Bistline v. Jeffs

• Decision Date: 11 January 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:16-CV-788 TS
• Parties: ALYSSA BISTLINE; RUBY JESSOP; SUSAN BROADBENT; GINA ROHBOCK; NOLAN BARLOW; JASON BLACK; MAY MUSSER; HOLLY BISTLINE; T.B.; M.B.; P. B.; A.B.; A.B.; DERRELL BARLOW; ALICIA ROHBOCK; R.R.; R.R.; B.J.R.; WALLACE JEFFS; LAWRENCE BARLOW; STEVEN DOCKSTADER; MARVIN COOKE; HELEN BARLOW; VERGEL BARLOW; CAROLE JESSOP; BRIELL LIBERTAE DECKER; LYNETTE WARNER; AMY NIELSON; SARAH ALLRED; THOMAS JEFFS; and JANETTA JESSOP, Plaintiffs, v. WARREN STEED JEFFS; RODNEY R. PARKER; SNOW CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU, P.C.; and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH X, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Utah

ALYSSA BISTLINE; RUBY JESSOP; SUSAN BROADBENT;GINA ROHBOCK; NOLAN BARLOW; JASON BLACK; MAY MUSSER; HOLLY BISTLINE;T.B.; M.B.; P. B.; A.B.; A.B.; DERRELL BARLOW; ALICIA ROHBOCK; R.R.;R.R.; B.J.R.; WALLACE JEFFS; LAWRENCE BARLOW; STEVEN DOCKSTADER;MARVIN COOKE; HELEN BARLOW; VERGEL BARLOW; CAROLE JESSOP;BRIELL LIBERTAE DECKER; LYNETTE WARNER; AMY NIELSON;SARAH ALLRED; THOMAS JEFFS; and JANETTA JESSOP, Plaintiffs, v. WARREN STEED JEFFS; RODNEY R. PARKER; SNOW CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU, P.C.;and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH X, Defendants.

Case No. 2:16-CV-788 TS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

January 11, 2017

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' SNOW CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU, P.C. AND RODNEY R. PARKER'S MOTION TO DISMISS

District Judge Ted Stewart

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Snow Christensen & Martineau, P.C. ("SC&M") and Rodney R. Parker's (collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs' legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and civil RICO claims as barred by the relevant statutes of limitation, with the exception of the claims brought by Plaintiff May Musser, for whom the limitations period was tolled. The Court will dismiss Plaintiff May Musser's claims as inadequately pleaded. The Court will also dismiss Plaintiffs' claim under the Trafficking Victims Protections Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA") as inadequately pleaded, and will dismiss Plaintiffs' aiding and abetting claim as stipulated by Plaintiffs.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs are all former members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ("FLDS Church"), and have brought the following claims against Warren Steed Jeffs, Rodney R. Parker, and SC&M: (1) legal malpractice, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) fraud, (4) negligent misrepresentation, (5) civil conspiracy, (6) violation of the TVPRA, (7) aiding and abetting commission of felonies, and (8) civil RICO. Defendant Jeffs has failed to respond and a Default Certificate has been entered against him.

Plaintiffs allege that when Defendant Jeffs began to assume the responsibilities of President of the FLDS Church, he retained SC&M to develop an "overarching scheme and plan . . . to develop the legal framework within which Jeffs and his favored cohorts would possess means to enforce their lewd, sadistic, tortious and criminal wishes upon the FLDS people."¹ These wishes allegedly included ritual rape of minors, forced labor, extortionate taking of property and disintegration of family units.² Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' legal framework took the shape of a 1998 amendment and reinstatement of the United Effort Plan Trust ("the Trust"), which purportedly gave Jeffs the ability to unilaterally reorganize the FLDS structure and control the distribution of assets, property, funds and real estate used for residential and business purposes by FLDS beneficiaries.³

The amended and reinstated Trust provides that "[t]he doctrines and laws of the Priesthood and the Church are found in . . . revelations received through the [Prophet] and are the guiding tenets by which the trustees of the United Effort Plan Trust shall act."⁴ Plaintiffs allege that Jeffs used the powers given him in this provision as leverage to extort complete obedience, to create a culture that would tolerate his crimes, and to force FLDS members to pay large sums of personal wealth to Defendants for legal fees. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knew of Jeffs' plans and actions, wanted to bring them about, and participated in bringing them about by assisting to amend and reinstate the Trust, representing certain FLDS members but not others, and by creating an illusion of legality that helped Jeffs control the FLDS community.

Plaintiffs' 120-page Complaint details the purported losses of each Plaintiff. Many Plaintiffs recount harrowing experiences and claim long-lasting emotional or physical harms resulting from an alleged lack of education, malnutrition, non-consensual sexual encounters, or periods of exile from family members. Many of Plaintiffs' allegations are directed at Defendant Jeffs. While sympathetic to Plaintiffs' claims, the allegations against Defendant Jeffs are not at issue on this Motion, and the Court may only consider the allegations against Defendants Parker and SC&M.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6), all well-pleaded factual allegations, as distinguished from conclusory allegations, are accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs asthe nonmoving party.⁵ Plaintiffs must provide "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,"⁶ which requires "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully harmed-me accusation."⁷ "A pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'"⁸

"The court's function on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not to weigh potential evidence that the parties might present at trial, but to assess whether the plaintiff's complaint alone is legally sufficient to state a claim for which relief may be granted."⁹ As the Court in Iqbal stated,

only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not shown—that the pleader is entitled to relief.¹⁰

III. DISCUSSION

A. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Plaintiffs' claims center on Defendants' role in the amendment and reinstatement of the Trust in 1998. Defendants' involvement with the Trust ended in 2005, when a Utah court reformed the Trust and appointed a fiduciary. However, Plaintiffs allege that Defendantscontinued to enable Jeffs' unlawful behaviors by advising Jeffs and by representing FLDS members in custody disputes and criminal matters. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims are time-barred with the exception of Plaintiffs' cause of action under the TVPRA.

1. Legal Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Plaintiffs' claims of legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty are subject to a four-year statute of limitations.¹¹ Plaintiffs allege that Defendants formed a relationship of trust with Plaintiffs and that Plaintiffs believed Defendants were protecting their interests. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' nurtured that belief by representing to courts that individual members of the FLDS community were their clients. Plaintiffs allegedly contributed money to the FLDS Church with the understanding that some or all of it would be used to pay attorney's fees. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants received Plaintiffs' money but took actions that were adverse to Plaintiffs' interests. Plaintiffs' primary criticism of Defendants' conduct is that Defendants assisted Defendant Jeffs' father in the amendment and reinstatement of the Trust nearly twenty years ago. Plaintiffs allege that the amendment was intended to enable Jeffs to abuse the FLDS community. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants failed to disclose the nature of Jeffs' activities and convictions, and failed to disclose his admission to an FLDS member that he was not the Prophet—an admission that Jeffs later withdrew.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice claims are time-barred. As a general rule, "a statute of limitations begins to run upon the happening of the lastevent necessary to complete the cause of action."¹² Taking Plaintiffs' allegations as true, the relevant events occurred long before July, 2012. The Trust was amended in 1998. The collection of donations from members for attorney's fees began at least as early as 2001.¹³ Defendants allegedly held themselves out as representing individual FLDS members in 2008 and 2011.¹⁴ Jeffs allegedly admitted that he was not the Prophet around 2007. Defendants' involvement with the Trust ended in 2005. In sum, Plaintiffs claims of legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty are brought well outside the limitations period.

2. Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation

A three-year statute of limitations applies to Plaintiffs' fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims.¹⁵ Plaintiffs allege that Defendants held themselves out as representing the entire FLDS membership and that Plaintiffs reasonably relied on that representation by donating funds for attorney's fees. The events that form the basis for these claims occurred well before July, 2013. Defendants allegedly made the representations in 2008 and 2011.¹⁶ Donations for legal fees were allegedly collected from FLDS members and Plaintiffs as early as 2001. Therefore, these claims are also untimely.

3. Civil Conspiracy and Civil RICO

Plaintiffs' claims of civil conspiracy and civil RICO are subject to four-year statutes of limitation.¹⁷ Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired with Jeffs to facilitate Jeffs' criminal behavior, and furthered the conspiracy by preparing documents for the amendment and reinstatement of the Trust. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants benefitted from this course of action because the Trust allowed Jeffs to force Plaintiffs to pay Defendants' fees. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' representation of FLDS members in legal matters related to the 2008 raid on the Yearning For Zion ("YFZ") Ranch and Defendants' representation of an FLDS man accused of rape were acts in furtherance of a scheme to give Jeffs absolute control over Plaintiffs.

These claims are untimely because the...