides certain exceptions.

The Holy See’s Motion

The Holy See moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). Its arguments included insufficient service of process, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, lack of jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution, and failure to state a claim.

The court addressed only the service issue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a), a foreign state must be served through specified procedures. The court concluded that those procedures require strict compliance. The plaintiffs attempted service by mail and through diplomatic channels. Their notice of suit, however, did not strictly comply with the applicable federal statute and State Department regulation.

Service Defects

The notice listed the plaintiffs’ legal claims and stated that they sought damages, injunctive relief, and other relief in an amount to be determined. The court found that this did not state the amount of relief sought, even though the complaint demanded more than $75,000 plus other amounts.

The notice also failed to summarize the plaintiffs’ principal factual allegations. Listing legal claims alone did not explain the alleged childhood sexual abuse or the plaintiffs’ theory that the Holy See’s conduct caused or contributed to that abuse. The notice also did not explain why the Holy See had been named as a defendant.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the notice was sufficient because the Holy See had actual notice of the lawsuit and had participated in it. Actual notice did not establish strict compliance with the service requirements. The Holy See also did not waive its service objection by presenting other dismissal arguments in the same motion.

Disposition

The court held that defective service meant there was no personal jurisdiction over the Holy See at that time. Because service was inadequate, the court did not decide the Holy See’s other arguments, including its challenges based on sovereign immunity, subject-matter jurisdiction, venue, and failure to state a claim.

The court did not dismiss the complaint. Instead, it quashed the plaintiffs’ service of process and allowed them 60 days from the order’s filing to attempt service in compliance with applicable law. The court stated that the plaintiffs could move for additional time if more than 60 days were needed.

The order states that the Holy See’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part: service was quashed; the plaintiffs were given 60 days to attempt proper service; and the motion was denied in all other respects without prejudice to the Holy See’s right to refile it after service. The parties were directed to contact the court after any new service to schedule a status conference.