Aghdasi v. Saberin
347 P.3d 427
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Kaveh and Cindy Aghdasi sued Payam Saberin (a leased City Cab driver) and City Cab after Saberin physically attacked Kaveh.
- After discovery, City Cab moved for summary judgment and filed its motion and supporting memorandum through the court e-filing system.
- Court electronic receipts showed the Aghdasis’ attorney was electronically notified of the motion and memorandum on October 24, 2013, and of a request to submit for decision on December 12, 2013; the court granted summary judgment on December 13.
- The Aghdasis did not file opposition; their attorney later filed a Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion (filed Dec. 24) claiming excusable neglect, supported by an affidavit that he never saw the e-notices (speculating deletion or spam).
- The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion, finding the court’s e-notice records showed receipt and that the attorney failed to show diligence; the Aghdasis appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney’s claimed failure to see e-filed motion constitutes excusable neglect under Rule 60(b) | Aghdasi: inadvertent deletion/spam prevented notice; constitutes excusable neglect warranting relief | City Cab: court’s e-notice proves notice; attorney’s lack of diligence is not excusable | Denied — no abuse of discretion. Misplacing e-filings is not excusable neglect absent evidence of diligence |
| Whether opposing counsel’s failure to notify before default summary judgment required consideration of Utah Standards of Professionalism and Civility | Aghdasi: City Cab counsel violated professionalism rule by not notifying before causing a default-type judgment | City Cab: compliance with aspirational Standards isn’t mandatory and doesn’t justify setting aside judgment | Rejected — Standards are aspirational; noncompliance does not provide basis to set aside judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. Pierce, 732 P.2d 92 (Utah 1986) (standard for reviewing Rule 60(b) denial)
- Jones v. Layton/Okland, 214 P.3d 859 (Utah 2009) (excusable neglect is equitable and requires consideration of diligence)
- Stevens v. LaVerkin City, 183 P.3d 1059 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (misplaced filings in counsel’s office do not necessarily justify setting aside judgment)
- Mini Spas, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 733 P.2d 130 (Utah 1987) (court rejected inadvertent misplacement excuse)
- Fox v. American Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (attorney remains obligated to monitor docket despite e-mail notice failures)
- Erickson v. Schenkers Int’l Forwarders, Inc., 882 P.2d 1147 (Utah 1994) (discussing meritorious defense element for setting aside default)
- Judson v. Wheeler RV Las Vegas, LLC, 270 P.3d 456 (Utah 2012) (clarification on what constitutes a meritorious defense under Rule 60(b))
- Arbogast Family Trust v. River Crossings, LLC, 238 P.3d 1035 (Utah 2010) (Standards of Professionalism and Civility are aspirational and supplemental to procedural rules)