seeing you are religious entities or have some religious involvement and two that the board members could have some contingent responsibilities that impacted appointment of follow the well established standards for considering summary judgment motions it's been universally accepted that disputed facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party in that case that was the plaintiffs plaintiffs have brought their own motion for partial summary judgment with respect to affirmative defenses that the district court chose not to address concluded they were moved so we hear on the defendant's motion for summary judgment as such all disputed facts and inferences had to be construed in favor of the move of the nonmoving party people before we jump into the ecclesiastical exception of the minister or the ministerial exception that just the two doctrines that the district court relied could we could you just briefly address the statue limitations claim that raised in the the very end of the red brief correct which they argue  parties who can be made wrong doing and then conceal it can avoid the consequences of their acts in this particular case the evidence is clear the four members of the board that survived your budget and s s s see did not disclose that he had identified his successors they continue to operate as if they were the ones with exclusive control they did not implement the neutral principles requirement of the operating agreement in the bylaws they concealed all of those facts none of those facts became apparent that it seems it is less i'm mistaken something it's sure seems like the the plaintiffs knew that they had a right to be on the boards plate of new and even retained counsel at some point early on not with respect to this matter well let me let me advise let me explain if i might the and their father and the beach is husband yes i wanted them to serve within the organizations after his death they were never in possession of his designation of successor trustees they did not even know that he was required by the terms of the byelaws an operating agreement to provide that it was provided in secret to his lawyers it was not to be disclosed until his death they had no means of knowing that he had fulfilled the requirements set forth in the operating agreement in the bylaws that there was such a requirement all they knew is he wanted them to participate participate yet he died in two thousand  in writing as he was required to do nothing outside counsel that they retained could have obtained that information it was preserved secretly in the hands of roy lambert amongst the four members of the board for their own personal benefit they hid it from the world it only became apparent after a separate committee community of religious leaders challenge their attempt to sell the te company and benefit from it themselves only when that case went to trial did it become clear what the terms of the pilots in operating agreements were that your pension had fulfilled his portion and the facts had been concealed it has always been the law in the united states that substantial justice must be done and wrongdoers that try to cover up will not be shielded by the statue of limitations but you bunch move on to the other i'm sorry i didn't mean to consume all your time on this  just know it just struck me when i read their brief that raised the issue of concern nothing would have pleased this more than to know sooner what his intentions were so they could be fulfilled we did not know we could not know it was held from us and it only came out at the trial in the state court and even that discovery was held in secret confidential hearing learn about it in the discovery process in that case we asked for it we were not involved in that case we sought to intervene and with an eye that opportunity instead when the case finally went to trial and the evidence was put on from the witness stand and the documents were presented that is the  time that my clients became aware that your budget was in fact true when he said that he wanted them to participate had in fact done what he said he had to do provide a written designation and that had been subverted in concealed by his religious control along with all of the other activities which were non religious that he pursued under arrest ceci there was education the church activities there were all kinds of things that he did religion was only a small piece of it on his death he directed that those religious responsibilities had been relegated delegated to the city cigar and by ciba the see the s s as the remaining board was left to being a corporation sole responsible for management of the assets of the church only nothing further what do you have to manage those assets you know in conjunction with the overall purposes of the church no the recognition of a great corporation so i apologize i didn't mean to be harsh in my rose of the the whole point of a corporation so created under california law is that it is a caretaker of religious assets so that when there is a change in governance you owned soley by s s s e ok so the people who are on the board of s s a c and u i control the church they control the church by virtue of ownership not by virtue of duties the duties with respect to religious activities are exclusively within the hands of the church to be guided by a group of ministers called cults a council who appoints the calls like hell because the council is recommended by the group of ministers and as a matter of administrative authority is installed by as s s e live and so if your clients if we were to hold with your clients were entitled to become on the board of s s  when they in effect be able to effect the religious law no they would be only for three or four members among a group of fifteen they have no control they have a vote with respect to installation but that vote can only install those that have been recommended by culture council so there is a significant difference between the process of selection recommendation which is done wholly by ministers in connection with the church recommended to them consequently the board members had no involvement in religious activities but i think we go back to the fundamental rule yawners it's a summary judgment motion whether  religious organizations was hotly disputed between the parties that means a district court judge considering a summary judgment must disregard the challenges by the defendants must accept the testimony  the evidence presented by the plaintive must view the influences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and cannot have made this decision it should have been reserved for the finder of fact it was not judge mosman stuti or role to make those decision in the face of disputed facts in your view the finder of fact what if what material facts with the jury or the judge have to find in order to rule in your favor the board of s s s e was to be seated at the direction of yogi budget's selection his selection had nothing to do and was not guided for religious principles he had complete discretion he could choose on any basis whatsoever still haven't answered my question yet what would the finder of fact have to find  in order to rule in your favor let me try and answer that directly please the finder of fact would have to conclude that the selection of successors to yogi budget was in his hands in his hands alone but he made it that he was not guided or required to be guided by religious principles and the judgment motion but the whole doctrine applies you know at the time the judgment is entered you don't want juries making our judges