Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–Day Saints v. Horne
| Decision Date | 05 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | 11–4071,11–4053,11–4066,Nos. 11–4049,11–4072,11–4076.,11–4050,11–4059,s. 11–4049 |
| Parties | FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER–DAY SAINTS, an Association of Individuals, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Thomas C. HORNE, Attorney General for the State of Arizona, Defendant–Appellant, and Bruce R. Wisan, Special Fiduciary of the United Effort Plan Trust; Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General for the State of Utah; Denise Posse Lindberg, Judge of the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Defendants, and Richard Jessop Ream; Thomas Samuel Steed; Don Ronald Fischer; Dean Joseph Barlow; Walter Scott Fischer; Richard Gilbert; Brent Jeffs, Intervenors. Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–Day Saints, an Association of Individuals, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General for the State of Utah, Defendant–Appellant, and Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General for the State of Arizona; Bruce R. Wisan, Special Fiduciary of the United Effort Plan Trust; Denise Posse Lindberg, Judge of the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Defendants, and Richard Jessop Ream; Thomas Samuel Steed; Don Ronald Fischer; Dean Joseph Barlow; Walter Scott Fischer; Richard Gilbert; Brent Jeffs, Defendants–Intervenors. Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–Day Saints, an Association of Individuals, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Bruce R. Wisan, Special Fiduciary of the United Effort Plan Trust, Defendant–Appellant, and Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General for the State of Utah; Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General for the State of Arizona; Denise Posse Lindberg, Judge of the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Defendants, and Richard Jessop Ream; Thomas Samuel Steed; Don Ronald Fischer; Dean Joseph Barlow; Walter Scott Fischer; Richard Gilbert; Brent Jeffs, Defendants–Intervenors. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–Day Saints, an Association of Individuals, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Bruce R. Wisan, Special Fiduciary of the United Effort Plan Trust; Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General for the State of Utah; Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General for the State of Arizona; Denise Posse Lindberg, Judge of the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Defendants, and Richard Jessop Ream; Thomas Samuel Steed; Don Ronald Fischer; Dean Joseph Barlow; Walter Scott Fischer; Richard Gilbert; Brent Jeffs, Intervenors–Appellants. Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–Day Saints, an Association of Individuals, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Denise Posse Lindberg, Judge of the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Defendant–Appellant, and Bruce R. Wisan, Special Fiduciary of the United Effort Plan Trust; Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General for the State of Utah; Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General for the State of Arizona, Defendants, and Richard Jessop Ream; Thomas Samuel Steed; Don Ronald Fischer; Dean Joseph Barlow; Walter Scott Fischer; Richard Gilbert; Brent Jeffs, Intervenors, and Jonathan Harker; Hyrum Harker; Harker Dairy Farm, Movants. Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–Day Saints, an Association of Individuals, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General for the State of Arizona, Defendant–Appellant, and Bruce R. Wisan, Special Fiduciary of the United Effort Plan Trust; Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General for the State of Utah; Denise Posse Lindberg, Judge of the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Defendants, and Richard Jessop Ream; Thomas Samuel Steed, Don Ronald Fischer; Dean Joseph Barlow; Walter Scott Fischer; Richard Gilbert; Brent Jeffs, Intervenors, and Harker Dairy Farm; Jonathan Harker, Movants. Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–Day Saints, an Association of Individuals, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Bruce R. Wisan, Special Fiduciary of the United Effort Plan Trust; Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General for the State of Utah; Thomas C. Horne; Attorney General for the State of Arizona; Denise Posse Lindberg, Judge of the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Defendants, and Richard Jessop Ream; Thomas Samuel Steed; Don Ronald Fischer; Dean Joseph Barlow; Walter Scott Fischer; Richard Gilbert; Brent Jeffs, Intervenors–Appellants. Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–Day Saints, an Association of Individuals, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Bruce R. Wisan, Special Fiduciary of the United Effort Plan Trust, Defendant–Appellant, and Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General for the State of Utah; Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General for the State of Arizona; Denise Posse Lindberg, Judge of the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Defendants, and Richard Jessop Ream; Thomas Samuel Steed; Don Ronald Fischer; Dean Joseph Barlow; Walter Scott Fischer; Richard Gilbert; Brent Jeffs, Defendants–Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael H. Hinson, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson, AZ; Mark P. Bookholder, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant–Appellant Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General.
Peggy E. Stone, Assistant Utah Attorney General, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant–Appellant Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General.
C. Frederick Beckner III, Kathleen M. Mueller, Amy M. Markopoulos, and Adam Doverspike of Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C.; Brent M. Johnson, Administrative Office of the Courts, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant–Appellant Denise Posse Lindberg.
Jeffrey L. Shields, Mark Callister, Zachary Shields, and Michael D. Stanger of Callister Nebeker & McCullough, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant–Appellant Bruce R. Wisan, Special Fiduciary.
