Bistline et al v. Jeffs et al
Filing
165
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER LIMITING TESTIMONY AT TRIAL. See order for details. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 9/23/2022. (rlr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
ALICIA ROHBOCK; RUBY JESSOP;
SUSAN BROADBENT; GINA
ROHBOCK; NOLAN BARLOW; JASON
BLACK; MAY MUSSER; HOLLY
BISTLINE; LAWRENCE BARLOW;
STEVEN DOCKSTADER; MARVIN
COOKE; HELEN BARLOW; VERGEL
BARLOW; CAROLE JESSOP; BRIELL
LIBERTAE DECKER, fka LYNETTE
WARNER; AMY NIELSON; SARAH
ALLRED; THOMAS JEFFS; and
JANETTA JESSOP,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER LIMITING TESTIMONY AT
TRIAL
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 2:16-CV-788 TS
WARREN STEED JEFFS, RODNEY R.
PARKER; SNOW CHRISTENSEN &
MARTINEAU, P.C.; DAVID SLAGLE;
JOHN R. LUND; MAX WHEELER;
DAVID SLAUGHTER; ANDREW
MORSE; RICHARD VAN WAGONER;
FREDERICK GEDICKS; JOHN GATES;
and John Does I through X,
District Judge Ted Stewart
Defendants.
This matter is set for a bench trial to begin on September 26, 2022. Warren Steed Jeffs,
the sole remaining defendant, is in default. Plaintiffs seek a default judgment against Jeffs in an
amount to be proven at the upcoming bench trial. “A defendant’s default does not itself warrant
the court entering a default judgment.” 1 Before entering a default judgment, a court must ensure
1
Bixler v. Foster, 596 F.3d 751, 762 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v.
Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)).
1
“that the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party in default does
not admit mere conclusions of law.’” 2
Plaintiffs’ claims against Jeffs include (1) common law fraud under Utah law; and (2)
violations under the civil remedies statute of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act (TVPRA). 3
First, to state a claim for fraud under Utah law, a party must allege sufficient facts to
support:
(1) that a representation was made (2) concerning a presently existing material fact
(3) which was false and (4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false or (b)
made recklessly, knowing that there was insufficient knowledge upon which to base
such a representation, (5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it
and (6) that the other party, acting reasonably and in ignorance of its falsity, (7) did
in fact rely upon it (8) and was thereby induced to act (9) to that party’s injury and
damage. 4
Second, under the civil remedies statute of the TVPRA, “an individual who is a victim of
a violation of [the TVPRA] may bring a civil action against the perpetrator . . . in an appropriate
district court of the United States and may recover damages and reasonable attorneys fees.” 5
While the Complaint generally asserts Plaintiffs’ ability to recover damages under this statute,
neither the Complaint nor the Trial Brief filed by Plaintiffs specifies the criminal statute or
statutes within the TVPRA that they allege Jeffs violated.
2
Id. (quoting 10A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2688, at 63 (3d ed. 1998)).
3
18 U.S.C. § 1595.
4
Armed Forces Ins. Exch. v. Harrison, 2003 UT 14, ¶ 16, 70 P.3d 35.
5
18 U.S.C. § 1595.
2
Plaintiffs are directed that testimony offered at trial should focus on those facts that will
support Plaintiffs’ individual claims against Jeffs specifically for fraud and for violations of the
TVPRA, including any facts that tie specific wrongful actions alleged to have been taken by Jeffs
to the specific harm alleged to be suffered by individual Plaintiffs.
Regarding damages to be proven at trial, the Court understands that damages for common
law fraud 6 and damages under a TVPRA civil action 7 may be awarded in the form of actual
damages, which includes economic and non-economic damages such as emotional distress, and
punitive damages. Plaintiffs are also directed that testimony offered at trial should focus on facts
supporting both actual and punitive damages that Plaintiffs allegedly suffered as a result of Jeffs’
specific actions.
It is therefore
ORDERED that testimony submitted by Plaintiffs in the Bench Trial scheduled for
September 26, 2022, be limited to testimony that either (1) supplements or reiterates facts alleged
in the Complaint to support Plaintiffs’ claims against Jeffs specifically; and (2) provides
information that will assist the Court in determining the amount of damages to which each
Plaintiff is entitled—actual or punitive—as a result of Jeffs’ wrongful actions.
6
Diversified Holdings, L.C. v. Turner, 2002 UT 129, ¶ 16, 63 P.3d 686 (“While punitive
damages may appropriately be awarded for fraud, the imposition of an award so disproportionate
to the actual damages suffered must be justified by more than the mere fact of fraud.”).
7
Francisco v. Susano, 525 F. App’x 828, 834–35 (10th Cir. 2013) (“permitting punitive
damages is consistent with Congress’ purposes in enacting the TVPA and later including a civil
remedy in the TVPRA, which include increased protection for victims of trafficking and
punishment of traffickers.”) (quoting Ditullio v. Boehm, 662 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2011)).
3
DATED this 23rd day of September, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
Ted Stewart
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?