John Doe No. 1 v. Knights of Columbus (930 F. Supp. 2d 337, 2013)

RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE

HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff John Doe No. 1 (herein “Plaintiff’) brings this action for damages arising from horrific sexual abuse he allegedly endured over a six-year period when he was a minor engaged in the activities of the Columbian Squires (“Squires”), the national youth program of defendant Knights of Columbus (“Defendant” or “KOC”). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was sexually molested by Julian Rivera (“Rivera”), the adult leader assigned by KOC to supervise the Brownsville, Texas unit of the Squires, in which Plaintiff participated from 1978 to 1986.

Plaintiffs Complaint sets forth two counts: (1) negligence for KOC’s alleged failure to ensure Plaintiffs safety and well being while he was in the custody and care of the Squires, particularly, inter alia, by failing in its duties of “placement, retention and supervision of Rivera as an adult leader,” Doc. # 1 (Complaint), ¶¶ 25-33; and (2) declaratory relief — a request for declaratory judgment that Plaintiff relied on the intentional, fraudulent misrepresentations of a KOC agent to execute the signature page later attached to the document entitled “Settlement Agreement and Full Release” (“Release”), rendering the Release void in that KOC procured it “by fraud,” id., ¶¶ 34-42.

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Doc. # 17. Defendant sets forth three bases for dismissal: (1) Plaintiffs claim for negligence is barred by the Texas two-year statute of limitations; (2) Plaintiff fails to plead the required element of “foreseeability” to maintain a negligence action; and (3) Plaintiff fails to state a claim for fraud and misrepresentation with respect to Defendant’s procurement of the Release in that (a) Plaintiff was not justified in relying on the alleged misrepresentations of KOC’s agent when Plaintiff signed the Release, and (b) Plaintiff ratified the Release as a matter of law.

Also pending before the Court is Defendant’s alternative motion to bifurcate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b). Doc. # 22. In that motion, Defendant requests “a separate trial” on each of the two counts set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint. Id., p. 1. KOC asserts that a preliminary trial of Plaintiffs declaratory relief claim, involving KOC’s alleged fraud and misrepresentation in procuring the Release, should precede trial on his negligence claim. In support, KOC seeks a preliminary determination as to the validity of the Release because that determination: (1) would be “potentially dispositive,” (2) may “save the Court and the parties valuable resources and time,” and (3) would prevent KOC from suffering “unnecessary and undue prejudice” which would likely occur if the same jury determining the validity of the Release heard the “potentially graphic” evidence of sexual abuse Plaintiff will present with respect to his negligence claim. Doc. # 23, p. 1-2.

The Court will first address Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss to determine which, if any, of Plaintiffs actions states a valid claim upon which relief may be granted. Upon making this ruling, the Court will turn to Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate.

II. FACTS

A. The Parties

Plaintiff John Doe is an adult male resident of the State of Kansas who was born in 1968. He filed the case at bar under the pseudonym “John Doe 1” in order “to protect his identity as victim of childhood sexual abuse and prevent further psychological harm ... if his name were publicly disclosed.” Doc. # 1, ¶ 1.

Defendant KOC is a “Catholic fraternal benefit organization that was created as a social network intended to provide financial assistance to its members and engage in religious and charitable works.” Id., ¶ 7. The president of KOC is known as the “Supreme Knight” and the organization is governed by a board of directors, known as the “Supreme Council.” Id. Membership in KOC is open to men 18 years of age or older who are practicing Catholics committed to supporting the Catholic Church and improving their respective communities through “pro-life and youth activities.” Id., ¶ 8. Since its inception in 1882 in New Haven, Connecticut, KOC has increased in size from several members, comprising one council, to more than 1.8 million members, constituting more than 14,000 councils throughout the United States and various other countries in the world. Doc. #18, p. 9-10. Each KOC council is directly subordinate, “under the direction and control,” of the KOC headquarters in New Haven, Connecticut. Doc. # 1, ¶ 9.

The Columbian Squires program, founded in 1925, is the official national youth program of KOC. Id., ¶ 10. The Columbian Squires recruit Catholic boys “between the ages of 10 and 18 who are committed to developing their leadership qualities and supporting the Roman Catholic Church.” Id. Each Columbian Squires unit must operate within the structure and regulations of KOC. Id. Moreover, “[according to the [KOC] regulations, each Columbian Squires unit is overseen and supervised by at least one adult [KOC] member.” Id.

B. Allegations of Sexual Abuse

In 1978, when Plaintiff was approximately ten years old, he was introduced to the Columbian Squires in Brownsville, Texas. Id., ¶ 11. Plaintiff alleges that between 1978 and 1986 he was subjected to “horrific child sexual abuse” by Juan “Julian” Rivera, who was appointed by KOC as adult leader of the Columbian Squires program in Brownsville, Texas. Id., ¶ 6. Plaintiff asserts that Rivera “actively solicited” him to join the Columbian Squires, “telling [Plaintiff] and his family that as a Squire, [Plaintiff] could do much to help people” and that “his involvement in the Squires would positively affect [Plaintiffs] growth and development as a person.” Id., ¶ 11. According to Plaintiff, during his time as a Squire, Plaintiff was “groomed and sexually abused [by Rivera] at various locations throughout the United States,” “including many local and national events for the Columbian Squires.” Id., ¶¶ 6,17.

In particular, during Plaintiffs first two years in the Squires, on at least ten occasions, Rivera allegedly provided Plaintiff with increasingly sexually graphic pornography to view with Rivera, including “graphic sexual depictions” of “homosexual activity.” Id., ¶ 18. When Plaintiff was approximately twelve years old, Rivera allegedly took Plaintiff on an overnight trip and gave him “large amount[s] of whiskey and marijuana until [Plaintiff] became intoxicated and passed out.” Id., ¶ 14. “When [Plaintiff] awoke, Rivera was naked from the waist down, pulling his pants up from around his ankles.” Id. On another evening during the same trip, Rivera allegedly gave Plaintiff a white pill and alcohol to help him “relax.” Id., ¶ 15. Then, according to Plaintiff, Rivera insisted that Plaintiff give him a massage. Id. Wdien Plaintiff refused, Rivera allegedly “pulled a small handgun out of his pocket and placed it next to him on the ground and told [Plaintiff] there was nothing wrong with a massage.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that his fear of being shot by Rivera compelled him to perform the requested massage and other sexual demands by Rivera. Id. Following the sexual massage incident, Rivera allegedly told Plaintiff that “he could never tell anyone what happened or Rivera would kill [Plaintiffs] family.” Id.