making these kinds of ministerial or religious kinds of determinations in order to r for one side or the other but what the with the cases teach us what the supreme court is not this is that you want is that the decision has to be based on a neutral legal principle and the neutral legal  this so when the judge has to instruct the jury on the law that they're that the jury is supposed to apply what are the neutral principles that the judge will will instruct the jury on the terms of the bylaws and operating agreement which do not invoke any religious principles that specify that yogi budge and wants to designate his successors the fact that he did in fact designate successor and that no one had the right to overrule that or implemented a different course for establishing the succession to your budget the problem is there was a subtle reached right in two thousand and ten as a result of the state court la yoga pageant there is a neutral non religious non dogmatic specification yogi budge an all alone in his sole discretion without reference to any religious principles was to designate who succeeds him and he did that the fact that a state court judgement was set aside as part of a settlement agreement between disputing warring factions of the community that then result in a series of illegal elections is not grounds to tax filing for five hundred and one dollars c three established or is a five or once three c three organization but not a religious organization there's nothing in the record that says that judge the district court judge was simply wrong in saying that that there was  failed to do what he was supposed to do he did what he was supposed to do but it is important that the district court made rulings on disputed facts that he should not have with i let you go over your time by one minute sir the same standard effectively applies in the motions to dismiss and the right nine b standards that were applied are not being applied in harmony with the rule eight requirements the reality is ample facts and it's in our papers yet we  may please the court my name is paul southwick and i represent serious singsong corporation unto infinity and a number of other defendants in this matter this case is about the right to hold leadership positions it is not about an employment discrimination claim or an employment wage claim rather it's about leadership positions that are at the very heart of the hierarchy of the sikh dharma religion it's about those who would sit on the boards of the organizations that will personify the beliefs and mission of yogi budge and after his passing but opposing counsel for the organization  church are simply business and are not integral to the church doctrine what's your response to that my response to that is to look at the record and the record reveals the undisputed corporate governance documents that applied at the time of you keep death and when we look at those series singsong corporation was established as a religious nonprofit corporation and unto infinity and series singsong up had the following duties and these duties are not in dispute and privileges they had the right to appoint members of the cossack council as plaintiff's attorney today  acknowledged they are obligated to give reports to the calls of council at its by annual meetings and so their in their capacity as board members they report to the governing religious body they oversee the administration and programme services of sikh dharma international they personify its beliefs they carry out the mission they are external representatives of the fa interfaith gatherings and other interfaith activities they have the power to appoint and remove the board members of the operating church dharma international they have the power to change the very by loss o dharm international which established its mission they also have the power to select the successor religious office or the serious e car sabah and they had the power to decide whether yogi budge and at the end of his life was incapacitated such that the new religious leadership should take over now even if some of these powers were not exercised the fact that yogi budge and gave these trustees of these boards those powers demonstrates that we're not talking about a th grade teacher here we're not talking about a coach of a religious schools athletic team we're talking about religious leaders in this  he had the authority yogi budget and had the exclusive authority to decide who would be the successor to his office through representation or let me ask you this if that's all i mean isn't the dispute doesn't this just then boil down to whether or not he had the authority and whether or not he exercised that authority so it's not about whether he had the authority it is about whether he exercised ok so why does there have to get into the mill of opinion where it also struggle with how to say that what this circuit has done is in its prior cases it has been able to adjudicate secular disputes over title to both church property or even church trademark rights and intellectual property but what it has said it cannot do applying neutral principles or otherwise is to nd guess or time and time again when the court has allowed claims like the plaintiffs to go through it has clearly identified those plaintiffs as not holding leadership positions as not being annoying to the leaders by a high religious written out his wishes yeah exercised his authority so let and if that's true why isn't it just you know in the dispute and we could go through all about neutral principles right simple fact finding so i can we can walk through the neutral principles and how that would work but before i do that i'd like to see dharma is not a well known religion outside of the community i'd like to compare th more common religions that we are familiar with if one thinks about the catholic church and i know that this court does not have jurisdiction over the pope or the college of cardinals but let's say it did and the pope appointed members of the college of cardinals and other arch bishops said oh no the pope told me before he died in the new pope was elected that i was going to be on the college of cardinals and something went wrong there and so i am going to file a claim before a civil court and i was going to ask for a civil remedy that i be appointed to the college of cardinals and that a jury decide the true intent of the pope in making the appointments i think we could all agree that this court in any court in the united states would never make such a writing even if there was a riot in this court because of the constitution has said that in certain circumstances when we're talking about the very top leadership of a religious body are going to decline to provide a civil remedy that we would normally be inclined to provide in almost any other circumstance and that is because whoever is at the top of the church and can appoint the archbishop's the bishops dispute over not whether he exercised his authority but how he exercised his authority and so here's how we can run through an exercise of neutral principles and demonstrate why it doesn't work here and why it's too invasive so what your true principles would require a jury to find is they would have to identify st which of the secular governing documents were in effect at the time of yogi budges death that's probably something that they could do they could decide these articles of incorporation were in effect these bylaws were in effect ok were were fine there then they would have to read them and when they read them they would find that there is a very unique provision running through