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.

Rules of Civil Procedure – Comment period closes October 1, 2020

Consolidation and Venue Transfer Amendments

URCP042. Consolidation; separate trials; venue transfer. AMEND.

The amendments to Rule 42 involve two issues: consolidation and venue transfer. The amendments clarify the powers of the district court to 1) consolidate two or more cases from any district in the state, 2) transfer a case from any court to any other court in the state, or 3) take either action as to just a portion of two or more cases. The amendments further mandate that cases filed in an improper venue be transferred to a proper venue when such is available. The venue amendments address the Supreme Court’s invitation in Footnote 4 of Davis County v. Purdue Pharma, L.P, 2020 UT 17.

Domestic Injunction Amendments

URCP005. Service and filing of pleadings and other papers. AMEND.

URCP109. Injunction in certain domestic relations cases. AMEND.

The proposed amendments to Rules 5 and 109 address conflicting provisions between the two rules. The amendments to Rule 5 add an exception to allow specific rules to state who serves the petition. The amendments to Rule 109 require the petitioner, rather than the court, to provide a copy of the injunction to the respondent.

Notice Amendments

As a whole, the proposed amendments to Rules 4, 7, 8, 36, and 101 would require more notice to parties of their rights and obligations. An example of a document containing the Judicial Council-approved bilingual notice of rights may be found here.

URCP004. Process. AMEND.

The proposed notice amendments to Rule 4(c)(1) would require that the Judicial Council-approved bilingual notice of rights be included with the summons.

URCP007. Pleadings allowed; motions, memoranda, hearings, orders. AMEND.

The proposed notice amendments to Rule 7(c) would require caution language on the first page of all dispositive motions. It also requires the inclusion of the Judicial Council-approved bilingual notice of rights and provides consequences for failing to include them.

URCP008. General rules of pleadings. AMEND.

The proposed notice amendments to Rule 8(a) would require caution language on the first page of all pleadings requesting relief and provides consequences for failing to do so.

URCP036. Request for admission. AMEND.

The proposed notice amendments to Rule 36(b) would require caution language on the first page of all requests for admission and provides consequences for failing to do so.

URCP101.Motion practice before court commissioners. AMEND.

The proposed notice amendments to Rule 101(a) would require caution language on the first page of all motions to court commissioners. It would also require the inclusion of the Judicial Council-approved bilingual notice of rights and provides consequences for failing to include them.

Service of Process Amendments

URCP004. Process. AMEND.

The proposed service of process amendments to Rule 4 address service on minors in paragraph (d)(1)(B) and outline the requirements for electronic acceptance of service in paragraph (d)(3)(B).

Supplemental Proceedings Amendments

URCP64.Writs in general. AMEND.

The proposed amendments to Rule 64 would require that 1) enforcement proceedings be initiated by motion under new Rule 7A, and 2) that the party against whom enforcement proceedings are initiated be served with the notice of hearing under Rule 4. Under the proposed amendments, If the party did not appear at the enforcement proceedings hearing, only then could a bench warrant issue. The term “referee” in paragraph (c) has also been replaced with “clerk of court.”

URCP007A. Motion to enforce order and for sanctions. NEW.

URCP007B. Motion to enforce order and for sanctions in domestic law matters. NEW.

URCP007. Pleadings allowed; motions, memoranda, hearings, orders. AMEND.

New Rule 7A, which circulated once already for comment, has been split into two rules, 7A and 7B, in response to comments made during the comment period last year. Rules 7A and 7B would create a new, uniform process for enforcing court orders through regular motion practice. They would replace the current order to show cause process found in Rule 7(q) and in local court rules. During the comment period, several practitioners noted that the order to show cause process in the domestic arena differed from the process in other civil cases and should be separated out. Rule 7B would now address the domestic law order to show cause process. As previously noted, this would result in the repeal of Rule 7(q) because the provisions addressing the court’s inherent power to initiate order to show cause proceedings would now be found in Rules 7A(h) and 7B(h).

Vexatious Litigant Amendments

URCP083. Vexatious litigants. AMEND.

The proposed amendments would bring represented parties into the rule’s purview. They would also permit any court to rely on another court’s vexatious litigant findings and order their own restrictions.