Carson v Barnes

Barnes appealed the entry of a stalking injunction. The panel affirmed. It held that the district court did not err in counting an incident where Barns brandished a gun at two people on land rented by Carson’s company as the two people collaborated with Carson on research and worked with him on projects thus were co-workers for purposes of the stalking statute. It held the gun incident supported the conclusion that two other incidents soon thereafter of Barnes following Carson and later driving past Carson’s house would put a reasonable person in fear for their safety. Thus, there was a course of conduct proven to support the injunction. It held that Barnes’ argument about a firearms restriction in the injunction was not preserved as he failed to raise it in his objection to the injunction and the argument was also waived by Barnes failure to argue plain error.

Van Leeuwen v Bank of America, N.A.

Van Leeuwen appealed the dismissal of his complaint. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that the complaint here was not barred by claim preclusion as the prior suit challenging the Mortgage Electronic Registration System’s right to foreclose did not involve the question of whether or not Bank has ownership interest in a house and authority to foreclose and it is not clear that the issue of whether Bank’s relationship to the property changed at some point could have been raised in the earlier case.

Kalashnikov v Salt Lake City

Kalashnikov appealed the district court’s orders dismissing all defendants in his personal injury claim arising from an incident in a library. The panel affirmed. It held one defendant was properly dismissed as no allegations of wrongdoing were pled against him; that claims against City, the library and the city recorder were properly dismissed for failure to follow Utah’s tort claim act; and claims against the security company were properly dismissed for failure to designate an expert to prove cassation.

Hinmon v State

Hinmon appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The panel affirmed. It held the tip from a reliable informant that Hinmon was in a car manipulating balloons and trying to hide his activity from the informant which was corroborated by the investigating officer created reasonable suspicion that a drug crime was afoot and the officer’s observations that Hinmon pushed the towel and balloons to the floor and shouted to the driver to ”just drive” coupled with the earlier observations created probable cause to arrest Hinmon. Thus, the motion to suppress was properly denied.

Deutche Bank national Trust Company v York

York appealed the judgment for Bank in its unlawful detainer suit. The panel affirmed. It held that York’s argument that he should have been allowed to cross examine Bank’s witnesses about property ownership, title and the foreclosure process was not reviewable as York failed to make an offer of proof at trial and failed to explain on appeal what questions he would have asked and the evidence that would have been elicited. The panel noted that York was allowed to raise his issues by pretrial and post judgment motions and thus rejected the claim he was barred from raising the issues at all. It finally rejected York’s argument on discovery sanctions as York did not address the district court’s basis for rejecting his motion.