Trial Reports
2007

Personal Injury

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM
Case Type – SF; Slip/fall injury claim
Case Name – Dene Stewart vs. Souper Salad, Incorporated
Case Number – 040912553
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Frederick; then Toomey
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court granted defendant’s second motion for summary judgment and entered judgment against plaintiff.
Injuries – Plaintiff suffered a head injury, a neck injury, a right wrist fracture, visual disturbances and memory problems as a result of the accident. She claimed permanent impairment.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Mark T. Ethington of Larson, Turner, Fairbanks & Dalby (withdrew after defendant filed motion for summary judgment)
Attorney(s) - Defense – Julianne P. Blanch and P. Matthew Cox of Snow, Christensen & Martineau
Expert Witness(es) - Defense – Defendant designated Jayne E. Clark, MD.
Damages – Plaintiff claimed unspecified past and future medical expenses and past wage-loss.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff was dining at defendant’s restaurant on Murray-Holladay Road when she slipped and fell on water from melted ice and/or a spilled tomato wedge, which were on the floor next to the salad bar. Plaintiff claimed defendant was negligent in allowing the water and tomato to stay on the floor where defendant knew people were bound to walk.
Defendant denied negligence and liability, claiming that it used reasonable care to prevent dangerous conditions on its premises. Defendant claimed plaintiff’s injuries were caused by her own negligence in not looking where she was going. Defendant also claimed plaintiff’s injuries might have been caused in part by the negligence of third parties over whom defendant had no control.
Defendant moved for summary judgment on grounds that plaintiff could not prove defendant knew about the dangerous condition before plaintiff fell. Defendant claimed it might not have had time to find out about the problem or remedy it after the problem came into being and before plaintiff fell, because the water and tomato were only on the floor for a couple of minutes before plaintiff fell.
Defendant filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and this filing imposed an automatic stay on the proceedings. When plaintiff’s attorney moved the court for permission to withdraw, he noted this fact and stated that the automatic stay would probably give plaintiff adequate time to appoint new counsel before any action was taken on the motion. The court permitted the attorney’s withdrawal.
Plaintiff filed a proof of claim against Souper Salad in the bankruptcy action, and Souper Salad objected to the claim. The bankruptcy court judge noted that the objection was well-taken and should be granted. The bankruptcy court judge permanently enjoined plaintiff form pursuing her claim against Souper Salad. Souper Salad then filed a second motion for summary judgment based on the permanent injunction. From the bankruptcy court.

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM
Case Type – AA, PA; automobile/pedestrian accident
Case Name – Blair “BJ” Williams, by and through his father and legal guardian, Blair Phillips, vs. Brett Benard
Case Number – 060912167
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Peuler
Verdict /Settlement – Settlement, 01/07
Amount – The parties agreed on a settlement of $25,000. Of that amount, $690.87 will go to pay costs, $3,000 will go to plaintiffs’ insurance carrier to satisfy a subrogation lien for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits which the insurer paid to plaintiffs, and $4,811.46 will go to the State of Utah to satisfy a subrogation lien for Medicaid benefits which the State of Utah paid to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ attorney agreed to reduce his contingency fee by $1,000, and he will receive $7,333.33 of the total settlement amount. Since minor plaintiff turned 18 within three weeks of the date on which the settlement became final, the remaining $9,164.34 was placed in DeBry & Associates’ trust account and distributed to BJ Williams when he turned 18 on February 6, 2007.
Injuries – Minor plaintiff BJ Williams suffered extensive bruising and a fractured leg. The fracture prevented the leg from growing at the same rate as plaintiff Williams’ other leg, and the minor plaintiff underwent several procedures to make the fractured leg grow to the same length as his other leg. Plaintiffs claimed minor plaintiff suffered permanent scarring and disfigurement.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – J. Bradford DeBry of Robert J. DeBry & Associates
Damages – Plaintiffs claimed $16,982.72 in past medical expenses, as well as unspecified future medical expenses.
Facts/Contentions – Minor plaintiff BJ Williams and several friends were crossing 700 East at 2100 South. They had the light and the “Walk” signal in their favor, but when they were almost across the street, the “Walk” signal changed to “Don’t Walk.” The young people began to hurry to get across the street. However, plaintiffs claimed, as minor plaintiff Williams was almost across, defendant’s vehicle entered the intersection and struck the minor plaintiff.
Defendant claimed he did not see the minor plaintiff in the intersection. Defendant also claimed the minor defendant struck defendant’s car, not the other way around, but the parties settled soon after defendant made this claim.

