Paul G. Cassell

The case involved defendant John Henry Gill, who had been convicted of a sex offense in Idaho in 2003 and was later charged in Utah with failing to register as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) of SORNA between September and October 2006 after moving to Utah. Gill moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that SORNA did not apply to him at the time of his alleged failure to register. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that SORNA's requirements for pre-enactment offenders were not effective until the Attorney General issued an Interim Rule in February 2007. The core reasoning was that applying the criminal provisions of SORNA to Gill's pre-rule conduct would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, as the statute delegated to the Attorney General the authority to determine its applicability to earlier convictions.

criminal law

The case arose after Upstream Images filed a federal copyright action over an elk image and recorded lis pendens on real property, prompting Pebble Creek Homes to sue in Utah state court to quiet title and nullify the liens under state law. Pebble Creek moved to remand the state action to Utah court and to void a state-court order denying their petition. The district court denied both motions. It held that the quiet-title claim was completely preempted by the Copyright Act and therefore created federal-question jurisdiction supporting removal of the entire case. It further ruled that the state judge’s entry of a written order two weeks after an oral bench ruling was only a ministerial act that did not affect the merits or violate removal statutes.

propertyprocedurefederal power

The case involved Geraldo Planells-Guerra, charged with possessing at least 500 grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, who filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from his car after a warrantless arrest for driving with a suspended license. The court denied the motion to reconsider, holding that the arrest was valid under Utah law because it occurred in the officer's presence based on direct observations and credible witness statements, and that probable cause satisfied the Fourth Amendment. The court further reasoned that the federal exclusionary rule is governed by federal constitutional standards rather than state law violations, and that the good-faith exception would independently bar suppression due to the officer's objectively reasonable belief in the arrest's validity.

criminal lawprocedure

In this qui tam action, relator Morris Told alleged that Interwest Construction Co. violated the False Claims Act by wrongfully retaining subcontractor funds and failing to make timely payments during a 1990-1994 Veterans Administration hospital project, along with related Utah state-law claims for fraud and unjust enrichment. The court granted Interwest's motion for summary judgment, holding that all claims were time-barred. The False Claims Act's six-year limitations period (with tolling available only to the United States) and Utah's three- and four-year periods for fraud and unjust enrichment, respectively, had expired well before the 2003 filing, and Told provided no evidence of later violations or timely discovery.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved defendant Landsafe removing a civil action from Utah state court to federal district court on diversity grounds. After the removal notice, other parties continued filing pleadings and the state court issued substantive orders, but Landsafe neither objected nor informed the federal court of these proceedings. The court held that Landsafe had impliedly consented to state court jurisdiction by standing silent while the case advanced in state court, in a manner analogous to parties who voluntarily invoke and then attempt to disclaim a forum's authority. It therefore remanded the case nunc pro tunc to the state court to prevent duplicative litigation and preserve the principle that only one court exercises jurisdiction at a time, while also observing that the removal was procedurally defective because not all defendants joined.

procedure

In United States v. Garcia, the defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated identity fraud after stealing personal information from victims, including H.F., and using it to obtain and misuse fraudulent credit cards, resulting in over $6,000 in unauthorized charges. The court sentenced Garcia to the mandatory two-year prison term and ordered her to pay restitution to the affected banks for their financial losses. However, the court held that it lacked statutory authority to order restitution for H.F.'s non-pecuniary harms, such as time spent clearing her credit and emotional distress, because federal restitution laws limit recovery to direct pecuniary losses and do not extend to indirect or consequential harms like lost time. The opinion concludes that this gap in the restitution statutes prevents full compensation for victims in identity theft cases and calls for legislative reform.

criminal lawprocedure

In Cook v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., homeowners Richard and Carmen Cook sued their mortgage servicer after defaulting on their loan and losing their home to foreclosure, claiming breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Utah Mortgage Lending and Servicing Act based on allegations that Chase failed to properly credit their payments. Chase moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Cooks' July 2002 reinstatement payment constituted an accord and satisfaction barring prior claims, that doctrines of waiver and estoppel applied due to the Cooks' failure to seek judicial relief before foreclosure, and that undisputed evidence showed missed or insufficient payments including escrow amounts. The court granted the motion, holding that the reinstatement payment precluded claims about pre-July 2002 payment application, that no genuine factual dispute existed regarding the Cooks' payment shortfalls or Chase's handling of the default and foreclosure proceedings, and that Chase was entitled to judgment on all remaining claims.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In 2004, the FDA issued a final rule banning ephedrine alkaloid dietary supplements (EDS) from the U.S. market after determining they presented an unreasonable risk under the FDCA as amended by DSHEA. Nutraceutical Corporation, a marketer of EDS, sued the FDA and related defendants to block enforcement, claiming the agency failed to provide adequate statutory notice and comment on its risk-benefit analysis and acted arbitrarily by banning EDS while leaving other ephedrine-containing products unregulated. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the FDA satisfied the Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment requirements through multiple rounds of public comment and compiled records, and that its decision to limit the rule to dietary supplements was consistent with the statutory scheme and not arbitrary or capricious.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involves TruGreen suing Scotts Lawn Service and several former TruGreen employees now working for Scotts for breach of contract based on non-competition, non-solicitation, and non-interference provisions in employment agreements, as well as claims of intentional interference with contractual and economic relations and unfair competition. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims against nine New Utah Employees for lack of opposition and insufficient evidence, granting summary judgment to remaining employees on interference claims due to absence of evidence of improper purpose or means in any post-employment contacts, and dismissing specific contract claims against various employees because the agreements did not prohibit the alleged conduct or because no solicitation or inducement occurred. The court also granted the motion to strike TruGreen's expert damages report as unreliable under Rule 702 and denied TruGreen's cross-motion for summary judgment, leaving some disputed claims for trial. Material facts regarding employee actions and customer contacts remained in dispute.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Lance W. Mercer, an accountant who pleaded guilty to willfully aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). The government, as part of the plea agreement, agreed not to seek a two-level sentencing enhancement for use of a special skill under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, despite the defendant's professional background and the facts of the case supporting such an enhancement. The court issued an order highlighting that the government's position appeared to conflict with the facts and Department of Justice policy on fairly applying the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, noting that the enhancement was warranted because Mercer used his specialized tax preparation skills to commit the offense.

criminal lawtaxes

This case involves a Fair Labor Standards Act claim by plaintiff Ellen Horrocks against Daggett County for unpaid overtime compensation as a corrections officer. After the court held a hearing on the defendant's motion for summary judgment and suggested a potential settlement amount during private discussions with the parties, the defendant rejected the suggestion and moved to disqualify the judge, arguing an appearance of partiality. The court decided to recuse itself from the case, determining that recusal would best serve the interests of justice despite the general rule that parties cannot create recusal grounds through their own actions. The reasoning centered on maintaining public confidence in the fairness of the judicial process in this unusual circumstance.

labor & employmentprocedure

In United States v. Heaton, the government filed a one-sentence motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) to dismiss without prejudice a charge against defendant Aaron Anthony Heaton for using a means of interstate commerce to entice a minor into unlawful sexual activity. The court did not grant the motion outright but instead directed the government to submit a more detailed basis for dismissal within 14 days, including an account of the victim's views on the proposed dismissal. The ruling interprets Rule 48(a)'s leave-of-court requirement as mandating independent judicial review of the grounds for dismissal and applies the Crime Victims’ Rights Act to require consideration of the victim's right to fair treatment in decisions affecting the case, even outside public proceedings. The court noted that this process does not impair prosecutorial discretion but allows an informed determination of whether dismissal is in the public interest.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a court-appointed Utah Receiver seeking declaratory judgment against the IRS regarding whether the IRS had any claim on assets in the Michael J. Fitzgerald Protective Committee Trust for unpaid taxes owed by Beverly Hills Development Corporation. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the complaint. It reasoned that the Declaratory Judgment Act prohibits declaratory relief involving federal taxes and the Anti-Injunction Act bars actions that would restrain the assessment or collection of taxes, and there was no waiver of sovereign immunity. Additionally, the statute of limitations for tax assessments had not yet expired.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

