Gunn Hill Dairy Properties, LLC v. Los Angeles Depatrment of Water & Power
361 P.3d 703
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Dairies (owners/operators of Utah dairy farms) sued IPP (operator of Intermountain Power Plant); case initially filed in California (2003), then refiled in Utah (2005).
- Trial was transferred to Juab County (moved from Millard County earlier to avoid local bias); trial began September 2018 and ended in a mistrial after jury tampering concerns.
- During trial, Juror 9 reported family members pressured her favoring IPP and warning about job losses if IPP lost; juror said she was undecided.
- The trial court declared mistrial after both sides sought to preserve mistrial claims; Dairies then moved to change venue from Juab County to Utah County.
- Trial court initially granted a change of venue (First Order) when IPP had not timely opposed, later vacated that order, held further hearings, and ultimately denied the Dairies' renewed motion (Denial Order).
- The Dairies sought interlocutory appellate review of the denial; the appellate court affirmed, concluding the court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dairies) | Defendant's Argument (IPP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying change of venue after mistrial | Juror 9’s family pressure shows juror bias and community-wide prejudice; impartial jury could not be impaneled in Juab County | Mistrial returns case to pretrial posture; voir dire showed impartial jury was possible and Juror 9’s pressures were private, not community-wide | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; record supports that an impartial jury could be impaneled |
| Whether mistrial indicates jury was never impartial at impaneling | Juror 9’s statements show bias at impaneling, so retrial location should change | Juror 9 was pressured by family during trial but had not decided a verdict; pressures were not shown to derive from IPP or community influence | Court found juror pressures were localized and did not establish community-wide taint |
| Whether trial court applied correct legal standard (prospective Grantsville standard vs. post-trial fairness inquiry) | Post-trial perspective controls because there was no verdict — court should assess whether the case was actually tried by an impartial jury | Grantsville prospective standard applies because the mistrial returns parties to a pre-trial posture; but court should account for realities of prior juror tampering | Court: prospective analysis appropriate here but must consider mistrial realities; outcome same — no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the First Order (vacated) undermines Denial Order | First Order’s language shows court thought community bias existed; Denial Order contradicts that | First Order was vacated and thus a nullity; Denial Order was based on full briefing and argument | Vacated First Order has no continuing effect; Denial Order supported by record and explanation |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Grantsville v. Redevelopment Agency of Tooele City, 238 P.3d 461 (Utah 2010) (change-of-venue rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; pretrial/prospective analysis described)
- Gunn Hill Dairy Props., LLC v. Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power, 269 P.3d 980 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (prior interlocutory appellate history of the dispute)
- Butterfield v. Sevier Valley Hosp., 246 P.3d 120 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (distinguishes pretrial prospective venue inquiry from post-trial impartiality assessment)
- State v. Nielsen, 326 P.3d 645 (Utah 2014) (appellate standard: party cannot prevail by ignoring supporting record evidence)