Thompson v. Wardley Corporation, 2017 UT App 208

Cindy L. Thompson filed an "Amended Complaint for Fraud Upon the Court" seeking declaratory relief and to set aside prior orders she alleged were obtained by fraud.
The district court entered an Order of Dismissal on June 27, 2017, concluding Thompson's fraud claims were barred by claim preclusion and she lacked standing.
Thompson attempted to file a post‑judgment motion (Rule 60(b) and Rule 59), but the district court, invoking a prior vexatious‑litigant order under Utah R. Civ. P. 83, denied leave to file and did not accept the motion for filing.
Thompson filed a Notice of Appeal on August 10, 2017 challenging both the June 27 dismissal and an August 3, 2017 ruling denying leave to file the post‑judgment motion.
The appellate court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the June 27 order because no qualifying post‑judgment motion was timely filed or accepted to suspend the appeal deadline, but the notice of appeal was timely as to the August 3 ruling.
The district court had denied leave to file the proposed post‑judgment motion because (1) Thompson was subject to a vexatious‑litigant restriction requiring leave, and (2) the proposed Second Amended Complaint was futile as the claims were re‑litigation of previously decided matters.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal of the June 27, 2017 Order of Dismissal is timely	Thompson: she filed a post‑judgment motion that tolled the appeal period	Appellees: no post‑judgment motion was accepted/filed, so appeal period expired	Court: No jurisdiction over June 27 order; appeal untimely because no qualifying motion was filed
Whether the August 3, 2017 Ruling denying leave to file the post‑judgment motion was erroneous	Thompson: the denial should be treated as a disposition on the merits and appealable	Appellees: denial was proper under vexatious‑litigant rule and because proposed amendment was futile	Court: Affirmed denial of leave to file; motion was futile and subject to rule 83 restrictions
Whether the district court abused discretion in denying leave to file a Second Amended Complaint	Thompson: needed leave to assert additional claims; denial prevented relief	Appellees: proposed amendment re‑litigated issues already finally decided	Court: Denial proper because proposed claims were re‑litigation and amendment would be futile
Whether the vexatious‑litigant restrictions were applied properly	Thompson: implied challenge that restrictions prevented filing	Appellees: district court properly applied rule 83 and required leave showing good faith, non‑redundancy	Court: Rule 83 application valid; leave required and properly denied as proposed pleadings lacked merit

Jensen v. IHC Hosps., Inc., 82 P.3d 1076 (Utah 2003) (a court may deny a motion to amend as futile if the proposed amendment would not withstand a motion to dismiss)