[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Please be seated.

[00:00:11] Speaker 04:
We'll now hear 25-4068 in Ray Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[00:00:19] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:00:20] Speaker 02:
May it please the Court, it's an honor to be here.

[00:00:24] Speaker 02:
I hope to be able to reserve a few minutes to reply.

[00:00:27] Speaker 02:
We'll see how the timer and the proceedings go.

[00:00:31] Speaker 02:
You're Mr. George, I assume.

[00:00:32] Speaker 02:
I am.

[00:00:32] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, yes.

[00:00:33] Speaker 02:
Mr. George for plaintiffs below and here for appellants.

[00:00:38] Speaker 02:
I'd like to focus on the issue of the statute of limitations and the similar decision by the court below as a matter of law that the

[00:00:50] Speaker 02:
Utah Charitable Solicitations Act does not extend a fiduciary duty to donors.

[00:00:55] Speaker 04:
Before you get into your legal argument.

[00:00:59] Speaker 04:
I'm unclear about some facts, and maybe it's just not in the record.

[00:01:02] Speaker 04:
But in alleging your fraud, the statements that you're alleging were fraudulent could have been heard at a press conference.

[00:01:15] Speaker 04:
There was something in the Salt Lake Tribune.

[00:01:21] Speaker 04:
There was something in a church site.

[00:01:25] Speaker 02:
There were some quotations that we found after learning about this.

[00:01:31] Speaker 04:
That's actually my question.

[00:01:34] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:01:34] Speaker 04:
Is there anything in the record or in the complaint saying how your clients learned about this assertion that typing funds would not be used in this development?

[00:01:44] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:01:46] Speaker 02:
There is.

[00:01:47] Speaker 02:
As you may be aware, this is an MDL.

[00:01:53] Speaker 02:
So there were several complaints filed across the nation, consolidated before Judge Shelby.

[00:01:59] Speaker 02:
And in many of those complaints, the plaintiffs allege that when the SEC, the 2023 SEC consent order became public, and 60 minutes did.

[00:02:12] Speaker 04:
When they heard how they learned about the

[00:02:16] Speaker 04:
The statements that they now allege were false.

[00:02:20] Speaker 04:
The statement that no diving funds would be used for this development.

[00:02:25] Speaker 02:
Oh, that's not alleged in the complaint.

[00:02:27] Speaker 02:
How they individually affect.

[00:02:28] Speaker 02:
That's one of the deficiencies.

[00:02:29] Speaker 02:
So we don't know how they learned about that.

[00:02:31] Speaker 02:
It's not alleged in the complaint.

[00:02:33] Speaker 02:
That's one of the deficiencies that Judge Shelby identified that we would amend to cure

[00:02:40] Speaker 02:
But because Judge Shelby dismissed the complaint with prejudice, because the claims were time barred under his reasoning, we weren't given the opportunity.

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
So that's one of the areas that we would...

[00:02:53] Speaker 04:
proposed amended complain or anything like that that states how your clients first heard the false, the allegedly false statements.

[00:03:03] Speaker 04:
Is that right?

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
We have not drafted or submitted such a document to the court.

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
So we don't know.

[00:03:10] Speaker 02:
We don't know.

[00:03:11] Speaker 02:
I've talked with my clients, but there's nothing on the public record at this point in time, substantiating that.

[00:03:22] Speaker 02:
Under the decision of the district court, the timer on the statute of limitations was running, and my clients had no idea.

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
Under the same reasoning, and under the ruling by- Well, it's not about whether they had any idea or not.

[00:03:36] Speaker 01:
It's not about their actual knowledge.

[00:03:38] Speaker 01:
It's about what they reasonably should have known or could have known.

[00:03:42] Speaker 01:
And that's the distinction that you have to make.

[00:03:44] Speaker 02:
In all of the cases, constructive knowledge exists.

[00:03:49] Speaker 02:
But one cannot construct knowledge without some personal fact showing that the person will reach out and say, oh, yes, I saw this.

[00:03:59] Speaker 02:
Right?

[00:04:00] Speaker 01:
Unless.

[00:04:01] Speaker 01:
When there's significant media coverage nationwide and locally, that's been sufficient.

[00:04:07] Speaker 01:
And that's what there was.

[00:04:09] Speaker 01:
I mean that's that's not refuted Not understanding why they didn't have Why they didn't hear it.

[00:04:26] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:04:26] Speaker 01:
No, I don't think it matters whether they heard it.

[00:04:28] Speaker 02:
Oh Well constructively could have could have known by that in every case where constructive knowledge is is built on media reports and

[00:04:39] Speaker 02:
Those cases always have something else that is the fact that the plaintiff had.

[00:04:46] Speaker 02:
They said, you should know about this.

[00:04:48] Speaker 02:
You should keep your ear open.

[00:04:51] Speaker 02:
And these media reports show that if you had done that.

[00:04:54] Speaker 03:
Well, it is a religious community and a devoted one if we're talking about tithing money.

[00:05:01] Speaker 03:
And so I think that it's different than if you have a class action for a widget.

[00:05:08] Speaker 03:
In other words, people collect every Sunday.

[00:05:11] Speaker 03:
And I suspect that that is relatively big news in the church community that even if they're outraged that these revelations are being made and dispute them or whatever else, it would have a buzz within that community.

[00:05:28] Speaker 03:
And so it seems like a poor case to say they wouldn't constructively know.

[00:05:39] Speaker 02:
This is an affirmative defense, right?

[00:05:43] Speaker 02:
We're at the pleadings.

[00:05:45] Speaker 02:
And we've alleged that in some of the complaints, that plaintiffs did not know until this 60 Minutes article happened.

[00:05:52] Speaker 02:
And I was sensitive to this.

[00:05:54] Speaker 02:
We had many conversations with our plaintiffs about this.

[00:05:57] Speaker 02:
Because I want to know what the facts are so we can allege them.

[00:06:04] Speaker 02:
So when we allege them the consolidated complaint, that they didn't have any earlier knowledge,

[00:06:09] Speaker 02:
That is true.

[00:06:10] Speaker 02:
Now, there'll be discovery.

[00:06:12] Speaker 02:
And as Judge Hartz wrote in Fernandez versus Clean Hall.

[00:06:22] Speaker 04:
You just lost two members of the panel.

[00:06:26] Speaker 02:
And I apologize.

[00:06:28] Speaker 01:
I don't feel like you're answering Judge Phillips' question.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
He points out that this case is unique to some of the cases that you're discussing, the fact that you have

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
a large, large religious community, and this news was huge.

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
There were many, many different media releases and reports all over a short period of time.

[00:06:54] Speaker 01:
This is different than some of the other cases that you cited in terms of whether media might be enough.

[00:07:01] Speaker 01:
Could you respond to that?

[00:07:03] Speaker 01:
They're part of this community.

[00:07:05] Speaker 01:
Tithing is a big issue for all of them.

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
People heard these reports.

[00:07:10] Speaker 01:
They talked about them.

[00:07:12] Speaker 01:
And I guess I'm not hearing you respond to that particular significant aspect of the case.

[00:07:22] Speaker 02:
I'm not turning a blind eye to it, which is why I had conversations with my clients.

[00:07:27] Speaker 02:
The legal fact of constructing knowledge

[00:07:33] Speaker 02:
has a limitation.

[00:07:36] Speaker 02:
What the court below created by deciding as a matter of law that each plaintiff had heard the news, notwithstanding the allegations, he created a legal duty for Mormons in this case to follow the news.

[00:07:55] Speaker 02:
Or a legal duty for people.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
I'm not seeing that at all.

[00:07:59] Speaker 01:
He was very, very clear about what they should have known or could have known with due diligence, with any diligence at all.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
And that's not a legal duty to watch the news or watch any particular program.

[00:08:12] Speaker 02:
My plaintiffs missed the news.

[00:08:15] Speaker 02:
I bought them.

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
They allege in the complaint that they didn't hear.

[00:08:23] Speaker 04:
There's a fairness issue here.

[00:08:24] Speaker 04:
I think that's what you're arguing.

[00:08:26] Speaker 04:
It's unfair to hold them to stuff that only appeared in five or six media outlets.

[00:08:33] Speaker 04:
But that's why I asked about how they knew about the statement that was allegedly false, because they all purportedly relied on the statement that tithing funds were not being used in this development.

[00:08:47] Speaker 04:
And now they're suing because that statement, they say, was false.

[00:08:51] Speaker 04:
And they relied on it.

[00:08:52] Speaker 04:
Well, how did they learn about that statement?

[00:08:55] Speaker 04:
And the complaint says it gives three places where that statement appeared.

[00:09:02] Speaker 04:
Correct me if I'm wrong about this.

[00:09:03] Speaker 04:
There was the press conference where there was a statement made.

[00:09:07] Speaker 04:
There was a report on that in the St.

[00:09:09] Speaker 04:
Louis, I'm sorry.

[00:09:11] Speaker 04:
Salt Lake City.

[00:09:12] Speaker 04:
Salt Lake City.

[00:09:12] Speaker 04:
Yes, St.

[00:09:13] Speaker 04:
Louis.

[00:09:13] Speaker 04:
Salt Lake City Tribune, is it?

[00:09:15] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:09:16] Speaker 04:
And a statement in a church publication.

[00:09:22] Speaker 04:
If that's where they're getting the information that they relied on and was false,

[00:09:27] Speaker 04:
Why can't they be held to the same sort of, to keep up on those publications?

[00:09:35] Speaker 04:
The Tribune is definitely, as I recall from the complaint, published the allegation that this statement was false about the tithing.

[00:09:44] Speaker 04:
How can you rely on something in the Tribune as causing you to continue to tithe because of a false statement by a church leader?

[00:09:56] Speaker 04:
But you don't have to read that paper to learn that there was allegations of that statement having been false.

[00:10:05] Speaker 04:
That seems totally fair to hold you to constructive knowledge in that context, does it not?

[00:10:13] Speaker 02:
If the allegations in the complaint were plaintiffs heard on this date and read this article, those statements were examples of what was being talked about in the community.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
I believe, if I recall, the church newspaper was the primary conduit for most of our plaintiffs as to understanding how the funds would be used.

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
Or just talking in temple.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
right, based on something like that.

[00:10:43] Speaker 02:
And they were showing that it would have a class action.

[00:10:46] Speaker 02:
They were showing that this was something that was broadcast naturally.

[00:10:49] Speaker 02:
Not that our plaintiffs read the Salt Lake Tribune article, but that they were aware of this kind of message.

[00:10:56] Speaker 02:
And that's one of the deficiencies that, again, shall be identified for their common law claims that we would seek to clarify on appeal.

[00:11:04] Speaker 02:
I also need to point out that

[00:11:06] Speaker 02:
The plaintiffs who are on appeal are former members.

[00:11:09] Speaker 02:
They were members at the time that these representations about the use of the funds, or the non-use, more importantly, for these commercial ventures, they were still members.

[00:11:21] Speaker 02:
They left after that period of time.

[00:11:23] Speaker 02:
And so they were no longer close within the community.

[00:11:27] Speaker 02:
And in fact, none of them, aside from one of them,

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
lives in Utah or in the Salt Lake City area.

[00:11:32] Speaker 02:
So they're in a diaspora, if you will.

[00:11:34] Speaker 04:
You left the church before the allegations by the whistleblower?

[00:11:39] Speaker 04:
Yes, I believe that's the case.

[00:11:40] Speaker 03:
That may be drier timber.

[00:11:41] Speaker 03:
In other words, I'd expect that the word would spread even more quickly amongst former members.

[00:11:47] Speaker 03:
Let me ask you this.

[00:11:48] Speaker 02:
They weren't bitter about it.

[00:11:49] Speaker 02:
They left for many reasons, and it wasn't as if they left with an axe to grind.

[00:11:53] Speaker 03:
So I understand the boundaries of what you're arguing.

[00:11:57] Speaker 03:
Would you contend that there are still groups of plaintiffs for whom the statute of limitations has, as of today, not even begun to run?

[00:12:05] Speaker 02:
Oh, interesting.

[00:12:08] Speaker 02:
I don't have those as my clients, so I don't know.

[00:12:11] Speaker 02:
I can very easily imagine that there are people who don't watch 60 minutes.

[00:12:15] Speaker 02:
I don't watch 60 minutes.

[00:12:17] Speaker 02:
Quite candidly, until my clients came to me with this, I didn't know about any of this.

[00:12:22] Speaker 03:
Can I ask you a legal question, just because you're running short on time, and I want to make sure I ask you?

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
As far as the Russell Packard decision and the discovery rule statutory versus equitable,

[00:12:38] Speaker 03:
and equitable being concealment.

[00:12:40] Speaker 03:
Concealment would also be a basis by which there could be constructive knowledge delayed.

[00:12:46] Speaker 03:
Is that right under the statutory discretion?

[00:12:47] Speaker 02:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:12:48] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:12:48] Speaker 02:
If you don't get the facts, you can't investigate.

[00:12:53] Speaker 02:
And so if someone blocks the facts, you can't investigate.

[00:12:55] Speaker 02:
The claim can't accrue until you get the facts.

[00:12:58] Speaker 03:
So concealment applies in both situations.

[00:13:00] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:13:04] Speaker 02:
Leaping very quickly.

[00:13:09] Speaker 02:
What matters at this stage is what is alleged in the complaint.

[00:13:16] Speaker 02:
In Fernandez v. Clean Hall, this court held that the typical way an affirmative defense like this is addressed, unless all of the elements are admitted in the complaint, is an answer by defendant, discovery, and then possibly summary judgment if the facts turn out to show that the plaintiff knew

[00:13:40] Speaker 02:
that their claim accrued earlier than the allegations would have it.

[00:13:45] Speaker 02:
A second problem then that the court did in manifesting its error in overlooking the pleadings themselves is that it went outside the pleadings, finding nothing in there to say when the time started ticking, and looked only at news stories.

[00:14:01] Speaker 02:
The problem with that is that all of the articles in which news stories were used as constructive notice always have some fact that's personal to that plaintiff that would have itself tweaked them to look and listen.

[00:14:12] Speaker 02:
And that's that fact that's the key to the gateway of constructing knowledge.

[00:14:16] Speaker 02:
A court cannot on its own say, you should have known about this when there's nothing in the complaint or even if it's an evidentiary question, nothing showing that there was something that tweaked them to make them pay attention.

[00:14:30] Speaker 02:
Or if there's a duty, like an investor has, to investigate, then you have to reach out to the news, because you have money riding on it, and you're sophisticated.

[00:14:39] Speaker 02:
You know how the game works.

[00:14:42] Speaker 02:
The third error that the court made in the limitations issue is that Judge Shelby did not identify the time when the clock started ticking.

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
It was within months, a month, three, four, five months.

[00:14:56] Speaker 02:
A few more months, and plain as times, it would have been timely.

[00:15:05] Speaker 02:
the Utah Supreme Court faced the same issue in Russell Packard.

[00:15:09] Speaker 02:
And it said, we acknowledge that it is possible and perhaps even probable, if I may continue the quote, Your Honors, that a reasonable plaintiff would have discovered a sufficient number of these facts in the months before the expiration of the limitations.

[00:15:24] Speaker 02:
However, we are persuaded that one could legitimately dispute the precise point at which a reasonable diligent plaintiff would have discovered such necessary facts.

[00:15:33] Speaker 02:
Because we cannot conclusively determine when plaintiffs should have been charged with constructive notice of their claims, we cannot ultimately determine whether, even assuming plaintiffs should have discovered their claims.

[00:15:44] Speaker 02:
At some point in the four-year statute, plaintiffs acted reasonably and not following the complaint earlier.

[00:15:49] Speaker 02:
Here we have a lot of questions, but nothing in the pleadings that is saying it starts now, and even Judge Shelby's efforts to construct knowledge.

[00:15:59] Speaker 02:
Don't fix a date when the clock actually started.

[00:16:02] Speaker 02:
It may have started after the five months, and it certainly did under the allegations in the complaint.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:16:07] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
Mr. Clement.

[00:16:15] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court, Paul Clement for the appellees.

[00:16:21] Speaker 00:
I'm just going to start with a point of clarification.

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
In paragraph 22 of the complaint, Mr. Christensen, one of the plaintiffs alleges that he is an active member of the Church, at least at the time the complaint was filed.

[00:16:33] Speaker 00:
So just wanted to clarify that.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
But to start with a slightly broader point,

[00:16:37] Speaker 00:
It's obviously our view that there are multiple problems with the complaint that was filed in this case.

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
It's a complaint that alleges tithing fraud.

[00:16:48] Speaker 00:
It asks for an accounting.

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
It asks for the appointment of a special master to oversee the church's finances.

[00:16:54] Speaker 00:
So in our view, this is a complaint that raises serious First Amendment problems.

[00:16:59] Speaker 00:
But at the same time, I think Judge Shelby

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
applying principles of constitutional avoidance, was able to avoid getting into those constitutional waters by recognizing that this claim here was quite untimely.

[00:17:12] Speaker 00:
And we would urge affirmance on that ground, which we do think would serve constitutional avoidance principles.

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
And in that regard, I would just sort of add, you know, I don't think this is outcome determinative.

[00:17:24] Speaker 00:
I think what's outcome determinative is this thing I'll talk about second, which is Utah law, which quite clearly says that constructive knowledge is enough.

[00:17:32] Speaker 00:
And it repeatedly uses this phrase as the means of knowledge is enough.

[00:17:37] Speaker 00:
just don't think you can ignore all these publicly available sources.

[00:17:42] Speaker 00:
But just as a contextual point, this is the rare case where there's kind of a market test as to whether people that were interested in filing a timely lawsuit could do it based on the whistleblower report and based on the coverage of that report.

[00:17:59] Speaker 00:
And so you have at least three lawsuits, the Gatti suit, which I know this court or at least one member of this court is very familiar with,

[00:18:07] Speaker 00:
But then also you had a pro se claim filed, the cook complaint that's mentioned in the papers.

[00:18:14] Speaker 00:
And that was filed in February of 2020.

[00:18:16] Speaker 00:
So within three months of the whistleblower report, three pro se plaintiffs were able to file a lawsuit in which they cited the Washington Post article that discussed this whistleblower report.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
And then, of course, you have the Huntsman suit that followed I think in 2021.

[00:18:36] Speaker 00:
So you had at least three different suits from people who saw these same reports and were able to bring timely suits.

[00:18:44] Speaker 01:
Does it matter how sophisticated that plaintiff was, or how well-read they were, or what publications they subscribe to?

[00:18:54] Speaker 01:
Is that relevant to the idea that you can't really conclusively determine when they would have had this constructive knowledge?

[00:19:07] Speaker 01:
And do you kind of need to look at their individual situation to know when they would have that constructive knowledge?

[00:19:13] Speaker 00:
So I don't think so.

[00:19:17] Speaker 00:
I mean, I think the whole point of having actual knowledge and then constructive knowledge is to develop a test

[00:19:22] Speaker 00:
that's more objective.

[00:19:23] Speaker 00:
Now, I'll grant you look at the only plaintiff that was able to sort of put all this together and file a complaint was Mr. Huntsman.

[00:19:31] Speaker 00:
You might say, okay, well, that's somebody who both had more tithing dollars at issue and was more sophisticated and was in church leadership while I was a church member.

[00:19:40] Speaker 00:
So if that was the only one, maybe those sort of market tests of whether there was enough knowledge would be less persuasive.

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
But I think by the time you get from the Cook plaintiffs to the Huntsman

[00:19:51] Speaker 00:
plaintiffs to sort of run the gamut here.

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
But at the end of the day, to me, that's what makes this a very straightforward case.

[00:19:58] Speaker 00:
But as to the actual legal test, I think if you look to Utah law, Utah law is quite clear.

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
And it starts with the Baldwin against Burton case, which we cite.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:
But it continues with more recent cases like the Colisemo case, which we also cite.

[00:20:14] Speaker 00:
And both of those are Utah Supreme Court cases.

[00:20:17] Speaker 00:
And they go out of their way to say that the test is constructive knowledge.

[00:20:22] Speaker 00:
And the way they talk about that is what you need is the means of knowledge.

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
Whether you actually got the knowledge doesn't matter.

