Pennsylvania litigants who flocked to New Jersey after the state relaxed its statute of limitations for victims of childhood sex abuse may not find the court rolling out the welcome mat.

After New Jersey's law went into effect in December 2019, dozens of suits were filed by adults who were abused during childhood, including at least eight against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and two against the Diocese of Allentown. The suits generally claim priests from Pennsylvania parishes sexually abused the plaintiffs at locations in New Jersey.

Pennsylvania plaintiffs are filing in New Jersey because their home state lacks a comparable law granting relief from the statute of limitations. But the Pennsylvania defendants have had success contesting jurisdiction in New Jersey.

On Monday a federal judge in Trenton granted a motion to dismiss sexual abuse claims against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia after finding a lack of jurisdiction. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. And on June 19, a Superior Court judge in Cape May County dismissed without prejudice a suit against the archdiocese based on a jurisdictional argument.

Those rulings were issued in response to motions by Nicholas Centrella of Conrad O'Brien who represents the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Centrella has filed similar motions in other New Jersey cases involving the archdiocese.

At least one judge rejected those arguments, without prejudice. Superior Court Judge Mark Troncone of Ocean County said a 90-day period of jurisdictional discovery was required before the court could determine whether the archdiocese has sufficient contacts subjecting it to jurisdiction in New Jersey.

In the federal court case kicked out of New Jersey Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson found her court lacked jurisdiction to oversee a Pennsylvania resident's claims that he was molested by a priest from his church there. The plaintiff claims the abuse took place at a beach house in New Jersey.

The suit said the archdiocese is vicariously liable for the conduct of the priest, James Brzyski, because he was acting as an agent of the archdiocese when the abuse took place. But the suit does not allege the archdiocese instructed the priest to take the child to New Jersey, Wolfson wrote. And courts have held that priests who sexually abuse another person are not acting within the scope of their employment, she said.

"Without an agency connection, Brzyski's conduct in transporting plaintiff to New Jersey for the purposes of sexual abuse simply does not subject defendant to the personal jurisdiction of this court. The unilateral activity of a third party cannot satisfy the requirement that Defendant have minimum contacts with the forum state," Wolfson wrote.

In the Cape May County case, Judge James Pickering granted the motion for dismissal by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia but denied a motion for dismissal by the Diocese of Allentown. Pickering's orders gave little reason for the split decision.

But the lawyer for the Diocese of Allentown, Elizabeth Leong of Robinson & Cole, conceded in a court filing that the Diocese of Allentown has assigned its priests to New Jersey dioceses and that about 60 students from New Jersey attend its high schools.

The plaintiff in that case, who is listed as John Doe in court papers, claims he was sexually assaulted at age 11 by Robert Cofenas, now deceased, in Cape May County. But the suit claims Cofenas met the plaintiff while performing official duties as a priest under the auspices of the Diocese of Allentown and the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

Zachary Silverstein of Zarwin, Baum, DeVito, Kaplan, Schaer Toddy in Philadelphia, who represents the plaintiff, along with David McComb of the same firm, said the ruling wasn't based on the jurisdictional issue but because the judge felt the claims lacked specificity. Silverstein said his firm has not decided what steps to take next.

Philadelphia's Laffey Bucci Kent represents plaintiffs in two cases against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia in which jurisdiction-based motions to dismiss are pending. That firm's Stewart Ryan said he is confident that courts will find the archdiocese is subject to jurisdiction in New Jersey. In its opposition to the archdiocese's motion to dismiss, Ryan's firm cited a 2006 New Jersey Supreme Court case, Hardwicke v. American Boychoir School, which held that a private boarding school could be held liable for sexual abuse of children by its employees.

"In Hardwicke, the New Jersey Supreme Court came down squarely on the issue to say the scope of employment that would create vicarious liability can extend beyond usual norms," Ryan said. In the present case, "the only reason abuse is occurring in New Jersey is because the priestly relationship—they are aided and abetted by any relationship with the Catholic Church," he said.

Ryan said a grand jury report on clergy sexual abuse in Philadelphia indicated the archdiocese knew its priests routinely took children to the Jersey Shore to sexually abuse them.

Although many other states have passed laws to alter the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse victims, such as New Jersey's law, Pennsylvania has no such law, thanks to lobbying by the Catholic church, said Ryan. He said a constitutional amendment to revise the statute of limitations was approved by the Legislature once but still must be voted through a second time and then approved by a majority of the electorate.

Centrella, representing the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, and Leong, the lawyer for the Diocese of Allentown, did not respond to requests for comment. The lawyers for the plaintiff in the case dismissed by Wolfson—Ronald Greenblatt and Patricia Pierce of Greeenblatt Pierce Funt & Flores in Philadelphia, and Bethany Nikitenko of Feldman Shepherd Wholgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig in Philadelphia—also did not respond.