Rodaric Group v. Ryan
2012 UT App 127
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- This Utah Court of Appeals memorandum reverses a district court default judgment against W. Kelly Ryan in a securities action brought by Rodaric Group and related plaintiffs.
- The case narrowed to four defendants, including Ryan, after others were dismissed.
- A bench trial was scheduled for August 2, 2010, with Ryan representing himself from Washington; his request to appear telephonically at an early conference was denied.
- Ryan appeared in person for the August 2 trial but the November 8, 2010 date was set with a continuing eight-day trial, and he again did not appear for the first day.
- Rodaric Group later indicated a global settlement with other defendants, and Ryan appeared through counsel, Burdsal, who asserted readiness to proceed without delay.
- The district court struck Ryan’s answer and entered default judgment against him, sanctioning under Utah Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 16(d) for failing to obey a pretrial order, based on Ryan’s nonappearance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was default judgment proper when Ryan appeared through counsel? | Rodaric Group contends Ryan's nonappearance justified default | Ryan contends appearance via counsel negates personal nonappearance sanctions | Default judgment reversed |
| Was the Rule 16(d) sanction supported by the record? | Rodaric Group relied on pretrial order noncompliance for sanctions | Ryan argues sanctions premised on misapplied facts and lack of personal failure | Sanction not supported by facts |
| Did the district court err by allowing proffered evidence after striking Ryan's answer? | Rodaric Group sought to proceed by proffer after striking the answer | Ryan objected to proffer as inappropriate given appearance through counsel | Not decisive since default reversed |
| Did Ryan’s appearance through counsel render a default judgment inappropriate? | Default based on appearance issues; record shows reliance on nonappearance | Ryan argues counsel presence suffices to proceed | Not upheld; reversed |
| Should the case be remanded for further proceedings? | Remand to proceed with trial in proper posture | Remand to address issues not fully developed | Remanded for additional proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ogawa v. Ogawa, 221 P.3d 699 (Nev. 2009) (reversing default judgment where represented by counsel)
- Rocky Produce, Inc. v. Frontera, 449 N.W.2d 916 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989) (representation by counsel precludes automatic in-person appearance requirement)
- Von Hake v. Thomas, 759 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1988) (contempt standards; personal noncompliance must be willful and known)
- 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 99 P.3d 801 (Utah 2004) (declines reviewing issues not properly presented to district court)