Popular Post smac97 Posted August 30, 2021 Popular Post Posted August 30, 2021 (edited) I thought you folks might want an update on the Laura Gaddy lawsuit against the Church. In August 2019 provoman started a (now closed) thread about a lawsuit filed by Laura Gaddy against the Church: RICO Act, Proposed Class Action against the Church - it is filed That thread traced the progression of the suit. The Church filed a motion to dismiss in August 2019, and in March 2020 the Court granted the motion but gave Gaddy permission to file an amended complaint (basically, a chance to start the lawsuit over). The claims in the original complaint had been: (1) common law fraud, (2) fraudulent inducement, (3) fraudulent concealment, (4) civil RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)), (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (6) breach of fiduciary duty. On March 31, 2020 the court dismissed all of these claims under the "ecclesiastical abstention" doctrine, which is derived from the First Amendment and holds that civil courts cannot adjudicate matters of religious belief or disagreement. A link to the court's "Memorandum Decision" of that date is here. On May 18, 2020 Gaddy filed her {first} amended complaint (no free link available), and the Church again filed a motion to dismiss (see here). In February 2021 Gaddy filed a motion to file a second amended complaint (kind of odd, since the {first} amended complaint had not yet been dismissed). In March 2021 the court denied that motion. In May 2021 Gaddy filed a motion asking the court for permission to amend its proposed second amended complaint (which, as of that date, had not yet been filed with the court). The Church did not oppose this motion, so the court granted it. However, the court later denied as premature the request to file a second amended complaint, but also left the door open for her to try again (see below). On July 28, 2021 the court entered a "Memorandum Decision" dismissing the {first} amended complaint (link here). Here is the summary of the case from the first two pages of that decision: Quote This case stems from the history, founding, and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-d ay Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church. Plaintiff Laura Gaddy was a member of that religion for most of her life. She brings this putative class action lawsuit againstthe Church’s religious corporation, Defendant Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Church). Asserting numerous fraud-related claims, Gaddy generally alleges the Church has intentionally misrepresented its founding to induce the faith of its members, even as its leaders hold no sincere religious belief in the version of events they promote. In a prior order, the court dismissed Gaddy’s original Complaint primarily because litigating her claims would have required an impermissible inquiry into the truth of the Church’s religious teachings and doctrines. Gaddy then filed an Amended Complaint in which she asserts seven claims against the Church, many of which were also asserted in her original Complaint. Now before the court is the Church’s Motion to Dismiss Gaddy’s Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Church argues the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses foreclose Gaddy’s Amended Complaint because each claim still requires the court to impermissibly interfere with matters of church faith and determine the validity of the Church’s religious teachings. For the reasons explained below, the Church’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The court reviews the procedural history of the lawsuit, then summarizes the content of the {first} amended complaint, noting similarities and differences between it and the original complaint: Quote Gaddy filed her Amended Complaint on May 18, 2020. Although it is longer and more detailed than her original Complaint, many of the claims, theories, and allegations in the Amended Complaint are duplicative of her prior pleading. Gaddy again brings claims against the Church for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent inducement, civil RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)), and intentional infliction of emotional distress. These claims continue to rely on alleged misrepresentations concerning the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Abraham. But the Amended Complaint contains a handful of differences, including new factual allegations to support her common law fraud claim. Gaddy now alleges the Church also misleads members about its history with polygamy and about certain locations of events described in the Book of Mormon. Specifically, Gaddy alleges the Church historically taught members that certain events in the Book of Mormon happened on Hill Cumorah in upstate New York. Recently, however, the Church has stated it does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events. Gaddy also alleges the Church previously taught members the prophet Joseph Smith had only one wife. Gaddy alleges Smith had multiple wives. In addition to these new factual allegations, Gaddy’s Amended Complaint includes the theory of liability she previously argued in response to the Church’s motion to dismiss, but which she had not previously pled. Namely that the Church should be held liable on her common law fraud claim because its own leaders do not sincerely believe the versions of the Church’s history, founding, and doctrines the Church teaches to its members. In addition to these new factual allegations and alternative theory of fraud liability, the Amended Complaint also advances two new causes of action, including a claim under the Utah Charitable Solicitations Act, and a claim for breach of the duty of full disclosure. Finally, the Amended Complaint includes a new alternative theory of liability for Gaddy’s civil RICO claim based on misrepresentations to members concerning the Church’s