In this case, Qwest Corporation sued the Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA), alleging that Utah tax exemptions for UTOPIA violated the federal preemption provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act. UTOPIA filed counterclaims seeking access to Qwest's telecommunications infrastructure under the Federal Telecommunications Act and Utah's Public Telecommunications Law, along with a tort claim. The court granted Qwest's motion to dismiss the five statutory counterclaims, holding that they arose under state law provisions requiring disputes over essential facilities to first be resolved by the Utah Public Service Commission. Because UTOPIA had not exhausted those administrative remedies, the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In United States v. Richins, the defendant was charged with bank fraud and identity fraud after submitting fraudulent payroll time cards to her employer, and she quickly entered a guilty plea pursuant to an agreement. The case concerned whether the government could withhold a motion for the third-level sentencing reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) for acceptance of responsibility, which the government sought to do based on its belief that the defendant had not been fully truthful about admitting her conduct to the victim company, even though it had not objected to the presentence report stating she had accepted responsibility. The court adopted a standard requiring the government's decision to be rationally related to a legitimate end and determined that no such basis had been shown here, directing the government to file an explanation for its refusal to make the motion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a zoning dispute in which RHN Corporation sued Box Elder County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the county's refusal to rezone its property violated constitutional rights. The parties settled after the county rezoned the property and jointly moved to dismiss the suit. Both RHN and the county then sought attorneys' fees and costs as prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The court denied both motions, holding that neither side qualified as a prevailing party absent a judicial ruling on the merits, and that voluntary action or settlement does not support a fee award under controlling Supreme Court precedent.

civil rightsproperty

In Morris v. Khadr, U.S. Army soldiers Layne Morris and Christopher Speer were attacked by al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2002, resulting in Morris's permanent injury and Speer's death; one attacker was Omar Khadr, whose father, defendant Ahmad Khadr, had encouraged his sons to join al Qaeda and provided support to the group. The plaintiffs sued the defendant under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for damages, but he failed to respond after service by publication. The court first confirmed its subject matter jurisdiction under the ATA and personal jurisdiction over the defendant based on his al Qaeda activities and contacts, then granted default judgment, awarding $102.6 million in trebled damages as reasonable compensation for the injuries and losses.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

In this Title VII case, plaintiff Ana Ayala, an employment counselor at Utah’s Division of Workforce Services, alleged national origin discrimination based on her Mexican heritage, claiming the Division required her to unlawfully screen out non-English-speaking job applicants and subjected her to a hostile work environment through intimidation and other tactics. She had previously filed an EEOC charge checking only the national origin box and later sued in federal court after receiving a right-to-sue letter. The Division moved for summary judgment on the discrimination and hostile work environment claims. The court granted the motion, finding the undisputed facts and applicable case law did not support Ayala’s claims of unlawful discrimination or a hostile environment.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case, brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), concerns plaintiff David Sparkman’s claim that Prudential Insurance wrongfully denied him long-term disability benefits under his employer’s group policy for a condition of severe atopic eczema allegedly caused by stress. Prudential initially paid benefits but later terminated them after reviewing medical records, concluding that Sparkman was not under the regular care of a doctor and could perform work for which he was reasonably fitted. The court granted Prudential’s motion for summary judgment and denied Sparkman’s, finding that the plan gave Prudential discretionary authority to determine eligibility and that its decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record, including limited doctor visits and the plaintiff’s refusal to provide pre-disability medical records. The court applied an arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review and held that the administrator’s determination was reasonable even in light of the plaintiff’s physicians’ letters and his Social Security disability award.

labor & employmenthealthcare

In United States v. Serawop, the defendant pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter after a jury had previously convicted him of killing his three-month-old daughter, and the court addressed restitution obligations following remand. The court reaffirmed its earlier order requiring the defendant to pay $325,751 in restitution to the victim's estate for her projected lost income plus $1,509 for funeral expenses to the Ute Indian Tribe. The ruling was based on the Mandatory Victims’ Restitution Act's requirement that restitution cover the full amount of each victim's losses, including lost income, with calculations from an expert upheld after review for any needed updates; the court also noted that the later-enacted Crime Victims’ Rights Act endorsed this approach to restitution. A payment schedule was established, due in full immediately but payable at specified rates tied to the defendant's income and stipend during and after imprisonment.

criminal lawprocedure