Category: -Rules of Civil Procedure

URCP056. Summary judgment. AMEND. The proposed changes to subparagraph (b) is aimed to provide clarity to the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment so as not to be dependent upon the close of discovery.

URCP006. Time.  AMEND.  The proposed change adds “Juneteenth National Freedom Day (as recognized by the Utah Legislature as the third Monday of June)” to the list of legal holidays set forth by the rule.  Also, change “state” to “legal” in subparagraph (a)(6)(M).

URCP012.  Defenses and objections.  AMEND.  The proposed change adds “file and” to the language before the word “serve” to make it clear answers must be filed with the court and served.

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.

URCP059. New trial; altering or amending a judgment. (Amend). The Committee proposes amending the language of subparagraph (e) to include “unless otherwise provided for by statute or rule” because as written the rule may conflict with Utah Code section 78B-6-811(5)(b), which states a court may modify a judgment for additional amounts owed if a motion is submitted within 180 days.

URCP041. Dismissal of Actions. This rule was previously published for public comment after changes to subparagraphs (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(A)(i), and (a)(2).  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, “a claim, or a party… .”  Which is a slight language change from the previous amendment for the same purpose to make the language more clear.

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.

URCP005. Service and filing of pleadings and other papers. AMEND. The proposed amendments would make email service the default method of service and eliminate the certificate of service requirement when a paper is served by filing it with the court’s electronic-filing.

URCP076. Notice of contact information change. AMEND. The proposed amendments to Rule 76 would coordinate with the Rule 5 amendments by clarifying the purposes for which updated contact information is provided to the court.