Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Quintin Grillone resigned from his position as a police officer in 2014 while under investigation for providing false information to a prosecutor regarding a traffic citation against his mother. The Peace Officer Standards and Training Division (POST) did not learn of the incident until 2019 when Grillone disclosed it in his application to join a new police department. Following an investigation, POST initiated disciplinary proceedings, and an administrative law judge found that Grillone's conduct constituted obstruction of justice. The POST Council then retroactively suspended Grillone’s certification for three years.Grillone sought judicial review by the Utah Court of Appeals, arguing that the disciplinary proceedings were time-barred by the four-year catch-all statute of limitations for civil actions under Utah Code § 78B-2-307(4). He contended that the statute governing POST disciplinary proceedings referred to them as “civil actions,” thus subjecting them to the civil statute of limitations. The court of appeals, however, held that civil statutes of limitation do not apply to administrative disciplinary proceedings absent specific legislative authority and found that the POST statute did not incorporate the civil statute of limitations.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the court of appeals' decision. The Supreme Court agreed that civil statutes of limitation are generally inapplicable to administrative disciplinary proceedings unless the legislature indicates otherwise. The Court concluded that the POST statute’s reference to “civil actions” was intended to distinguish POST proceedings from criminal actions, not to incorporate the civil statutes of limitation. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings against Grillone were not time-barred, and the POST Council’s three-year suspension of his certification was upheld. View "Grillone v. Peace Officer Standards" on Justia Law

Several young Utah residents filed a lawsuit challenging statutory provisions and government actions related to fossil fuel development. They claimed that these provisions and actions were designed to maximize fossil fuel development in Utah, which they argued endangered their health and shortened their lifespans by exacerbating climate change. They sought a declaration from the district court that these provisions and actions violated their rights under the Utah Constitution.The government defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the requested relief would not redress the alleged injuries. The Third District Court, Salt Lake County, agreed and dismissed the claims with prejudice, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims were not redressable.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the dismissal on the ground that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court found that the challenge to the energy policy provision was moot because the legislature had significantly amended the statute since the complaint was filed. The plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the remaining statutory provisions because success on those challenges would not provide relief likely to redress their injuries. The court noted that the challenged provisions did not limit the government defendants' discretion in making decisions about fossil fuel development, and thus, striking these provisions would not necessarily lead to less fossil fuel development.The court also held that the challenges to the government defendants' conduct were not justiciable because they were not supported by a concrete set of facts. The plaintiffs had identified general categories of conduct without tying their claims to any specific government actions. The court instructed the district court to modify its ruling to reflect that the dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs the opportunity to refile their claims if they could address the jurisdictional deficiencies. View "Roussel v. State" on Justia Law

Erik Schnibbe, an attorney, worked at the law firm of Magleby, Cataxinos, and Greenwood. After a client of the firm won a large damages award, the firm paid Schnibbe $1 million for his share of the contingency fee via direct deposit. Schnibbe believed he was promised a greater share and kept the $1 million. Years later, after leaving the firm, he sued for the additional money he claimed he was owed.The Defendants, including the firm and two of its attorneys, moved for summary judgment, arguing that Schnibbe had accepted the $1 million as full settlement of his share of the contingency fee, thus barring his claims under the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment to the Defendants.The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that all three elements of accord and satisfaction were met: an unliquidated claim or bona fide dispute over the amount due, a payment offered as full settlement of the entire dispute, and acceptance of the payment as full settlement of the dispute. The court focused on the acceptance element, determining that Schnibbe's retention of the $1 million for four years without attempting to return it or registering a protest constituted acceptance of the payment as full settlement.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case on certiorari. The court agreed with the lower courts that Schnibbe's conduct indicated acceptance of the payment as full settlement. The court clarified that acceptance could be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including the creditor's retention of the funds, even if the payment was received passively via direct deposit. The court held that Schnibbe's knowing retention of the $1 million for several years, without attempting to return it, constituted acceptance of the proposed accord as a matter of law. The court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals. View "Magleby v. Schnibbe" on Justia Law

