Background - Mower sued Thrive (Michael Moyer and Thrive Wholesale Growers, Inc.) alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment based on an oral agreement to transport, store, and sell trees; Tree Supply, LLC (an entity formed by Mower) was initially a plaintiff but was later dismissed for lack of counsel. - Thrive moved for summary judgment relying on Mower’s deposition to show the contract was between Tree Supply and Oregon Acres (Moyer’s employer) — not Mower or Thrive — and that an express contract precluded unjust enrichment. - Mower proceeded pro se and filed an opposition with an attached affidavit; he did not follow former Utah R. Civ. P. 7 by verbatim-restating and numbering the moving party’s facts or providing proper record citations contesting each fact. - The district court deemed Thrive’s stated facts admitted because Mower failed to comply with rule 7, granted summary judgment on all claims, and dismissed Mower’s claims with prejudice. - On appeal Mower argued (1) he substantially complied with rule 7 and deserved pro se leniency, (2) there remained genuine factual disputes (including whether a meeting of the minds existed), and (3) unjust enrichment should survive. The Court of Appeals affirmed. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---|---| | Whether Mower’s failure to strictly follow former Utah R. Civ. P. 7 was harmless | Mower: substantially complied; body of memorandum and affidavit raised disputes and provided citations | Thrive: noncompliance means moving party’s facts are deemed admitted under rule 7 | Court: affirmed district court’s discretionary decision to deem facts admitted; deficiencies were not harmless | | Whether pro se status entitled Mower to leniency on rule 7 requirements | Mower: as pro se, should receive reasonable indulgence and the court should excuse some procedural defects | Thrive: pro se litigant must meet same standards; earlier deposition undermined Mower’s later affidavit | Court: no abuse of discretion; pro se leniency does not require courts to translate legal rules or excuse contradiction with deposition testimony | | Whether deemed-admitted facts entitled Thrive to judgment on breach of contract | Mower: even if facts admitted, no meeting of the minds shown | Thrive: admitted facts establish contract was between Tree Supply and Oregon Acres, not Mower/Thrive; thus Mower lacks standing | Court: admitted facts establish parties to the contract and therefore a meeting of the minds; judgment as a matter of law proper | | Whether unjust enrichment claim survived summary judgment | Mower: unjust enrichment still in dispute despite admitted facts | Thrive: express contract governs, so unjust enrichment is unavailable | Court: Mower conceded in his opposition that unjust enrichment was unnecessary; invited error doctrine bars review of this issue; summary judgment affirmed | ### Key Cases Cited Salt Lake County v. Metro West Ready Mix, Inc., 89 P.3d 155 (Utah 2004) (explaining when deviations from rule 7 may be harmless if disputed facts and citations appear in the body of the brief) Bluffdale City v. Smith, 156 P.3d 175 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (applying rule 7 strictly where opposing memorandum failed to restate and cite disputed facts) Allen v. Friel, 194 P.3d 903 (Utah 2008) (pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys but are entitled to reasonable indulgences) Webster v. Sill, 675 P.2d 1170 (Utah 1983) (a party cannot create a factual issue by affidavit that contradicts prior deposition testimony without explanation) * Pratt v. Nelson, 164 P.3d 366 (Utah 2007) (invited error doctrine bars appellate review when a party affirmatively represents no objection to a proceeding)