269 P.3d 1012
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Richter appeals a district court order denying her Rule 59 new trial and Rule 60(b) relief after dismissal of her case.
- The court sua sponte considered a summary disposition motion and affirmed the district court’s rulings.
- Rule 59 requires a new-trial motion to be served within 10 days after judgment; final order was May 17, 2011.
- Richter did not file the Rule 59 motion until July 18, 2011, so it was untimely and properly denied.
- Richter’s Rule 60(b) motion, filed July 18, 2011, was reviewed for abuse of discretion and is an appealable, narrow-order decision.
- On September 20, 2011, the district court denied Richter’s Rule 60(b) motion, finding no error in the statute-of-limitations ruling; the court denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Rule 59 motion timely filed? | Richter contends timely consideration. | Defendants assert untimely filing. | Untimely; district court did not err. |
| Is an appeal from a denial of Rule 60(b) limited and does it toll appeal time? | Richter seeks relief and appeal on merits. | Rule 60(b) appeal is narrow and does not toll time to appeal underlying judgment. | Rule 60(b) appeal is narrow and does not toll time; not a merits appeal. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief on statute-of-limitations grounds? | Richter argues error in limitations ruling. | Court acted within discretion; no error shown. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Layton/Okland, 2009 UT 39 (Utah Supreme Court, 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 60(b) relief)
- Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Shettler, 768 P.2d 950 (Utah Ct. App., 1989) (appealability of Rule 60(b) denial; narrow scope)
- Franklin Covey Client Sales, Inc. v. Melvin, 2000 UT App 110 (Utah Ct. App., 2000) (Rule 60(b) motion is not a substitute for untimely appeal)