Lewis v Nelson

Nelson appealed the entry of summary judgment. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that under the 2011 amendments to discovery provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure, parties are not required to respond to requests beyond those authorized by rule, do not admit the facts alleged in additional unauthorized discovery requests and there are disputed factual issues in this case making summary judgment inappropriate. The panel cautioned that a party receiving an unauthorized discovery request is not permitted to choose which requests to respond to and should bring the matter to the district court’s attention.

Gun Hill Dairy Properties, LLC v Los Angeles department of Water and Power

Dairy appealed the denial of its motion to change venue. The panel, with two members adding a special concurrence, affirmed. It held that there was no clear error in the district court’s conclusion that a juror was subjected to family pressure instead of there being a countywide prejudice against Dairy, that the district court permissibly vacated its initial grant of change of venue based on the parties’ agreement to an extension of time to object, that the selection of the jury in the mistrial demonstrated the ability to empanel an impartial jury without too much difficulty and that there was no prejudice in the use of the wrong legal standard by the district court in it analysis because of the lack of countywide bias. The special concurrence noted that the two judges would have granted the motion for change of venue, but, given the narrow standard of review agreed there was no abuse of discretion in denying it.

State v Norton

Norton appealed his consecutive sentences arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The panel affirmed. It held remand for additional fact finding was unnecessary as the materials Norton wished to place in the record were either cumulative or had damaging information which competent counsel could choose to not to place n eh record. It rejected the ineffective assistance claim on similar grounds holding counsel could have reasonably concluded that risks from the damaging information were too great to utilize the documents at sentencing.

Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy v Questar Gas Company

Distract appealed the dismissal of its complaint alleging Questar’s pipes are subject to District’s regulations. The panel affirmed. It held that District lacks statutory authority to regulate public utilities and had no implied authority as Salt Lake County, not District, has authority to grant franchises to put pipes under highways. It also held that there was evidence that Questar’s pipes unreasonably interfere with District’s water pipes as they have coexisted for over 60 years without any difficulties arising and Utah precedent mandates cooperation between easement holders not removal of the gas pipes.

Raylin Anderson v Andrea Anderson et al.

Raylin appealed the dismissal of all defendants and awarding attorney fees against her. The panel affirmed. It held that Raylin’s notice of appeal did not timely appeal most of the dismissal orders, that those which were timely appealed were inadequately briefed and the challenges to the attorney fee orders were unpreserved. It also awarded Andrea attorney fees for the appeal.

Gregory v Department of Workforce Services

Gregory appealed Department’s decision to deny unemployment befits and imposing fraud overpayment and penalty. The panel affirmed. It held Department’s ruling that Gregory had not demonstrated reasonable cause for missing three telephonic hearings was a fact like determination entitled to deference and Gregory’s failure to participate in the hearings means there is no evidence to support his arguments on appeal.