Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Court of Appeals Briefs 2012 The undF amentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Thomas C. Horne; Bruce R. Wisan; Mark Shurtleff; Hon. Denise Posse Lindberg, and Richard Jeeop Ream, Thomas Samuel Steed; Don Ronald Fischer, Dean Joseph Barlow, Watler Scott iF scher, Richard Gilbert, and Brent Jeffs : Brief of Defendant-Appellant Thomas FCollo. wH thiors andne add Aitionralizon works aat :Atthttps://dorinegitalcyommon Gesne.law.bryal'u.edu/bs Oyu_ca3pening BrPiefart of the Law Commons OrUtahigin Calour Brtief of SAubmittppealsed to the Utah Court of Appeals; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Kenneth A. Okazaki, Stephen C. Clark; Jones, Waldo, Holbrook and McDonough; Rodney R. Parker, Rick Van Wagoner, Frederick Mark Gedicks; Snow, Christensen and Martineau; Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee. Thomas C. Horne; Attorney General; Mark P. Bookholder; Assistant Attorney General; Attorney for Defendat-appellant Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General. Recommended Citation Brief of Appellant, The Fundamentalist Church v. Wisan, No. 20120158 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2012). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca3/3048 This Brief of Appellant is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Court of Appeals Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCH OF No. 20120158-SC JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Plaintiff-Appellee, THOMAS C. HORNE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPENING BRIEF THOMAS C. HORNE; BRUCE R. WISAN; MARK SHURTLEFF; HON. DENISE POSSE LINDBERG, Matter on Certified Question Defendants-Appellants, and RICHARD JESSOP REAM, THOMAS SAMUEL STEED, DON RONALD FISCHER, DEAN JOSEPH BARLOW, WALTER SCOTT FISCHER, RICHARD GILBERT, and BRENT JEFFS, Intervenors-Appellants. Kenneth A. Okazaki Thomas C. Home Stephen C. Clark Attorney General Jones Waldo Holbrook & McDonough SLC Firm State Bar No. 14000 170 S. Main Street, Suite 1500 P.O. Box 45444 Mark P. Bookholder Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0444 Assistant Attorney General State Bar No. 025374 Richard A. Van Wagoner 1275 W. Washington Rodney R. Parker Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Frederick M. Gedicks (602) 542-8346 Snow Christensen & Martineau (602) 542-3393 (fax) tH 10 Exchange Place, 11 Floor [email protected] P.O. Box 45000 Salt Lake City, UT 84145 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant Thomas C. Home, Arizona Attom^vGe^raf'"-^^ Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee LLATE COURTS APR 1 9 2012 Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCH OF No. 20120158-SC JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Plaintiff-Appellee, THOMAS C. HORNE v. ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPENING BRIEF THOMAS C. HORNE; BRUCE R. WISAN; MARK SHURTLEFF; HON. DENISE POSSE LINDBERG, Matter on Certified Question Defendants-Appellants, and RICHARD JESSOP REAM, THOMAS SAMUEL STEED, DON RONALD FISCHER, DEAN JOSEPH BARLOW, WALTER SCOTT FISCHER, RICHARD GILBERT, and BRENT JEFFS, Intervenors-Appellants. Kenneth A. Okazaki Thomas C. Home Stephen C. Clark Attorney General Jones Waldo Holbrook & McDonough SLC Firm State Bar No. 14000 170 S. Main Street, Suite 1500 P.O. Box 45444 Mark P. Bookholder Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0444 Assistant Attorney General State Bar No. 025374 Richard A. Van Wagoner 1275 W. Washington Rodney R. Parker Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Frederick M. Gedicks (602) 542-8346 Snow Christensen & Martineau (602) 542-3393 (fax) 10 Exchange Place, 11th Floor [email protected] P.O. Box 45000 Salt Lake City, UT 84145 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant Thomas C. Home, Arizona Attorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee \ Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CITATIONS ii STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION CERTIFIED 1 CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY PROVISIONS 1 STATEMENT OF CASE 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 8 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 8 ARGUMENT 9 I. The Court Should Answer the Certified Question Affirmatively to Preserve the Purposes of Claim Preclusion - Ensuring Finality, Judicial Economy, and Avoiding Inconsistent Judicial Outcomes 9 II. A Determination that a Claim is Barred by Laches is a Detennination "On the Merits'5 Precluding Later Adjudication of the Same Claim 10 A. Under Rule 41(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, a Dismissal on the Basis of Laches Constitutes an "Adjudication Upon the Merits." 