Evans v. Huber, 366 P.3d 862

Evans and Huber were the only members of Drilling Resources, LLC; they agreed circa June 2008 to dissolve the company, perform an accounting, and deposit $50,000 into escrow pending the accounting.
Evans sued in April 2010 alleging he did not receive proper dissolution distributions and asserting claims including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and gross negligence; he sought at least $50,000 plus fees.
Defendants moved for summary judgment after expert discovery closed, submitting a CPA Rodney Savage’s declaration and accounting report recommending final distributions and showing Evans’s recoverable amount was limited to a $19,547.41 payment from escrow.
Evans opposed summary judgment generally disputing Savage’s report and relying on his initial disclosures naming two CPAs as potential witnesses, but he did not produce affidavits, rebuttal expert reports, or other discovery to controvert Savage’s accounting.
The district court deemed Defendants’ factual statements admitted under Utah R. Civ. P. 7 because Evans failed to controvert them with citations/affidavits, granted summary judgment, adopted Savage’s distribution recommendations, and denied Evans’s postjudgment motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact (damages/accounting) existed	Evans argued there were disputed facts and that disclosed CPAs would prove damages and rebut Savage at trial	Defendants argued Savage’s accounting showed no damages beyond the identified distribution and Evans failed to produce evidence to controvert it	Court held summary judgment proper: Evans failed to specifically controvert Savage’s accounting as required by Rule 7/56, so the accounting was accepted and Evans had no damages beyond the payout
Whether Evans should have been allowed to amend pleadings under Rule 15	Evans claimed the court erred by not allowing amendment or supplementation	Defendants opposed; district court did not grant amendment	Court declined to address merits—Evans failed to preserve the issue in the trial court, so argument not considered on appeal
Whether appellate court can review denial of Evans’s postjudgment motions (new trial/amendment of judgment)	Evans argued denial was erroneous	Defendants argued appeal was untimely as to postjudgment orders	Court held it lacked jurisdiction to review postjudgment motions because Evans’s notice of appeal was filed after judgment but before resolution of postjudgment motions and he did not file an amended notice of appeal

Orvis v. Johnson, 177 P.3d 600 (Utah 2008) (standard for reviewing summary judgment and burden-shifting when nonmoving party bears trial burden)
Stevens-Henager Coll. v. Eagle Gate Coll., 248 P.3d 1025 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (plaintiff must produce evidence of damages at summary judgment when defendant’s motion shows no damages)
Advanced Forming Techs., LLC v. Permacast, LLC, 342 P.3d 808 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (plaintiff must offer evidence of damages in opposition to a well-supported summary judgment motion)
Desert Miriah, Inc. v. B & L Auto, Inc., 12 P.3d 580 (Utah 2000) (elements required to recover unjust enrichment)
St. Benedict’s Dev. Co. v. St. Benedict’s Hosp., 811 P.2d 194 (Utah 1991) (breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires showing obstruction of the right to receive contractual benefits)
State v. Mackin, 283 P.3d 997 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (appellate jurisdictional rule: need amended notice to appeal postjudgment orders)