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM
Case Type – AA, TA; Automobile/pick-up truck accident
Case Name – Seth Lloyd; and Nicole Lloyd vs. Mingmee Sum
Case Number – 040918744
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Kennedy
Verdict /Settlement – Jury verdict, 03/07
Amount – The jury found for defendant, concluding that defendant was not negligent and did not cause plaintiffs’ injuries.
Injuries – Plaintiff Seth Lloyd suffered soft-tissue injuries to his head, neck, back, right hip, right knee and shoulder. Plaintiff Nicole Lloyd suffered contusions and soft-tissue injuries to her head, neck, back, left side, abdomen and shoulder. Both plaintiffs claimed emotional distress.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Chad W. Hutchings and Jan P. Malmberg of Perry, Malmberg /& Perry, Logan; then William R. Rawlings of the Law Office of William R. Rawlings
Attorney(s) - Defense – Warren F. Wadsworth and William A. Stegall of Stegall & Associates
Expert Witness(es) - Plaintiff – Lance Rowlands, MD; Thomas M. Malin, DC
Expert Witness(es) - Defense – Michael B. Chung, MD
Damages – Plaintiffs sought unspecified past and future medical expenses, past wage loss and future loss of earning capacity. Plaintiffs also sought punitive damages for what they claimed was defendant’s willful and reckless disregard of plaintiffs’ well-being.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff Seth Lloyd was driving his 1997 Ford Highboy pick-up truck on southbound I-15 near milepost 300 (7200 South), with his wife, plaintiff Nicole Lloyd, as his passenger. Plaintiffs claimed defendant, driving his 1997 Subaru Legacy, willfully and recklessly made an improper lane change and caused several vehicles to collide, with the result that plaintiffs’ vehicle was struck and overturned.
Defendant denied acting willfully and/or recklessly and also denied negligence. Defendant claimed plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by plaintiff Seth Lloyd’s own negligence, traffic in the area of the accident, the manufacturer of defendant’s vehicle, and/or the negligence of third parties over whom defendant had no control. Defendant also claimed plaintiffs’ injuries were pre-existing and the medical treatment they received following the accident was excessive, inflated and not necessitated by the accident. Defendant further claimed plaintiffs failed to join an indispensable party, namely the phantom vehicle defendant swerved to avoid, to the action. Defendant’s expert witness opined that plaintiffs both suffered soft tissue injuries which resolved within six months of the accident and caused no permanent impairment. The investigating officer’s report indicated that four vehicles were involved in the accident. The officer reported that defendant lost control and started to fishtail before swerving into a second vehicle. That vehicle spun out of control and struck a third vehicle before striking plaintiffs’ truck, which struck the right-side concrete barrier, traveled down the wall and then flipped onto its left side and stopped, facing west in the far right lane. The investigating officer cited defendant for an improper lane change.
Defendant moved to exclude the investigating officer’s report and the issuance of the citation as prejudicial to the jury. Plaintiff did not oppose defendant’s motion, and the court granted it, but allowed the investigating officer to use the report to refresh his memory when he testified as a fact witness at trial.

PERSONAL INJURY
Case Type – AA, TA; Automobile/pick-up truck accident
Case Name – Seth Lloyd; and Nicole Lloyd vs. Mingmee Sum; and Does 1 through 10
Case Number – 040918744
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Kennedy
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment on jury verdict, 04/07
Amount – The jury found defendant was not negligent and returned a verdict of no cause of action against plaintiffs. The court therefore entered judgment in favor of defendant and awarded her costs of $586.50.
Injuries – Plaintiff Seth Lloyd suffered headaches, neck pain, back pain, right-hip pain, right-knee pain and shoulder pain as a result of the accident (contested). Plaintiff Nicole Lloyd suffered headaches, neck pain, left-side pain, abdomen pain and shoulder pain, as well as contusions (contested).
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – William R. Rawlings of the Law Office of William R. Rawlings
Attorney(s) - Defense – Jan P. Malmberg and Chad W. Hutchings of Perry, Malmberg & Perry, Logan; then Warren F. Wadsworth of Stegall & Associates
Expert Witness(es) - Defense – Defendant Sum designated Michael Chung, MD–independent medical evaluation (IME) physician and physical medicine/rehabilitation expert.
Damages – Plaintiffs claimed unspecified past and future medical expenses, past wage loss and future loss of earning capacity. They also sought punitive damages for what they claimed was defendant Sum’s reckless disregard of their well-being.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant Sum made an improper lane change and caused several vehicles to collide on I-15 at about milepost 300. Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck in the accident, skidded down the median and flipped onto its side. Plaintiff Seth Lloyd was driving a Ford Highboy pick-up truck, with plaintiff Nicole Lloyd as his passenger.
Defendant Sum denied negligence and contended that the accident was caused by plaintiff Seth Lloyd’s own negligence or that of other drivers involved in the accident, over whom defendant Sum had no control. Defendant Sum also postulated that the accident might have been caused by traffic in the area or by the manufacturer of her vehicle, which started to fishtail for unknown reasons just before the accident and swerved out of her own lane. Defendant Sum claimed plaintiffs assumed the risk of injury by driving on the freeway. Defendant Sum further denied that plaintiffs were injured in the accident. She claimed any injuries they suffered were pre-existing. Defendant Sum also claimed defendants received excessive and unnecessary medical treatment in an attempt to inflate their damages artificially. Dr. Chung felt neither plaintiff suffered any permanent impairment in the accident.
Before trial, defendant moved to exclude any evidence of insurance coverage, as well as the investigating officer’s report and any evidence of citations issued. Plaintiffs did not oppose these motions, and the court granted them.

PERSONAL INJURY
Case Type – AA, UM; Automobile accident, uninsured motorist
Case Name – Bear River Mutual Insurance Company vs. Edison Ramos Fuentes
Case Number – 070902973
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Himonas
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 05/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $5,427.26, which included $897.71 in property damages, $715 in PIP medical benefits, $3,250 in uninsured motorist benefits, $445.55 in accrued pre-judgment interest and $119 in costs.
Injuries – Plaintiff’s insured suffered unspecified minor injuries.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Daniel O. Duffin of Duffin & Associates
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff paid its insured $715 in personal injury protection (PIP) benefits, $897.71 for property damage to insured’s automobile and $3,250 in uninsured motorist benefits.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant negligently rear-ended a vehicle driven by plaintiff’s insured. The vehicle driven by plaintiff’s insured was stopped for a red light at 3300 South and 900 West.