all of them and that provision is that there will be no board of these organizations until you know the budge and dies and the board that will come to life upon his death or incapacity will be a list of people in a written designation that would be signed by yogi budge and dated by yogi budge and delivered to the lawyer for the church which was roy lambert at the schwab a law firm and held in the vault until his death and which time it would be revealed ok we could even maybe follow that then a jury it's pretty easy bright lights there such as is there such a document so at st glance it might seem fairly easy but then here is where it breaks down there are three documents with different names some are dated s signed some are not dated there are also oral promises alleged by the plaintiffs that come into play here and so what and there was no document in the vault roy lambert testified and there's no evidence that open the vault there was any list so there is no list in the vault there are two lists floating around that didn't come to light until after his death one has thirteen names one has fourteen names and then there's what we call the sticky note in which some of the children's names that the plaintiffs who are the children of yogi budge and there is a note that they will be added to the board of s s s e and a purported signature by the budget so a jury's going to have to decide when yogi budge in died what were his wishes for succession to his power powers over the non profits as well as his powers over the religion and at this point the jury would be making a decision that would not only affect the very structure and identity of the sikh dharma religion but would also essentially be a guessing game at which cardinal did the pope intend to place which member of the core of the twelve did the leader of the l d s church intend to place on that board and that is an area it's a very small area it's a very narrow area that the court has said a secular court must abstain from allowing a jury or a judge to guess or presume the intentions of a religious leader in passing down his or her religious authority and that is what for close is a civil remedy in this case tell me that as opposed to all this complex stuff the statute of limitations you seem to rely on to be just tacked on at the end is i mean really that's not a good argument on your part to the contrary we believe it is a very strong argument and we've raised this argument consistently the reason it is at the end of our brief is that at the district court judge mosman did not address the argument in his opinion granting summary judgment in our favor and so we focused our briefing on the issues that were addressed by judge mosman in his orders however in our summary judgment briefing to judge mosman below we raised the statute of limitations argument and we continue to affirm it today and the reason being that these appointments take us back to at the very latest two thousand and four in two thousand  passed the new religious leadership was meant to come to be at that time all the plaintiffs in their deposition testimony and this is part of what makes this case different from the case that was before this court and two thousand and sixteen we now have discovery every single plaintiff admitted at the deposition that immediately after passing they all believed that they were entitled to positions on these boards they also testified and there's evidence in the record that so perk the president one of the defendants here in the president of syria saying stop corporation sent them a memo in which she affirmed that they would be on the boards of syria sing saab corp and on to infinity that roy lambert also told them the lawyer for the corporations told them that they were on the list of people who were going to be on the boards so it's not disputed that they knew in two thousand and four or shortly thereafter in two thousand and five in their minds based on some representations of defendants that they were entitled to these board positions and so then when they knew that they weren't getting them so they hired a lawyer to try to get them and they knew that they were being denied the positions by so per who had originally told them because she sent a revised memo of understanding later in that year they knew what was being represented to him they testified that they believed at the time that those representations were made that they were entitled to the seats and when they were told contrary representation months later they believe that they were being lied to at that point in time two thousand and five they had everything that they needed to have to allege a fraud claim or to allege at least they were on notice inquiry inquiry notice at the very least inquiry notice but here we're talking about actual admissions during deposition testimony and documents provided by defendants to the plaintiffs in this study think they wait until two thousand t here can be any number of reasons the plaintiffs are part of the religious community it there were a lot of moving parts to play at least b g remained in her religious role  continued to be part of the religious community honestly some of the plaintiffs might not have wanted to serve in these roles and that there can be a myriad of reasons we it's not exactly on the record but what we do know is they waited too long and they waited six years from two thousand and four to two thousand and ten and by that time the statute has run and the religion has moved on unless the court has anything else thank you thank you q minutes even a cardinal a bishop a priest driving children in a church van has to comply with traffic laws they can't stop at the red light they've got onto the civil laws that they are subject to  organization formed pursuant to state law it is a civil laws that establishes that it must abide by the principle set forth in its operating agreement and in its bylaws it hasn't done that this is not about requiring a religious organization to change its religious decisions this is about requiring a civil organization to comply with its civil law obligations the you your budget's designation was not known to the plaintiffs until two thousand and ten it was not available for them to get inquiry notice or not it was impossible for the plaintiffs to get that document it was  that they were to be placed on the board they are members of his family they know that absent something like that they were at the mercy of their existing board members they asked they were told yes your father intended for you to serve will get you on the board in due course they did not know that they had a right to be on that board as a matter of right as a matter of neutral principles applying civil law until two thousand and ten they could not have challenged it all the inquiry notice in the world about your budgets desires does not establish that he had actually done what the bylaws required or what the bylaws required in the st place that information became available in two thousand and ten this is not about deciding who the religious leaders were yogi budge and decided that he designated who the series thinks seriously clarus and he doesn't need it who the bisaya bias this is about who are to be the trustees over the corporation so managing the assets of the church and that is established pursuant to the expressed neutral principles that must be applied and the court was wrong in deciding disputed facts without favoring all credible and princes in favor of the plaintiffs ok thank you thank you thank you thank you that are submitted this time thank you council for your arguments