Plaintiff maintains that over the next six years, Rivera continued “brutally and horrifically sexually abus[ing]” him. Id., ¶ 16. Plaintiff alleges that Rivera also continued issuing threats of bodily harm and death to Plaintiff and/or his family if Plaintiff spoke of Rivera’s actions or refused to comply with his sexual demands. Id.

Furthermore, according to Plaintiff, “[d]uring the years he was sexually abusing [Plaintiff], Rivera also bought him clothing, gave him money, took him out to dinners, and allowed him to drive Rivera’s [motor] vehicle.” Id., ¶ 18. In addition to such gifts, Rivera allegedly encouraged Plaintiff to date girls from school to prevent others from becoming suspicious about his own sexual activity with Plaintiff. Id.

With respect to locations of abuse, Plaintiff alleges that Rivera sexually abused him “in the local Knights of Columbus hall where the Columbian Squires met, as well as Rivera’s office and apartment.” Id., ¶ 17. Plaintiff also recounts that “[t]he horrible, nightmarish sexual abuse occurred at multiple locations in the United States on overnight trips, including many local and national events for the Columbian Squires.” Id. During such trips, not only did Rivera allegedly give Plaintiff and other minor boys alcohol, he repeatedly took the intoxicated Plaintiff to a “hotel room to engage him in sexual contact.” Id. Rivera also allegedly “shared” Plaintiff “with at least one other adult leader of the Columbian Squires in another city.” Id., ¶ 19. This leader subsequently invited Plaintiff to visit him and attend church with him. Id. When Plaintiff thereafter visited this adult leader, the leader allegedly “plied [him] with alcohol and drugs” and “sexually abused him.” Id.

Having alleged frequent and pervasive activities of sexual abuse by Rivera and at least one other Columbian Squires leader, including activities within the Brownsville Squires unit and in the KOC hall, Plaintiff contends that KOC “was aware that adult leaders used the Columbian Squires to gain access to boys for purposes of pedophilia.” Id., ¶ 21. Plaintiff further alleges that KOC “became familiar with the specific characteristics, patterns of behavior and ‘red flags’ that suggested an adult leader had sexual interest in boys.” Id.

Plaintiff ultimately left the Squires in Brownsville, Texas in approximately 1986 when he turned 18 years old. Id., ¶ 6. Due to his years of abuse by Rivera, Plaintiff has allegedly suffered “severe and permanent physical and psychological injuries, including, but not limited to, chemical addictions, nightmares, depression, anxiety, suicidal tendencies, lack of trust, anger, shame, embarrassment, guilt, and low self-esteem.” Id., ¶ 22.

C. Plaintiff’s Signature on KOC Document in December 2009

In 2009, when plaintiff was forty-one years old, he informed KOC officials that he had been sexually abused by Rivera during Plaintiffs years as a Squire. Id., ¶ 23. Plaintiff was “contacted by chief legal counsel of the [KOC], the Supreme Advocate.” Id. Plaintiff disclosed to the Supreme Advocate that he had a “long history of chemical addiction as a result of Rivera plying him with drugs and alcohol, and that he wanted to enter a treatment program.” Id. The Supreme Advocate agreed that KOC would pay for Plaintiffs rehabilitation treatment. Id. Plaintiff contends that at no time during his discussions with the Supreme Advocate was there any mention of payment to settle Plaintiffs legal claims against KOC. Id.

On December 23, 2009, a KOC agent and his wife met with Plaintiff. Id., ¶ 24. They informed him that they would give Plaintiff “$200 to pay his travel expenses to the rehabilitation facility.” Id. Before turning the money over to Plaintiff, however, the agent allegedly requested that Plaintiff “sign a document acknowledging receipt of the $200, and [Plaintiff] complied.” Id. According to Plaintiff, the agent then gave him another separate, “single piece of paper” and “asked him to sign it to acknowledge that the [KOC] would pay for his treatment.” Id. “No other pages were attached to the paper [that] the agent asked [Plaintiff] to sign.” Id. Plaintiff then “signed the paper as instructed, and the [KOC] agent’s wife notarized the document.” Id. The KOC agent then gave Plaintiff “$200 in cash and quicky left.”

Id.

Approximately one week later, Plaintiff “received a package in the mail with a copy of the document [ ]he signed acknowledging receipt of the $200, along with an eight page document he had never seen before entitled ‘Settlement Agreement and Full Release.’ ” Id. The second signature page Plaintiff signed on December 23, 2009 was attached to the purported “Settlement Agreement and Full Release.” Id. Plaintiff maintains that he was “never presented with the release at the time he signed the [one-page] document [on December 23, 2009], nor was he otherwise informed that by his signature he would be releasing valuable legal rights” against KOC. Id.

D. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff filed the present action on December 14, 2010, in this Court. In his Complaint, he has set forth two claims against the KOC. Plaintiffs first count is a negligence action, alleging that KOC failed “to use reasonable care to ensure the safety, care, well being and health of the minor [Plaintiff] when he was under the care, custody or in the presence of the [KOC].” Doc. # 1, ¶ 26. In conjunction with this duty of reasonable care, KOC allegedly failed in its duties of “placement, retention and supervision of Rivera as an adult leader” of the Squires. Id. In particular, KOC allegedly failed to protect Plaintiff from “sexual assault and lewd and lascivious acts committed by Rivera.” Id., ¶ 27. Furthermore, “[a]t all relevant times, the [KOC] knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that Rivera [possessed] the characteristics and behaviors of a person who would use the Columbian Squires as a means to gain access to boys for pedophilia, and that he was unfit, dangerous, and a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the minors entrusted to his counsel, care and protection.” Id., ¶ 28.

