Utah Court Rules – Published for Comment
The Supreme Court and Judicial Council invite comments about amending these rules. To view the proposed amendment, click on the rule number.
To submit a comment or view the comments of others, click on “Continue Reading.” To submit a comment, scroll down to the “Leave a Reply” section, and type your comment in the “Comment” field. Type your name and email address in the designated fields and click “Post Comment.”
Comments cannot be acknowledged, but all will be considered. Comments are saved to a buffer for review before publication.
Posted: January 5, 2009
URCP 007. Pleadings allowed; motions, memoranda, hearings, orders, objection to commissioner’s order. Amend. Move process for objecting to a commissioner’s recommendation from Rule 7 to Rule 101.
URCP 101. Motion practice before court commissioners. Amend. Move process for objecting to a commissioner’s recommendation from Rule 7 to Rule 101.
Since the rule is being amended, perhaps an addition requiring that the objection state with specificity the objection and why the person objecting is entitled to a different result. This, I think, would be of benefit to the Judge reviewing the case and to the opposing party who is responding to the objection.
Most objections will state the objection but sometimes it is not included, the attorney will simply state that his/her client is objecting to the ruling. There is no statement regarding what part of the recommendation is being objected to and why.
Every time any amendment to Rule 7 or 101 is proposed I ask the same question, but have yet to receive a response. But the questions are worth asking:
1) Why do we have a different timetable for motions before court commissioners than for motions before judges? Why not have the same timetable apply for all motions at the district court level? It will result in fewer rules to remember and confuse and forget.
2) Why do we require any and all motions before court commissioners to be subject to hearings? Why can’t a movant submit a motion and have it decided on the pleadings where the movant does not want a hearing and the opposing party does not want a hearing either? Surely the commissioners would have no objection to fewer hearings. Surely attorneys who don’t want a hearing would appreciate the option. So why did this idea that motions before commissioner MUST be subject to hearings? I’ve really tried to think of a justification for this practice, but I cannot see any rational necessity for it.