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM
Case Type – AA; Automobile accident
Case Name – Laura Cummings; and Stephen Cummings vs. Michael Debald
Case Number – 030903194
Court/Judge – 3rd District Court/Noel; then Lindberg
Verdict/Settlement – Jury verdict, 05/07
Amount – The jury found defendant negligent and also found his negligence to be the cause of plaintiffs’ injuries. The jury awarded plaintiff Laura Cummings $63,490, which included $12,000 in past medical expenses, $38,000 in past loss of income, $12,500 in non-economic damages and $990 in stipulated incidental expenses. The jury did not award plaintiff Stephen Cummings any money on the loss-of-consortium claim.
Injuries – Plaintiff Laura Cummings suffered soft-tissue neck and back injuries and claimed permanent impairment. She continues to experience aching, stabbing pain in her neck with aching, burning and pins-and-needles sensations all the way down her right leg and into the foot and similar symptoms in the back of her left thigh. She also suffers right-side sciatica and mid-to-lower backaches.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Charles A. Gruber and P. Matthew Muir of Larson & Gruber; then Mark A. Larsen, Lisa C. Rico, P. Matthew Muir and Michael R. Mildenhall of Larsen & Rico (withdrew); then Kay Burningham.
Attorney(s) - Defense – Mark L. Anderson and Eric K. Jenkins of Christensen & Jensen
Expert Witness(es) - Plaintiff – Plaintiffs designated plaintiff Laura Cummings’ treating health-care providers and Keith S. Hansen, DC. Expert Witness(es) - Defense – The defense designated Dr. Stephen P. Marble–independent medical evaluation (IME) expert.
Damages – Plaintiff Laura Cummings claimed over $25,000 in past medical expenses and over $25,000 in past wage loss. Plaintiff Stephen Cummings claimed unspecified damages for loss of consortium (the comfort, support and society of his wife).
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiffs are husband and wife. Plaintiffs claimed defendant negligently rear-ended the vehicle driven by plaintiff Laura Cummings in the eastbound right lane of 600 North near 451 West after plaintiff Laura Cummings stopped for traffic ahead. Plaintiff Laura Cummings was the sixth, seventh or eighth in a line of vehicles. She visited an emergency room in American Fork the evening of the accident and underwent physical therapy following the accident.
Defendant admitted that the accident occurred, but denied liability, claiming that the accident was caused by the negligence of other parties involved. Defendant also claimed that some of plaintiff Laura Cummings’ injuries were caused by a second accident in which she was later involved.
After plaintiffs’ counsel withdrew, plaintiffs sought leave from the court to amend their complaint and join Robert L. Foster and Cammie Whiting to their complaint as defendants. Plaintiffs claimed these parties might have been responsible for some of plaintiff Laura Cummings’ injuries. Defendant opposed the motion to amend. He claimed the proposed added defendants were not indispensable parties to this suit because they were involved in the second, later accident which was completely separate from the one at issue in this complaint. The court stated that it would allow the additional parties to be joined if there was evidence in the record that the injuries sustained in the two accidents could not be separated. Plaintiffs submitted reports by a chiropractor and defendant’s IME physician in support of their contention that the injuries from the two accidents were indivisible, but the court stated that it was not persuaded by this evidence. The court therefore denied the motion to amend the complaint.
Defendants moved to prohibit testimony by Dr. Hansen on biomechanical issues, claiming that Dr. Hansen was not a biomechanical expert or accident reconstructionist. The court granted the motion. Defendant then admitted liability in the case. This restricted the issues to be determined at trial to the extent of injuries sustained by plaintiff Laura Cummings and the amount of damages.

