Western States Development, Inc. v. Prestige Cleaners, Inc.
254 P.3d 773
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- Prestige Cleaners, Inc. appeals a district court November 30, 2010 summary judgment against it.
- Prestige filed a docketing statement claiming no final, appealable order and appealed out of caution.
- Western States Development, Inc. argues the November 30 order is final and Prestige’s notice of appeal is timely.
- The district court implicitly overruled Prestige’s objections by signing and entering the order.
- Rule 7(f)(2) requires an order conform to the district court’s decision unless expressly stated final; an initial ruling directed preparation of a conforming order.
- Prestige’s January 27, 2011 notice of appeal was untimely, rendering the appeal jurisdictionally defective and requiring dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the November 30, 2010 order a final, appealable order? | Prestige argues the district court never resolved objections. | Western States contends the order is final and appealable. | Yes; the order is final and appealable. |
| Is Prestige’s appeal timely filed? | Prestige contends timely under Rule 4. | Western States asserts untimely filing. | No; the notice of appeal was untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradbury v. Valencia, 5 P.3d 649 (2000 UT 50) (finality requires dismissal if not all claims resolved)
- Rosas v. Eyre, 82 P.3d 185 (2003 UT App 414) (objections deemed implicitly overruled by entry of proposed order)
- Morgan v. Morgan, 875 P.2d 563 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (entry of signed proposed order implies ruling on objections)
- Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 201 P.3d 966 (2009 UT 2) (rule 7(f)(2) conformity requirement for final orders)
- Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 13 P.3d 616 (2000 UT App 299) (timeliness governs appellate jurisdiction)
- Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569 (Utah Ct.App.1989) (untimely appeal requires dismissal)