Bistline v. Parker
918 F.3d 849
10th Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (former FLDS members) sued FLDS Prophet Warren Jeffs and his lawyers (Snow Christensen & Martineau and partner Rodney Parker), alleging the lawyers helped design and perpetuate a legal scheme (notably the 1998 Reinstated United Effort Plan Trust) that enabled child sexual abuse, forced labor, extortion, and other harms.
- Plaintiffs allege SC&M and Parker repeatedly held themselves out as individually representing FLDS parishioners, solicited and received large attorney-fee donations from members (including from minors or their labor), and concealed material facts about Jeffs and the Trust.
- Plaintiffs asserted claims for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, RICO, and TVPRA violations; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and on statute-of-limitations grounds.
- The district court dismissed nearly all non-TVPRA claims as time-barred and dismissed the surviving plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a claim; it also dismissed TVPRA and RICO claims for failure to state a claim.
- The Tenth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part: it held that, viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, (1) factual disputes exist about implied attorney-client relationships and tolling of limitations (discovery/fraudulent concealment) for many plaintiffs, and (2) nine plaintiffs plausibly alleged TVPRA §1589 forced-labor venture liability against the lawyers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of implied attorney-client relationships | Plaintiffs: SC&M/Parker repeatedly held out they represented individual FLDS members and solicited fees; members reasonably (and subjectively) believed they were individually represented | Defs: Representation of the church or drafting Trust documents does not imply representation of each member; risk of slippery slope | Court: Reversed dismissal as to 15 plaintiffs — facts permit a reasonable factfinder to infer implied individual attorney-client relationships; remand for factual determination |
| Statute of limitations / discovery rule for fraud and malpractice | Plaintiffs: extreme isolation, indoctrination, and active concealment by leaders and lawyers delayed discovery; equitable tolling/fraudulent concealment applies | Defs: Key events (Trust, fee collections, public prosecutions) occurred long before filing; plaintiffs had notice and duty to inquire earlier | Court: Many claims are not susceptible to dismissal at pleading stage because factual dispute exists when plaintiffs reasonably should have discovered the claims; some plaintiffs (with clear earlier escapes/discovery) are time-barred as a matter of law |
| TVPRA (18 U.S.C. §1589) – venture liability for forced labor/services | Plaintiffs: Jeffs and FLDS were primary actors; SC&M/Parker knowingly benefited from and participated in a venture that procured forced labor/sexual services (fees funded by coerced labor); lawyers aided/maintained scheme and acquiesced | Defs: Lawyers merely drafted Trust documents or represented clients; that is insufficient to establish participation in a venture or to make them vicariously liable for clients’ criminal acts | Court: For nine plaintiffs, allegations plausibly show forced labor/sexual services and that SC&M/Parker knowingly benefited from and participated in the venture — TVPRA claims survive at pleading stage |
| RICO claims and other causes | Plaintiffs: alleged defendants aided a criminal enterprise; RICO pleaded | Defs: Claims inadequately pled | Court: RICO claims forfeited on appeal (plaintiffs’ opening brief did not develop the argument), so court did not address merits |
Key Cases Cited
- SEC v. Shields, 744 F.3d 633 (10th Cir. 2014) (pleading-stage standard and view of factual allegations on motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility framework for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Kaufman, 546 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) (TVPRA analysis; forced sexual acts can constitute labor/services)
- Ricchio v. McLean, 853 F.3d 553 (1st Cir. 2017) (TVPRA venture liability where third parties knowingly benefited from exploitation)
- Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City, 156 P.3d 806 (Utah 2007) (discovery rule and accrual under Utah law)
- Berenda v. Langford, 914 P.2d 45 (Utah 1996) (statutory discovery rule; fraudulent concealment tolling is fact-intensive)
- Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 108 P.3d 741 (Utah 2005) (fraudulent concealment and discovery-rule principles)
- Christensen & Jensen, P.C. v. Barrett & Daines, 194 P.3d 931 (Utah 2008) (elements of legal malpractice)
- Kilpatrick v. Wiley, Rein & Fielding, 37 P.3d 1130 (Utah 2001) (implied attorney-client relationship test)
- Margulies v. Upchurch, 696 P.2d 1195 (Utah 1985) (entity representation vs. individual members)
- Roderick v. Ricks, 54 P.3d 1119 (Utah 2002) (ongoing duty in attorney-client relationship)