CORA USA LLC v. Quick Change Artist LLC
397 P.3d 759
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- CORA USA LLC sued Quick Change Artist LLC for breach of contract; the district court awarded damages and attorney fees to CORA.
- Quick Change appealed, challenging several evidentiary rulings (motions in limine) that limited evidence to post-October 28, 2012, and excluded certain unproduced exhibits.
- Quick Change also argued the court erred by excluding its expert and expert report, by denying damages on its counterclaim, and by awarding CORA attorney fees.
- The district court had previously awarded CORA attorney fees and costs under the parties’ agreement.
- On appeal, Quick Change filed a brief of about six pages arguing these points but provided minimal legal analysis or citation to authority.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, concluding Quick Change failed to adequately brief its issues and remanded only to calculate CORA’s appellate attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court’s motions in limine excluding pre-10/28/2012 evidence and unproduced exhibits | Motions in limine were properly granted to prevent unfair prejudice and enforce discovery rules | Quick Change: court should have altered prior in limine ruling; exclusion harmed its defense | Affirmed — exclusion not reversed because appellant failed to adequately brief harmful error |
| Exclusion of Quick Change’s expert and expert report | Expert excluded properly under evidentiary rules (CORA) | Quick Change: exclusion improper, prejudiced trial | Affirmed — argument inadequately briefed, no developed authority presented |
| Denial of damages on Quick Change’s counterclaim | District court correctly found no entitlement to counterclaim damages | Quick Change: should have been awarded damages | Affirmed — inadequately briefed and unsupported on appeal |
| Award of attorney fees to CORA | CORA entitled to fees under contract/statute; district court appropriately awarded fees | Quick Change: original contract no longer controlling, so fees award was error | Affirmed — Quick Change failed to show how contract was superseded or cite authority; remand for calculation of appellate fees to CORA |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Roberts, 345 P.3d 1226 (Utah 2015) (discusses appellant’s burden of persuasion and adequate briefing requirement)
- Valcarce v. Fitzgerald, 961 P.2d 305 (Utah 1998) (court declines to consider inadequately briefed arguments)
- Tschaggeny v. Milbank Ins. Co., 163 P.3d 615 (Utah 2007) (trial court may, in sound discretion, alter prior in limine rulings)
- Jensen v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., 82 P.3d 1076 (Utah 2003) (erroneous evidentiary rulings are reversible only if harmful)
- State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299 (Utah 1998) (adequate briefing requires developed authority and reasoned analysis)
- Stewart v. Utah Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 885 P.2d 759 (Utah 1994) (attorney fees generally require statutory or contractual authorization)
- Utah Dep’t of Social Servs. v. Adams, 806 P.2d 1193 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (prevailing party who received fees below may recover reasonable appellate fees)
- Management Servs. Corp. v. Development Assocs., 617 P.2d 406 (Utah 1980) (prevailing party may receive attorney fees on appeal when authorized)