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM
Case Type – TA, MS; Miscellaneous (attractive nuisance), truck/skateboard accident
Case Name – Richard Gorringe and Cris Gorringe on behalf of their minor son Richard Brett Gorringe vs. B. C. Builders, Incorporated; Brett Candalot; and Richards, Bott Architects
Case Number – 050915015
Court/Judge – 3rd District Court/Roth; then Faust
Verdict/Settlement – Settlement, 05/07
Amount – Plaintiffs and defendants entered into a structured settlement. The court appointed plaintiffs Richard and Cris Gorringe as conservator of the settlement proceeds. Defendants B. C. and Candalot agreed to pay $140,000 to settle the case. Of that amount, $35,000 in attorneys’ fees and $5,734.20 in costs will go to plaintiffs’ attorneys. Another $3,413.38 will go to reimburse plaintiff Cris Gorringe for out-of-pocket expenses she paid on behalf of her son on connection with the accident. A further $16,900 will go to pay a lien and subrogation claim asserted by Deseret Mutual Benefit Association. The remaining $78.952.42 of the settlement proceeds will be deposited in a federally insured interest-bearing account on behalf of minor plaintiff. He will receive $2,500 semi-annually starting on July 1, 2010, when he is 18 years old; $250 monthly starting on May 11, 2011, when he is 19; and $4,195.15 semi-annually starting on January 1, 2013, when he is 21. He will receive a lump-sum payment of $10,000 on April 27, 2017, when he is 25; a lump-sum payment of $12,000 on April 27, 2020, when he is 28; a lump-sum payment of $20,000 on April 27, 2022, when he is 30; a lump-sum payment of $25,000 on April 27, 2027, when he is 35; and a final lump-sum payment of $55,000 on April 27, 2032, when he is 40.
Injuries – Plaintiffs’ minor son suffered an avulsion fracture to his leg which needs further surgical treatment. Plaintiffs claimed their minor son suffered permanent impairment in the accident. He also suffered contusions, abrasions and emotional trauma.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – James R. Hasenyager and Peter W. Summerill of Hasenyager & Summerill, Ogden
Attorney(s) - Defense – For defendants B. C. Builders, Incorporated and Brett Candalot: Robert L. Janicki, Peter H. Christensen and Michael L. Ford of Strong & Hanni
Expert Witness(es) - Plaintiff – Plaintiffs designated Paul France, PhD–biomechanical expert.
Damages – Plaintiffs claimed unspecified past and future medical expenses and future loss of earning capacity.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff’s nine-year-old son was on a construction site in Magna. Plaintiffs claimed their son and other boys asked for and got permission to play on the site from defendants. Plaintiffs claimed defendants allowed the boys to use plywood and other materials on the site to build skateboard ramps. Plaintiffs claimed a pick-up truck owned by defendant B. C. Builders and driven by defendant Candalot was backing up on the site and struck plaintiff’s minor son, who was riding on his skateboard. Plaintiffs claimed the truck then pulled forward, striking plaintiff’s minor son a second time and running over him. Plaintiffs named the Richards, Bott defendant as an additional party with control over the site who failed to protect plaintiffs’ minor son, but plaintiffs shortly dismissed this defendant from the action.
Plaintiffs claimed all of the remaining defendants were negligent in allowing the minors to play on the site.
Defendants B. C. Builders and Candalot denied liability, contending that defendant Candalot was unable to see the minor plaintiff because of minor plaintiff’s position in back of the truck. Defendants B. C. Builders and Candalot argued that minor plaintiff’s injuries were caused by his own negligence in not watching out for the truck or his parents’ negligence in not maintaining control over his whereabouts. Defendants B. C. Builders and Candalot reserved the right to cross-claim against the other defendant, but never did so.

Case Type – AA, BC; automobile accident, breach of contract
Case Name – Bear River Mutual Insurance Company vs. Ronald M. Corona; and Natalie Corona
Case Number – 070907326
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Quinn
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 07/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $1,611.98, which included $244.48 in accrued pre-judgment interest at 12% per annum, $250 in attorney’s fees and $117 in costs as provided by the terms of the settlement agreement. Post-judgment interest shall accrue at 12% per annum until the judgment is satisfied.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Daniel O. Duffin of Duffin & Associates
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff paid its insured $2,828.92 in property damage benefits for repairs to the insured’s vehicle.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant Natalie Corona negligently collided with a vehicle driven by plaintiff’s insured on 500 South at Guardsman Way (1540 East). Plaintiff claimed it entered into a settlement agreement with defendants whereby defendants agreed to reimburse plaintiff for the benefits it paid to its insured. Plaintiff claimed defendants paid $1,828.92 and then defaulted on the agreement, leaving a balance of $1,000 owing. Plaintiff claimed the terms of the settlement agreement provided for an interest rate of 12% per annum on any unpaid balance, plus any court costs and attorney’s fees.