use of tithing. Gaddy now pleads as an independent basis for RICO liability that the Church misleads its members by falsely assuring them tithing funds are used only for “Church expenses and humanitarian aid.” That last paragraph is a reference to City Creek. The claims / legal theories in the {first} amended complaint are: (1) common law fraud, (2) fraudulent inducement, (3) fraudulent concealment, (4) civil RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)), and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court then dives into the legal analysis of whether these claims should be allowed to proceed into substantive litigation. Here are the main points presented by the court: 1. Gaddy's "Indirect" Attacks on Doctrine The court notes that Gaddy tries to circumvent the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine: Quote Like her original allegations concerning the First Vision and translation of the Book of Mormon, Gaddy’s new factual allegations relating to the locations of events described in the Book of Mormon and the founding prophet Joseph Smith’s marriages directly implicate the Church’s core religious teachings. By adding facts concerning these issues Gaddy attempts to accomplish indirectly what she cannot do directly: that is, she seeks to attack the veracity of the Church’s teachings about the Book of Mormon and its doctrines by challenging the accuracy of certain facts contained in the text. As this court previously explained, a plaintiff may not, for example, challenge in a court of law religious beliefs that Noah built an ark, loaded it with his family and representative animals of the world, and was thereby saved from world-engulfing floods. Neither may a plaintiff circumvent this restriction by merely attacking religious accounts concerning the locations where Noah built the ark or where the ark came to rest. If religious events themselves sit beyond judicial purview, religious beliefs concerning the details of those events must enjoy the same protection. ... Adjudicating Gaddy’s re-pled claims based on these two new sets of factual allegationswould require the court to evaluate the truth or falsity of the Church’s religious beliefs. As explained in the Prior Order, the First Amendment prohibits that examination. I think this is correct. 2. Gaddy's New Theory: Insincerity of Belief The court next addresses Gaddy's new legal theory, namely, that the "Church" is not sincere in believing what it teaches: Quote To avoid this prohibition, Gaddy contends her new factual allegations challenging the sincerity of the Church’s professed beliefs in its own teachings present a threshold question of fact that the court cannot dispose of on a motion to dismiss. She argues the Church must firstdemonstrate the sincerity of its belief in its teachings about its founding, history, and doctrines before it may invoke the church autonomy doctrine. The court disagrees. The court goes on to explain that Gaddy essentially misunderstands and misapplies the law on this point. 3. Gaddy's Second New Theory: Fraudulent Omissions Quote Gaddy next argues her re-pled claims for fraudulent inducement, concealment, civil RICO, and intentional infliction of emotional distress survive because they are based in part on fraudulent omissions, as opposed to affirmative misstatements. Fraudulent omissions, Gaddy argues, do not require a determination of the truth or falsity of the underlying statements because liability may be based on the omission of material facts. Because her claims are based in part on material omissions, rather than falsity, she argues the First Amendment does not bar them. This argument ignores the analysis required to adjudicate a Utah fraud claim based on omissions. At bottom, Gaddy’s omission theory still requires the court to examine religious doctrines and teachings, and determine whether they are false or misleading absent additional disclosure. This draws the court directly into the entanglement with religious liberty that courts are instructed to avoid. ... {T}he court can no better evaluate the allegedly misleading nature of a statementconcerning religious belief or doctrine than it can a false statement. That is, the court cannot evaluate the misleading nature of the Church’s statements without first ascertaining a certain truth about the matters at issue before then deciding whether the statement made could lead a listener to draw a conclusion at odds with that truth unless the Church made some additional statements. And even then, the court would have to decide what additional statements would be required to render the initial statement truthful and non-misleading. Here, Gaddy’s allegations of material omissions concern the First Vision, translations of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, locations of events described in the Book of Mormon, and the Church’s history with polygamy. These allegations directly implicate the truth of the Church’s teachings concerning these matters. As the court has already articulated, the First Amendment bars this inquiry. 4. Gaddy's New Claim - Utah Charitable Solicitations Act The court found that Gaddy's claim under the state statute - the "Charitable Solicitations Act" - fails for the same reasons as above: Quote The Utah Charitable Solicitations Act (the Act) prohibits, “[i]n connection with any solicitation, . . . making any untrue statement of a material fact or failing to state a material fact necessary to make statements made, in the context of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading[.] ” Gaddy alleges the Church’s “solicitation” of tithing violates the Utah Charitable Solicitations Act because it has intentionally concealed or omitted material facts about the Church’s history. ... Gaddy’s claim still fails because it impermissibly requires a determination of the truth of the Church’s religious teachings. The allegedly untrue or misleading facts underlying Gaddy’s claim are those relating to “Mormonism and the [] Church’s key historical events, including but not limited to the first vision, character of Joseph Smith and the source of Church’s scripture[.]” These facts directly implicate the truth of the Church’s teachings. That is, the Church can only be liable under the Act for “making any untrue statement” or “failing to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made . . . not misleading[.]” As the court has already determined, the First Amendment bars this inquiry when the statements at issue concern religious beliefs and doctrine. 5. Gaddy's New Claim - Alternative RICO Theory (City Creek) Here the court finally found a legal claim that could possibly avoid immediate dismissal: Quote The court previously dismissed Gaddy’s civil RICO claim. She reasserts the claim in her Amended Complaint, but includes in the amended claim a new alternative theory of liability. Gaddy’s new theory is based on statements by Church leaders related to the use of tithing funds, i.e., that the funds would not be used for commercial purposes. Gaddy alleges these statements were false because tithing funds were in fact used for commercial purposes, including the development of the commercial City Creek Mall in Salt Lake City, Utah. ... In its Prior Order, the Court dismissed Gaddy’s civil RICO claim because it rested on theories that depended on the truth or falsity of the Church’s religious statements communicated through the mails and wires. Gaddy’s new theory alleges the Church made misstatements of fact through the mail and wire communications about how the Church used or planned to use tithing funds.150 Gaddy alleges the Church used several billion dollars of principal tithing funds for profit-making business entity expenses, including the development of City Creek Mall. She further alleges the Church simultaneously and falsely assured members that “tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire [the mall]. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes. ... As alleged in the Amended Complaint, the court concludes Gaddy’s third alternative civil RICO theory is based on a secular dispute concerning statements by Church leadership about the specific ways tithing, once received, would in fact be spent. Justice Jackson provided a helpful example in his dissenting Ballard opinion in the context of criminal convictions based on misrepresentations of religious beliefs. There, he distinguished liability for fraud based on religious expressions with liability based on the misuse of donations, stating: “I do not doubt that religious leaders may be convicted of fraud for making false representations on matters otherthan faith or experience, as for example if one represents that funds are being used to construct a church when in fact they are being used for personal purposes.” This example highlights the distinction between the religious teachings behind the principle of tithing, and the Church’s statements to its members about its use of tithing proceeds. Here, Gaddy does not challenge the Church’s tithing doctrine or teachings related to it. ... Gaddy has instead challenged secular representations concerning the use of money received by the Church. While the statements were made by Church officials, the church autonomy doctrine does not apply as a defense. The Church has not asserted any other challenge to Gaddy’s RICO claim based on this alternative theory of liability. Accordingly, Gaddy’s RICO claim based only on this alternative theory survives the Church’s Motion to Dismiss. The court also gave Gaddy 30 days (from July 28, 2021) to request permission to file a second amended complaint (her previous request having been denied as premature). On August 23, 2021, Gaddy asked for an extension of time to file a motion seeking permission to file a second amended complaint and the court granted it the next day (the Church did not oppose it). In sum, the new claim, based on representations about City Creek, is the only one that survived dismissal. However, it looks like Gaddy will be asking for permission to file a second amended complaint in which she will once again try to resurrect the previously-dismissed claims and/or find new claims to present. A few closing thoughts: I think the court's analysis is substantively correct. While I think Gaddy's "City Creek"-based RICO claim will fail on both factual and legal grounds, I think it was sufficiently coherent to survive immediate dismissal. Granting a "motion to dismiss" is supposed to be a rarity, but it happens fairly often where the complaint is substantively defective and fails to meet even the minimal procedural requirements to commence a lawsuit. I think Gaddy's lawsuit will end up addressing the same points as are likely to be hashed out in the Huntsman lawsuit. Is there a difference between tithed funds and profit/interest/earnings generated from investment of tithed funds? I think the answer is yes, but we'll see what the courts have to say. I am curious as to what Gaddy will present to the court with her third iteration of a complaint against the Church. Procedurally, she will need to file a motion asking for permission to file a proposed "second amended complaint," and the Church will have an opportunity to oppose that motion. If Gaddy tries to yet again present claims that require the court to adjudicate the Church's doctrines/teachings, I think the court will now allow Gaddy to file the proposed second amended complaint. We'll have to wait and see what is in it (a draft of the second amended complaint will be included as an exhibit to the motion). The docket does not specify how much additional time Gaddy has to file the motion. It's probably thirty days, or until the end of September. Thanks, -Smac Edited August 30, 2021 by smac97 6
JustAnAustralian Posted August 31, 2021 Posted August 31, 2021 It looks like she's waiting to see what happens with the Huntsman lawsuit.
