Robles v. Holy See

Background

Thomas Alberto Robles sued the Holy See; Our Lady of Mount Carmel Parish; Church of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel; Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Development Corporation; the Archdiocese of New York; the Archbishop of New York; and the Society of the Catholic Apostolate, also identified as the Pallottines. Robles alleged that Barry Bossa, a priest, sexually abused him while he was a minor.

The court previously granted the Holy See’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, without prejudice to Robles seeking permission to amend his vicarious-liability negligence claim. The court had explained that, under Robles’s theory, jurisdiction depended on allegations showing that clergy knew Bossa had sexually abused a child after becoming a priest, that the clergy kept that knowledge secret because of the 1962 Crimen sollicitationis policy, and that they lacked discretion to take other steps to warn parents, Robles, or authorities. The court had supplemental jurisdiction over the defendants other than the Holy See.

Motion to Amend

Robles timely moved for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. He said the proposed complaint removed or changed some claims against the Holy See and provided more detail about the structure of the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy See’s duties.

The court denied the motion. It found that the proposed amended complaint did not allege, even in a conclusory manner, that Catholic clergy knew Bossa had sexually abused a child after he became a priest. The proposed complaint repeated allegations that Bossa had been accused of abusing two boys while training for the priesthood in the mid-1970s, but those allegations had already appeared in the original complaint. The court found that Robles did not allege that clergy knew, at the relevant time, that Robles or another child had been abused by Bossa after his ordination.

Because the proposed amendment did not cure the deficiencies identified in the earlier opinion, the court concluded that it would be subject to immediate dismissal for failure to allege facts supporting subject-matter jurisdiction. The court therefore found amendment futile and denied Robles’s motion for leave to amend.

Other Rulings and Disposition

The order stated that denial of leave to amend required dismissal of the case because the court had only supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining defendants. It also denied the Holy See’s motion for reconsideration as moot. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case. The order does not specify whether the resulting dismissal was with or without prejudice.