ROTH, Judge:

¶1 W. Kelly appeals against asserts proceedings. multiple defendants securities fraud initiated Group, LLC; Action Investment Services, LLC; Lee Jackson; Richard Jackson (collectively, Group). Several defendants dismissed litigation, eventually number defendants dwindled four, including Ryan. March conference, it bench trial beginning August 2, 2010. Ryan, who lived Washington was representing himself, asked appear at the pretrial conference telephonically, but request was denied, and result, did not appear. The entered an order, setting final pretrial conference for July 19, 2010, at which “[a]ll parties and all counsel present.” Ryan, still pro se, did appear the final pretrial conference after his request appear telephonically was again denied, but the entered no sanction. Ryan did for trial August 2010. Because of scheduling issues, however, the parties agreed continue the until November eight day trial. The directed the “be prepared and to go” several times urged counsel.

¶3 On November did proceed day, because Plaintiffs’ the the parties had “reached global settlement” granted until following day. Rodaric Group finalized remaining defendants, except Ryan. Once indicated its approval of settlement, had representing defendants, entered an appearance open court. Burdsal explained Rodaric seeking joint several liability, had conflict representing while also representing another defendant, but once client settled, enter appearance Burdsal him trial. Burdsal further “still prepared trial” “would like go forward trial” “any time.” objected Burdsal’s appearance moved strike Ryan’s answer proffer. Burdsal appearance behalf but granted Group’s motion strike answer entered default judgment evidence proffered both receiving In granting default, court cited Ryan’s its decision did specify under rule judgment. later written decision denying Ryan’s motion set aside judgment, explained struck Ryan’s answer entered sanction under 16(d) obey instructing bench (“If obey . . . court, upon motion own *3 initiative, take any authorized by Rule 37(b)(2).”)); id. R. 37(b)(2) (detailing sanction options, include striking pleadings entering judgment). ¶4 While recognize that noncompliant with previous orders that proceedings, factual basis recited as judgment inaccurate. in fact, appeared through counsel, Burdsal, was, in words court’s warning, “prepared ready go.” See Utah R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1)(A) (2012) (authorizing judgment party appear); Ogawa v. Ogawa , P.3d 707 (Nev. 2009) (reversing defendant appeared through counsel, collecting cases jurisdictions that have same). issued any order requiring appear personally Utah R. Civ. P. (2010) (authorizing default sanction failing follow order); Rocky Produce, Frontera , 449 N.W.2d 917 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989) (“[A]bsent subpoena or appear, [represented] defendant civil case required trial.”); cf. Von Hake v. Thomas , 759 P.2d (Utah 1988) that party contempt comply with must find knew what required do, able comply, willfully failed comply), superseded by statute grounds as State Hurst 469 n.1 (Utah Ct. App. 1991). fact, had repeatedly strongly advised counsel “all cases themselves distinct disadvantage.” admittedly failed either through counsel trial, this not have prejudiced To contrary, it that representation reached global defendants. When became clear going settle, appeared through counsel, through counsel delay. Furthermore, on record proceeding proffer, stating would be “prejudice[d] making [it] prove [its] case” indicating thought Ryan should “get have attorney present [defense] him” Rule recently *4 rather than “mov[ing] ahead via proffer.” Counsel also sufficiency the facts, there is no as consequence entry district proceedings. Reversed remanded. ____________________________________

Stephen Roth, Judge

¶6 WE CONCUR:

____________________________________

J. Frederic Voros Jr.,

Associate Presiding Judge

____________________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

also asks we law cannot recover officer director corporation works has itself liable. Code Ann. § ‐ 22(4)(a) officers directors be jointly severally liable corporation corporation is found seller violation securities act). He also claims precluded recovering doctrine res judicata. Although issues were raised district hearing, they fully developed below, will review them first instance. Main St. Easy Heat, ¶ (declining consider issues appeal yet presented manner rule). raise those issues remand, appropriate. amended. amend. notes (2012); id. R. amend. notes. new rules only affect cases filed after we cite preamendment version rules.