Doe 1 v. Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Background

Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 alleged that they were sexually abused during the 1960s while enrolled at Sacred Hearts Academy in Fairhaven, Massachusetts. The amended complaint also described alleged abuse at other locations in Fairhaven and, with less detail, at locations in Maine and New York. The plaintiffs asserted claims for negligence; negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; gross negligence; premises liability; and breach of fiduciary duty. The fiduciary-duty claim was asserted only against the Diocese of Fall River and the Congregation.

The defendants were the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, the Diocese of Fall River, the Sisters of Charity of Montreal, the Sisters of Charity of Quebec, and the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate Eastern Province. Each defendant moved to dismiss on various grounds, including timeliness, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs also sought expedited discovery, which had previously been denied.

Venue analysis

The court applied the federal venue rule allowing a civil case to proceed in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred. The court found that the claims focused mainly on alleged events at locations in Massachusetts. Other allegations concerned Maine, Essex in the Northern District of New York, and the plaintiffs’ home in Brooklyn, which is in the Eastern District of New York.

The court found that the amended complaint did not make the required initial showing that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York. The allegations about similar incidents in Newburgh, New York, were vague and did not identify specific individuals or incidents. The complaint also referred to the alleged assault of another person, identified as “T.C.,” but the plaintiffs did not explain why that incident was significant to their claims.

The plaintiffs argued that venue was proper because the alleged events occurred across multiple districts and states and because the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The court rejected that argument. The provision allowing suit wherever a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction applies only when no district is otherwise available, and the court found that the District of Massachusetts was an available venue. The court also explained that identifying events somewhere in New York was insufficient because New York contains four federal judicial districts.

Disposition

Because venue was improper, the court considered whether to dismiss or transfer the case under the federal venue statute. The plaintiffs opposed transfer to Massachusetts because of a possible damages cap under Massachusetts law and suggested that they could refile in Maine. The court found no indication that the interests of justice required a transfer.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend. The plaintiffs had not explained how another amendment would establish venue in the Southern District of New York, and they had previously been alerted to the venue problem but had not corrected it. The court concluded that further amendment would be futile.

The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a district where venue lies. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. Judge Denise Cote did not reach the defendants’ other dismissal grounds or decide the underlying abuse-related claims.