Schmidt, Sethi & Akmajian Blog

Jurisdiction: Personal Jurisdiction/Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

Posted by Ted A. Schmidt | Jun 10, 2022 | 0 Comments

Burri Law PA v. Skurla, No.21-15271 (9th Cir., June 3, 2022) (J. Berzon)

Plaintiff sued archbishops of the Byzantine Catholic Church and their dioceses in Pittsburgh alleging they had directed defamatory statements about him toward individuals and entities in Arizona and tortiously interfered with his contractual relationship with the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the case.

Plaintiff is a Florida law firm that specializes in employee benefit plans within the Catholic Church. The Phoenix Eparchy hired plaintiff to investigate its health care benefits plan. Plaintiff found irregularities in the plan which ultimately resulted in plaintiff bringing an Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit in federal district court in Arizona. Thereafter, defendants repeatedly asked the Phoenix Eparchy to terminate the contract with plaintiff alleging plaintiff was “greedy, incompetent and inexperienced,” was just “trying to make a name for himself” while bringing a lawsuit with “absolutely no merit.”

Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788-89 (1984) “establishes that if a defendant: (1) commits an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, that (3) causes harm the defendant knew was likely to be suffered in the forum state, then the defendant has purposefully directed conduct at the forum state.”

The Ninth Circuit found all three of these elements are met here and that personal jurisdiction thus exists over the Pittsburgh defendants in an Arizona Court. 

Defendants also asserted the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. “The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine provides that a civil court may not adjudicate ‘the correctness of an interpretation of canonical text or some decision relating to government of the religious polity.'” This doctrine does not apply. Plaintiff seeks only to obtain relief for harms caused by the defendants “regardless of whether the conduct was ‘consistent with the governing law of the Church.'”

About the Author

Ted A. Schmidt

Ted's early career as a trial attorney began on the other side of the fence, in the offices of a major insurance defense firm. It was there that Ted acquired the experience, the skills and the special insight into defense strategy that have served him so well in the field of personal injury law. Notable among his successful verdicts was the landmark Sparks vs. Republic National Life Insurance Company case, a $4.5 million award to Ted's client. To this day, it is the defining case for insurance bad faith, and yet it is only one of several other multi-million dollar jury judgments won by Ted during his career. He is certified by the State Bar of Arizona as a specialist in "wrongful death and bodily injury litigation".


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Our team works together - for you!

Our award-winning lawyers are backed by a talented, caring team of legal professionals, paralegals, bilingual assistants, notaries, and others - all dedicated to you, your case, and the compensation you deserve.

No fees and no costs until we win.

As such we always have your case and your best interest in mind. When you win, we win too by providing the best legal care possible.

Thorough investigation and preparation.

We tirelessly and thoughtfully prepare every case we represent as though it was going to trial. This lets insurance companies know that we are a force to be reckoned with. As such, we settle successfully 98% of the time.