Rules of Civil Procedure – Comment Period Closed April 30, 2022

URCP004. Process. AMEND. Based upon the regular practice with default judgments the Committee is proposing a change of the word “will” to “may” in subsection (c)(1)(E).  The rule would then read that a “judgment by default may be entered against the defendant.”

URCP041.  Dismissal of actions. AMEND. The issue of dismissing an action as to a particular party was brought to the Committee.  The example posed included a multi-defendant case where a settlement agreement may have been reached as to some, but not all defendants, and the plaintiff sought to dismiss the action as to those particular defendants, but not all of the defendants.  Rule 41 currently addresses the dismissal of an “action.”  The Committee is proposing a change to subsections (a)(1)(A) and (a)(2) that would permit a plaintiff to dismiss an action “or any party or portion thereof.”

URCP042. Consolidation; separate trials; venue transfer. AMEND. A change is being proposed to (a)(3) from the word “new” to “single,” because procedurally clerks do not issue a new case number to cases that have been consolidated, rather the case is moved under one case number already in existence.

URCP043. Evidence. AMEND. Changes to the language of the remote hearing oath outlined in subsection (c) to remove the language “issue (or matter) pending between ___ and ___” to be replaced by the word “matter.”  Particularly for cases in juvenile court where the caption is “State of Utah in the interest of …” the language in the oath is more encompassing if read “evidence you shall give in this matter” when administering the oath.

Utah Courts

View more posts from this author
2 thoughts on “Rules of Civil Procedure – Comment Period Closed April 30, 2022
  1. Monica Fjeldsted

    AMEND (2) A motion to consolidate may be filed or opposed by any party. The motion must be filed in and heard by the judge assigned to the first action filed and must be served on all parties in each action pursuant to Rule 5.

    Can the language state the motion must be filed in “either” case instead of the first action, the system does not allow a non party to the first action to file the motion to consolidate into the first action. Yes the case assigned judge to the first action should hear any pending motion, and yes the newer case is consolidated to the first action once granted.

  2. Chip Shaner

    URCP004. Process. AMEND. Based upon the regular practice with default judgments..

    It strikes me that as a general rule the courts should follow the rules as adopted, and seek a change to those rules prior to changing their regular practice.