JustAnAustralian Posted August 31, 2021 Posted August 31, 2021 15 hours ago, smac97 said: The docket does not specify how much additional time Gaddy has to file the motion. It's probably thirty days, or until the end of September. September 27th deadline
smac97 Posted September 23, 2021 Author Posted September 23, 2021 On 8/31/2021 at 12:20 AM, JustAnAustralian said: September 27th deadline We're coming up on this deadline. I will be interested to see what Gaddy's lawyer comes up with. As noted above, it looks like her only potentially viable legal claim (I use that phrase in its loosest sense) pertains to purportedly fraudulent statements made in relation to City Creek. We saw Huntsman's lawsuit - also based on that theory - dismissed on the merits just a few weeks ago. It seems pretty likely that the demise Gaddy's lawsuit is a matter of when, not if. I don't think Gaddy's lawyer will voluntarily abandon it, so that leaves A) dismissal on a Motion to Dismiss or B) dismissal on a Motion for Summary Judgment. A "motion to dismiss" assumes the validity of the factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint, but then challenges the legal right to relief based on those assumed-to-be-true facts. Here, the court has previously found that Gaddy does not have a legal right to relief (except possibly for the City Creek claim), but has given her a few more opportunities to try to get her pleading right. The 9/27 deadlilne is for Gaddy's lawyer to file an amended complaint that will then be reviewed again by the court. I wonder if it is possible for the federal judge in Utah to, in a Rule 12 "motion to dismiss" context, take judicial notice of the decision from the federal judge in California that heard the Huntsman lawsuit. Thoughts, lawyers? Thanks, -Smac 1
JustAnAustralian Posted September 29, 2021 Posted September 29, 2021 (edited) Something has been filed Quote Sep 28, 2021 Enforce Judgment AND Extension of Time to Amend I'm pushing my free PACER limit for this quarter, so too much stuff to view, but these are the documents filed Quote Document Number: 105 19 pages 263 kb Attachment Description 1 Supplement Proposed 2AC 197 pages 6.7 mb 2 Exhibit No. 1 LDSPFCR 71 pages 13.4 mb 3 Exhibit No. 2 1826 Judge Neely Docket 6 pages 222 kb 4 Exhibit No. 3 1812 Book of Abraham Fraud 2 pages 1.1 mb 5 Exhibit No. 4. JS Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet 25 pages 1.4 mb 6 Exhibit No. 5 Declaration of David Nielsen 6 pages 1.8 mb 7 Exhibit No. 6 2010 Use Proper Sources 4 pages 37 kb 8 Exhibit No. 7 Table of Direct Gold Plate Translation 3 pages 1.3 mb I thought she'd given up on the doctrinal side of things. Though David Nielsen's work has shown up here too (as should be expected). edit: Looks like DocketBird has them https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Gaddy-v-Corporation-of-the-President-of-the-Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-Day-Saints-the/utd-2:2019-cv-00554 You would think the lawyer who prepared all this would know better than to repeat all the things the judge previously tossed out) Edited September 29, 2021 by JustAnAustralian 2
smac97 Posted September 29, 2021 Author Posted September 29, 2021 6 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said: Something has been filed I'm pushing my free PACER limit for this quarter, so too much stuff to view, but these are the documents filed I thought she'd given up on the doctrinal side of things. Though David Nielsen's work has shown up here too (as should be expected). edit: Looks like DocketBird has them https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Gaddy-v-Corporation-of-the-President-of-the-Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-Day-Saints-the/utd-2:2019-cv-00554 You would think the lawyer who prepared all this would know better than to repeat all the things the judge previously tossed out) The amended complaint, which is supposed to be a "short and plain statement" of the facts and claims, is 167 pages long. Oi. 1
Chum Posted September 29, 2021 Posted September 29, 2021 The one thing I learned about RICO is that it's not RICO.* * it isn't never RICO but pretty close. Allegations of RICO are rarely correct.