[00:20:28] Speaker 00:
And I don't see how you can't say,

[00:20:31] Speaker 00:
that all of these publications that range from national publications to the Salt Lake Tribune don't give you the means of knowledge.

[00:20:39] Speaker 03:
So I understand the boundaries of your argument.

[00:20:42] Speaker 03:
Are you saying that at some point there was a critical mass and all plaintiffs the statute of limitation accrued as of a certain day?

[00:20:51] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
Yes, there might be specialized circumstances.

[00:20:55] Speaker 00:
You might have like a minor and circumstances like that where as a matter of a doctrine, the statute of limitations is told as to them.

[00:21:05] Speaker 00:
So I haven't run the math in my head.

[00:21:07] Speaker 00:
There might have been a minor who is tithing who might be able to have sort of a timely claim even at this juncture.

[00:21:13] Speaker 00:
But I think in the main,

[00:21:15] Speaker 00:
Precisely because the test is objective.

[00:21:18] Speaker 03:
We are here on a motion to dismiss statute of limitations, which is an unusual combination.

[00:21:25] Speaker 03:
And statute of limitations is back-laden and dependent.

[00:21:29] Speaker 03:
Should that give us some pause?

[00:21:32] Speaker 00:
I mean, it should give you that much pause, but I think you should get over it.

[00:21:35] Speaker 00:
I mean, all those cases say we don't often do that, but often isn't always.

[00:21:39] Speaker 00:
And I was struck on rereading it that even the Bisline case, which was this extraordinary case about the sort of community that was isolated community with brainwashing, even in the end, there were a handful of, at the end of the opinion, there were a handful of individuals who had left the community and the statute of limitations had run.

[00:21:59] Speaker 00:
And even on a motion to dismiss in that case,

[00:22:02] Speaker 00:
Their claims, except for the TVPA claims, which had a 10-year statute of limitations, all those other claims were dismissed on a motion to dismiss.

[00:22:10] Speaker 04:
How would you state the objective test?

[00:22:13] Speaker 00:
So I would state the objective test at the general level as the means of knowledge, and then I would say... To whom?

[00:22:20] Speaker 04:
To a reasonable person?

[00:22:21] Speaker 04:
To a reasonable person in the circumstances of the plaintiff?

[00:22:26] Speaker 04:
If it's in the reasonable circumstances of the plaintiff, what are

[00:22:31] Speaker 04:
potential circumstances?

[00:22:33] Speaker 04:
I mean, Mr. Grinberg, for example, was an investor who had tens of millions of dollars in stake.

[00:22:39] Speaker 04:
That's an easy one.

[00:22:40] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:22:40] Speaker 04:
But how would you frame the reasonable person?

[00:22:47] Speaker 04:
I assume the objective test means it's in terms of a reasonable person.

[00:22:51] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:22:51] Speaker 04:
But a reasonable person in what circumstances?

[00:22:54] Speaker 00:
Are there any?

[00:22:56] Speaker 00:
I think in the circumstances of the plaintiff, I would accept that, and that's why

[00:23:00] Speaker 00:
I think the question you started with is obviously a helpful question, I think, for sort of framing this, which is we're talking about members of a religious community.

[00:23:08] Speaker 00:
If their whole claim at the end of the day, maybe they weren't specific about it in their complaint, but the guts of their complaint is that we heard something from our religious leaders in this religious community.

[00:23:20] Speaker 00:
We were paying enough attention to that.

[00:23:22] Speaker 00:
to be misled by it, we relied on it, so we were sort of paying enough attention to it that we continued to act in reliance on that and then you actually have an event that is more publicized than the sort of predicate events and you're claiming that you didn't have knowledge of it.

[00:23:41] Speaker 00:
I don't have to, I mean that strikes me as a little implausible to be candid, but whether it's implausible or not, take the

[00:23:47] Speaker 00:
the complaint as a given, I think it doesn't meet this kind of test and I think they're just in this context you would say they had constructive knowledge so we don't have to worry about whether it's a plausible allegation or an implausible allegation.

[00:24:01] Speaker 00:
even as pled, it pleads right into a statute of limitations problem.

[00:24:07] Speaker 00:
And I think part of the reason it's appropriate here on a motion to dismiss stage is I think the relevant facts are all there on the face of the complaint.

