Clark Waddoups

In this bankruptcy appeal, Bank of the West challenged the bankruptcy court's allowance of Jed Connell's $160,151 claim against debtor Llennoc Real Estate, LLC for unpaid salary, fees, and expenses under a 2004 Management and Compensation Agreement signed by Connell and his parents. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling in full. It held that, under Bankruptcy Rule 3003, Llennoc's Chapter 11 schedules listing the claim as undisputed provided prima facie validity, so the Bank bore the burden of rebuttal. The court also found the Agreement ambiguous as to the capacity in which Connell's parents signed and therefore permitted extrinsic evidence showing they acted on Llennoc's behalf, supporting allowance of the claim at the proven amount rather than the lower scheduled figure.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a dispute between Basic Research and the FTC over the interpretation of a 2006 consent order and settlement agreement that resolved prior administrative actions regarding advertising claims for dietary supplements like Akavar and Relacore. Under the agreement, Basic Research must possess a 'reasonable basis' for its representations consisting of 'competent and reliable scientific evidence,' which the company argues the FTC is attempting to undermine through additional requirements in an ongoing enforcement action. Basic Research sought a declaratory judgment clarifying the standard, while the FTC moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and argued the suit improperly interfered with enforcement proceedings. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that it had authority to interpret the consent order as a contract and that the action did not unduly encroach on agency enforcement, and it granted Basic Research's motion to consolidate the cases.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

Ruth A. Lee sued the Bureau of Reclamation under Secretary Kenneth L. Salazar, claiming sex and age discrimination through disparate treatment in training and promotions, a hostile work environment, retaliation, Equal Pay Act violations, and constructive termination. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied Lee's motion for summary judgment in full. It denied the defendant's motion on the retaliation and Equal Pay Act claims but granted it on the disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and constructive termination claims, finding insufficient evidence to support those allegations.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a challenge by Utahns for Ethical Government to Utah Code section 20A-7-206(8), which requires public disclosure of the names and addresses of signers on initiative petitions, on grounds that the provision unconstitutionally burdens free speech rights under the First Amendment both facially and as applied to their petition for government ethics reform. The district court had previously issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the disclosure requirement pending the Supreme Court's decision in John Doe #1 v. Reed. After Reed upheld the facial validity of similar public disclosure laws for referendum petitions, the defendants moved to vacate the injunction. The court denied the motion and kept the preliminary injunction in place, reasoning that Reed did not foreclose the plaintiffs' separate as-applied challenge based on specific risks of harassment or intimidation to their petition signers.

electionsfree speech

This case involved claims by Philips Electronics against BCT for discovery violations, including the intentional spoliation of over 17,800 documents central to the litigation, followed by attempts to conceal the deletions and false statements under oath by BCT executives. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, striking BCT's answer, dismissing its counterclaims, entering default judgment on liability in Philips' favor, and referring the matter to the U.S. Attorney's Office for potential criminal prosecution. The court applied the Ehrenhaus factors to assess sanctions, finding substantial prejudice to plaintiffs, significant interference with the judicial process, high culpability on the part of BCT through its upper management, and that lesser sanctions would be inadequate given the willful misconduct and cover-up. The ruling did not extend to a non-party entity. BCT's objections, including claims of following counsel's advice or that prejudice was remedied, were rejected as not credible.

procedurecriminal law

The case involved a trademark dispute between two online sellers of replacement contact lenses. Plaintiff 1-800 Contacts alleged that Defendant Lens.com infringed its registered service marks by bidding on them as keywords in search engine advertising programs like Google AdWords, which generated sponsored links that could confuse consumers about source or affiliation. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on its infringement and secondary liability claims, as well as on certain defenses, while Defendant sought summary judgment dismissing all claims. The court held that purchasing keywords constitutes a 'use in commerce' under trademark law and granted Plaintiff's motion on that defense, but otherwise denied Plaintiff's motions and granted Defendant summary judgment on the infringement claims. The decision rested on the absence of a likelihood of confusion or other required elements for liability despite the commercial use of the marks.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns a federal court's review of its own jurisdiction in a multi-defendant lawsuit brought under diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court found the plaintiffs' complaint deficient because it failed to adequately allege the citizenship of individual defendants, John Doe defendants, corporations, unincorporated entities, and trusts. For individuals and trusts, allegations of business activity or formation location were insufficient; for corporations, both state of incorporation and principal place of business must be shown; and for unincorporated entities, citizenship of all members is required. The court therefore issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed, giving plaintiffs ten days to respond, amend the complaint, or withdraw the action.

procedurefederal power

This case involves four female employees of Frank’s Westates Services, Inc. who sued the company and its president, Gene McFarland, alleging sexual harassment in the workplace that created a hostile environment and caused them emotional distress, including symptoms like sleep loss, depression, and anxiety. The plaintiffs brought multiple causes of action, including hostile work environment claims and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim and on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against McFarland personally, finding genuine issues of material fact about the pervasiveness of the conduct and its effects. Summary judgment was granted on the remaining claims, including those against the company for intentional infliction of emotional distress, due to the exclusivity of workers’ compensation remedies and insufficient evidence that the employer directed the specific acts. The decision rests on application of Title VII standards for harassment and Utah tort precedents distinguishing negligent from intentional employer conduct.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

In United States v. Zajac, the defendant was charged with bombing the Salt Lake City Public Library using a pipe bomb made with specific components including Alliant Blue Dot powder and a kitchen timer. The government moved to introduce evidence of two prior uncharged bombings and three prior bad acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove identity, knowledge, intent, motive, and modus operandi, citing similarities in bomb construction and letters sent afterward referencing police misconduct. The court granted the motion in part, allowing limited evidence from the Hinsdale bombing due to matching device details, timing, and fingerprints linking Zajac, while excluding the Downers Grove bombing and other acts for insufficient similarity or relevance. The decision rested on the requirement that 404(b) evidence must be offered for a proper purpose, be probative, and not substantially outweighed by prejudice, with the Hinsdale incident meeting those standards.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a criminal prosecution in which defendant Thomas James Zajac moved to exclude expert testimony from forensic linguist James R. Fitzgerald regarding whether three letters and envelopes were written by the same author in connection with bombings. After a Daubert hearing, the district court evaluated the expert's methodology, which relied on stylistic, lexical, and content comparisons drawn from a linguistics text plus his FBI experience, while noting limitations such as the small sample size, unstated criteria for identifying linguistic features, and assumptions about case facts. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, ruling that portions of the testimony satisfied the reliability and relevance requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 while other aspects did not meet the standards for admissibility.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Zajac, the defendant, charged with bombing the Salt Lake City Public Library in 2006, filed a motion to limit the testimony of ATF forensic chemist Amy Michaud on trace evidence, specifically her analysis of adhesives from the bomb device compared to those found at his residence. The court conducted a Daubert hearing to evaluate the reliability of her methods, which involved visual examination, FTIR, SEM EDS, and pyrolysis gas chromatograph mass spectrometry to determine if samples were consistent in appearance, chemical composition, and elemental makeup. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion, permitting testimony on consistencies supported by peer-reviewed and generally accepted techniques while restricting opinions where variables like curing conditions had not been adequately studied. This ruling applied Federal Rule of Evidence 702 standards for expert testimony in the context of the criminal prosecution.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Robert Newton, a civilian air traffic controller employed by the Utah Air National Guard after retiring from military service, who alleged that the revocation of his Air Traffic Control Specialist certificate following several incidents violated his procedural due process and equal protection rights, preventing him from continuing in his role. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the claims. The court dismissed two individual defendants and granted summary judgment on the due process and equal protection claims after determining that Newton failed to meet his burden on those employment-related constitutional issues, while denying summary judgment on the remaining matters.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs E. James Spahr and Colleen Spahr sued defendant Ferber Resorts, LLC, for negligence and loss of consortium after Mr. Spahr fell into an unmarked six-foot concrete ditch on the Rodeway Inn property in Springdale, Utah, sustaining a serious knee injury allegedly due to inadequate lighting and protection around the hazard. Following a jury trial, the jury found for the plaintiffs and awarded damages totaling over $435,000, allocating 99% fault to the defendant. The defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 or alternatively for a new trial or remittitur under Rule 59, arguing lack of duty, insufficient evidence, excessive damages, and improper closing arguments. The court denied the motion in full, holding that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs supported the jury's findings on duty, breach, and damages, and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence or so excessive as to shock the conscience.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the Town of Paradise, Utah, denying a zoning accommodation request by the parents of a disabled woman to allow her 24-hour caregivers to live in an adjacent building on their single-family zoned lot. The Utah Labor Commission sued the town and its mayor under the Fair Housing Act, Utah Fair Housing Act, and ADA, alleging the denial violated requirements to provide reasonable accommodations for disabilities; the parents intervened as plaintiffs. On the town's motion for summary judgment, the court denied relief to the town, ruling that the requested exception was reasonable because it did not impose undue burdens or fundamentally alter the zoning scheme, and disputed facts remained about the adequacy of proposed alternatives like a basement apartment. The court granted summary judgment to the mayor individually, finding insufficient facts to support personal liability. The core reasoning examined factors such as the accommodation's impact on zoning purposes, benefits to the disabled individual, and whether alternatives achieved equivalent results without changing the nature of the program.