smac97 Posted September 29, 2021 Author Posted September 29, 2021 8 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said: Something has been filed I'm pushing my free PACER limit for this quarter, so too much stuff to view, but these are the documents filed I thought she'd given up on the doctrinal side of things. Though David Nielsen's work has shown up here too (as should be expected). edit: Looks like DocketBird has them https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Gaddy-v-Corporation-of-the-President-of-the-Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-Day-Saints-the/utd-2:2019-cv-00554 You would think the lawyer who prepared all this would know better than to repeat all the things the judge previously tossed out) I've skimmed through the proposed Second Amended Complaint. A few thoughts: 1. It is way too long. 197 pages of text (by way of comparison, the first Amended Complaint was 65 pages long). I am surprised how often experienced attorneys conflate quantity with quality, how often they take a "throw everything against the wall and see how much of it sticks" approach to drafting a complaint. This approach doesn't exactly endear them to the judge or the judge's clerks, who are then obligated to slog through dozens and dozens of pages of what is supposed to be "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." 2. There are a lot of typos, grammatical errors, formatting errors, etc. For example, paragraph 27 references "Angel Moron" and "the Lamanites (who are today’s Native American ancestors)..."). 3. There are dozens and dozens of pages (up to page 91) that meander through the history and doctrines of the Church. It's a haphazard mélange that reminds me quite a bit of the CES Letter (though, ironically, it's not nearly as coherently written and organized as the letter). 4. Gaddy's lawsuit alleges fraud, the sine qua non of which is a false statement (or statements) of material fact. The Second Amended Complaint doesn't seem to get around to identifying the purported false statements. She tries to identify statements in paragraphs 143-145, but I don't think she succeeds. In paragraphs 147-165 she tries to make out a claim of fraud based on artistic depictions of Joseph Smith translating directly from the Gold Plates (as opposed to using a seerstone). There are lots and lots of claimed "misrepresentations" about the founding events of the Restoration. For example, consider paragraph 283: "As of July 23, 2019, there remain pictures on the LDS.org website of two personagesappearing to founder Smith, and of Smith translating directly from gold plates, no seer stone." There are also a lot of claims of misrepresentations or omissions about how tithing is used. 5. The causes of action are 1) "Fraud in the Inducement to Enter into an Oral Contract," 2) "Fraudulent Nondisclosure (Breach of Duty to Disclose Material Information)," 3) "Fraudulent Concealment," 4) "Constructive Fraud Based on Breach of Promises of Future Performance," 5) "Violation of the Utah Charitable Solicitations Act," 6) "Civl RICO - 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)," 7) (erroneously referenced as a second "sixth" cause of action) "Intentional (Reckless) Infliction of Emotional Distress." Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted September 29, 2021 Author Posted September 29, 2021 24 minutes ago, ttribe said: This will go nowhere. Well, it's possible it will survive a motion to dismiss, but I think it will eventually not go anywhere. Thanks, -Smac
JustAnAustralian Posted October 15, 2021 Posted October 15, 2021 5 pages of corrections have been submitted. I would have thought they would have the material down pat by now since they just keep recycling the same stuff.