In 2020, Utah law temporarily allowed municipalities to annex unincorporated areas without a petition or county consent. During this period, the Town of Hideout annexed land in Summit County. After receiving a certificate of annexation from the Lieutenant Governor, Summit County challenged the annexation and the related municipal ordinance in district court, claiming procedural violations and seeking to invalidate the annexation.The Fourth Judicial District Court in Wasatch County ruled in favor of Summit County, granting summary judgment on the grounds that Summit County had standing to challenge the annexation and that the annexation ordinance was invalid due to procedural issues. The court found that Summit County had standing under various statutes and the doctrine of public interest standing.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that Summit County lacked a legally protectible interest under the relevant statutory scheme, which did not provide counties with a right to challenge annexations. The court also determined that the public interest standing doctrine could not compensate for this lack of a legally protectible interest because the legislature had explicitly excluded counties from the annexation process. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the district court to dismiss the case. View "Hideout v. Summit County" on Justia Law

Justin Nelson filed a lawsuit against his former mother-in-law, Traci Phillips, former sister-in-law, Ashley Phillips, and other friends and family of his deceased wife, Tiffani Nelson. Justin alleged that Traci, Ashley, and the other defendants conspired to defame him by suggesting he was responsible for Tiffani’s death. None of the defendants reside in Utah, and each moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. They provided sworn statements denying the allegations, while Justin relied solely on his complaint’s allegations without submitting counter-evidence.The Fifth District Court in Washington County, Utah, denied the motions to dismiss. The court concluded that Justin had sufficiently alleged facts that, if proven, would demonstrate a conspiracy to defame him, thus establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendants. For Traci and Ashley, the court found that their personal contacts with Utah were sufficient to assert specific personal jurisdiction.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court dismissed the petitions for interlocutory review filed by Traci and Ashley as improvidently granted, as the lower court had not ruled on the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction for them. The court reversed the lower court’s denial of the motions to dismiss for the other defendants, finding that Justin failed to meet his burden of providing evidence to support his allegations once the defendants had submitted sworn statements contradicting his claims. The court emphasized that without evidence to support the allegations, the district court could not assert jurisdiction based on a conspiracy theory. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Nelson v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Three customers, D.W., L.T., and J.G., filed a lawsuit against FPA Sandy Mall Associates (SMA) and Hong Guang Lin, an unlicensed massage therapist, after Lin allegedly sexually assaulted them during their massage appointments at a shopping center owned by SMA. The plaintiffs claimed premises liability and negligence, arguing that SMA, as the landlord, had a duty to ensure the safety of its invitees and to verify Lin's licensure status.The Third District Court in Salt Lake County denied SMA's motion to dismiss the claims, concluding that SMA owed a duty to the plaintiffs as invitees to keep the premises safe and to exercise reasonable care. The court also applied the five-factor analytical framework from B.R. ex rel. Jeffs v. West, 2012 UT 11, 275 P.3d 228 (Jeffs factors), to assess whether SMA had a duty to verify Lin's licensure status and found that the factors favored recognizing such a duty.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case on interlocutory appeal. The court clarified that the Jeffs framework is only applicable when a party seeks to establish a previously unrecognized duty. Since the plaintiffs invoked established duties under Utah law, the district court's application of the Jeffs factors was unnecessary. The Supreme Court struck the district court's analysis based on the Jeffs factors, including its observations on foreseeability, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its instructions. The court did not address whether SMA owed a duty to verify Lin's licensure status, as this was not the duty recognized by the district court. View "D.W. v. FPA Sandy Mall Associates" on Justia Law

**Summary:**The case involves the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah (PPAU) challenging Senate Bill 174 (SB 174), a law enacted by the Utah Legislature that prohibits abortion at any stage of pregnancy except in three specific circumstances. PPAU argues that SB 174 violates several rights guaranteed by the Utah Constitution and sought a preliminary injunction to halt the law's enforcement while its constitutionality was litigated. The district court granted the preliminary injunction after an evidentiary hearing.The State of Utah petitioned for interlocutory review, presenting two primary arguments: that PPAU lacks standing to challenge the law and that the district court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. The State argued that PPAU did not have a personal stake in the dispute and that the district court erred in its application of the preliminary injunction standard.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that PPAU has standing to challenge SB 174, satisfying both traditional and third-party standing requirements. The court found that PPAU demonstrated a distinct and palpable injury, including the threat of criminal prosecution and economic harm, which would be redressed by enjoining the law. The court also concluded that PPAU could assert the rights of its patients due to the close relationship between PPAU and its patients and the genuine obstacles patients face in asserting their own rights.The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. The court determined that PPAU raised serious issues concerning the constitutionality of SB 174, which should be the subject of further litigation. The district court acted within its discretion in concluding that PPAU would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, that the balance of harms favored an injunction, and that an injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. The preliminary injunction remains in place while PPAU litigates its claims. View "Planned Parenthood Association v. State" on Justia Law

