Photo: Thoom/Shutterstock.com

A lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia filed by a John Doe who claimed he was sexually abused by one of the region's most notorious pedophile priests has been moved from New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Doe, a former altar boy, originally filed his lawsuit in New Jersey because he alleged that the late defrocked Father James J. Brzyski abused him multiple times at a shore home in Forked River in Ocean County, New Jersey, from 1978 to 1982, from the time Doe was 10 years old until he was 14.

On Monday, U.S. District Chief Judge Freda Wolfson of the District of New Jersey declined the Archdiocese's request to dismiss the case, and instead ruled that her court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Doe's attorney, Bethany Nikitenko of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock Dodig, declined to comment. Nicholas Centrella of Conrad O'Brien, who represents the Archdiocese, did not respond to a request for comment.

In 2017 Brzyski was found dead in a Fort Worth motel room littered with pills and vodka bottles, years after he was defrocked by the Catholic Church in 2005. Brzyski is considered one of the worst pedophiles to emerge from the church's sex abuse scandal, having raped approximately 100 children during his time as a priest, according to prosecutors.

Doe claimed that the Archdiocese "failed in its duty to provide a reasonably safe environment for the students, including plaintiff, left in its custody, care, and/or control. The complaint asserts that defendant employed, retained, and assigned individuals, who defendant knew, and/or had reason to know, to be pedophiles, child molesters, sexual predators, and mentally ill," Wolfson said. "Further, according to plaintiff, that defendant 'regularly, routinely, and/or frequently' assigned, re-assigned, or transferred priests who had been credibly accused of molesting children to new assignments where they retained access to, and control over, children."

Doe also claimed that the church failed to ensure its priests were psychologically fit to work with children and that it failed to alert parishioners to allegations against priests or to inform law enforcement.

"Plaintiff avers that defendant deliberately sought to conceal known abuse by priests and other persons in the employ or service of the Archdiocese knowing that they exposed children, including plaintiff, to a significant risk of serious physical and psychological harm, such as a significant risk of rape, anal rape, and sodomy," Wolfson said. "Plaintiff claims that defendant employed strategies, including sham investigations, failing to interview witnesses, failing to inform parishioners of allegations, refusing to notify law enforcement, destroying record evidence of misconduct, and failing to enforce limitations supposedly imposed on priests diagnosed as pedophiles."