Doe v. Roman Catholic Church, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0143 (App. Div. I, June 29,  2023) (J.Cruz) https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2023/1%20CA-CV%2022-0143%20-%20Doe%20v.%20Roman%20Catholic%20Church%20et%20al.%20Final%20OP.pdf

TIMELY APPEAL AGAINST ONE DEFENDANT DOES NOT RENDER OTHERWISE UNTIMELY APPEAL AGAINST SECOND DEFENDANT TIMELY/DIOCESE KNOWLEDGE THAT PRIEST HAD ENGAGED IN HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ANOTHER ADULT AND ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ABUSED OTHER ADULT PRIESTS DOES NOT CREATE NOTICE SAID PRIEST WAS A DANGER TO CHILDREN TO CREATE DIRECT LIABILITY FOR PRIEST'S ALLEGED SEXUAL MOLESTATION OF PLAINTIFF/SEXUAL MOLESTATION OF CHILD NOT BEING PART OF PRIEST'S JOB DUTIES OR INCIDENTAL TO HIS EMPLOYMENT DOES NOT CREATE VICARIOUS LIABILITY AGAINST DIOCESE

In 2014, Doe awoke from a coma after a motorcycle accident to see a priest in his room. He alleges this caused him to remember being molested by a Roman Catholic priest in 1983 when he was a 6^th grader attending an elementary school operated by St. Marks. The priest in question was with the defendant Salvatorians, a Roman Catholic religious order distinct from the Diocese but assuming responsibility over St. Marks, a parish within the Diocese.

After much discovery the trial court granted the Diocese and the Salvatorians summary judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. Each judgment was entered on separate dates.  Doe's motions for new trial were denied and he appealed.  The Arizona Court of Appeals dismissed Doe's appeal of the judgment in favor of the Salvatorians as untimely and affirmed the trial court's judgment for the diocese.

Filing a timely appeal under rule 54(b) as to one defendant does not render an otherwise untimely appeal as to a second defendant timely. Here the appeal of the judgment against the Salvadorians was not timely and therefore was dismissed.

Because there was no evidence presented to refute the motion for summary judgment brought by the Diocese establishing the Diocese “knew or reasonably should have known” that the priest in question was a danger to children, judgment was properly entered in favor of the Diocese on Doe's claim of direct liability.  Knowledge that this priest may have engaged in a homosexual relationship with an adult and sexually abused other adult priests is not proof he was a danger to children. Further the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes the court from addressing whether he was duly ordained without the seminary's recommendation.

Finally, the Diocese is not vicariously liable for the priest's alleged molestation of Doe because there is no evidence this alleged misconduct was part of his “job duties” or “expressly or impliedly authorized as part of his job duties or incidental to his employment as a priest, teacher, or counselor. The acts were committed not fore any purpose of his employer, but solely to gratify [his] personal, apparently sexual desires.”

Finally, House Bill 2466 extending the statute of limitations to age thirty for claims of child sexual abuse, did not “create or expand any substantive causes of action.” This Bill does not support a finding of vicarious or direct liability against the Diocese here.