Code of Judicial Administration

URCP 6
Line 50: Will changing the reference from 60(b) to (c) confuse people? I know 60(c) is the reference to the time for filing a motion under 60(b), but a lot of people know what a 60(b) motion is so well that they don’t even look up the reference anymore. Perhaps it should be changed to “60(b)-(c)” to avoid confusion?
URCP 50
Line 10: I know that the federal rule says “the court finds,” but if I’m not mistaken, the legal sufficiency of the evidence is a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. Should the word “finds” be replaced by “concludes”?
Line 54: Consider changing “not later than” to “no later than”. See Garner, Guidelines for Drafting and Editing Court Rules, 4.6, at 33 (recommending “no later than” in place of “not later than”).
URCP 52
Line 7: Consider adding the sentence “Judgment must be entered separately under Rule 58A.” to the end of (a)(1). This reinforces the separate document requirement.
Lines 22-24: Does the statement of reasons need to be in writing, or can it be made orally on the record?
Line 25: Consider changing “not later than” to “no later than”. See Garner, Guidelines for Drafting and Editing Court Rules, 4.6, at 33 (recommending “no later than” in place of “not later than”).
URCP 59
Line 14: Consider changing “surprise, which ordinary prudence” to “surprise that ordinary prudence”, as “ordinary prudence could not have guarded against” restricts the type of surprise that qualifies under the rule. See Garner, Guidelines for Drafting and Editing Court Rules, 4.3.A, at 30-31 (“Use that, not which, as a restrictive relative pronoun.”).
Line 15: Consider changing “evidence, which could not,” to “evidence that could not,” for the reason explained above in Line 14.
Line 17: Consider changing “damages, appearing” to “damages that appear” as it is a more standard language for setting off a restrictive modifying clause. Alternatively, consider deleting the comma between “damages” and “appearing”, as restrictive clauses are not set off by commas.
Line 19: Consider deleting the comma between “decision” and “or”, as “or that the verdict or decision is against law” is not an independent clause.
Line 25: Consider changing “affidavit or declaration” to “one or more affidavits or declarations” to match the wording used on Line 26. (The words “one or more” is included merely to resolve any concerns about the plural construction being interpreted to require multiple affidavits. If that is not a concern, feel free to omit “one or more” from the clause.)
URCP 60
Line 23: Consider changing “The motion must be filed” with “A motion under Rule 60(b) must be filed”. Otherwise, it may raise questions as to whether (c) applies to a motion under 60(a).
URCP 63
Lines 2-3: “their” is plural, while its referent, “the judge,” is singular. Consider changing “their” to “his or her.”
Line 31: Consider changing “may take no further action” to “must take no further action” or “must not take any further action.” See Garner, Guidelines for Drafting and Editing Court Rules, 4.2.E, at 30 (“Change may not to must not or cannot.”).

I oppose the proposed change to CJA 04-0202.02 that would make notices from U.S. Bankruptcy Court private.
First, I am not aware U.S. Bankruptcy Court considers such notices private. Why then would Utah courts want to make private something that is public? This is bad policy by Utah courts.
Second, I do not see that such “notices” are defined either in the proposed rule or by U.S. Bankruptcy Court. What is a notice in this circumstance? Anything entered into the U.S. Bankruptcy Court docket? Does something have to have “Notice” written on the top of it? This is a vague and potentially broad rule Utah courts are proposing.
I oppose the proposed change to DJA 04-0202.02 that would make notices from U.S. Bankruptcy Court private.
First, I am not aware U.S. Bankruptcy Court considers such notices private. Why would Utah courts want to make private something that is public? This is bad policy by Utah courts.
Second, I do not see that such “notices” are defined either in the proposed rule or by U.S. Bankruptcy Court. What is a notice in this circumstance? Anything entered into the U.S. Bankruptcy Court docket? Does something have to have “Notice” written on the top of it? This is a vague and potentially broad rule Utah courts are proposing and one that will be difficult for court staff to interpret and execute.
Finally, it seems notices from U.S. Bankruptcy Court, however you define them, would be something that should be in the public record in Utah. It might provide important information about the solvency of an individual or business.
I am on the board of the Utah Headliners Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Utah Association of Latino Journalists.

I apologize. It appears I incorrectly sent my comments regarding the bankruptcy court notice proposal. Here are the correct comments.
I oppose the proposed change to CJA 04-0202.02 that would make notices from U.S. Bankruptcy Court private.
First, I am not aware U.S. Bankruptcy Court considers such notices private. Why then would Utah courts want to make private something that is public? This is bad policy by Utah courts.
Second, I do not see that such “notices” are defined either in the proposed rule or by U.S. Bankruptcy Court. What is a notice in this circumstance? Anything entered into the U.S. Bankruptcy Court docket? Does something have to have “Notice” written on the top of it? This is a vague and potentially broad rule Utah courts are proposing.
Finally, it seems notices from U.S. Bankruptcy Court, however you define them, would be something that should be in the public record in Utah. It might provide important information about the solvency of an individual or business.
I am on the board of the Utah Headliners Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Utah Association of Latino Journalists.
Posted by Nate Carlisle July 11, 2015 03:57 PM

Juveniles who are held in detention should be held in restraints once the inmate/juvenile is picked up from the secure facility until he is returned, without motion to the court. If they are being held in detention, it is for good cause or they would be released.