The Case
Jane HM Doe brought civil claims against the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Phoenix, the Society of the Divine Savior USA Province, and St. Mark Roman Catholic Parish Phoenix.
According to the appellate decision, Doe alleged that she was sexually abused while she was a minor by two clerics connected with St. Mark Roman Catholic Parish. The defendants disputed liability and raised, among other issues, the legal effect of Doe's earlier Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings.
Maricopa County Superior Court
CV2020-001936
Division Two
2 CA-CV 2022-0080
CV-23-0051-PR
The February 3, 2023 Appellate Decision
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, originally issued the decision as a published opinion.
The superior court had dismissed Doe's case after determining that her claims belonged to her bankruptcy estate and that she therefore lacked standing to pursue them.
The Court of Appeals reached a different conclusion.
The appellate court concluded that Doe had standing to pursue the claims under the circumstances presented. The court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
A central issue was unusual: Doe's alleged claims had become time-barred before her bankruptcy filings. Arizona later enacted legislation allowing certain previously time-barred childhood sexual-abuse claims to be brought during a revival period.
The appellate court analyzed whether claims that were already time-barred when the bankruptcies began constituted property of the bankruptcy estate when Arizona later revived the ability to bring those claims.
Case Timeline
Arizona enacted legislation addressing limitations periods for claims involving childhood sexual abuse and provided a temporary revival period for certain previously time-barred claims.
Jane HM Doe filed the civil action in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two issued its opinion in 2 CA-CV 2022-0080, vacating the dismissal and remanding the case.
According to the Arizona Supreme Court's later order, the appellant and appellees filed a stipulation requesting dismissal of the Supreme Court proceeding.
The appellees filed a joint motion asking the Arizona Supreme Court to depublish the Court of Appeals opinion in its entirety, or, alternatively, to depublish paragraphs 15 through 26.
Jane HM Doe filed a response to the defendants/appellees/petitioners' joint motion for depublication.
The Arizona Supreme Court ordered the Court of Appeals opinion depublished pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(g).
The Court of Appeals entered an order acknowledging the Supreme Court's action and redesignating its written disposition as a Memorandum Decision.
What Happened to the Published Opinion?
The appellate court's reasoning did not simply disappear from the historical record. What changed was the decision's official publication and precedential status.
The Supreme Court's order identifies the filing history leading to that action. It states that the appellees filed a joint motion for depublication after the parties had filed a stipulation requesting dismissal.
The order also shows that Doe filed a response to the depublication motion and that an amicus filing was made in connection with the request.
Participants Identified in the Appellate Record
Plaintiff / Appellant
Plaintiff / Appellant
Counsel for Plaintiff / Appellant
Defendants / Appellees
Also identified as the Salvatorians
Defense Counsel Listed in the Opinion
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
Coppersmith Brockelman PLC
Thorpe Shwer P.C.
Thorpe Shwer P.C.
Laffey, Leitner and Goode LLC
Laffey, Leitner and Goode LLC
Court of Appeals Panel
Author of the opinion
Concurred
Dissented
Why Depublication Matters
Publication status matters because published appellate opinions can serve as precedent for later courts and litigants.
After the Arizona Supreme Court's depublication order, the Court of Appeals redesignated the disposition as a Memorandum Decision under Rule 111.
That distinction can matter to lawyers and litigants confronting similar questions involving revived childhood sexual-abuse claims, old bankruptcy proceedings, standing, and ownership of legal claims.
This archive does not claim that depublication determined the merits of future cases. Its purpose is to preserve the public procedural history and make the underlying court documents easier to locate.
Primary and Public Records
Readers should review the actual court documents rather than rely only on summaries.
Case identifiers: Maricopa County Superior Court CV2020-001936; Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two 2 CA-CV 2022-0080; Arizona Supreme Court CV-23-0051-PR.