URCP004. Process. AMEND. The Committee proposes an amendment to subparagraph (d)(1)(D), similar to the amendment proposed by Judge Orme in Jordan Credit Union v. Sullivan, 2022 UT App 120, ¶ 18 (Orme, J., concurring), in order to allow for personal service of process on an incarcerated person.
URCP007. Pleadings allowed; motions, memoranda, hearings, orders. AMEND. The Committee proposes adding two motions to the subparagraph (l)(1) list of motions that a court may decide without awaiting a response. First, the Committee proposes adding a motion to strike a document filed by a vexatious litigant in violation of Rule 83(d). Where a vexatious litigant makes an improper filing, it is not presently clear whether an opposing party must proceed under Rule 7A’s procedures for enforcing the vexatious litigant order. Requiring the opposing party to do so would involve full briefing and considerable delay, contrary to the purpose of filing restrictions imposed under Rule 83. Second, the Committee proposes adding a motion to appear remotely.
URCP083. Vexatious Litigants. AMEND. The Committee proposes amending subparagraphs (b)(4) and (d)(1) to allow vexatious litigants to file a notice of appeal without first getting approval from the trial judge. Where a trial court imposes filing restrictions on a vexatious litigant, sometimes court clerks have refused attempts by the litigant to file a notice of appeal. This can create uncertainty in some cases as to whether an appellate court has jurisdiction over an appeal because the documentary evidence of a timely appeal is missing. The amendments would make it clear that the trial court may not erect barriers to the filing of a notice of appeal. The Committee also proposes amending subparagraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (d)(1) to change “leave of the court” to “permission of the court” to make the language more understandable to self-represented litigants.