Bad Ass Coffee Company of Hawaii, Inc. v Royal Aloha International, LLC

Bad appealed the grant of Royal’s motion to dismiss for improper venue under a forum selection clause. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that Utah case law allows a plaintiff to avoid a selection clause if the contract was brought about by fraud and Bad pled fraud as part of its complaint here. The case was remanded for the district court to analyze whether bad plead out a fraud claim and to allow amendment if appropriate.

American Express Bank v Randall

Bank appealed the district court order denying it request for access to Randall’s employment records held by the department of workforce services. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that by failing to offer any argument on appeal, Department failed to provide any substantive objection, the requirement under federal regulations to object is not an independent ground to deny and as Bank complied with the other requirements of oath Code 35A-4-314, the motion should have been granted. The panel also held that Utah’s freedom of information act did not apply under its plain language and pre-trial discovery rules also did not apply as bank has a judgment against Randall.

Majors v Owens

Majors appealed the exclusion of physician testimony on causation and summary judgment for lack of causation testimony. The panel reversed. It held that the treating physicians met the standard for expert testimony as they took histories from Majors, evaluated imaging and other test results and applied their experience in treating victims of auto accidents in reaching their causation conclusion. While there are weaknesses in the testimony, those go to weight not admissibility for physicians are not required to undertake independent investigations or consider alternative sources of injury. Judgment was reversed as the physician’s testimony was sufficient to take the case to the jury.

State v Becker

Becker appealed a restitution order in his plea in abeyance case. The panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction holding pleas in abeyance are not final judgments and thus the restitution order is not appealable.