Roger H. Hoole and Gregory N. Hoole, of Hoole & King, L.C., Salt Lake City, UT, for Intervenors–Appellants Richard Jessop Ream, Thomas Samuel Steed, Don Ronald Fischer, Dean Joseph Barlow, Walter Scott Fischer, Richard Gilbert and Brent Jeffs.
Rodney R. Parker, Richard A. Van Wagoner and Frederick Mark Gedicks of Snow, Christensen & Martineau, Kenneth A. Okazaki and Stephen C. Clark of Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff–Appellee The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–Day Saints.
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, BALDOCK and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
The defendants have filed interlocutory appeals from an order of the district court granting a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff, an association of individual members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–Day Saints and beneficiaries of a charitable religious trust (“FLDS Association”). After granting the defendants' motion for an emergency stay pending resolution of these appeals, we certified a question to the Utah Supreme Court regarding the preclusive effect under Utah law of dismissal, by reason of laches, of a petition for extraordinary writ. Having now received an answer from the Utah Supreme Court, we vacate the district court's grant of preliminary injunction and remand with directions to dismiss the claims filed by the FLDS Association as barred by res judicata.1
In October 2008, the FLDS Association filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Utah seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the Utah probate court's reformation and administration of a religious charitable trust, the United Effort Plan Trust (“UEP Trust”). The FLDS Association named the attorneys general of Utah and Arizona, Utah District Judge Denise Posse Lindberg, and the court-appointed special fiduciary for the UEP Trust, Bruce Wisan, as defendants in the suit. The FLDS Association alleged six claims for relief: (1) a claim for declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivation of the FLDS Association's rights under the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution; (2) a claim for declaratory relief under Article 1, Sections 1 and 4 of the Utah Constitution; (3) a claim for violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc; (4) a claim that Utah Code Ann. § 76–7–101, which prohibits plural marriage, is unconstitutional as applied under the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution; (5) a claim that Utah Code Ann. §§ 75–7–1001, –412(1), and –413(1)(c) are unconstitutional as applied; and (6) a claim for injunctive relief against the defendants' continuing administration of the UEP Trust. The FLDS Association also moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the probate court's ongoing administration of the UEP Trust. The federal suit was then stayed pending the parties' settlement negotiations.
While the federal case was pending, the FLDS Association in October 2009 filed a petition for extraordinary writ in the Utah Supreme Court. The petition raised substantially similar claims as the federal complaint. The Utah Supreme Court dismissed the FLDS Association's petition and held that “the FLDS Association's claims regarding the ... modification of the Trust are barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.” Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–Day Saints v. Lindberg, 238 P.3d 1054, 1062 (Utah 2010). The Utah Supreme Court explained that “the FLDS Association has waited nearly three years from the date the [state] district court modified the UEP Trust to challenge its modification and, in the interim, transactions have occurred and other parties have acted in reliance on the Trust's modification.” Id. In dismissing the FLDS Association's petition, the Utah Supreme Court cited: 1) a lack of diligence with no adequate explanation from the FLDS Association for its three-year delay in filing its petition, and 2) the related injury resulting from the FLDS Association's lack of diligence to individuals who have relied upon the state district court's final order. Id. at 1064.
After the Utah Supreme Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior
...is an extraordinary remedy, the movant's right to relief must be clear and unequivocal." Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–Day Saints v. Horne, 698 F.3d 1295, 1301 (10th Cir.2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The purpose of a preliminary injunction is merel......
-
Montana v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior
...is an extraordinary remedy, the movant's right to relief must be clear and unequivocal." Fundamentalist Church of JesusChrist of Latter-Day Saints v. Horne, 698 F.3d 1295, 1301 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. ......
-
United States v. Koerber
...district court's conclusions of law on the applicability of issue and claim preclusion." Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Horne , 698 F.3d 1295, 1301 (10th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). "The doctrine of issue preclusion prevents a party that has lost the battle......
-
Singh v. Carter
...(observing that "heightened standard of review" would apply to mandatory injunctions); Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter – Day Saints v. Horne , 698 F.3d 1295, 1301 (10th Cir.2012) (noting that, to obtain a "disfavored" mandatory preliminary injunction, "the movant has a heigh......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...for order of protection, which concluded 4th Amendment violation); Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Horne, 698 F.3d 1295, 1302 (10th Cir. 2012) (§ 1983 claim of deprivation of rights under Establishment and Free Exercise Clause precluded by Utah Supreme Court’s ......
-
Narrative Pluralism and Doctrinal Incoherence in Hosanna-tabor
...to waive the protections of the Establishment Clause."). But see Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Home, 698 F.3d 1295 (10th Cir. 2012) (impliedly holding laches a defense to Establishment Clause violation). 102. I am setting to one side the level of judicial scr......