PERSONAL INJURY
Case Type – AA; Automobile accident
Case Name – Affirmative Insurance company vs. Jamie Donio
Case Number – 070906961
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Henriod
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 07/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $1,270.10 plus accrued pre-judgment interest at 10% per annum and costs. Post-judgment interest shall accrue at 10% per annum until the judgment is satisfied.
Injuries – Plaintiff’s insured suffered unspecified injuries.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Daniel O. Duffin of Duffin & Associates Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff paid its insured $670 in personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to cover the medical expenses incurred by its insured’s relative, as well as $600.10 in property damage benefits for repairs to its insured’s vehicle. Plaintiff asserted full rights of subrogation. Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant rear-ended a vehicle owned by plaintiff’s insured as the insured’s vehicle was turning right at 5400 South Cougar Lane.

PERSONAL INJURY
Case Type – AA, TA, WA; Work-related automobile/truck accident
Case Name – Rosa Castro vs. Joshua Steven Kielkowski; and Sharpe Engineering Company
Case Number – 070906076
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Kennedy
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 07/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $12,674.42, which included $1,911.42 in accrued pre-judgment interest at 10% per annum and $263 in costs. Post-judgment interest shall accrue at 10% per annum until the judgment is satisfied.
Injuries – Plaintiff suffered injuries to her head, neck, back and shoulders.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Daniel O. Duffin of Duffin & Associates
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed $7,500 in past medical expenses and $3,000 in additional medical expenses pursuant to the personal injury protection (PIP) clause in her insurance policy.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant Kielkowski, driving a pick-up truck owned by defendant Sharpe, rear-ended plaintiff’s vehicle as plaintiff stopped to make a turn from eastbound 6200 South onto southbound Bangerter Highway.

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM
Case Type – AA, MS, UM; Automobile/miscellaneous (scooter) accident, uninsured motorist
Case Name – Jeanie Weishar on behalf of her daughter, minor plaintiff Michaela Fullmer, vs. Danielle L. Gee
Case Number – 060910325
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Peuler
Verdict /Settlement – Settlement, 06/07
Amount – The parties settled this case. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Nationwide Assurance Company agreed to make four yearly payments of $8,177.17 to minor plaintiff for four years, comprising a total pay-out of $32,708.68. The payments are to begin on 07/06/2020, when minor plaintiff turns 18, and end on 07/06/2023, when minor plaintiff turns 21. In return for a consideration of $16,202.28, Nationwide executed an assignment of these payment obligations to Allstate Assignment Company. Allstate agreed to fund the periodic payments through the purchase of an annuity from Allstate Life Insurance Company. Nationwide also agreed to pay $8,797.72 to minor plaintiff’s mother and guardian, Jeannie Weishar, and plaintiff’s attorney, Matthew Raty, to cover the attorney’s fees of $8,333.33 and plaintiff’s mother’s out-of-pocket costs of $464.39. The parties agreed that these payments may not be pledged as security, sold, assigned or encumbered by the recipient; they may also not be accelerated, deferred, increased, decreased or anticipated.
Injuries – Minor plaintiff suffered injuries to her head, face and legs, including a scratch on her face and fractures of both ankles.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Matthew H. Raty of the Law Office of Matthew H. Raty
Attorney(s) - Defense – Defendant filed a pro-se response to plaintiffs’ complaint.
Damages – Minor plaintiff claimed unspecified past and future medical expenses. She also sought $100,000 in general damages (pain and suffering).
Facts/Contentions – Minor plaintiff, aged three, was riding her scooter at an apartment complex at 1818 West 700 North. Plaintiffs claimed defendant, while speeding, negligently ran into and injured minor plaintiff in the turn-around in front of the complex.
In her pro-se response to plaintiffs’ complaint, defendant claimed minor plaintiff emerged from between two parked cars so suddenly that defendant had no chance to stop. Defendant also claimed that the sun was shining directly on the windshield of defendant’s car, making visibility even more difficult. Defendant stated in her answer that she went to the hospital in the ambulance with minor plaintiff and attended all of minor plaintiff’s doctor appointments with minor plaintiff following the accident. Defendant therefore heard the emergency room physician say minor plaintiff would recover completely from her injuries. Defendant said she also heard minor plaintiff’s treating physician, at minor plaintiff’s final appointment, say that minor plaintiff did not need any further treatment.
Defendant contended that she had statements from witnesses to the effect that minor plaintiff was playing alone and unsupervised outside the building for about four hours before the accident occurred. She claimed the witnesses also said that defendant was unable to avoid hitting minor plaintiff. Defendant acknowledged that her car was uninsured at the time of the accident; she stated that she had only had the vehicle for three days and was trying to get Utah plates for it. Defendant denied speeding; she stated that she was traveling the posted speed limit of 5 miles per hour when minor defendant appeared from between the cars.