smac97 Posted October 15, 2021 Author Posted October 15, 2021 3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said: 5 pages of corrections have been submitted. I would have thought they would have the material down pat by now since they just keep recycling the same stuff. Hoo, boy. Gaddy's attorney seems to be . . . struggling. By way of context: On March 31, 2020 the court dismissed the entirety of Gaddy's original Complaint. A link to the court's "Memorandum Decision" of that date is here. On July 28, 2021 the court entered a "Memorandum Decision" (document "100" in the docket) dismissing most of the claims in the {First} Amended Complaint (link here), but allowed one claim (for Civil RICO) to survive. The court also gave her 30 days to file a motion for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint. On August 23, 2021, Gaddy filed a motion asking for an extension of time to file a motion for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint. The court granted it the next day (the Church did not oppose it). The new deadline for this motion was September 27. On September 27, 2021, Gaddy filed a "MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend 100 Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Memorandum Decision and Memorandum in Support of Mtn. for Leave to File 2AC, MOTION to Enforce Judgment and Memorandum in Support." Here is a link to this document. In this document Gaddy is asking the court for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint (a copy of which is attached as an exhibit to this document, see here). The last part of the document's title, "MOTION to Enforce Judgment and Memorandum in Support," is confusing. What "judgment" is it that Gaddy is asking the judge to "enforce"? Also, this document is document "105" in the docket (relevant to the next bit, below). On October 5, 2021, Gaddy filed a "MOTION to Amend/Correct 105 MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend 100 Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Memorandum Decision and Memorandum in Support of Mtn. for Leave to File 2AC MOTION to Enforce Judgment and Memorandum in Support Motion and Memorandum in Support." Again, I don't want to spend the money to download this document, but I think this document is intended to amend the September 27 document. On October 12, 2021, the Church filed a "RESPONSE to Motion re 105 MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend 100 Order on Motion for Leave to File." That is, the Church filed a response to Gaddy's September 27 filing. On October 13, the following docket item was entered (apparently by the court): Quote Motions No Longer Referred: 105 MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend 100 Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Memorandum Decision and Memorandum in Support of Mtn. for Leave to File 2AC MOTION to Enforce Judgment and Memorandum in Support Motion, 106 MOTION to Amend/Correct 105 MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend 100 Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Memorandum Decision and Memorandum in Support of Mtn. for Leave to File 2A (mjm) (Entered: 10/13/2021) I think this is a heads-up from the court to the parties that Gaddy's request for permission to file the Second Amended Complaint will be heard by the Article III judge assigned to the case, rather than the magistrate judge. For the non-lawyers reading this: Typically when we think of a "federal" judge, we are thinking of a judge appointed to the federal bench by the President under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. This is the lifetime appointment kind of judge. The one assigned to Gaddy's case is Judge Robert Shelby. However, there are only five federal judges in Utah, so they are pretty busy. Federal judges will therefore often "refer" (assign) non-dispositive motions (that is, motions that address some part of the lawsuit, but do not reach a final decision about the entirety of the suit) to a magistrate judge, the decisions of which are subject to review by the Article III judge. In the Gaddy matter, the assigned magistrate judge is Dustin Pead. While Judge Shelby authored the July 28 "Memorandum Decision," Gaddy's August 23, September 27 and October 5 motions had perviously been referred to Judge Pead. However, I think the docket entry dated October 13 is an indication to the parties that Judge Shelby, rather than Judge Pead, is going to hear all of these motions. I suspect that Judge Shelby is taking over these motions because, well, Gaddy's attorney is making a big fat mess of the court's docket. The more I read Kay Burningham's stuff, I am beginning to suspect that she's not writing this stuff. She was admitted to the bar in 1985. It's hard to imagine someone with 36 years of litigation experience could be writing such dreck. I can certainly understand a few errors and typos here and there, but the Second Amended Complaint is a trainwreck. Way too long. Meandering. Stultifying. And it compounds the errors of the previous versions of Gaddy's complaint. I don't think she (Burningham) wrote it. I think she has some over-enthusiastic law student intern or paralegal doing the drafting. Note that it was filed on September 27, the last possible day to do so. And this is after the judge gave her an extension of the filing deadline. Thanks, -Smac 1
Kenngo1969 Posted October 15, 2021 Posted October 15, 2021 2 hours ago, smac97 said: ... The more I read Kay Burningham's stuff, I am beginning to suspect that she's not writing this stuff. She was admitted to the bar in 1985. It's hard to imagine someone with 36 years of litigation experience could be writing such dreck. I can certainly understand a few errors and typos here and there, but the Second Amended Complaint is a trainwreck. Way too long. Meandering. Stultifying. And it compounds the errors of the previous versions of Gaddy's complaint. I don't think she (Burningham) wrote it. I think she has some over-enthusiastic law student intern or paralegal doing the drafting. Note that it was filed on September 27, the last possible day to do so. And this is after the judge gave her an extension of the filing deadline. Thanks, -Smac Here's the thing, though: She signed these documents. It doesn't matter who drafted 'em. She signed 'em. If she were to face possible discipline over some aspect of these documents—if, for example (and please understand, Dear Reader: I'm not accusing her of anything, I'm simply using this as an example), the drafter were to cite a case that does not stand for the proposition for which the drafter [and by extension, the attorney] claims it stands—"my paralegal done it" or "my student intern done it" won't fly. If her signature is on those documents, even though someone else drafted 'em, she's responsible for that person's work: supervising, overseeing, double-checking (or having someone else who is licensed—a more junior attorney, perhaps—supervise, oversee, and double-check). So either she would be laboring under the same misconception under which her drafter labored (about the proposition for which the case stands), or she would open herself up to the allegation (potentially) that she cited a case as support for a certain proposition knowing that the case does not, in fact, support that proposition. Nope. "My paralegal done it" or "my student intern done it" don't fly, 'cause you're supposed to be supervising those folks, Ma'am. If you're too busy to supervise those folks, you need to pink-slip 'em and do the work yourself, because, either way, you're responsible for it. 1
JustAnAustralian Posted October 22, 2021 Posted October 22, 2021 (edited) Looks like the church is giving her enough time to lose her own case. Quote On October 12, 2021, the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints (the LDS Church) filed its Responses to Motions for Leave.3 In that response, the LDS Church provided written consent, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), for Gaddy’s Motion for Leave to File as well as Gaddy’s Motion to Amend.4 The LDS Church also requested that “Gaddy make all changes referenced in her motion, as well as any other edits she deems necessary prior to filing the new Second Amended Complaint,” “result[ing] in a single document containing all the operative allegations in this case.”5 Under Rule 15(a)(2), a party may amend its pleading with the opposing party’s written consent.6 Accordingly, the Motion for Leave is GRANTED and the Motion to Amend is also GRANTED. Gaddy is directed to file the Second Amended Complaint within seven (7) days. Additionally, the court directs Gaddy to make all changes referenced in her Motion to Amend and any other necessary edits so that the Second Amended Complaint contains all operative allegations in this case. The LDS Church shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date the Second Amended Complaint is filed to file an Answer or responsive pleading. SO ORDERED this 15th day of October, 2021. We should be seeing her final amended complaint pop up in the next day or so. My guess for the church response (which is likely mostly already prepared) Tithing fraud claim denied for the same reasons as huntsman's lawsuit All other claims denied as they relate to religious beliefs/doctrine, just like last time you tried this, and the time before.... Edited October 22, 2021 by JustAnAustralian 2
smac97 Posted October 22, 2021 Author Posted October 22, 2021 On 10/15/2021 at 9:11 AM, Kenngo1969 said: Here's the thing, though: She signed these documents. It doesn't matter who drafted 'em. She signed 'em. Yes, that's true. I'm not denying the legal effect of her signature. I'm just trying to understand how such a poorly-drafted document ended up getting filed in federal court, particularly given the moderate notoriety and media coverage this lawsuit has garnered. Thanks, -Smac 1
