Strand v. Nupetco Associates LLC
2017 UT App 55
| Utah Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Michael Strand and Nupetco Associates had a long-running dispute over ownership of a Utah residence with multiple related lawsuits.
- Nupetco moved under Utah R. Civ. P. 83 to declare Strand a vexatious litigant based on his litigation history and filings in other cases.
- The district court denied the motion, reasoning Rule 83’s provisions about re‑litigation and repeated filings must concern matters or filings in the pending action.
- Nupetco appealed, arguing Rule 83 allows a court to consider conduct in other lawsuits when determining whether a pro se litigant is vexatious.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the text of Rule 83 and answered two central interpretive questions about subsections (a)(1)(B) and (a)(1)(C).
- The Court vacated the district court’s denial and remanded for the district court to apply Rule 83 under the correct interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nupetco) | Defendant's Argument (Strand) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 83(a)(1)(B) (re‑litigation) may be based on conduct in other cases | A court may find a pro se litigant vexatious based on repeated attempts to re‑litigate a finally decided claim even if those attempts occurred in other actions | The re‑litigation must involve the claim or issue now before the court — the prior attempts must be raised in the pending action | Rule 83(a)(1)(B) allows a court to consider repeated re‑litigation against the same party across other cases; the rule is not limited to the pending action |
| Whether the phrase “in any action” in Rule 83(a)(1)(C) permits reliance on filings from other lawsuits | “Any” means any — the three or more proscribed filings may occur in an action other than the one where the motion is filed | The phrase limits review to filings made in the current action; courts are best positioned to evaluate conduct in their own cases | “In any action” allows consideration of filings from any single action statewide, not limited to the action where the motion is filed; however, the three or more proscribed acts must occur within the same single action |
| Standard of proof required to issue a vexatious‑litigant order | Nupetco relied on Rule 83’s clear‑and‑convincing evidence requirement to justify considering multi‑case history | Strand implicitly argued the district court lacked basis to consider other cases | Court reaffirmed Rule 83(c) requires clear and convincing evidence for both (1) that the person is a vexatious litigant and (2) that there is no reasonable probability the litigant will prevail on the pending claim |
| Remedy / disposition | Vacate denial and remand for district court to apply clarified Rule 83 | Continue district court’s narrow reading to protect forum competence | Court vacated the district court’s denial and remanded for further proceedings under the correct interpretation of Rule 83 |
Key Cases Cited
- Aequitas Enters., LLC v. Interstate Inv. Group, LLC, 267 P.3d 923 (Utah 2011) (standard of review for interpretation of civil procedure rules)
- Burns v. Boyden, 133 P.3d 370 (Utah 2006) (interpretation of court rules by plain language)
- State v. Lucero, 328 P.3d 841 (Utah 2014) (courts are bound by text of rule)
- First Equity Federal, Inc. v. Phillips Dev., LC, 52 P.3d 1137 (Utah 2002) (procedural rules construed to mean what they say)
- Rothstein v. Snowbird Corp., 175 P.3d 560 (Utah 2007) (distinguishing textual interpretation from policy considerations)