Porter v. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 16 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KENDA SUE PORTER, an individual, No. 25-5283 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:25-cv-01220-SPL v. MEMORANDUM* THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 21, 2026 Phoenix, Arizona

Before: GOULD, BERZON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Kenda Sue Porter appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of her

action against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (“the Church”)

arising from an accident that occurred on September 10, 2023. We reverse and

remand.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. We review de novo a grant of a motion to dismiss. Simon v. Hartford Life,

Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 663-64 (9th Cir. 2008). We review the district court’s denial of

leave to amend for abuse of discretion. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.

Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008).

1. To state a claim for negligence or for premises liability under Arizona

law, a plaintiff must allege the elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages.

Perez v. Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc., 564 P.3d 623, 626 (Ariz. 2025). The

district court incorrectly determined that Ms. Porter could not establish the

elements of breach or causation “as a matter of law.” Duty was undisputed

because Porter was an invitee of the Church. Under Perez v. Circle K, “factual

issues of breach and causation . . . generally are questions for the jury once a duty

is established.” 564 P.3d at 630. Porter alleged that the Church directed a rushed

and uncoordinated chair-removal process without adequate safeguards, leading to

the sudden removal of her chair while she was rising from the chair, which caused

her to fall and injure her wrist. Those allegations create factual disputes about

breach and causation that could not properly be resolved by a motion to dismiss.

2. The district court did not err in dismissing Porter’s negligent infliction of

emotional distress claim because her complaint did not clearly allege that her

emotional distress “manifest[ed] itself in some physical way.” Quinn v. Turner,

745 P.2d 972, 973 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987) (citing Keck v. Jackson, 593 P.2d 668

2 25-5283 (Ariz. 1979)). However, because Porter unsuccessfully requested leave to amend

and it is not clear that amendment would be futile, we vacate the dismissal of that

claim to allow Porter to seek leave to amend on remand.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

3 25-5283