The Calvary lawsuit is a Christian lawsuit. The suit is brought by a disgruntled former member of the A&D church. The story goes that this man was fired from his position for leaking information to a gossip website about another member of the church. He later told the other members in what they called “The Revealers” that he planned to reveal information that would shake the foundation of the church and would cause some very major shakeups. The current crisis began when the new pastor of the church found out about this and fired the man.

The man then filed a personal injury lawsuit against the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh. The Diocesan had given him a notice of claim. He claimed breach of contract, negligence, and malicious prosecution. Due to a quirk in Pennsylvania state law, the Diocesan had to go before a judge to get its legal rights to proceed in court. As is typically the case, the diocese lost. This is a typical scenario of how litigants who are seeking damages often lose.

However, the judge did rule in the diocese’s favor on one point. The judge ordered a financial review of the diocese, stating that there were many assets of the church that it could retain. Naturally, the board of bishops would fight the decision, but to no avail. Thus, the lawsuit was allowed to go forward.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit were awarded their judgment in January, with a trial date set for July. By this time, it was becoming apparent that the diocese was completely uninterested in settling the lawsuit, as they had already lost several million dollars already. The plaintiffs were not going to accept any settlement from the Diocesan unless it was significantly greater than their previous judgment. At first, the archdiocese tried to argue that it was not entitled to its preliminary claim of damages, and that it had not been served properly. However, it was found that the plaintiffs had indeed been properly served, as the complaint was delivered by a messenger, and later delivered to the archdiocese’s main office.

At the summary judgment phase of the lawsuit, the court asked each party to provide a proposed order granting it leave to amend the complaint as-applied. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to include a sworn statement from its counsel that the defendants had failed to serve the complaint in a reasonable fashion. In addition, the court allowed the defendants to amend their answer to acknowledge the service of the complaint by a previous delivery clerk. Also, the court allowed the defendants to submit a new declaration of the facts, together with supporting affidavits, to the court. (The archdiocese had submitted a deposition transcript showing that its servers failed to serve the complaint properly.)

At this point, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied by the defendants. The court then enters a judgment against the archdiocese, finding that it was negligent in not serving the complaint in a reasonable manner. The court does not find the defendants to be in financial or organizational trouble but concludes that the defendants failed to exercise proper care when handling the case. For these reasons, the court grants the plaintiff its statutory damages. It is important to note that the court has discretion to allow a motion for summary judgment only if it finds there is a genuine question of fact as to whether the archdiocese waived its right to respond under the common law rule of negligence. If this motion for summary judgment is granted, the plaintiff is not required to prove actual damages, but may only be allowed to establish that the defendants’ negligent actions caused the plaintiff’s injury.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *