Freight Tec Management v. Chemex, 499 P.3d 894

Background

Freight Tec is an interstate freight broker; Chemex signed a 2013 credit application that incorporated Freight Tec’s online Terms & Conditions and included a provision requiring Chemex to pay collection costs and attorney fees on unpaid invoices.
Freight Tec arranged multiple shipments for Chemex (including a July 2016 Winter Haven load). Freight Tec invoiced Chemex for later Jacksonville and Birmingham loads; Chemex refused payment and alleged an earlier Winter Haven load was never delivered.
Freight Tec sued a carrier (USA Logistics) on the non‑delivery theory, later amended and sued Chemex for breach of contract after USA Logistics produced proof of delivery; Chemex counterclaimed for breach of contract and several torts (negligence, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty).
Freight Tec moved for summary judgment just before fact‑discovery closed; Chemex sought two extensions to respond (one under Utah R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) and another under 6(b)(1)(B)); the district court denied both and refused to consider any opposition.
The district court granted summary judgment to Freight Tec: enforced contract terms (Chemex breached by nonpayment), held FAAAA preempted Chemex’s tort claims, held Carmack Amendment preempted conversion claims (as to brokers per the court), and awarded Freight Tec contractual attorney fees (including fees defending against the counterclaims as "inextricably intertwined").
On appeal Chemex challenged denial of extensions, argued federal preemption rulings were wrong and contested the fee award; the Court of Appeals affirmed: denial of extensions was within discretion, summary‑judgment challenges were unpreserved (no opposition filed) and not plainly erroneous, and the fee award was affirmed; the appellate court remanded for calculation of fees on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Freight Tec (Plaintiff) Argument	Chemex (Defendant) Argument	Held
1) Were Chemex’s motions for extension of time properly denied?	Denial was within the court’s discretion because Chemex failed to show good cause and delayed raising discovery issues.	Chemex argued it discovered discovery deficiencies only when preparing its opposition and sought extensions in good faith; denial was abuse of discretion.	Denial affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; Chemex failed to show good cause or excusable neglect.
2) Are the district court’s summary judgment rulings (including federal preemption and contract enforcement) reviewable on appeal?	Freight Tec: Chemex waived opposition; issues are not preserved.	Chemex: appellate review should consider merits; district court erred on preemption and contract formation.	Unpreserved: Chemex did not file an opposition so appellate review of summary judgment claims is barred except plain‑error, which fails here.
3) Did federal law preempt Chemex’s tort and conversion claims (FAAAA and Carmack Amendment)?	Freight Tec: FAAAA preempts tort claims that relate to price/route/service; courts have held Carmack applies to brokers—so claims preempted or displaced.	Chemex: FAAAA and Carmack do not plainly preempt these state tort claims as applied; split authority exists.	Court below found preemption; appellate court did not reach merits (unpreserved) and held any error would not be obvious given split authority.
4) Was the attorney‑fee award proper (including fees defending against counterclaims)?	Freight Tec: contract authorized fees for collection; counterclaims were inextricably intertwined with breach claim, so all fees recoverable; invoices supported reasonableness.	Chemex: contract does not authorize fees for defending noncontractual claims; district court failed to allocate or apply fee reasonableness factors.	Award affirmed: contract covers collection and related defense when claims share a common core of facts; fee evidence adequate and Chemex did not contest reasonableness below.

Key Cases Cited

Dahl v. Dahl, 459 P.3d 276 (Utah 2015) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for extension denials)
Jones v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 286 P.3d 301 (Utah 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Reisbeck v. HCA Health Servs. of Utah, 2 P.3d 447 (Utah 2000) (good cause and excusable‑neglect principles)
West v. Grand County, 942 P.2d 337 (Utah 1997) (factors for excusable neglect inquiry)
Pulham v. Kirsling, 443 P.3d 1217 (Utah 2019) (notice‑of‑appeal must identify appealed orders; jurisdictional rule 3(d) discussion)
North Fork Special Serv. Dist. v. Bennion, 297 P.3d 624 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (intermediate orders subsumed in final judgment may be reviewed)
Pepperwood Homeowners Ass’n v. Mitchell, 351 P.3d 844 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (summary judgment cannot be entered solely for failure to oppose unless appropriate)
Foote v. Clark, 962 P.2d 52 (Utah 1998) (limits on contractual fee awards and related analysis)
Cottonwood Mall Co. v. Sine, 830 P.2d 266 (Utah 1992) (factors bearing on reasonableness of attorney fees)