[00:24:16] Speaker 00:
I mean, one of the things that's striking about this complaint

[00:24:19] Speaker 00:
is it refers to the whistleblower report, which was publicized back in December 2019.

[00:24:25] Speaker 00:
It refers to that over 20 times.

[00:24:29] Speaker 00:
And it refers to the IRS report, which they claim was the watershed event for their clients.

[00:24:35] Speaker 00:
It only refers to that three times.

[00:24:37] Speaker 00:
So I just think in the context of this case, I think Judge Shelby handled this exactly right.

[00:24:42] Speaker 00:
which is he looked at what was alleged in the complaint, the timing of the complaint, the filing of the complaint.

[00:24:48] Speaker 00:
It's kind of a matter of math at that point.

[00:24:50] Speaker 01:
Was the Bistline case a dismissal?

[00:24:53] Speaker 00:
It was.

[00:24:53] Speaker 01:
Not a summary judgment?

[00:24:55] Speaker 00:
Yeah, it was a motion to dismiss.

[00:24:57] Speaker 01:
We decided that on fact.

[00:24:58] Speaker 01:
They pled all the fundamentalist church, the cult-type situation for the plaintiffs.

[00:25:08] Speaker 01:
So we decided that.

[00:25:10] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:25:11] Speaker 00:
Obviously there were a lot of claims that you said were timely, but at the end of the opinion, like one of the last things in the opinion, you talk about a handful of the plaintiffs there who were able to leave the community earlier than most of the rest of the plaintiffs, and you said those would be dismissed as untimely on 12B6.

[00:25:31] Speaker 00:
One other contextual point, again, I don't think ultimately it's legally dispositive, but I do think it can inform the analysis here.

[00:25:41] Speaker 00:
There is a perfectly logical explanation

[00:25:44] Speaker 00:
for why this suit was filed when it was filed, which is it followed almost immediately from the panel decision in the Ninth Circuit Huntsman case, and there was a brief about five month window when it looked like the Ninth Circuit was gonna give a green light for these kind of claims, and this claim was filed during that window.

[00:26:05] Speaker 00:
Now, I don't begrudge anybody for responding to those incentives, but it does sort of explain

[00:26:13] Speaker 00:
Yeah, exactly, exactly.

[00:26:14] Speaker 00:
But what's not a matter of speculation is they waited a good six months even after the IRS report came out.

[00:26:21] Speaker 00:
the cease and desist order came out before filing this suit.

[00:26:25] Speaker 00:
But as you say, what's not a matter of speculation, what's a matter of the calendar, is that there were more than three years from the events becoming widely publicized and the filing of the suit.

[00:26:37] Speaker 00:
And I don't think there was any particular error on Judge Shelby's part to not specify.

[00:26:43] Speaker 00:
All right, here's the date.

[00:26:44] Speaker 00:
It was February 17th.

[00:26:46] Speaker 00:
I mean, I think it's actually not uncommon in statute of limitations

[00:26:50] Speaker 00:
cases to say that the plaintiff was on knowledge or constructive knowledge, at least by date X, and that's sufficient to decide the statute of limitations.

[00:27:01] Speaker 00:
I'm tempted to try to get into an interesting discussion of religious autonomy doctrine, but I really do think it is best to be avoided, so I'm happy to give the rest of my time back to the panel if there are no further questions.

[00:27:25] Speaker 02:
Again, Scott George for Appellants.

[00:27:30] Speaker 02:
Mr. Clement identified two Utah cases that he says establishes that constructive notice in this case was appropriately done by Judge Shelby.

[00:27:38] Speaker 02:
Coliseum and Baldwin.

[00:27:41] Speaker 02:
And they illustrate why it's improper here.

[00:27:44] Speaker 02:
Coliseum involved children who had been molested by a priest when they were children.

[00:27:52] Speaker 02:
Decade or so later they decided to sue the church You've used up your 30 seconds.

[00:27:58] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry to the church there There was the tweak I'm talking about that's between personally and at that time.

[00:28:04] Speaker 04:
We're in the next four years Thank you and both was a duty Thank you council council excuse cases submitted I