As I mentioned a week and a half ago, oral arguments in James Huntsman’s suit against the church are scheduled for the 25th of this month, when the Ninth Circuit will hear them en banc.
I’ve been assuming that they would have to decide whether courts can adjudicate the religious definition of “tithing.” But about four days ago,[fn1] the court threw a wrench in that prediction. The clerk entered the following order:
“Some members of the en banc panel ask that the parties be prepared to discuss at oral argument whether plaintiff was domiciled in California when he filed the complaint. See Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1986) (discussing the presumption in favor of an established domicile as against a newly acquired one).” [fn2]
What to make of this? It looks like the court is worried that Huntsman might have been forum-shopping in 2021 when he filed his suit. He’s suing the church—an entity incorporated in Utah—in a California court. Why? In the complaint, he writes that “Plaintiff James Huntsman is a California resident who regularly conducts business in this state.” He goes on to say that, while the church is a Utah entity, it regularly does business in California.
If that’s all true, probably California courts are an appropriate place for the suit. But the case the order refers to says domicile is more than merely being in a jurisdiction: it requires both a physical presence and an intent to remain indefinitely.
So did Huntsman both live in and intend to remain in California when he filed the suit? I honestly have no idea. But the court is definitely interested in the question: if he was domiciled in Utah, not California, for instance, the suit should have been brought in a federal district court in Utah and appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
Why did the court wait until this late date to question his domicile? I don’t know. Will it make a difference in how the court rules? No idea. Was Huntsman domiciled in California? I really, really don’t know.
But it will at least affect the tenor of the oral argument.
[fn1] But I only saw it today as I was on Bloomberg Law for something else and clicked on the docket.