Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In this, the second appeal arising out of a lawsuit against Westgate Resorts alleging violations of the Utah Pattern of Unlawful Activity Act, Westgate challenged an arbitration panel’s award of attorney fees to Shawn Adel and Consumer Protection Group, LLC (collectively, CPG). In the first appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed the panel’s award of damages against Westgate. Here, Westgate argued, inter alia, that the arbitration panel had no authority to award attorney fees for the court proceedings that confirmed the panel’s decision on the merits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the panel’s award of fees for court proceedings confirming the panel’s own decisions is void because the Utah Uniform Arbitration Act does not authorize attorney fees for such proceedings; (2) the Utah Pattern of Unlawful Activity Act allows the panel’s award of attorney fees expended during arbitration; and (3) CPG is entitled to attorney fees for this appeal. View "Westgate Resorts, Ltd. v. Adel" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant in small claims court for physical injuries arising from an alleged automobile collision between the parties. Defendant subsequently filed a petition to appeal the district court's grant of plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's jury demand and discovery requests. The court concluded that the Utah Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in small claims cases in a trial de novo in district court, and that defendant properly asserted that right. The court did not reach the merits of defendant's discovery arguments because they were not properly preserved. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Chilel v. Simler" on Justia Law

Plaintiff ClearOne is a Utah corporation and Defendant Revolabs is a competitor incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. The underlying dispute arose when Revolabs recruited and hired Timothy Mackie while he was still employed by ClearOne. ClearOne brought this suit in Utah district court, alleging intentional interference with a contractual relationship, predatory hiring, and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. Revolabs filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) ClearOne failed to allege that Revolabs had sufficient minimum contacts to subject it to specific personal jurisdiction in Utah; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery to determine whether Revolabs was subject to general personal jurisdiction in Utah. View "ClearOne, Inc. v. Revolabs, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured when forced to stop suddenly near a construction crew on a Utah road. Plaintiff submitted a notice of claim against the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). UDOT did not respond to the notice of claim within sixty days, and therefore, Plaintiff’s claim was deemed denied. One month later, UDOT sent a letter to Plaintiff stating that UDOT denied the claim. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit against UDOT and several unnamed “John Does.” UDOT moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (GIA) barred Plaintiff’s claim because he did not file within one year of the date on which it was deemed denied. The trial court granted UDOT’s motion and dismissed Plaintiff’s entire suit with prejudice, including his claim against the Doe Defendants. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the denial letter sent after the deemed denial had occurred did not restart the limitations period and was a legal superfluity, and therefore, Plaintiff did not timely file his suit under the GIA; (2) estoppel was not warranted in this case; and (3) the dismissal of the Doe Defendants was proper where they were described as employees of UDOT. View "Monarrez v. Utah Dep’t of Transp." on Justia Law

628 Park Avenue, LLC filed a complaint asserting claims for unlawful detainer, breach of a promissory note, breach of lease, and declaratory relief against James Ring and other defendants. A default judgment was entered against Ring. The judgment, however, was nonfinal because claims against other defendants remained pending when it was entered. Because 628 Park Avenue recorded the default judgment it claimed to have acquired a judgment lien. The district court concluded that 628 Park Avenue possessed a valid judgment lien against the property in the amount of the original default judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the judgment sustaining a lien under Utah Code 78B-5-202(7) must be a final judgment; and (2) the recorded judgment in this case was insufficient because it merely identified the judgment debtor by name and did not provide sufficient information as required by section 78B-5-202(7)(a)(i). View "Irving Place Assocs. v. 628 Park Ave, LLC" on Justia Law

The trustee of the United Effort Plan Trust filed a complaint against the City of Hildale and the Twin City Water Authority (TCWA) (together, Appellants) to compel the subdivision of certain parcels of Trust property located within the City’s boundaries. Because Appellants failed to appear or answer the complaint, the district court entered default judgment against them. Thereafter, Appellants filed a Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment. While the motion was pending, Appellants filed a direct appeal from the default judgment. The district court denied Appellants’ Rule 60(b) motion, and Appellants did not appeal the denial. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed Appellants’ direct appeal from the default judgment, holding that the direct appeal was the incorrect vehicle for relief because it relied exclusively on Rule 60(b) arguments made to the district court in the postjudgment motion and disposed of in the unappealed order. View "Wisan v. City of Hildale" on Justia Law

Energy Claims Limited (ECL), a British Virginia Island company, was the assignee of certain claims of Eneco, Inc. (Eneco), a now defunct Utah corporation. ECL filed suit in Utah district court, asserting Eneco’s claims against Eneco’s former directors, Catalyst Investment Group Limited (Catalyst), Timothy Roberts, and ARM Asset-Backed Securities, S.A. (ARM). All defendants resided, or had their principal place of business, outside of Utah. The district court (1) dismissed ECL’s claims against the former directors, Catalyst, and Roberts on the basis of forum non conveniens; and (2) dismissed the claims against ARM for improper venue based on a forum selection clause. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed after declining ECL’s invitation to adopt a choice-of-law inquiry as a threshold to its forum non conveniens analysis, holding that the court of appeals erred in affirming dismissal of ECL’s claims against Defendants on the basis of forum non conveniens and on the basis of improper venue. Remanded. View "Energy Claims Ltd. v. Catalyst Inv. Group Ltd." on Justia Law