10 B. To Operate As an Adjudication "on the Merits," a Determination that Claims Are Barred by Laches Need Not Address Whether or Not the Plaintiff Would Have Succeeded on Their Claims in the Absence of the Prejudicial Delay 13 i C. A Written Decision Dismissing a Petition for Extraordinary Writ on the Basis that the Claim Is Barred By Laches Is a Decision "on the Merits" Barring Subsequent Litigation of the Same Claim 19 CONCLUSION 20 < CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 24(f)(1) 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 22 i Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. J TABLE OF CITATIONS Page Cases Allen v. Moyer, 2011 UT44, 259 P.3d 1049 9 American Nat 7 Bank & Trust Co. v. Chicago, 826F.2d 1547 (7th Cir. 1987) 14, 19 Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183 (1947) 14 Bichler v. DEISys., Inc., 2009 UT 635 220 P.3d 1203 11 Cannon v. Loyola Univ. of Chicago, 784 F.2d 777 (7th Cir. 1986) 12 Charlie Brown Const. Co. v. Leisure Sports Inc., 740 P.2d 1368 (Utah App. 1987) 18 Charlie Brown Const. Co. v. Leisure Sports Inc., 765 P.2d 1277 (Table) (Utah 1987) 18 Country Meadows Convalescent Ctr. v. Utah Dep't of Health, 851 P.2d 1212 (Utah App. 1993) 12 Curry v. Educoa Preschool Inc., 580 P.2d 222 (Utah 1978) 14 Dayv. WiswalVs Estate, 93 Ariz. 400, 381 P.2d 217 (1963) 13 Donahue v. Smith, 2001 UT 46, 27 P.3d 552 15 Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Lindberg, 2010 UT 51, 238 P.3d 1054 5, 6, 8, 12, 13 ii Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Gates v. Taylor, 2000 UT 33, 997 P.2d 903 19 Int 7 Res. v. Dunfield, 599 P.2d 515 (Utah 1979) 10 Jeffs v. Stubbs, 970 P.2d 1234 (Utah 1998) 8 Knoll v. Springfield Township Sch. Dist., 699 F.2d 137 (3d Cir. 1983) 17 Mackv. Utah Dep't of Commerce, 2009 UT 47, 221 P.3d 194 9 Madsen v. Borthick, 769 P.2d 245 (Utah 1988) 10 Miller v. USAACas.Ins. Co., 2002 UT 6, 44 P.3d 663 10, 12 Murphy v. Klein Tools, Inc., 935 F.2d 1127 (10th Cir. 1991) 17 Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863 (8th Cir. 1979) 17 Nathan v. Rowan, 651 F.2d 1223 (6th Cir. 1981) 17 Papanikolas Bros. Enters v. Sugarhouse Shopping Ctr. Assocs., 535 P.2d 1256 (Utah 1975) 13 Paxtonv. Ward, 199 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 1999) 12 Plautv. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 115 S.Ct. 1447(1995) 16 PRCHarris, Inc. v. Boeing Co., 700 F.2d 894 (2d Cir. 1983) 16 Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Rose v. Harwich, 778 F.2d 77 (1st Cir. 1985) 16 Shoup v. Bell & Howell Co., 872 F.2d 1178 (4th Cir. 1989) 17 Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 17 Smith v. Chicago, 820 F.2d 916 (7th Cir. 1987) 12 State v. Walker, 2011UT53,267P.3d21 9 Steve D. Thompson Trucking, Inc. v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 880 F.2d 818 (5th Cir. 1989) 17 Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg 7 Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2003) 17 Tucker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 54, 53 P.3d 947 11 Wakefield v. Cordis Corp., 304 Fed. Appx. 804, 2008 WL 5381432 (11th Cir. 2008) 17 Rules Utah R. Civ. P. 41(b) 10, 15 Other Authorities 18A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4435 (2d ed. 2012) 14, 16 Black's Law Dictionary 1117 (7th ed. 1999) 12 Statutes 23U.S.C. §1257 6 iv Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION CERTIFIED Under Utah preclusion law, is the Utah Supreme Court's discretionary review of a petition for extraordinary writ and subsequent dismissal on laches grounds a decision "on the merits" when it is accompanied by a written opinion, such that later adjudication of the same claim is barred? CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY PROVISIONS Utah R. Civ. P. 19. Joinder of persons needed for just adjudication. (a) Persons to be joined if feasible. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest.