CBS Enterprises v. Sorenson
414 P.3d 925
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- CBS Enterprises LLC and Allen Myers sued Larry T. Sorensen in Utah state court claiming part‑ownership of a valuable jade artifact; the case was filed May 2015.
- In August 2015 the parties and court entered a stipulation governing security/storage of the artifact and expressly ordered that "all litigation deadlines shall be held in abeyance" (the case was stayed).
- In August 2016 the court issued a sua sponte Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of prosecution and warned dismissal would follow unless a written statement showing good cause was filed within 20 days.
- CBS timely filed a written objection describing ongoing federal proceedings affecting the artifact and asked for a hearing if the court was not satisfied; counsel later called the court and was told no hearing was scheduled and counsel would be contacted if that changed.
- The court later set an in‑court hearing on short notice; no counsel appeared and the court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution. CBS promptly filed a post‑dismissal motion captioned for reconsideration and seeking relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b), arguing excusable neglect and defective notice.
- The district court denied relief, characterizing CBS’s filing as an improper motion to reconsider and stating notice had been sent to counsel’s email on file. CBS appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal should be vacated under Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) for mistake/inadvertence/excusable neglect | CBS: counsel reasonably relied on court's written invitation to file a statement; CBS filed an objection and believed no hearing would be required; any failure to appear was excusable neglect. | Sorensen: court gave adequate notice (emailed address on file); plaintiff failed to appear and therefore dismissal was proper. | Court held relief under Rule 60(b)(1) should have been granted for excusable neglect; district court abused its discretion by denying relief. |
| Whether the district court properly refused to consider the motion because it was a "motion to reconsider" not recognized by the Rules | CBS: submission sought specific relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b); court could not ignore those grounds merely because the caption said "reconsideration." | Sorensen: court may decline to entertain motions to reconsider. | Court held the district court abused discretion by disregarding CBS’s 59(e)/60(b) arguments; once court addressed merits it had to do so reasonably. |
| Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute was proper given the earlier court‑approved stay | CBS: the case was stayed by court order; dismissal without first lifting stay contradicted the stay order and prevented resumption of litigation. | Sorensen: dismissal was an appropriate exercise of discretion after lack of prosecution. | Court held dismissal was improper because it contradicted the prior stay order and was an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether notice of the hearing was adequate | CBS: counsel did not receive actual notice; short notice and possible technical delivery problems made nonappearance excusable. | Sorensen: notice was sent to counsel’s email on file and was therefore adequate. | Court found the combination of the court's prior statement, short notice, and counsel's nonreceipt supported excusable neglect; notice was insufficient to justify dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheek v. Clay Bulloch Constr., Inc., 269 P.3d 964 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing dismissals for failure to prosecute)
- Lindstrom v. Custom Floor Covering Inc., 402 P.3d 171 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (motions to reconsider not recognized under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure)
- B.A.M. Dev., LLC v. Salt Lake County, 282 P.3d 41 (Utah 2012) (courts should consider a motion’s form and substance when applying rules)
- Robinson v. Baggett, 263 P.3d 411 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review for denial of Rule 60(b) relief)
- Charlie Brown Constr. Co. v. Leisure Sports Inc., 740 P.2d 1368 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (delay in seeking relief from dismissal relevant to whether relief should be granted)
- Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co. v. Paul W. Larsen Contractor, Inc., 544 P.2d 876 (Utah 1975) (factors to weigh in dismissal-for‑lack‑of‑prosecution cases)
- State v. L.A., 245 P.3d 213 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (courts are generally reluctant to second‑guess their own prior orders)