Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:O7—cv-00435-SLR Document 77 Filed O1/23/2008 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COLIRT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ROBERT OUILL, )
I
Plaintiff, )
I
v. ) Civ. N0. 07-435-SLR
I
CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF )
WILMINGTON INC., ST. ELlZABETH’S )
ROIVIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, REV. )
FRANCIS G. DELUCA, and )
REV. MICHAEL A. SALTARELLI, )
I
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this Jbkday of January, 2008, having considered defendants’
motions to dismiss and the papers submitted in connection therewith;
IT IS ORDERED that said motions (D.l. 20, 25) are denied for the reasons that
follow:
1. Background. Plaintiff Robert Ouill ("Ouill") filed this diversity action pursuant
to the Child Victim’s Act, 10 Del. C. § 8145 (the "Act"), seeking monetary damages for
personal injuries arising from child sexual abuse committed from 1968 through 1975 by
defendant Rev. Francis G. DeLuca ("DeLuca").‘ (D.l. 1, 11) Also named as defendants
are the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington ("Diocese"), St. Elizabeth’s Catholic Church (St.
‘Plaintiff also raises claims under Delaware common law with respect to atleast
300 acts of childhood sexual abuse based upon the recovery of repressed memories
and the filing of the action within two years of that discovery. These claims are not
implicated by the motions at bar.

Case 1:07-cv-00435-SLR Document 77 Filed O1/23/2008 Page 2 of 3
Elizabeth’s”) and Rev. Michael Saltarelli ("Saltarelli").2
2. Defendants contend that the Act mandates that claims be filed in the Superior
Court of the State of Delaware. (D.l. 22) While defendants concede that the Act’s
legislative intent is silent, they suggest that judicial economy and the unique nature of
the Act are reasons for the language mandating filing in state court.
3. Plaintiff responds that the action was properly filed in this court based on
diversity jurisdiction and limiting actions pursuant to the Act to state court would violate
the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.3 (D.|. 30)
4. Standard of Review. ln considering a motion to dismiss under R. 12(b)(6),
the court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the
light most favorable to plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, U.S. -—-- , 127 S. Ct. 2197,
2200 (2007); Christopher v. l-larbury, 536 U.S. 403, 406 (2002). Additionally, a
complaint must contain "‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to re|ief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."’ Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, --— U.S. ---- ,
127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). A
complaint does not need detailed factual allegations; however, "a plaintiff’s obligation to
provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."
2SaItarelli is no longer a defendant in this action, the parties having stipulated to
his dismissal with prejudice on January 23, 2008. (D.l. 76)
3Plaintiff, a Florida citizen, brought suit against Delaware citizen defendants
alleging damages in excess of $75,000. (D.l. 1, 11)
2

Case 1:07-cv-00435-SLR Document 77 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 3 of 3
lc; at 1965 (citations omitted). The "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint's
allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." g (citations omitted).
5. The Child Victim’s Act provides in part:
A cause of action based upon the sexual abuse of a minor child by adult
may be filed in the Superior Court of this State at any time following the
commission of the act or acts that constituted the sexual abuse. A civil
cause of action for sexual abuse of a minor shall be based upon sexual
acts that would constitute a criminal offense under the Delaware Code.
10 Del. C. § 8145(a). The Act retrospectively creates a two year window within which
claims may be brought for past child abuse actions which had been previously barred
by the prior statute of limitations. § 8145(b).
6. Discussion. Plaintiff has properly invoked the court’s jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332. Although the Superior Court is identified as a forum for such
actions, there is nothing in the text or legislative history to suggest that the Delaware
General Assembly intended to preclude federal courts from considering diversity
actions brought under the Act. (D.I. 29, 30)
3