In his second count, Plaintiff seeks “declaratory relief’- — i.e. a declaratory judgment that the release document attached to his Complaint as Exhibit A, entitled “Settlement Agreement and Full Release,” is void as “procured by fraud.” Id., ¶ 42. Plaintiff contends that there is an “actual controversy between the parties as to validity” of the agreement “concernfing] the circumstances surrounding the execution of the signature page appended to the release document by Defendant [KOC].” Id., ¶ 35. Plaintiff asserts that his signature was procured “by means of misrepresentation and deceit” in that the KOC agent misrepresented that “the document he was being asked to sign pertained only to their agreement regarding treatment, which was false and made as a statement of fact.” Id., ¶¶ 36-37. Furthermore, the KOC agent knew this statement to be “untrue” and made it to induce and deceive Plaintiff into relying on the misrepresentation to sign the document. Id., ¶¶ 38-40. In sum, Plaintiff maintains that the so-called Release is “voidable as procured by fraud.” Id., ¶ 41. Where there is an “active controversy” regarding whether the Release is voidable and that “controversy affect[s] the legal claims” set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint, he seeks declaratory judgment that “the release document ... is void as procured by fraud.” Id., ¶42.

III. JURISDICTION

Plaintiff asserts that this Court has federal diversity subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), in that the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and the action “is between citizens of different states.” Doc. #1, ¶ 4. In an effort to set forth his State of citizenship, Plaintiff declares in his Complaint that he is a “resident of the State of Kansas.” Id., ¶ 1. An individual’s citizenship for diversity purposes, however, is determined by his “domicile,” as opposed to residence. Palazzo v. Cono, 232 F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir. 2000). “In general, the domicile of an individual is his true, fixed and permanent home and place of habitation” — i.e., “the place to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning.” Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321, 331, 103 S.Ct. 1838, 75 L.Ed.2d 879 (1983). See also Palazzo, 232 F.3d at 42; 13B C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3612, at 526 (2d ed. 1984). Although an individual may have several residences, he or she can have only one domicile. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48, 109 S.Ct. 1597, 104 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989) (for jurisdictional purposes, “ ‘[domicile’ is not necessarily synonymous with ‘residence,’ ” and “one can reside in one place but be domiciled in another”) (citations omitted).

Although Plaintiff has inartfully pled his citizenship, stating his residence as opposed to his domicile, the Court gleans from his jurisdictional allegations that he considers himself a “citizen” of the state of Kansas for diversity purposes in this action. In the event, however, that Plaintiff resided in Kansas but was actually domiciled in a state other than Kansas when he commenced this action on December 14, 2010, he is directed forthwith to inform the Court and (1) seek leave to amend his Complaint and/or (2) file with the Court an affidavit regarding the state of his domicile, and hence citizenship at the commencement of the action. See, e.g., Universal Licensing Corp. v. Lungo, 293 F.3d 579, 581 (2d Cir.2002) (“In an action in which jurisdiction is premised on diversity of citizenship, diversity must exist at the time the action is commenced.”).

Defendant KOC is a specially chartered corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, with a principal place of business located at 1 Columbus Plaza, New Haven, Connecticut 06519. Id, ¶ 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” Accordingly, for diversity purposes in this action, defendant KOC is a citizen of the State of Connecticut.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages “in excess of $5 million.” Id, ¶ 3. Such damages arise from, inter alia, Plaintiffs ensuing “severe and permanent physical and psychological injuries, including, but not limited to, chemical addictions, nightmares, depression, anxiety, suicidal tendencies, lack of trust, anger, shame, embarrassment, guilt, and low self-esteem.” Id., ¶ 22. In light of alleged damages well in excess of $75,000, the Court finds that the requisite jurisdictional amount under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) has been met. Neither party has contested the alleged facts which give rise to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW — RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS

“[T]he purpose of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ‘is to test, in a streamlined fashion, the formal sufficiency of the plaintiffs statement of a claim for relief without resolving a contest regarding its substantive merits.’ ” Halebian v. Berv, 644 F.3d 122, 130 (2d Cir.2011) (quoting Global Network Commc’ns, Inc. v. City of New York, 458 F.3d 150, 155 (2d Cir.2006) (emphasis omitted)). Put simply, in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court “assesses the legal feasibility of the complaint, but does not weigh the evidence that might be offered to support it.” Global Network Commc’ns, Inc., 458 F.3d at 155.

“To survive a [Rule 12(b)(6) ] motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). The Second Circuit has adhered to the United States Supreme Court’s seminal “plausibility” standard set forth in Iqbal. See Gibbons v. Malone, 703 F.3d 595, 599 (2d Cir.2013) (“To survive a motion to dismiss [pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) ], a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”) (citing and quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937); Absolute Activist Value Master Fund, Ltd. v. Ficeto, 677 F.3d 60, 65 (2d Cir.2012) (same).

In deciding whether to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, the court construes the complaint liberally, “accepting all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” See Lopez v. Jet Blue Airways, 662 F.3d 593, 596 (2d Cir.2011) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955). See also Brod v. Omya, Inc., 653 F.3d 156, 164 (2d Cir.2011); MLSMK Inv. Co. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 651 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2011); Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). “[WJhether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will [ultimately] ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663-64, 129 S.Ct. 1937. When “well-pleaded factual allegations” are present, “a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 556 U.S. at 664, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Thus, factual disputes do not factor into a plausibility analysis under Iqbal and its progeny.

“Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is ‘inapplicable to legal conclusions.’ ” LaMagna v. Brown, 474 Fed.Appx. 788, 789 (2d Cir.2012) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937). See also Amaker v. New York State Dept. of Corr. Servs., 435 Fed.Appx. 52, 54 (2d Cir.2011) (same). The Court is not “bound to accept conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions.” Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir.2011) (quoting Rolon v. Henneman, 517 F.3d 140, 149 (2d Cir.2008) (Sotomayor, J.) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In sum, “[threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure simply “does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937. See also n. 15, supra.

A claim has “facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955); accord Gibbons, 703 F.3d at 599. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Moreover, “[w]here a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’ ’ ” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955) (brackets omitted). See also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (to survive Rule 12(b)(6) motion, claim’s factual allegations must raise “a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all allegations in the complaint are true”).

Procedurally, “a defendant may raise an affirmative defense in a pre-answer Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the defense appears on the face of the complaint.” Staehr v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Group, Inc., 547 F.3d 406, 425 (2d Cir.2008). With respect to timeliness of the complaint in particular, “the current trend in the cases is to allow [the statute of limitations defense] to be raised by motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) when the defect appears on the face of the complaint.” Staehr, 547 F.3d at 425-26 (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1226 (3d ed. 2004)). This trend comports with the rule that allegations regarding time are “material when testing the sufficiency of a pleading.” Staehr, 547 F.3d at 426 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(f)).

V. DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Statute of Limitations — Texas or Connecticut

Defendant KOC has moved this Court to dismiss Plaintiffs negligence action on the ground that it is barred by the Texas two-year statute of limitations for negligence claims. Doc. # 18, p. 16 (citing Doe v. St. Stephen’s Episcopal Sch., 382 Fed.Appx. 386, 388 & n. 3 (5th Cir.2010) (“The statute of limitations for civil conspiracy, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation is two years from the date of the accrual of the claim.”); and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003). Although “the [Texas state] statute of limitations is tolled until the child turns eighteen” when the “victim is a child,” defendant maintains that Plaintiffs negligence action — filed in December 2010, twenty-four years after he turned eighteen in 1986 — is untimely and thus barred. Doc. # 18, p. 16-17.

The Court notes preliminarily, as Judge Underhill observed in Dennany v. Knights of Columbus, No. 3:10cvl961 (SRU), 2011 WL 3490039 (D.Conn. Aug. 10, 2011), that the “Texas Court of Appeals [has] held that the state’s five-year limitations period applied in an action against a third party of negligently permitting an employee to sexually assault the plaintiff’ — i.e., facts similar to those at hand. 2011 WL 3490039, at *3 (emphasis added) (citing Stephanie M. v. Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate Diocese of S. U.S., 362 S.W.3d 656, 659-61 (Tex.App.2011)). Texas thus currently imposes a five-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims arising from intentional sexual abuse. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 16.0045. In any event, even applying this longer five-year limit, Plaintiffs negligence action would still be barred under Texas law.

Plaintiff counters, arguing that Connecticut’s 30-year statute of limitations for intentional sexual abuse to a child applies to this action. Doc. # 21, p. 15 (citing Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577d).' Having filed his negligence action well within the requisite 30-year period, Plaintiff claims that his action is patently timely. The Court must therefore examine which state statute of limitations is applicable to this action.

1. Choice of Laws — Substantive

“When a federal district court sits in diversity, it generally applies the law of the state in which its sits, including that state’s choice of law rules.” In re Coudert Bros. LLP, 673 F.3d 180, 186-87 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496-97, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941)). Accord Schwartz v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 539 F.3d 135, 147 (2d Cir.2008) (“The district court was sitting in diversity, and so it properly applied the choice of law rules of ... the forum in which it sits.”). Because this Court sits in Connecticut, Connecticut is the relevant forum. Connecticut applies the substantive law of the state with the most significant relationship to the lawsuit. Jaiguay v. Vasquez, 287 Conn. 323, 349, 948 A.2d 955 (2008). See also Glenwood Systems, LLC v. Med-Pro Ideal Solutions, Inc., 438 Fed.Appx. 27, 29 (2d Cir.2011); Almonte v. New York Medical College, 851 F.Supp. 34, 39 (D.Conn.1994) (citing O’Connor v. O’Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 650, 519 A.2d 13 (1986) (quoting Restatement (Second) Conflicts of Laws § 145)).

To determine the forum with the most significant relationship in the context of a tort case, the court considers “(a) the place where the injury occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.” O’Connor, 201 Conn, at 652, 519 A.2d 13 (quoting Restatement (Second) Conflicts of Law § 145(2) and citing id, § 6).

The Court must consider such contacts in the context of the relevant policies and interests of the jurisdictions involved. MM Global Servs., Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co., 283 F.Supp.2d 689, 703 (D.Conn.2003). The significance, rather than the quantity, of the contacts determines the choice of law under the Restatement § 145(2). O’Connor, 201 Conn. at 652-653, 519 A.2d 13.

In the case at bar, there are contacts with both states, Texas and Connecticut. With respect to Texas, it is the state where Plaintiff was allegedly primarily subjected to injury from Rivera’s sexual abuse. See, e.g., Doc. #1, ¶ 17 (sexual abuse of plaintiff “occurred in the local [KOC] hall where the Columbian Squires met, as well as Rivera’s office and apartment”). Texas is thus also the location where Rivera’s conduct caused the alleged injuries. Moreover, during the relevant years of abuse, Texas was the state where Plaintiff was domiciled.

In contrast, Connecticut contacts include the place of incorporation and the principal place of business of defendant KOC, the party who allegedly failed to use reasonable care to supervise Rivera and/or protect Plaintiff from being abused by him. According to Plaintiff, Connecticut is the state from which KOC administers all of its subordinate programs, including the units of its youth program, Columbian Squires, throughout the United States. Doc. # 1, ¶ 9 (“Each council is a direct subordinate organization under the direction and control of the [KOC] headquarters in Connecticut.”); id., ¶ 10 (“A Columbian Squires unit must operate within the structure and regulations of the [KOC].”).

Connecticut is also the state from which the Supreme Advocate orchestrated the December 2009 “agreements” with Plaintiff. In fact, the purported “Settlement Agreement and Full Release,” herein addressed as the “Release,” states in its first paragraph that the agreement is between Plaintiff and “Knights of Columbus, a specially-chartered Connecticut Corporation with its principal place of business located at One Columbus Plaza, New Haven, Connecticut.” Doc. # 1, Ex. A (introductory paragraph) (emphasis added).. The KOC address in New Haven reappears in the “agreement” at paragraph 5 of the “Confidentiality” provisions, requiring the Plaintiff to “immediately contact the Knight[s] of Columbus Supreme Advocate at the Supreme Office in New Haven, Connecticut ” if Plaintiff is ever “served or notified of a subpoena or other document request” with respect to the terms of the agreement at issue. Id., ¶ 5 (emphasis added).

In examining the location where the relationship between the parties was centered, it appears Plaintiffs relationship with Rivera was centered in Texas. However, the administration and/or supervision of the Columbian Squires Brownsville unit by the KOC was under the direction and control of the “Supreme Office” in New Haven, Connecticut.

Weighing the aforesaid factors in their entirety, the Court finds that the balance weighs in favor of Texas as the state with the most significant relationship to the tort at hand, the intentional sexual abuse of the minor Plaintiff. As stated above, Texas is the location where most of the allegedly abusive conduct occurred and thus the place where the injuries occurred. Under the most significant relationship test, I find that Texas substantive law applies.

