BURRI LAW PA V. WILLIAM SKURLA, No. 21-15271 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff alleged that Defendants directed defamatory statements about him toward individuals and entities in Arizona and tortiously interfered with his contractual relationship with the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s action against three bishops of the Byzantine Catholic Church and their respective dioceses.
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Where a defendant directs communications that are defamatory toward a forum state and seeks to interfere with a forum state contract, the defendant has purposefully directed conduct at the forum state, and the defendant knows or should know that such conduct is likely to cause harm in the forum state.
The court rejected Defendants’ contention that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. The court held that the doctrine was not relevant here where Plaintiff was not asking the court to adjudicate the sort of issues covered by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.
The court applied the Calder effects test to determine whether a defendant purposefully directed activities toward a forum state Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). The court held that Plaintiff’s claims against the Archbishop of Pittsburgh were on all fours with Calder. The court held that the district court erred in holding that the Archbishop did not purposefully direct conduct at Arizona. The court held that the Archbishop’s directed communications acts targeted the forum state itself and such acts were likely to cause harm in Arizona.
Court Description: Personal Jurisdiction. The panel vacated the district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction of Dean Burri’s action against three bishops of the Byzantine Catholic Church and their respective dioceses. Burri alleged that defendants directed defamatory statements about him toward individuals and entities in Arizona and tortiously interfered with his contractual relationship with the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix. The panel held that the district court erred in dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Where a defendant directs communications that are defamatory toward a forum state and seeks to interfere with a forum state contract, the defendant has purposefully directed conduct at the forum state, and the defendant knows or should know that such conduct is likely to cause harm in the forum state. BURRI LAW PA V. SKURLA 3 The panel rejected defendants’ contention that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. The panel held that the doctrine was not relevant here where Burri was not asking the court to adjudicate the sort of issues covered by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. The panel applied the Calder effects test to determine whether a defendant purposefully directed activities toward a forum state. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788-89 (1984). The panel held that Burri’s claims against defendant William Skurla, the Archbishop of Pittsburgh, were on all fours with Calder. The panel held that the district court erred in holding that Skurla did not purposefully direct conduct at Arizona. Taking Burri’s factual allegations as true, the panel held that Skurla directed communications toward Arizona that were defamatory and were designed to interfere with an Arizona lawsuit and an Arizona contract. Such acts targeted the forum state itself and such acts were likely to cause harm in Arizona. The panel held that the district court erred in concluding that Burri, as a Florida resident, could not suffer harm in Arizona where Skurla’s statements circulating in Arizona would cause Burri reputational harm in Arizona, and the communications were designed to undermine Burri’s employment contract with the Phoenix Eparchy. Burri carried his burden to establish a prima facie case that Skurla “purposefully directed” conduct at Arizona. The district court did not address the other two components of the due process “minimum contacts” inquiry. The panel vacated the dismissal of Burri’s claims against Skurla – and by extension the Eparchy of Pittsburgh – and remanded for the district court to complete the remainder of the jurisdictional inquiry. The panel’s analysis regarding Burri’s claims against Richard Burnett, the Bishop of Passaic, Milan Lach, the 4 BURRI LAW PA V. SKURLA Bishop of Parma, and their respective dioceses was similar, with one caveat. The First Amended Complaint contained substantially less detail regarding the actions of Burnett and Lach. The district court did not address that important difference. In addition, the district court’s denial of Burri’s motion for jurisdictional discovery rested on the same misunderstanding that undermined its analysis regarding personal jurisdiction over Skurda – that Burri, as a Florida resident, could not suffer harm in Arizona. The panel vacated the dismissal of Burri’s claims against Burnett, Lach and the Eparchies of Passaic and Parma; vacated the denial of Burri’s motion for jurisdictional discovery; and remanded so that the district court could assess the questions afresh.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.