Reperex, Inc. v. May's Custom Tile, Inc.
292 P.3d 694
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Reperex entered into a 2008 agreement to purchase May's Custom Tile and to lease employees from May's Granite; the businesses operated in Salt Lake City, Utah.
- Reperex sued May for breach of contract, conversion, and fraud, alleging May failed to deliver the goodwill and assets valued at $840,800.
- May counterclaimed for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
- Reperex pursued multiple discovery motions seeking financials and tax information; the trial court denied most, partially granted others, and ordered May to supplement certain responses.
- In 2011 the court granted Reperex’s third motion to compel for Quickbooks data and tax returns; Reperex issued subpoenas and May moved to quash; discovery disputes continued into 2011.
- The trial court ultimately denied Reperex’s motion to amend to add four defendants and granted May’s motions to quash; Reperex appealed the August 24, 2011 Final Order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying additional discovery time | Reperex contends discovery remained open per stipulation and required more time. | May asserts discovery closed as of agreed deadlines and the requests were overly broad and burdensome. | No abuse; trial court had broad discretion in discovery management. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying the amendment to add four defendants | Reperex argues amendment was warranted to reflect related entities and ensure complete adjudication. | May argues amendment was improperly sought and prejudicial after discovery deadlines. | No abuse; court properly denied amendment in light of docket management and lack of adequate record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Linden v. State, 761 P.2d 1386 (Utah 1988) (review limited when record is inadequate)
- Prichett v. State, 69 P.3d 1278 (Utah 2003) (necessity of adequate record for review)
- Gorostieta v. Parkinson, 17 P.3d 1110 (Utah 2000) (strictly limited review on inadequate record)
- Turville v. J & J Props., LC, 145 P.3d 1146 (Utah 2006) (trial court discovery and amendment rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Dahl v. Harrison, 265 P.3d 139 (Utah 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for discovery rulings)