Camco Construction Inc. v. Utah Baseball Academy, Inc.
243 P.3d 1269
Utah2010Background
- API contracted with Camco to build athletic facility; KeyBank financed project with construction loan.
- Project delays and defects led Camco to sue API and KeyBank for contract and lien issues.
- Arbitration clause forced API–Camco dispute into arbitration; Judge Quinn ordered arbitration in June 2006.
- Arbitration awarded Camco ~$608,000; API paid award and claims were dismissed with prejudice.
- KeyBank used arbitration materials in API–KeyBank litigation, prompting API to seek disqualification of Judge Quinn for alleged ADR confidentiality breaches.
- API filed three disqualification motions; first two denied; third denied after Tingey/ADR Act grounds were considered and found untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of API’s Rule 63(b) disqualification motion | API argues timely under Rule 63(b)(1)(B) | KeyBank argues untimely under Rule 63(b)(1)(B) | Untimely under Rule 63(b); merits not reached. |
| Whether Tingey Construction requires recusal when ADR materials are disclosed | API relies on Tingey to require recusal | KeyBank argues no automatic rule beyond timeliness | Not reached due to untimeliness; if reached, Tingey not per se rule for arbitration cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reese v. Tingey Construction, 2008 UT 7, 177 P.3d 605 (Utah 2008) (ADR confidentiality; potential recusal guidance)
- Madsen v. Prudential Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 767 P.2d 538 (Utah 1988) (timeliness and standards for disqualification motions)
- State v. Alonzo, 973 P.2d 975 (Utah 1998) (governing question of law review)