civil rightsproperty

This case concerns a 2007 traffic stop on Interstate 15 in Utah where Trooper Adam Cleveland pulled over Floyd Bumpers, a 66-year-old African-American man, for allegedly following too closely and having a possibly cracked windshield. Bumpers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the stop, extended questioning about his travel plans, request to search his vehicle, and detention for a K-9 unit violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures as well as his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights. Trooper Cleveland moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, concluding that the initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion but that disputed facts remained regarding whether the prolonged detention after the traffic warning was justified by additional reasonable suspicion.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involves the SEC's allegations that defendants operated a Ponzi scheme by soliciting investments in limited partnerships tied to real estate properties, often through inflated 'double closings' and misrepresentations about property conditions and mortgage payments, leading to a receivership that froze assets and stayed actions against the properties. Interveners Fannie Mae, Midland Loan Services, and Crown NorthCorp, as secured creditors, moved to lift the stay to foreclose on specific properties and pursue deficiencies. The court applied the three Wencke factors—whether the stay preserves the status quo or causes substantial injury, the timing of the motions relative to the receiver's organization of assets, and the merit of the claims—to evaluate the requests. For relinquished properties like Wellington and Tree House, the motions were deemed moot as creditors could pursue claims through approved procedures without pursuing investors. The court monitored the receivership to ensure it served its equitable purpose without undue interference.

business & regulatorycriminal lawpropertyprocedure

In this patent case, Storm Products sought a declaratory judgment that Ebonite's U.S. Patent 6,280,343, which covers a method for adapting a small number of bowling balls for testing by bowlers with varying hand sizes, was invalid and not infringed; Ebonite counterclaimed for willful infringement of claim 1. The court granted Storm's motion for summary judgment of invalidity, ruling that the patent was indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and incapable of construction. The core reasoning was that the preamble limitations 'a relatively small number of bowling balls' and 'a large number of bowlers' were comparative terms without clear, objective boundaries or support in the specification or prosecution history that would allow a person skilled in the art to understand their scope.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Bad Ass Coffee Company of Hawaii seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce non-compete covenants against its former franchisee JH Nterprises and its owners, who opened a competing coffee shop called Java Cove near their former Bad Ass Coffee franchise in Jacksonville, Florida, after the franchise agreement ended. The court granted the motion for preliminary injunction, ordering the defendants to cease operating the competing business within a three-mile radius for two years, among other restrictions like not soliciting customers. The core reasoning was that the non-compete provisions in the franchise agreement were reasonable and necessary to protect BACH's legitimate business interests in its goodwill, trade secrets, and customer relationships, that BACH was likely to succeed on the merits, and that irreparable harm would result without the injunction.

business & regulatory

In Margae, Inc. v. Clear Link Technologies, LLC, the plaintiff brought claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Utah Unfair Competition Act based on the defendant's alleged unauthorized use of web pages and related materials that Margae described as its proprietary work. The court granted Clear Link's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that these claims were preempted by the Utah Trade Secrets Act. The core reasoning was that the amended complaint explicitly defined “Margae’s work” as trade secrets and referenced that same subject matter in the challenged claims, so the UTSA barred the alternative theories even after the separate trade-secret claim was dismissed. The court allowed Margae ten days to file an amended complaint and offered guidance that web pages qualify as tangible property subject to conversion under Utah law and that the unfair-competition statute requires transmission of a distinct program or code.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a challenge by WildEarth Guardians to two permits issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act, allowing the live trapping and relocation of Utah Prairie Dogs from a municipal golf course and adjacent tribal lands where they were causing damage. The plaintiffs argued that the permits lacked a numeric take limit and that the associated Habitat Conservation Plan failed to adequately minimize and mitigate the impacts on the threatened species. The court reviewed the administrative record and affirmed the agency's decision to issue the permits. It concluded that the Service's actions were not arbitrary or capricious, as the plan included mitigation measures like establishing a conservation easement on nearby land for habitat preservation, and the affected colony did not significantly contribute to the species' genetic diversity or survival.

environmentfederal power