374 P.3d 49
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- December 6, 2006: Norton injured in auto accident; four-year statute of limitations for negligence claims applies.
- Norton filed suit against Hess on December 3, 2010 (three days before the limitations period expired). Rule 4 gives 120 days to serve the complaint; Norton failed to serve within that time and got a 120-day extension, but again failed and the case was dismissed without prejudice on November 22, 2011.
- Utah’s savings statute (one-year toll to refile once) allowed Norton to refile; he refiled on November 21, 2012 (one day before the savings period expired). He again failed to serve within 120 days; the court dismissed the second action on April 18, 2013 (denying further extension).
- Norton filed a third complaint on April 18, 2014 after obtaining Rule 60(b)(6) relief from the April 2013 dismissal; he then served Hess. Hess moved to dismiss asserting Norton had already invoked the savings statute once and could not refile again.
- The district court (Judge Bean) concluded the savings statute permits only one refile and that the second dismissal was effectively with prejudice; Rule 60(b) cannot be used to circumvent the statutory limit. The court dismissed Norton’s third action; Norton appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second dismissal was effectively with prejudice under the savings statute (i.e., plaintiff had only one refiling) | Norton argued Rule 60(b) relief should revive his case and that the dismissal did not permanently bar refiling | Hess argued the savings statute allows only one new action; after Norton used it once the claim is barred and Rule 60(b) cannot override that statutory limit | Court held the savings statute permits only one refiling; the purported without-prejudice dismissal could not confer another toll and the claim was barred |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief could be used to circumvent the savings statute and revive Norton’s claim | Norton asserted Rule 60(b)(6) relief was appropriate because dismissal would otherwise bar his claim | Hess maintained Rule 60(b) cannot be used to evade the statutory one-time refiling limit and statutory limitations control | Court held Rule 60(b) cannot be used to override the savings statute; denial of relief was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Oates v. Chavez, 749 P.2d 658 (Utah 1988) (standard of review for legal questions)
- Shedron-Easley v. Easley, 343 P.3d 718 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (Rule 60(b) motions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Kell v. State, 285 P.3d 1133 (Utah 2012) (appellate review framework for discretionary rulings)
- Richter v. Larson, Turner, Fairbanks & Dalby, LC, 269 P.3d 1012 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (affirming denial of Rule 60(b) when merits not shown)
- Beaver County v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 128 P.3d 1187 (Utah 2006) (limitations exceptions are narrowly construed)
- Hebertson v. Bank One, Utah, NA, 995 P.2d 7 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (discussing prior version of savings statute allowing serial refiling)
- In re Estate of Cosby, 257 P.3d 509 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (requirements for adequately briefing an issue on appeal)