Mower v. Simpson
278 P.3d 1076
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiffs filed a 212-page complaint (Oct. 20, 2009) with 26 claims against numerous defendants about real estate projects in Hawaii and Utah.
- Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Nov. 2009) expanded to 216 pages and 28 claims with 713 paragraphs and many exhibits.
- District court dismissed fraud claims for failure to plead with particularity and ordered a concise, particularized pleading within 20 days.
- Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (Mar. 5, 2010) spanning 361 pages with 48 claims and 1,362 paragraphs, cross-referencing prior paragraphs.
- District court issued rulings in June 2010 that dismissed the fraud claims (and found Mower’s deceased husband a necessary/indispensable party) and rejected aiding-and-abetting fiduciary claims.
- This interlocutory appeal challenges those dismissals; the Utah Court of Appeals reverses on pleading particularity, joinder/indispensability, and aiding-and-abetting fiduciary-duty claims, remanding for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of fraud pleading | Fraud claims are adequately pleaded despite length and cross-referencing. | Second Amended Complaint was too long/complex and improperly cross-referenced to preceding paragraphs. | Dismissal reversed; pleadings adequate; remand for claim-by-claim analysis. |
| Joinder/indispensable party (Dolezsar) | Dolezsar is not indispensable; dismissal improper. | Dolezsar necessary/indispensable to fraud claims; joinder infeasible due to estate limitations. | District court erred; Dolezsar not a necessary/indispensable party as pleaded; reversal and remand. |
| Aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty | Utah recognizes aiding-and-abetting fiduciary-duty claims. | Utah does not recognize such claims. | Utah recognizes aiding-and-abetting breach of fiduciary duty; reverse dismissal; remand. |
| Aiding and abetting fraudulent nondisclosure | Utah recognizes aiding-and-abetting fraudulent nondisclosure. | Undisputed lack of recognition; insufficient briefing. | Briefing inadequate; issue not decided; no opinion on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coroles v. Sabey, 79 P.3d 974 (Utah App. 2003) (clarity/conciseness; reject bulk incorporation; not per se too long)
- Armed Forces Ins. Exch. v. Harrison, 70 P.3d 35 (2003 UT 14) (fraud pleading requires particularity)
- Turville v. J & J Props., LC, 145 P.3d 1146 (Utah App. 2006) (indispensable party analysis under Rule 19)
- United Park City Mines Co. v. Greater Park City Co., 870 P.2d 880 (Utah 1993) (recognition of aiding/abetting fiduciary duty claims)
- Russell/Packard Development, Inc. v. Carson, 78 P.3d 616 (Utah App. 2003) (aiding/abetting fiduciary duty liability where knowingly joins fiduciary)