JustAnAustralian Posted October 23, 2021 Posted October 23, 2021 (edited) And it's been filed 203 page document with 117 pages of attachments Document Number: 110 203 pages 6.9 mb Attachment Description 1 Exhibit LDS Personal Faith Crisis 71 pages 13.4 mb 2 Exhibit 1826 Judge Neely Docket 6 pages 222 kb 3 Exhibit 1912 NYT Book of Abraham Fraud 2 pages 1.1 mb 4 Exhibit JS 1835 Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet 25 pages 1.4 mb 5 Exhibit Declaration of David A. Nielsen 6 pages 1.8 mb 6 Exhibit 2010 Deseret News "Use Proper Sources" 4 pages 37 kb 7 Exhibit Decades Table of Direct Gold Plates Translation Art 3 pages 1.3 mb Court listener for main document https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.116009/gov.uscourts.utd.116009.110.0.pdf Right from point 1 (well I guess technically footnote 1 of point 1) she's starting with things that are clearly in the realm of what has previously been tossed out. Edited October 23, 2021 by JustAnAustralian 2
Kenngo1969 Posted October 23, 2021 Posted October 23, 2021 Here's a dumb question for anyone who likes answering dumb questions: How does class-action litigation work? At what point is a class certified? Has the class for this class action been certified already? Have a bunch of "similarly situated" malcontents joined Ms. Gaddy in her quixotic quest to bring down the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
The Nehor Posted October 23, 2021 Posted October 23, 2021 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: Here's a dumb question for anyone who likes answering dumb questions: How does class-action litigation work? At what point is a class certified? Has the class for this class action been certified already? Have a bunch of "similarly situated" malcontents joined Ms. Gaddy in her quixotic quest to bring down the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Court has to certify that a class action status is warranted and reasonable for the plaintiffs by certifying it. This happens before the hearings and/or settlements over the merits start. If the class action case survives early dismissal they would have to make an effort to contact anyone who could be part of the class action to let them know they can opt in. I don’t think this case will get that far. IANAL and Utah law could be different from what I know when I researched it due to being part of few such lawsuits. Most of what I know comes from being part of four (iirc) class action lawsuits over the years. Got checks for all four. Usually took about a year from me being notified iirc. 1
JustAnAustralian Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 On 10/23/2021 at 9:04 PM, JustAnAustralian said: Right from point 1 (well I guess technically footnote 1 of point 1) she's starting with things that are clearly in the realm of what has previously been tossed out. And the church in their reply has called her out on it.
JustAnAustralian Posted December 6, 2021 Posted December 6, 2021 (edited) I'm reading the latest motion to file an overlength reply from Gaddy. ( https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.116009/gov.uscourts.utd.116009.112.0.pdf ) Is her lawyer giving her any legal advice at all, or just signing her name off on Gaddy's comments? Edited December 6, 2021 by JustAnAustralian 1
smac97 Posted December 6, 2021 Author Posted December 6, 2021 For those who are interested, here is a link to Gaddy's Second Amended Complaint, and here is a link to the Church's attorneys' Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss is pretty good, and I anticipate that it will be granted. Thanks, -Smac 1
JustAnAustralian Posted December 6, 2021 Posted December 6, 2021 4 hours ago, smac97 said: The Motion to Dismiss is pretty good, and I anticipate that it will be granted. As much fun as it is seeing her flailing around - for example by claiming the church said "“all ‘purely secular’ allegations should be stricken.”" when in fact they said " ALL NON “PURELY SECULAR” ALLEGATIONS SHOULD BE STRICKEN." - I agree. It's gone on long enough, Gaddy should probably try and move on for her own mental wellbeing.
Calm Posted December 6, 2021 Posted December 6, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said: Is her lawyer giving her any legal advice at all, or just signing her name off on Gaddy's comments? One of her co-plaintiffs looks like he could likely fund a lot of hours of legal advice (haven’t found much on Gaddy besides a couple of paragraphs of how devoted she was to the Church and how controlling it was of her life; possibly found her home, if so, she is not rich, I would guess). The name isn’t a common one, so assuming it is him, I could be wrong, haven’t spent time seeing if he went to BYU, for example. The last name is common enough, nothing jumps out except one, but I don’t know how to search Twitter to find an older tweet. Was interested to see what history as critics they might have. Haven’t spent much time, but not seeing anything but the lawsuit. https://www.profoodworld.com/home/company/13277877/chromatic-technologies-inc There is some very useful technology in there. Edited December 6, 2021 by Calm
JustAnAustralian Posted December 16, 2021 Posted December 16, 2021 Looks like her lawyer finally turned up https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.116009/gov.uscourts.utd.116009.118.0.pdf 1
Recommended Posts