Steffensen-WC, LLC v. Volunteers of America of Utah, Inc.
369 P.3d 483
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Steffensen-WC owns a parcel adjacent to land VOA purchased to build a homeless shelter; VOA applied to Salt Lake City (SLC) for permits.
- Steffensen-WC sued VOA and SLC before permits were approved, alleging the proposed shelter would create a substantial private nuisance and seeking injunctive relief.
- SLC moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; VOA moved to dismiss for failure to state a private-nuisance claim.
- In opposition, Steffensen-WC argued it had pleaded an "anticipatory nuisance" claim; VOA replied that Utah does not recognize anticipatory nuisance (and in any event the complaint failed to plead its elements).
- The district court: (1) dismissed SLC claims for lack of exhaustion; (2) overruled Steffensen-WC's objection to VOA's reply as proper rebuttal and granted VOA's 12(b)(6) dismissal of the VOA claims for failing to plead a recognized anticipatory-nuisance claim (or adequate private-nuisance allegations).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held the statutory exhaustion requirement did not apply to VOA (a nonprofit), upheld the district court's handling of VOA's reply under Utah R. Civ. P. 7, and agreed the complaint did not fairly plead anticipatory nuisance or otherwise state a viable nuisance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of statutory administrative-exhaustion requirement (Utah Code §10-9a-801) | Steffensen-WC did not explicitly contest applicability to VOA; sought review of district court rulings | VOA argued appeal lacked jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies | Held: §10-9a-801 applies to municipalities only; does not apply to nonprofit VOA, so appellate jurisdiction exists over VOA claims |
| Whether VOA's reply raised improper new arguments (rule 7) and whether the court abused discretion by denying relief to strike | Steffensen-WC: VOA's reply raised new substantive matters; district court should have allowed time to move to strike | VOA: Reply was proper rebuttal to plaintiff's newly-raised anticipatory-nuisance theory | Held: No abuse of discretion—VOA's reply addressed a new "matter" (anticipatory nuisance) raised by plaintiff and was proper rebuttal under Rule 7 |
| Whether the complaint pleaded an anticipatory-nuisance claim (sufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6)) | Steffensen-WC: The complaint’s factual allegations and future-tense language adequately stated an anticipatory-nuisance claim | VOA: Utah does not recognize anticipatory nuisance as a cause of action (or, alternatively, the complaint failed to plead its elements) | Held: Complaint did not fairly plead anticipatory nuisance; largely pled private-nuisance elements in future tense and therefore failed to give fair notice of an anticipatory-nuisance cause of action |
| Standard and burden for obtaining injunction based on anticipatory nuisance | Steffensen-WC implied injunctive relief was warranted on its pleadings | VOA argued anticipatory nuisance (where recognized) requires showing nuisance will inevitably or necessarily result—a high, often near–clear-and-convincing burden | Held: Even under jurisdictions recognizing anticipatory nuisance, plaintiffs must show nuisance will inevitably result; Steffensen-WC did not meet pleading burden and thus dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Whaley v. Park City Mun. Corp., 190 P.3d 1 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (sets out elements of private-nuisance claim)
- Hudgens v. Prosper, Inc., 243 P.3d 1275 (Utah 2010) (standard of review for motions to dismiss)
- Peak Alarm Co., Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 243 P.3d 1221 (Utah 2010) (notice-pleading requires fair notice of legal basis)
- Strong v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 125 S.E.2d 628 (S.C. 1962) (anticipatory nuisance requires showing nuisance will inevitably or necessarily result)
- Roach v. Combined Util. Comm’n of City of Easley, 351 S.E.2d 168 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986) (definition and discussion of anticipatory nuisance)
- Livingston v. Davis, 50 N.W.2d 592 (Iowa 1951) (equity will not enjoin where anticipated nuisance is doubtful or contingent)
- Simpson v. Kollasch, 749 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa 2008) (denial of injunctive relief where petitioners could not show certainty of nuisance)