2. Choice of Laws — Procedural

Nonetheless, such a determination does not resolve the issue of the applicable statute of limitations. “Where a statute of limitation is considered procedural, the law of the forum applies.” Icahn v. Todtman, Nachamie, Spizz & Johns, P.C., No. 99 CIV 11783(WHP), 2001 WL 1160582, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2001) (citing Somohano v. Somohano, 29 Conn.App. 392, 393, 615 A.2d 181 (1992) (“The established law of this state is that the statute of limitations is procedural and, therefore, the law of the forum applies.”)). See also Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 212 Conn. 509, 525, 562 A.2d 1100 (1989) (“A statute of limitations is generally considered to be procedural, especially where the statute contains only a limitation as to time with respect to a right of action and does not itself create the right of action.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted); Messler v. Barnes Group., Inc., No. CV 960560004, 1999 WL 61034, at *3 (Conn.Super. Feb. 1, 1999) (Connecticut courts will “apply the procedural law of the forum state irrespective of the applicable body of substantive law.”).

Thus, even if the Court applies Texas substantive law with respect to the elements of the tort at hand, the Court must still determine the applicable procedural law, including the relevant statute of limitations. See Dennany, 2011 WL 3490039, at *3 (“Although it is clear that Texas law governs this case, it remains disputed whether Texas law controls the statute of limitations.”).

Because statutes of limitations are labeled “procedural” under Connecticut law, Connecticut courts traditionally apply Connecticut’s statute of limitations when the plaintiff pursues a common law cause of action Id. (citing Stuart & Sons, L.P. v. Curtis Pub. Co., 456 F.Supp.2d 336, 343 (D.Conn.2006) (“Under Connecticut’s choice of law rules, if the underlying claim existed at common law, the statute of limitations is considered procedural.”)). See also Landry v. Potter, No. 3:04cv380 (MRK), 2005 WL 293500, at *1, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1690, at *4 (D.Conn. Jan. 27, 2005) (“As a consequence, Connecticut federal courts have uniformly held that Connecticut’s statutes of limitations ordinarily will govern in diversity actions such as the present case.”); Slekis v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 56 F.Supp.2d 202, 204 (D.Conn.1999) (“Under Connecticut law, statutes of limitations are considered procedural and thus Connecticut’s own statutes of limitations will usually govern claims asserted in federal diversity cases in Connecticut.”); Lostritto v. Community Action Agency of New Haven, Inc., 269 Conn. 10, 22, 848 A.2d 418 (2004) (“A statute of limitations is generally considered to be procedural, especially where the statute contains only a limitation as to time with respect to a right of action and does not itself create the right of action.”); Baxter v. Sturm, Ruger and Co., Inc., 230 Conn. 335, 339-40, 644 A.2d 1297 (1994) (“statutes of limitation relate to the remedy as distinguished from the right” and “[i]t is undisputed that, as a principle of universal application, remedies and modes of procedure depend upon the lex fori”) (internal citations omitted); Roberts v. Caton, 224 Conn. 483, 488, 619 A.2d 844 (1993) (“Statutes of limitation are generally considered to be procedural, especially where the statute contains only a limitation as to time with respect to a right of action and does not itself create the right of action.”); Champagne, 212 Conn, at 525, 562 A.2d 1100 (where a right of action is created by the common law, the statute of limitations “must be considered procedural”). Accord Icahn v. Todtman, Nachamie, Spizz & Johns, P.C., No. 99 CIV 11783(WHP), 2001 WL 1160582, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2001) (in Connecticut, “[a] statute of limitation is generally considered to be procedural, especially where the statute contains only a limitation as to time with respect to a right of action and does not itself create the right of action”) (citing and quoting Jones Destruction, Inc. v. Upjohn, 161 Conn. 191, 195, 286 A.2d 308 (1971) and collecting cases).

Moreover, under Connecticut law, “unless specifically tied to a statutory right of action or unless a contrary legislative intent is expressed, the statute of limitations in effect at the time an action is filed governs the timeliness of the claim.” See Roberts, 224 Conn. at 488-89, 619 A.2d 844 (citing Andrulat v. Brook Hollow Associates, 176 Conn. 409, 413, 407 A.2d 1017 (1979) and Bohun v. Kinasz, 124 Conn. 543, 547, 200 A. 1015 (1938)).

With respect to the particular statute of limitations at issue for intentional sexual abuse, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577d, a judge of this District has previously held that “§ 52-577d is not substantive, for it does not create a right of action to recover damages for sexual misconduct, but merely creates the appropriate statute of limitations for such [a] claim.” Borawick v. Shay, No. 5:92 CV 00033 (TFGD), 1993 WL 127087, at *3 (D.Conn. Jan. 27, 1993) (Daly, J.). Similarly, “the Supreme Court of Connecticut has ruled that section 52-577d is procedural and not substantive.” Bilodeau v. Vlack, No. 07-CV-1178 (JCH), 2009 WL 1505571, at *3 (D.Conn. May 20, 2009) (citing Roberts, 224 Conn. at 492, 619 A.2d 844 (finding section 52-577d as amended did not create a substantive change in the law that would preclude its retroactive application)).

Despite the cited case law, KOC urges this Court to follow “the emerging trend” discussed in Phillips v. Scott, 446 F.Supp.2d 70, 83, n. 25 (D.Conn.2006), of “selecting] the state whose law will be applied to the issue of limitations by a process essentially similar to that used in the case of other issues of choice of law”— “a test similar to the most significant relationship test” in the Restatement (Second) [of Conflict of Laws] § 142.” Doc. # 18, p. 14-15. Under Section 142, barring “exceptional circumstances” that would make the “result unreasonable,” “[t]he forum will apply its own statute of limitations permitting the claim unless: (a) maintenance of the claim would serve no substantial interest of the forum; and (b) the claim would be barred under the statute of limitations of a state having a more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence.” 1 Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws § 142 (1989 pocket part).

An examination of Phillips v. Scott reveals that it was an exceptional case, based on extraordinary facts, rather than one designed to set new precedent. In Phillips, plaintiff brought an unjust enrichment claim which arose in California, involving an oral agreement he entered with his mother in California concerning his acquisition of California real estate. The only fact connecting the action with Connecticut was the mother’s move to that state prior to her death. Under such extraordinary circumstances, the Court applied the California statute of limitations.

