A U.S. District judge yesterday refused to intervene in the Roman Catholic diocese's clergy sex abuse cases, saying that at least for now, the matter “is best left up to the discretion of the Bankruptcy Court.”Judge Irma Gonzalez rejected the diocese's request for the U.S. court to set the monetary value of roughly 150 claims put on hold by the bankruptcy case.
“At this juncture, the Bankruptcy Court is in the best position to determine from a case management standpoint how and when these actions should proceed for estimation or liquidation,” she wrote.
Attorneys for the victims said Gonzalez's decision was a clear endorsement of how bankruptcy Judge Louise DeCarl Adler is handling the diocese's Chapter 11 reorganization.
“It demonstrates that Judge Adler is doing a good job,” said attorney Jim Stang, who represents the victims committee in the bankruptcy.
“She has the confidence of the District Court that she has managed the case appropriately and changing judges in midstream, even on the narrow issues that the diocese wanted, doesn't help the settlement process.”
Both sides have been meeting in closed-door sessions with a federal magistrate in an effort to resolve the claims.
Gonzalez also set a Nov. 26 hearing in District Court to review the status of the case.
Diocese attorney Micheal Webb said that means her decision isn't final. “I don't consider it a loss. I consider it a continuance,” he said.
Gonzalez's ruling comes just three days before Adler is scheduled to hear arguments about sending 42 of the lawsuits back to state court for jury trials – a move known as remanding that plaintiffs' attorneys argue could help settle the debate over what the cases are worth.
What's next
Thursday: In the morning, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Louise DeCarl Adler is scheduled to hear requests from plaintiffs' lawyers to release more than 40 sexual abuse cases for trial in Superior Court.
In the afternoon, financial expert R. Todd Neilson will be in court to discuss his court-ordered audit of the diocese.
Sept. 6: Judge Adler has scheduled a hearing on whether to dismiss the bankruptcy case.
However, the ruling, issued late yesterday afternoon, also created some confusion over whether Adler can take such a step.
Webb said that by scheduling a status hearing in November, Gonzalez effectively blocked this from happening. “She can't review this case if the cases have been remanded,” he said.
Attorney Irwin Zalkin, who represents many of the victims, disagreed, although he admitted “it's a little bit confusing.”
Stang suggested Gonzalez might simply have been saying that she will continue monitoring the case. “I think her point was: 'I'm not in this game now, but I am going to be in this game if you all can't figure out a settlement.' ”
There also might not be a bankruptcy case in November.
Earlier this month, Adler scheduled a Sept. 6 hearing to consider dismissing the case over questions raised in a court-ordered report of the diocese's finances.
Deciding a dollar amount on the lawsuits is crucial for settlement. The diocese has offered $95 million for the men and women who say they were sexually abused as minors by priests and other church workers.
Victims' attorneys, citing comparable settlements in other California dioceses, are seeking twice that amount.
Both sides spent much of Friday morning trying to persuade Gonzalez to their respective points of view. She told them then that she would issue an order yesterday.
Susan Boswell, the diocese's lead bankruptcy attorney, argued that having the U.S. District Court set the value of the victims' claims is the most timely and practical way to compensate victims.
She said the diocese isn't trying to avoid settling the lawsuits.
“There is no doubt that these are horrific cases; there is no doubt that there has to be a way to compensate these cases,” Boswell said.
Stang accused diocese attorneys of “forum shopping” – trying to find a judge who will decide values in a way that doesn't involve jury trials.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce