Butler v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
2014 UT 41
| Utah | 2014Background
- Butler sued Ford and COP for negligence and vicarious liability after a car accident; district court issued a memorandum ruling granting summary judgment in favor of COP as to COP's liability.
- COP did not serve a rule 7(F)(2) implementing order within the applicable 15-day period nor did the district court state no further order was required in its memorandum decision.
- About a month later COP filed a Rule 54(b) certification motion and a proposed combined order; the district court signed an "Order Directing Entry and Certification of Final Judgment under Rule 54(b)." COP did not serve the signed order on Butler promptly; Butler discovered the entry late and did not file a timely notice of appeal.
- Butler moved to proceed with an appeal or for an extension of time under Utah R. App. P. 4(e); the district court denied relief, concluding Butler had not shown excusable neglect or good cause.
- On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court consolidated summary-disposition motions and an extraordinary-writ petition and considered whether an interlocutory decision must satisfy rule 7(F)(2) and whether a single order can satisfy both rule 7(F)(2) and rule 54(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Butler) | Defendant's Argument (COP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interlocutory decisions must satisfy rule 7(F)(2) before appeal time runs | Rule 7(F)(2) requirements were not satisfied for the summary-judgment ruling so appeal time had not begun | The subsequent Rule 54(b) Certification Order rendered the earlier summary-judgment ruling final and triggered appeal time | Yes — interlocutory decisions must strictly satisfy rule 7(F)(2) before the appeal period runs |
| Whether a single order can satisfy both rule 7(F)(2) and rule 54(b) | A properly crafted combined order can satisfy both rules and trigger appeal time | COP argued its Certification Order satisfied both rules | Yes — a single order may satisfy both, but it must strictly comply with the requirements of each rule |
| Whether the district court's Certification Order here satisfied rule 7(F)(2) and rule 54(b) | The Certification Order did not cure the prior noncompliance; therefore appeal was premature | COP argued the Certification Order made the summary-judgment ruling final despite prior procedural form defects | No — the Certification Order failed to meet the rule 7(F)(2) service/ timing requirements for the earlier summary-judgment ruling, so Rule 54(b) certification was improper |
| Proper remedy and jurisdictional consequence | Request to direct district court to enter a compliant combined order or grant relief allowing timely appeal | COP sought dismissal for lack of jurisdiction | The Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and declined extraordinary writ; district court may enter a compliant order and then appeal timing will run |
Key Cases Cited
- Central Utah Water Conservancy Dist. v. King, 297 P.3d 619 (Utah 2013) (clarifies three ways to satisfy rule 7(F)(2) and ties rule 7(F)(2) compliance to appeal timing)
- Code v. Utah Dep't of Health, 162 P.3d 1097 (Utah 2007) (nonprevailing party may submit an implementing order when prevailing party fails to do so)
- Houghton v. Dep't of Health, 206 P.3d 287 (Utah 2008) (interlocutory decisions require strict compliance with rule 7(F)(2) to be appealable)
- Powell v. Cannon, 179 P.3d 799 (Utah 2008) (sets prerequisites for Rule 54(b) certification)
- Pate v. Marathon Steel Co., 692 P.2d 765 (Utah 1984) (discusses Utah Rule 54(b) as modeled on the federal rule)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1949) (merger doctrine: interlocutory rulings merge into final judgment and become reviewable)