Doe 107 v. Diocese Of New Ulm

Filing 19

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Remand to State Court (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 6/25/2015. (PJM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 15-1626(DSD/JJK)
John Doe 107,
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Archdiocese of St. Paul
and Minneapolis and The
Diocese of New Ulm,
Defendants.

Patrick W. Noaker, Esq. and Noaker Law Firm LLC, 333
Washington Avenue North, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN
55401, counsel for plaintiff.
Jennifer R. Larimore, Esq., Thomas B. Wieser, Esq., John
C. Gunderson, Esq. and Meier, Kennedy & Quinn, 445
Minnesota Street, Suite 2200, St. Paul, MN 55101, counsel
for defendants.

This matter is before the court upon the motion for remand by
plaintiff John Doe 107. Based on a review of the file, record, and
proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the court grants
the motion.

BACKGROUND
This negligence action arises out of Doe’s claim that he was
sexually abused by a priest at St. John’s Church in Hector,
Minnesota between 1957 and 1960.

Some of the alleged abuse

occurred when St. John’s was part of the defendant Archdiocese of
St. Paul and Minneapolis, and the rest occurred after St. John’s

became part of the newly formed defendant Diocese of New Ulm in
1958.
On November 12, 2013, Doe, now a resident of Colorado, filed
a

complaint

against

defendants

in

Ramsey

County,

alleging

negligence, negligent supervision, and negligent retention.

The

state court issued several scheduling orders, and the parties
engaged in some, but not much, discovery.
begin in January 2016.

Trial was scheduled to

On January 16, 2015, the Archdiocese filed

a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy
code. Shortly thereafter, the Archdiocese notified the state court
that the claims against it are automatically stayed under 11 U.S.C.
§

362(a).

Doe

plans

to

file

a

proof of claim

against

the

Archdiocese in the bankruptcy case, but has not yet done so.
On March 27, 2015, the Diocese removed the case to this court
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1452(a), which allows for the removal of claims
related to a bankruptcy case.1

Plaintiff now moves to remand under

28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1).

DISCUSSION
Under § 1334(c)(1), a district court may abstain from hearing
a matter related to a case brought under the bankruptcy code “in
the interest of justice, or in the interest of comity with State

1

Section 1452(a) references 28 U.S.C. § 1334, which gives
federal courts original jurisdiction over proceedings related to
cases brought under the bankruptcy code.
2

courts or respect for State law.”

See also 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b)

(providing that the court may remand a case removed pursuant to
§ 1334 “on any equitable ground.”).
court

should

be

guided

by

the

The parties agree that the

following

twelve

factors

in

determining whether abstention, and thus remand, is appropriate:
(1) the effect or lack thereof on the efficient
administration of the estate if a Court recommends
abstention, (2) the extent to which state law issues
predominate over bankruptcy issues, (3) the difficulty or
unsettled nature of the applicable state law, (4) the
presence of a related proceeding commenced in state court
or other nonbankruptcy court, (5) the jurisdictional
basis, if any, other than 28 U.S.C. § 1334, (6) the
degree of relatedness or remoteness of the proceeding to
the main bankruptcy case, (7) the substance rather than
form of an asserted “core” proceeding, (8) the
feasibility of severing state law claims from core
bankruptcy matters to allow judgments to be entered in
state court with enforcement left to the bankruptcy
court, (9) the burden on the court’s docket, (10) the
likelihood that the commencement of the proceeding in a
bankruptcy court involves forum shopping by one of the
parties, (11) the existence of a right to a jury trial,
and (12) the presence in the proceeding of nondebtor
parties.
In re Strathmore Grp., LLC, 522 B.R. 447, 457 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.
2014).
After carefully considering the relevant equitable factors,
the court finds that abstention is warranted.

First, state law

issues plainly predominate over bankruptcy issues.

Doe has only

raised negligence claims, none of which implicate bankruptcy law or
the ongoing bankruptcy proceeding.

Second, the connection between

this case and the bankruptcy proceeding is tenuous.

Although Doe

sued both the Archdiocese and the Diocese, there is no compelling
3

reason the case cannot proceed independently against the Diocese.2
Third, there is no greater risk of an inconsistent judgment if this
case proceeds in state court rather than this court.

If Doe does

file a proof of claim against the Archdiocese in the bankruptcy
case, that claim would likely proceed in bankruptcy court rather
than this court.

Thus, Doe’s claim will be heard by two separate

courts in any event.

The court does not share the Diocese’s belief

that there is a smaller likelihood of inconsistent judgments if
both cases are in the federal system.

The court is also not

persuaded that any possible future claims by the Diocese against
the Archdiocese for contribution or apportionment weigh in favor of
keeping the case here.

Finally, Doe’s claim against the Diocese

can proceed more expeditiously in state court.

The most recent

scheduling order issued by the state court set a trial date in
January 2016, whereas this court has yet to set any deadlines or a
trial date.

The fact that the court could readily apply state law

in this case and that diversity jurisdiction may also exist does
not overcome

the

equitable considerations

that

overwhelmingly

support remand.

2

The parties have identified 1958 as the year the Diocese
became potentially liable for the alleged conduct at issue.
Whether the Archdiocese can be held liable for similar conduct
during an earlier point in time is a separate question that need
not be resolved in the instant suit.
4

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
1.

The motion to remand [ECF No. 8] is granted; and

2.

The case is remanded to Ramsey Court District Court.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated:

June 25, 2015
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

5