Furthermore, the Court in Phillips specified that even if it had applied Connecticut law to the action at hand, the action would have remained time-barred. The Court thus explained: “Although California’s governing statute of limitations is substantially shorter than the applicable statute of limitations in Connecticut, see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-576, even if Connecticut’s six year statute of limitations were applied, plaintiffs claim would still be barred as his claim ..., accrued on May 2, 1998 and he did not initiate the current action until December 1, 2004. The foregoing notwithstanding, in light of the decision reached [herein], supra, further analysis of the application of Connecticut law need not be addressed.” 446 F.Supp.2d at 84, n. 25 (emphasis added).

Defendant also cites Advest, Inc. v. Wachtel, 235 Conn. 559, 668 A.2d 367 (1995), in an attempt to persuade the Court that “[i]f a state has no constitutional or statutory directive as to its choice of law, the forum court should consider the following factors: ‘(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems, (b) the relevant policies of the forum, (c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue, (d) the protection of justified expectations, (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law, (f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and (g) ease in the determination and application of the law being applied.’ ” Doc. # 18, p. 15 (quoting Advest, Inc., 235 Conn, at 568 n. 9, 668 A.2d 367, which in turn quoted 1 Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws § 6 and cited O’Connor v. O’Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 650-51, 519 A.2d 13 (1986)).

.The court in Advest, however, did not address the proper choice of procedural law in a Connecticut forum. In Advest, plaintiff securities dealers appealed from the trial court’s judgment denying their application to permanently enjoin nine defendant investors from bringing an arbitration claim in the state of New York. The arbitration claim had been adjudicated in the trial court as precluded under the applicable Connecticut three-year statute of limitations, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577. On appeal, in determining whether the trial court’s denial of the injunction was an abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court discussed the issue of whether New York would thereafter permit the arbitration claim to proceed in New York. With respect to the state of New York, the Court thus mentioned the Restatement Conflict of Laws § 6 as it related to “whether the New York forum will apply Connecticut’s statute of limitations” and concluded that it would “depend upon New York’s choice of law.” 235 Conn. at 568, 668 A.2d 367. The Connecticut Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the denial of the injunction, holding that the bar of Connecticut’s statute of limitations was not final on the merits and thus did not preclude, under res judicata, an action in New York where the limitations period had not yet expired. Moreover, the Advest court made clear that “whether a final judgment in this state based upon the statute of limitations bars the maintenance of an action in the forum state that has a longer statute of limitations depends upon the forum state’s choice of law.” Id. at 569, 668 A.2d 367 (emphasis added).

In the present action, the applicable forum is Connecticut and this Court must therefore apply Connecticut’s choice of law rules, which generally treat statutes of limitations as procedural in nature. No Connecticut case, including O’Connor v. O’Connor, 201 Conn. 632, 519 A.2d 13 (1986), cited as authority in footnote 9 by the Advest court, has given any indication that the present rule, treating statutes of limitations as procedural in nature, has been purposefully abrogated. Instead, the “O’Connor Court abandoned the automatic application of lex loci delicti when considering choice of substantive law application in tort cases.” Bilodeau, 2009 WL 1505571, at *4 n. 6 (emphasis added). See also Somohano v. Somohano, 1992 WL 17154, at *2 (Conn.Super. jan. 21, 1992) (“In O’Connor, [201 Conn. at 650, 519 A.2d 13,] the [Connecticut] supreme court held that § 145 of the Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws would be used to determine a parties’ substantive rights in a tort action when the application of the doctrine of lex loci would produce an arbitrary, irrational result.”) (emphasis added); Spencer v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Group, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 284, 300 (D.Conn.2009) (post-O’Connor ruling citing Connecticut Supreme Court’s holding in Baxter, 230 Conn. 335, 644 A.2d 1297, to uphold Connecticut’s traditional rule that the statute of limitations for common law claims is considered procedural).

In Connecticut, the traditional choice of law rules distinguish between substantive and procedural law, with the law of the forum, or lex fori, controlling those issues which are construed as governing procedure. Morris Plan Industrial Bank v. Richards, 131 Conn. 671, 673, 42 A.2d 147 (1945); Orr v. Ahern, 107 Conn. 174, 176, 139 A. 691 (1928). Moreover, as stated supra herein, “[i]t is a well settled principal of law in Connecticut that ‘[a] statute of limitations is generally considered to be procedural, especially where the statute contains only a limitation as to the time with respect to a right of action and does not itself create the right of action.’ ” Champagne, 212 Conn. at 525, 562 A.2d 1100 (citations omitted).

The exception to that rule, where the action is created by the statute itself, is not present here. Negligence is a common law claim both in Texas and Connecticut. Applying the substantive law of either jurisdiction does not alter the fact that Connecticut procedural law applies. Absent the lone exception where the relevant action is created by statute and the foreign statute of limitations is essentially interwoven with the statute creating the action, “Connecticut federal courts have uniformly held that Connecticut’s statutes of limitations ordinarily will govern in diversity actions such as the present case.” Landry v. Potter, No. 3:04CV380 (MRK), 2005 WL 293500, at *1 (D.Conn. Jan. 27, 2005) (collecting cases). In sum, “[i]n suits with multistate aspects, Connecticut courts (in-eluding a federal court sitting in Connecticut) apply Connecticut statutes of limitations.” Drakatos v. Denison, 493 F.Supp. 942, 944 n. 1 (D.Conn.1980).

As Judge Kravitz concluded in Landry v. Potter:

[Bjecause Plaintiffs’ complaint “sounds in simple negligence, a cause of action recognized at common law and not created by statute,” the exception noted above does not apply and therefore, a “Connecticut court would consider the statutes of limitations procedural and would apply the statutes of limitations of the forum, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584.” Slekis [v. National RR Passenger Corp., 56 F.Supp.2d 202,] 205 [ (D.Conn.1999) ]. Because the Court sits in diversity, we do likewise.

