BishopAccountability.org
	Mayer Brown Wins Affirmance of Dismissal of Molestation-Related Case against Mexican Cardinal By Ben Hallman American Lawyer February 7, 2009 http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/digestTAL.jsp?id=1202428107203 Here at the Litigation Daily, we write a lot about jurisdictional questions involving foreign plaintiffs attempting to make claims in U.S. courts. Usually we look at the issue in the context of securities class actions, though we've covered a fair share of Alien Tort Claims cases as well. But we've never seen a case with facts like those considered by a California appeals court this week. As the court's ruling indicates, when it comes to tragic and thorny litigation involving priest abuse, nothing is easy. In 1986, Cardinal Norberto Rivera, then bishop of Mexico's Diocese of Tehuacan, learned that a parish priest named Nicholas Aguilar had been assaulted in what was rumored to be a sexual incident. Rivera advised Aguilar to seek counseling, but soon after, Aguilar left for California, where he found work for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. In 1988, shortly before police filed 19 counts of felony molestation against him, Aguilar fled back to Mexico. There, in 1994, he allegedly molested a 13-year-old named Joaquin Mendez. Twelve years later, Mendez filed a suit in Los Angeles county court, claiming that Cardinal Rivera first conspired with a cardinal in Los Angeles to get Aguilar out of Mexico, and then, after Aguilar's abuse was discovered in Los Angeles, helped him escape back to Mexico. Mendez claimed that if it were not for this collusion, he would never have been molested. (Mendez is represented by three firms: Jeff Anderson & Associates; Drivon, Turner & Waters; and the Law Offices of Martin D. Gross.) Mayer Brown partner Steven Selsberg, representing Cardinal Rivera and other church-related defendants, got the case dismissed in 2007 on the grounds that the suit belonged in Mexico. On the appeal, which was defended by Mayer Brown's Donald Falk, the higher court agreed that the case didn't meet the "effects test" of personal jurisdiction--ruling that the evidence did not show that Cardinal Rivera had engaged in intentional conduct to cause harm in the state of California. In fact, the evidence showed that Rivera had cautioned the Los Angeles Diocese about hiring Aguilar, and had not had contact with Aguilar after he returned to Mexico. Aguilar remains on the lam.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.