UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES HUNTSMAN, No. 21-56056

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-02504- v. SVW-SK CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF OPINION JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted En Banc September 25, 2024 San Francisco, California

Filed January 31, 2025

Before: Mary H. Murguia, Chief Judge, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Jacqueline H. Nguyen, John B. Owens, Michelle T. Friedland, Daniel A. Bress, Patrick J. Bumatay, Lawrence VanDyke, Jennifer Sung, Gabriel P. Sanchez and Ana de Alba, Circuit Judges. 2 HUNTSMAN V. CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT

Opinion by Judge Friedland; Concurrence by Judge Bress; Concurrence by Judge Bumatay

SUMMARY*

Fraud / First Amendment

The en banc court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“the Church”) in an action brought by James Huntsman, a former member of the Church, alleging that the Church had committed fraud by using tithing funds to finance commercial endeavors despite stating that it would not do so. Huntsman contended that the Church committed fraud under California law by misrepresenting which funds it used to finance the City Creek Center project, a redevelopment of a commercial shopping mall in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah; and which funds were used to allegedly “bail out” the Beneficial Life Insurance Company, a Church-owned entity. Huntsman tithed substantial sums to the Church from 1993 to 2015. The en banc court held that no reasonable juror could conclude that the Church misrepresented the source of funds for the City Creek project. The Church had long explained that the sources of the reserve funds included tithing funds,

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. HUNTSMAN V. CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT 3

and Huntsman had not presented evidence that the Church did anything other than what it said it would do. The en banc court held that Huntsman’s claim with respect to the $600 million allegedly transferred to Beneficial Life also failed. Huntsman did not identify any specific statements made by the Church about the source of funds for Beneficial Life. Accordingly, the record did not support a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation. Finally, the en banc court held that the church autonomy doctrine had no bearing in this case because nothing in the court’s analysis of Huntsman’s fraud claims delved into matters of Church doctrine or policy. Judge Bress, joined by Judges M. Smith and Nguyen, and joined by Judge VanDyke except as to footnotes 1 and 2, concurred in the judgment. He agreed with the majority that there was no fraudulent misrepresentation, but he would hold that there was no way in which Huntsman here could prevail without running headlong into basic First Amendment prohibitions on courts resolving ecclesiastical disputes. Judge Bumatay concurred in the judgment only, because it is necessary to decide this case on church autonomy grounds. Because Huntsman’s claims involve court interference in matters of religious truth, the church autonomy doctrine bars reaching the merits of his claims. 4 HUNTSMAN V. CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT

COUNSEL David B. Jonelis (argued), Lavely & Singer PC, Los Angeles, California; Jake A. Camara, Berk Brettler LLP, West Hollywood, California;