Church in
Crisis
Flood of new abuse cases headed to California courts
By ARTHUR JONES
Los Angeles
Lawyers outnumbered media representatives 19 to 11 in Los Angeles
Superior Court Room 322 Jan. 8 as all waited for the next stage in the Los
Angeles Catholic archdiocese’s bid to have a new raft of sex abuse suits
settled through mediation.
What has happened is this: Effective Jan. 1, California
legislation lifted for a calendar year the statute of limitations on suing
employers of known child molesters. Consequently, plaintiffs’ attorneys
are filing new suits against Catholic dioceses, suits that -- before the
statute was lifted -- were invalid on grounds that too much time had elapsed
since the alleged offense.
With possibly 300 new and existing cases to contend with, Catholic
dioceses and California courts share similar problems: Both will be swamped
with additional caseloads.
On Dec. 24, toward the end of a more than four-hour meeting with
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Lichtman, the judge invited the lawyers
to discuss mediation. The judge also issued a “gag order” on public
discussion of the mediation proposal.
In the Los Angeles archdiocese and nearby Orange, Calif., diocese
there are more than 100 cases for potential mediation. If mediation goes ahead,
church and victims would try to reach out-of-court settlements in a 90-day
period. No new cases would be filed during this “standstill” period,
“and no action would be taken on cases already pending.”
Should the mediation go through, there is little likelihood the
Los Angeles archdiocese would fight to get the 12-month statute of limitations
waiver law overturned, a tactic said to be under consideration. (Though the
state legislature says the provision applies to all employers, the waiver is
widely regarded in Catholic circles as being aimed at Catholic dioceses.)
A second development in these cases is a move to coordinate them
all before a single court in the interests of “judicial economy.” If
there were 20 different cases dealt with in 20 different California courts,
there could be 20 different decisions on the same legal issue. That would end
up in the state Supreme Court’s lap because the Supreme Court’s court
of appeals would have to sort out the 20 different legal opinions.
These civil cases -- regarding continued sexual abuse of minors by
Catholic clerics made possible by alleged lax supervision on the part of church
authorities -- are regarded as similar enough in kind to warrant coordination.
With all the cases coming before the same court, the legal rulings would be
from a single source.
What distinguishes a “coordination” from a class action
suit is that in a class action suit, all claims are evaluated together in one
court hearing. That would not be the case in “coordination.” After
two hours of meeting separately and jointly with church attorneys and
plaintiffs’ attorneys, Lichtman told the church to produce personnel
records on more than 100 priests accused of molestation, and ordered
plaintiffs’ attorneys to make available names and details of those making
new complaints.
The judge said confidentiality on both sides was a key to
mediation. Plaintiffs’ lawyers later said they intended to push, as a
condition of settlement, that church documents be unsealed.
This second step in the mediation bid does not mean mediation has
been agreed upon, or will necessarily work in all cases. Lichtman has scheduled
the next hearing for Feb. 25.
Arthur Jones is NCR editor at large. His e-mail address
is arthurjones@attbi.com
National Catholic Reporter, January 17,
2003
|
