2010-1RADC/CADC Venture, LLC v Dos Lagos, LLC et al.

Dos Lagos et al. sought review of the Utah Court of Appeals decision rejecting their claim that 2010-1RADC should not have been added as a plaintiff and should not have been awarded the entire deficiency amount owed under a note. The Court affirmed. It held that under the 2011 version of Rule of Civil procedure 15(c) applicable to the case, adding 2010-1RADC related back to the original complaint and thus 2010-1RADC’s claim was timely because Dos Lagos had sufficient notice of 2010-1RADC’s claim under the original complaint as the complaint deals with one loan secure by one note and alleges one default and subsequent sale of the securing land and Dos Lagos in fact moved to dismiss the original complaint because 2010-1RADC was not a plaintiff and further held there was no prejudice as Dos Lagos identified no way the litigation would have been different. It affirmed the award of the whole deficiency amount holding Dos Lagos’s briefing before the Court of Appeals was inadequate as it did not address the district court ruling that Dos Lagos conceded that 2010-1RADC could seek the whole deficiency and failed to address the language of the note.