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

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

Defendant-Appellee, and DOES, 1-10,

Defendant.

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

Argued and Submitted November 15, 2022 Pasadena, California

Filed August 7, 2023 2 HUNTSMAN V. CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw and William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judges, and Edward R. Korman, * District Judge.

Opinion by Judge W. Fletcher; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Korman

SUMMARY **

Diversity/Fraud/ Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

The panel reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in a diversity action brought by James Huntsman, a former member of the Church, alleging fraud under California state law. Huntsman alleged that he contributed substantial amounts of cash and corporate shares to the Church as tithes. He further alleged that he relied on false and misleading statements by the Church that tithing money was not used to finance commercial projects, when in fact the Church used tithing money to finance a shopping mall development and to bail out a troubled for-profit life insurance company owned by the Church. The panel denied the Church’s request to seal those portions of the opinion that include business and financial

* The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. ** 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

information relating to Church operations, noting that the opinion reveals very little of the Church’s financial information and some of the relevant information has already been publicly revealed. The panel rejected the Church’s argument that Huntsman’s fraud claims are barred by the First Amendment. The panel held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not apply because the questions regarding the fraud claims were secular and did not implicate religious beliefs about tithing itself. Nor was the panel required to examine Huntsman’s religious beliefs about the appropriate use of church money. The panel held that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Church fraudulently misrepresented the source of money used to finance the shopping mall development. Based on the evidence in the record, including statements by church officials and in church publications, a reasonable juror could conclude that the Church knowingly misrepresented that no tithing funds were being or would be used to finance the shopping mall development and that Huntsman reasonably relied on the Church’s misrepresentations. The panel agreed with the district court that the evidence did not provide a sufficient basis for a fraud claim with respect to bail-out payments to the life insurance company. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, District Judge Korman dissented from Part IV.B.1 of the majority opinion because in his view no reasonable juror could conclude that the Church fraudulently misrepresented the source of the money used to finance the shopping mall development. Summary judgment in favor of the Church was therefore appropriate on all claims. 4 HUNTSMAN V. CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT