Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency v. Hogan
2013 UT App 8
| Utah Ct. App. | 2013Background
- UTOPIA entered a two-year contract for Hogan’s professional services including a confidentiality provision surviving termination.
- UTOPIA notified Hogan the contract would not be renewed and offered remaining payment with no further services.
- Hogan drafted a complaint alleging contract breach, bad faith, wrongful discharge, and promissory estoppel, while UTOPIA sought to enforce confidentiality.
- UTOPIA filed suit to enjoin Hogan from disclosing confidential information and to seal the record; Hogan filed a federal suit the day before a key evidentiary hearing.
- A temporary restraining order was issued and the record was sealed; later, the record was unsealed and Exhibit E was partially struck as immaterial; Hogan sought attorney fees and contempt sanctions.
- The trial court denied Hogan’s request for attorney fees and refused to hold UTOPIA in contempt; on appeal, Hogan challenges both the fee denial and the contempt decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney fees under 78B‑5‑825 merit and bad faith | Hogan contends UTOPIA’s action was frivolous and in bad faith. | UTOPIA argues the action had merit under the contract and sought to protect confidential information. | The court affirmed denial of 78B‑5‑825 fees; action not shown to be without merit or in bad faith. |
| Attorney fees under Rule 65A for defending against injunction | Hogan seeks fees incurred defending against the preliminary injunction. | UTOPIA argues no award because underlying justification and apportionment were improper. | The court remanded to determine recoverable Rule 65A fees and proper apportionment for appeal-related hours. |
| Contempt standing and nature of contempt | Hogan seeks contempt sanctions for releasing sealed material. | UTOPIA argues standing and that contempt here would be criminal; the issue is whether contempt was properly decided. | Hogan lacked standing to challenge contempt; the contempt proceedings were criminal in nature. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wardley Better Homes & Gardens v. Cannon, 2002 UT 99, 61 P.3d 1009 (Utah 2002) (merits/without-merit inquiry for fees; standard applied to ascertaining frivolity)
- Jeschke v. Willis, 811 P.2d 202 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (merits/without-merit distinction for fees; bad faith separate)
- In re Olympus Construction, LC, 2009 UT 29, 215 P.3d 129 (Utah 2009) (first-impression issues tied to statutory authority; merit-based analysis)
- Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Atkin, Wright & Miles, Chartered, 681 P.2d 1258 (Utah 1984) (injunction context; wrongfully issued injunction consequences)
- IKON Office Solutions, Inc. v. Crook, 2000 UT App 217, 6 P.3d 1143 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (fees recoverable for defending against wrongfully issued injunction; apportionment)
- Tholen v. Sandy City, 849 P.2d 592 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (limitations on Rule 65A fee recovery to only hours incurred due to injunction)