305 P.3d 171
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Sunridge Enterprises alleged breach of contract and negligence against RB&G Eng’g, Inc. related to identified fault lines.
- On remand, the trial court found Sunridge Development assigned its rights to Sunridge Enterprises; summary judgment followed.
- The sole remaining claim was lost profits from 14 housing units Sunridge allegedly could not build.
- The trial court granted RB&G summary judgment on damages for lack of proven damages due to insufficient admissible evidence.
- Sunridge challenged discovery rulings and the trial court’s handling of damages evidence; RB&G cross‑appealed on assignment issues.
- This appeal addresses whether discovery should have been reopened and whether the damages evidence was adequate to defeat summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying further discovery? | Sunridge Enterprises argues discovery remained open post-remand due to changed litigation posture. | RB&G contends Sunridge had full opportunity to participate in discovery and showed no abuse. | No abuse; Sunridge had a full opportunity to participate in discovery. |
| Was there a genuine issue of material fact on damages that precluded summary judgment? | Sunridge asserts admissible evidence shows net lost profits from 14 units. | RB&G contends the damages evidence was inadequate and relied on inadmissible or unproven summaries. | Summary judgment affirmed; no genuine issue as to net damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sunridge Dev. Corp. v. RB&G Eng’g, Inc., 2008 UT App 29 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (precedential Utah appellate decision discussed on remand)
- Sunridge Dev. Corp. v. RB&G Eng’g, Inc., 2010 UT 6 (Utah Supreme Court 2010) (reversed on certain issues; authority on damages and discovery)
- Bair v. Axiom Design, LLC, 20 P.3d 388 (Utah 2001) (proof of damages element in breach of contract cases)
- Sawyers v. FMA Leasing Co., 722 P.2d 773 (Utah 1986) (net profits and proof of damages; requires supporting evidence)
- Stevens‑Henager College v. Eagle Gate College, 2011 UT App 37 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (damages proof standards for lost profits; need overhead/costs)
- TruGreen Cos. v. Mower Bros., Inc., 2008 UT 81 (Utah 2008) (requirement of substantiated damages calculations)
- Bowers v. Call, 2011 UT App 143 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (admissibility of evidence and rule 56 standards)
- International Harvester Credit Corp. v. Pioneer Tractor & Implement, Inc., 626 P.2d 418 (Utah 1981) (rule 1006 and admissibility of summaries; business records)
- Gull Labs., Inc. v. Louis A. Roser Co., 589 P.2d 756 (Utah 1978) (requirements for admissible underlying records supporting a summary)
- Trolley Square Assocs. v. Nielson, 886 P.2d 61 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (foundational requirements for summaries under Rule 1006)