2005 WL 293500, at *2. Accord Oy v. Hr Textron, Inc., No. 3:08-cv-1216 (WWE), 2008 WL 5214268, at *3 (D.Conn. Dec. 11, 2008) (“[T]he Connecticut Supreme Court observed that a statute of limitations is procedural with regard to a common law cause of action, as contrasted to a statutory cause of action in which it is a substantive element. Therefore, as to plaintiffs common law claims, the Connecticut statute of limitations will apply regardless of the substantive law that should govern the dispute.”) (internal citations omitted); Davies v. Jindal, No. 3:03 CV 341(CFD), 2007 WL 1491305, at *4 (D.Conn. May 22, 2007) (“Connecticut federal courts have uniformly held that Connecticut’s statutes of limitations ordinarily will govern in diversity actions.”) (quoting Landry, 2005 WL 293500, at *1).

Accordingly, this Court, sitting in diversity, will apply Connecticut’s 30-year statute of limitations for an “action for damages to [a] minor caused by sexual abuse, exploitation or assault” to the negligence action in suit. Under that statute, Plaintiffs injury did not accrue until he reached 18 years old — i.e., “attainted] the age of majority, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577d — in 1986. He brought his action in 2010, twenty-four years later, and thus within the prescribed 30 years. Consequently, Defendant’s motion to dismiss with respect to timeliness of Plaintiffs claim will be denied.

B. Foreseeability in Negligence 1. Texas Law

Defendant next moves for dismissal of Plaintiffs negligence action on the grounds that he has failed “to allege any facts that would support a finding that the injuries to Plaintiff were foreseeable to the Knights [of Columbus].” Doc. # 18, p. 17 (emphasis in original). Under the substantive law of Texas, the state with the most significant relationship to the tort at hand, the requisite elements of a negligence action are: “1) a legal duty owed by one person to another; 2) a breach of that duty; and 3) damages proximately resulting from the breach.” Greater Houston Transp. Co. v. Phillips, 801 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Tex.1990). See also Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 477 (Tex.1995). Thus, as Defendant contends, in order to establish a negligence claim against KOC, Plaintiff must plead that (1) KOC owed him a legal duty to protect him from Rivera’s actions, (2) KOC breached that duty, and (3) Plaintiff sustained damages proximately caused by the breach. Doc. # 18, p. 17 (citing Houser v. Smith, 968 S.W.2d 542, 544 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.)). See also Amaya v. Potter, 94 S.W.3d 856, 861 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2002) (“Tort liability depends on both the existence and the violation of a duty.”).

“The threshold inquiry in a negligence case is duty.” Greater Houston Transp. Co., 801 S.W.2d at 525. See also Graff v. Beard, 858 S.W.2d 918, 919 (Tex.1993) (“It is fundamental that the existence of a legally cognizable duty is a prerequisite to all tort liability.”) (citing Greater Houston Transp. Co., 801 S.W.2d at 525). See also Abalos v. Oil Dev. Co. of Texas, 544 S.W.2d 627, 631 (Tex.1976) (“[A]ny plaintiff must prove the existence and violation of a legal duty owed to him by the defendant to establish tort liability. The threshold question, therefore, is whether [defendant] was under a duty to [plaintiff].”); Rosas v. Buddie’s Food Store, 518 S.W.2d 534, 536 (Tex.1975) (“Negligence is no more than breach of a legal duty; the tort becomes actionable when the breach causes injury.”).

Whether a duty exists in a particular case “is a question of law for the court to decide from the facts surrounding the occurrence in question.” Greater Houston Transp. Co., 801 S.W.2d at 525 (citing Otis Eng’g Corp. v. Clark, 668 S.W.2d 307, 312 (Tex.1983)). See also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Doe, 903 S.W.2d 347, 351 (Tex.1995) (“The existence of a legal duty is, of course, a question of law.”). “In determining whether the defendant was under a duty, the court will consider several interrelated factors, including the risk, foreseeability, and likelihood of injury weighed against the social utility of the actor’s conduct, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury, and the consequences of placing the burden on the defendant.” Greater Houston Transp. Co., 801 S.W.2d at 525 (citing Otis Eng’g Corp., 668 S.W.2d at 309). Accord Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762, 770 n. 26 (Tex.2010). The Texas Supreme Court also considers public policy factors, described as “any other relevant competing individual and social interests implicated by the facts of the case.” Tex. Home Mgmt., Inc. v. Peavy, 89 S.W.3d 30, 33-34 (Tex.2002). Of all requisite factors, “foreseeability of the risk is the foremost and dominant consideration.” Greater Houston Transp. Co., 801 S.W.2d at 525 (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Each person has a general duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid foreseeable injury to others. El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 311 (Tex.1987), superseded by statute, Tex. Alco. Bev. Code Ann. §§ 2.01-2.03 (West 1995). As the Texas Appellate Court explained in Amaya v. Potter:

Foreseeability means that a person of ordinary intelligence would have anticipated the danger his or her negligence creates. Foreseeability requires only that the general danger, not the exact sequence of events that produced the harm, be foreseeable. Proximate cause incorporates two elements: cause in fact and foreseeability. The test for cause in fact, or “but-for cause,” is whether the act or omission was a substantial factor in causing the injury without which the harm would not have occurred.

94 S.W.3d at 861 (internal citations omitted). As noted above, “foreseeability is a component of both duty and proximate cause.” Id.

Foreseeability “requires that a person of ordinary intelligence should have anticipated the danger created by a negligent act or omission.” Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d at 478. See also Nixon v. Mr. Property Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 549-50 (Tex.1985). “The danger of injury is foreseeable if its general character ... might reasonably have been anticipated.” Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d at 478 (internal quotations and citation omitted).

An examination of foreseeability and proximate cause “generally involves a practical inquiry based on common experience applied to human conduct.” Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d at 478 (internal quotations and citation omitted). The question thus becomes “whether the injury might reasonably have been contemplated as a result of the defendant’s conduct.” Id. Moreover, “[foreseeability requires more than someone, viewing the facts in retrospect, theorizing an extraordinary sequence of events whereby the defendant’s conduct brings about the injury.” Id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 435(2) (1965)).

2. Defendant’s Argument

With respect to the pending motion, KOC argues that “Texas courts have consistently rejected cases against organizations regarding the alleged sexual abuse of minors by an employee or volunteer when there was nothing in the record to indicate that the organization had a specific reason to know that its employee or volunteer was likely to commit the alleged abuse.” Doc # 18, p. 18. In support KOC cites, inter alia, Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472 (Tex.1995), which focused on whether “if the Boys Club had investigated [its leader’s] criminal record,” the resulting information would have “caused the club reasonably to anticipate his subsequent sexual assaults on the minor plaintiffs.” 907 S.W.2d at 478.

