Advanced Forming Technologies, LLC v. Permacast, LLC
2015 UT App 7
| Utah Ct. App. | 2015Background
- AFTEC licensed StoneTree system to Permacast for a Florida territory in 2006; purchase of equipment and annual licensing fee terms established.
- AFTEC terminated the license on February 19, 2009 for alleged marking, performance, and marketing breaches and territory issues.
- AFTEC sued Permacast for breach of contract and intentional interference after termination; discovery was open-ended.
- Permacast moved for summary judgment in June 2012 arguing AFTEC lacked damages evidence; AFTEC claimed damages existed and could be proven, with expert support forthcoming.
- AFTEC argued total marketing/advertising costs of about $1.3 million, $560,000 allocable to Permacast, and that discovery would yield experts to quantify damages.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, finding damages not sufficiently broken down and requiring an expert; on appeal the court reversed, noting open-ended discovery and that Permacast failed to prove entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate before discovery closed | AFTEC; discovery ongoing, damages evidence pending | Permacast; no damages evidence proffered | No; summary judgment improperly granted; damages not proven as a matter of law. |
| Whether AFTEC could rely on ongoing discovery to prove damages | AFTEC would prove damages with future expert testimony | Permacast argued lack of damages evidence | AFTEC could not yet present full damages proof, but summary judgment was improper given open discovery. |
| Whether an open-ended discovery protocol justified denying summary judgment | Open-ended discovery allowed AFTEC to obtain experts | No firm deadlines justified by protocol; risk of abuse | Open-ended discovery was valid; reversal based on the moving party not showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. |
| Whether Permacast properly carried burden under Rule 56(c) | AFTEC would present damages evidence | Permacast must prove entitlement to judgment as a matter of law | Permacast failed to prove entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. |
| Whether late-stage damages proof requires expert designation deadlines | AFTEC had not designated an expert yet | No fixed deadline to designate experts had passed due to open discovery | Not dispositive; court reversed for trial on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Orvis v. Johnson, 177 P.3d 600 (Utah 2008) (review of summary judgment standards; factual inferences in light most favorable to non-moving party)
- Stevens–Henager Coll. v. Eagle Gate Coll., 248 P.3d 1025 (Utah App. 2011) (advertising costs alone do not prove damages; expert needed to quantify)
- Paget v. Department of Transp., 322 P.3d 1180 (Utah App. 2014) (designating experts deadlines; summary judgment outcomes depending on expert availability)
- Parrish v. Layton City Corp., 542 P.2d 1086 (Utah 1975) (rest on pleadings when no genuine issue for trial; discovery implications)
- Morgan v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 263 P.3d 405 (Utah App. 2011) (expert testimony required to prove certain elements; failure to designate may bar claim)
- Jones & Trevor Mktg., Inc. v. Lowry, 284 P.3d 630 (Utah 2012) (summary judgment burden on moving party; need to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law)