Chilel v. Simler
2016 UT 23
Utah2016Background
- Chilel sued Simler in small claims court for $10,000 alleging injuries from an automobile collision; the justice court entered judgment for "No Cause of Action."
- Chilel appealed to district court seeking a trial de novo; Simler filed an answer, paid the statutory jury fee, and served a jury demand plus limited pretrial discovery (one interrogatory and one production request).
- Chilel moved to strike Simler’s answer, jury demand, and discovery invoking Utah Code § 78B-1-104(4) and Utah Rules of Small Claims Procedure rule 6(a); the district court granted the motion and struck Simler’s jury demand and discovery.
- Simler petitioned for interlocutory appeal, arguing (1) the Utah Constitution guarantees a jury at a small-claims trial de novo and § 78B-1-104(4) is unconstitutional, and (2) rule 6(a) unconstitutionally precludes pretrial discovery.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted review, held that the state constitution guarantees a jury at the trial de novo stage and that Simler properly preserved and asserted that right, and declined to reach Simler’s discovery constitutional arguments because they were not preserved below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Utah Constitution guarantees a jury trial in small-claims appeals (trial de novo) | § 78B-1-104(4) validly precludes jury in de novo small-claims appeals | Article I, § 10 guarantees jury in civil cases, including small-claims trials de novo; Simler properly demanded jury and paid fee | Court: Article I, § 10 guarantees a jury at the trial de novo; § 78B-1-104(4) unconstitutional as applied; Simler preserved right and jury demand was valid |
| Whether pretrial discovery is constitutionally required in small-claims de novo proceedings | Rule 6(a) validly limits discovery in small-claims de novo appeals | Preclusion of pretrial discovery violates due process, open courts, uniform operation of laws | Court: Discovery challenge not preserved below; court declines to reach merits; district court’s striking of discovery affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Mackey Price Thompson & Ostler, 355 P.3d 1000 (Utah 2015) (recognizes article I, § 10 guarantee of jury trial in civil cases)
- Zions First Nat’l Bank v. Rocky Mountain Irrigation, Inc., 795 P.2d 658 (Utah 1990) (constitutional jury right extends only to actions cognizable at law when constitution adopted)
- Kawamoto v. Fratto, 994 P.2d 187 (Utah 2000) (noting potential constitutional dimensions of jury right in small-claims context)
- Baird v. Baird, 322 P.3d 728 (Utah 2014) (preservation rule: issue not considered on appeal unless presented to district court)
- Manzanares v. Byington (In re Adoption of Baby B.), 308 P.3d 382 (Utah 2012) (questions of law and constitutional issues reviewed for correctness)