In 2018, a juvenile court removed seven children from their biological parents' custody due to abuse and neglect. The children were returned in early 2019 but removed again a few months later after continued issues. The five oldest children were eventually placed with their grandparents in New Mexico, while the two youngest, Alice and Liam, were placed with a foster family in Utah. In October 2020, the juvenile court held a termination trial to determine the best permanent placement for Alice and Liam. The court decided it was in their best interest to terminate the biological parents' rights and allow the foster family to adopt them.The biological parents appealed the decision. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the termination order, concluding that the juvenile court's decision was against the clear weight of the evidence. The appellate court also held that termination must be "materially better" than any other option. Because it reversed on the merits, the court of appeals did not address other issues raised by the parents, such as ineffective counsel.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and found several errors in the court of appeals' reasoning. First, it rejected the "materially better" standard, stating that the correct standard is whether termination is "strictly necessary" to promote the child's best interest. Second, the court of appeals exceeded its scope by reweighing evidence and considering evidence outside the record. Third, the court of appeals erred in concluding that the juvenile court's decision was against the clear weight of the evidence. The Utah Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision and remanded the case for consideration of the remaining issues in the biological parents' initial appeal. View "In re A.H." on Justia Law

Brett Del Valle was sued by Alum Rock Riverside, LLC in California for breach of contract, resulting in a judgment against him for over $4 million. Alum Rock domesticated this judgment in Utah and recorded it with the Weber County Recorder’s Office. At the time of recording, the property in question was held by a revocable trust established by Brett and his wife, but the trust sold the property to the Mulligans before Alum Rock applied for a writ of execution to seize and sell the property.The Third District Court upheld the writ of execution despite the Mulligans' objections. They argued that Alum Rock failed to create a valid judgment lien because it did not record the judgment in the registry of judgments, that the writ was not available since the trust held the title when the judgment was domesticated, and that the court lacked jurisdiction as the property was in a different judicial district. The district court rejected these arguments, holding that recording the judgment with the county recorder was sufficient to create a lien, the writ was valid because Brett retained ownership indicia over the property, and the court had jurisdiction to issue the writ.The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. It held that since July 1, 2002, a judgment lien is created by recording the judgment with the county recorder, not by filing it in the registry of judgments. The court also determined that Brett owned the property for purposes of the lien because he retained control over the trust. Finally, the court found no relevant limitation on the district court’s jurisdiction to issue the writ, even though the property was located in a different judicial district. View "Mulligan v. Alum Rock Riverside" on Justia Law

Lippa and Manmohan Grewal sold a gas station to Theodore Hansen, who later sold it to Junction Market Fairview, L.C. (JMF). The sale contract required Hansen to make regular installment payments, with the final balance due after three years. Hansen missed many payments and failed to pay the full balance when due. The Grewals initiated foreclosure proceedings over six years after Hansen's first missed payment. The applicable statute of limitations for a breach of contract action is six years, raising the question of when the statute begins to run for installment contracts.The Sixth District Court in Sanpete County granted partial summary judgment in favor of JMF, concluding that the statute of limitations began when Hansen missed the first payment, making the Grewals' foreclosure action too late. The court awarded sole control of the gas station to JMF and ordered the Grewals to release the title. When the Grewals failed to comply, JMF seized the station and sold it to a third party. The district court also awarded JMF attorney fees under the Public Waters Access Act and the reciprocal attorney fees statute.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the sale of the gas station to a third-party bona fide purchaser rendered the Grewals' appeal on the title issue moot, as no court action could affect the litigants' rights to the property. However, the issue of attorney fees was not moot. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to JMF under the reciprocal attorney fees statute. The court affirmed the award of attorney fees and remanded to the district court to determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees JMF incurred in defending against the appeal. View "Grewal v. Junction Market Fairview" on Justia Law