In Doe v. Boys Club of Greater Dallas, Inc., the plaintiffs, grandparents of abused minor boys, sought damages based on the sexual molestation of their grandsons by an adult named Mullens, who worked as a volunteer at the Boys Club. Id. at 476. Among the plaintiffs’ claims, they alleged that the Boys Club negligently accepted Mullens as a volunteer without investigating or screening him, negligently failed to supervise him, failed to disclose material information about Mullens, misrepresented that the club thoroughly investigated its volunteers, and misrepresented that the club and its workers had characteristics they did not have. The trial court granted the Boys Club’s motion for summary judgment and severed the action against the club from the action against Mullens. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the Boys Club. Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 942 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1994). With respect to the negligence claims, it ruled that the Boys Club did in fact owe a duty of reasonable care in selecting its workers, including volunteers like Mullens. 868 S.W.2d at 951-52. However, as a matter of law, the Boys Club could not reasonably foresee Mullens’ assaults on the boys so there was no proximate cause. Id.

Plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Texas Supreme Court. Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472 (Tex.1995). The plaintiffs once again contended that the Boys Club was negligent in its failure to investigate Mullens because a background check would have revealed his two prior misdemeanor convictions for driving while intoxicated. They also argued that the Boys Club had negligently supervised Mullens in his work as a volunteer.

The Texas Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the Boys Club on the basis of proximate cause, concluding that Mullens’ “prior DWI convictions did not indicate criminal conduct in any way akin to sexual assault of young boys.” 907 S.W.2d at 478. Thus, even if the Boys Club breached its duty to investigate or screen Mullens, that failure was not the “proximate cause of the boys’ injuries.” Id. at 477. “There [was] no evidence that the Boys Club would not have taken Mullens as a volunteer if it had known he had been convicted for driving while intoxicated.” Id. at 477-78. “Mullen’s prior record could not have caused the Boys Club reasonably to anticipate the danger he presented to the plaintiffs.” Id. at 478.

Furthermore, the Texas Supreme Court held that “since there [was] no evidence that Mullens molested or assaulted any boys at the club’s premises, there [was] no evidence the Boys Club’s alleged failure to supervise was a producing cause of the injuries to [the plaintiffs’ grandsons].” Id. at 478 (emphasis added). Specifically, all alleged assaults on the boys took place outside of the premises of the Boys Club, on private fishing and camping trips that “were not Boys Club-sponsored events.” Id. at 481.

Thus, in Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., the Texas Supreme Court reviewed the evidence presented on summary judgment in determining that, even “if the Boys Club breached a duty to investigate, screen, or supervise volunteers, this breach was not the cause in fact of the plaintiffs’ injuries.” Id. at 477.

KOC also cites Doe v. Catholic Soc. of Religious and Literary Educ., No. H-09-1059, 2010 WL 345926, at *10 (S.D.Tex. Jan. 22, 2010), as authority for a lack of foreseeability where the organization had no specific reason to know that its employee was likely to commit the alleged abuse. In that case, a Catholic high school was sued by a former student for negligent failure to protect him against the reasonably foreseeable harm of sexual abuse by his teacher, Beeler. The court granted summary judgment to the high school because there was “no evidence in the record that [the school] Strake Jesuit had actual knowledge that [the teacher] Beeler was a risk to students.” 2010 WL 345926, at *10. There had been no complaints to the school made by students, Beeler had no criminal history, and much of the abuse took place at the student’s home when Beeler was invited by the plaintiffs parents to stay as a “sitter” while the parents were away on “week-long or even shorter business trips” and to drive plaintiff to and from school. Id., at *3.

Both of KOC’s cited cases, Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc. and Doe v. Catholic Soc. of Religious and Literary Educ., are distinguishable from the one in suit on two grounds. First, neither court examined the adequacy of the complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, i.e., whether plaintiffs’ allegations failed to state a claim for negligence. Rather, the courts addressed summary judgment motions and thus focused on the evidence presented to determine whether “there [was] no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant [was] entitled to judgment as a matter,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Here, KOC has moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs negligence action as inadequately pled so there is no issue regarding an adequate factual basis to sustain his claim. Discovery has not closed and KOC has not, in the context of a 12(b)(6) motion, filed any stipulated facts, affidavits, or extraneous materials for the Court’s consideration.

Second, both cited cases are factually dissimilar from the present case in that the leaders in those cases assaulted the boys at private events. Mullens in Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc. assaulted the boys on private camping and fishing trips; and Beeler, the offending teacher in Doe v. Catholic Soc. of Religious and Literary Educ., abused the plaintiff in his home. In contrast, in the case in suit, Plaintiff has alleged that Rivera abused him at the KOC hall and also on KOC-sponsored trips to local and national Squires events. Doc. # 1, ¶ 17. Under the alleged circumstances, one could reasonably conclude that KOC knew or reasonably should have known of the general danger Rivera posed to the boys in the Brownsville Squires. Given the KOC-related settings of abuse, KOC’s alleged failure to supervise or investigate Rivera, or to acknowledge what it may have learned, could have proximately caused Plaintiffs alleged injuries. In sum, the Texas common law has not foreclosed an action for negligent supervision where the injuries occurred at defendant-sponsored activities and locations, potentially creating the proximate cause that was lacking in both Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc. and Doe v. Catholic Soc. of Religious and Literary Educ.

In Doe v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 268 F.Supp.2d 139, 148 (D.Conn.2003), this Court addressed the issue of proximate cause on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a negligence claim in an action by a former parishioner against a priest, a parish, and a diocese for sexual abuse by the priest. In discussing plaintiffs claim against the parish and diocese for negligent hiring and supervision of the priest, the court held that “if improper supervision occurred, that could indicate that Defendants should have known about the alleged misconduct.” 268 F.Supp.2d at 147. The court further explained:

Applying the reasoning of the Restatement [ (Second) of Torts § 442B (1965) ], we must conclude, ... that there is a possibility that if Defendants had knowledge regarding Sullivan’s [the priest’s] misconduct, Defendants could have been a proximate cause of injury to Plaintiff. Therefore, we would need to know what