PERSONAL INJURY Case Type – AA; Automobile accident
Case Name – Christy Martin for minor plaintiff Kaylynn Martin vs. Dawn Palacios
Case Number – 060910634
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Fuchs; then Skanchy
Verdict /Settlement – Settlement, 07/07
Amount – This case settled for an undisclosed amount.
Injuries – Minor plaintiff suffered unspecified injuries and claimed permanent impairment.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Brittany L. Thompson of Gregory & Swapp
Attorney(s) - Defense – Richard L. Grey of Stegall & Associates
Damages – Minor plaintiff claimed past medical expenses in excess of $5,000, as well as unspecified future medical expenses. She also sought $20,000 in general damages (pain and suffering).
Facts/Contentions – Minor plaintiff claimed defendant ran a stop sign on 500 North and crashed into the vehicle in which minor plaintiff was a passenger. The vehicle in which minor plaintiff was riding was northbound on 1000 West and stopped at the 500 North four-way stop before proceeding through the intersection.
Plaintiffs sought and were granted permission to serve defendant by publication after plaintiffs were unable to locate defendant to accomplish service. Plaintiffs filed an election to resolve this matter through binding arbitration.

PERSONAL INJURY
Case Type – AA; Automobile accident
Case Name – Bear River Mutual Insurance Company vs. Derek Beckman
Case Number – 070907868
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Lindberg
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 06/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $1,780.91, which included $177.94 in accrued pre-judgment interest at 10% per annum and $83.00 in costs. Post-judgment interest shall accrue at 10% per annum until the judgment is satisfied.
Injuries – The relative of plaintiff’s insured suffered unspecified injuries.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Daniel O. Duffin of Duffin & Associates
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff paid its insured $1,519.97 in personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to cover the medical expenses incurred by the relative of its insured. Plaintiff asserted full rights of subrogation.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant failed to yield the right of way and struck a vehicle driven by a relative of plaintiff’s insured. The vehicle driven by the relative of plaintiff’s insured was making a right turn on to Parrish Lane in Centerville.

PERSONAL INJURY
Case Type – BT; Assault
Case Name – Auto-Owners Insurance Company vs. Carl Leon Swanigan; and Does 1 through 5
Case Number – 070907866
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Fratto
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 06/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $6,144.52, which included $994.62 in accrued pre-judgment interest at 10% per annum and $120.50 in costs. Post-judgment interest shall accrue at 10% per annum until the judgment is satisfied.
Injuries – The employee of plaintiff’s insured suffered injuries to his nose, face and other parts of his body.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Daniel O. Duffin of Duffin & Associates
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff paid $4,801.40 in workers’ compensation benefits to its employee for his medical expenses and $228 for his lost wages while he was off work following his injury. Plaintiff asserted full rights of subrogation.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff is the insurance carrier for Club Vortex in Salt Lake City. Plaintiff claimed it employed a security guard who worked at the club. Plaintiff claimed defendant got into an argument with a female customer of the club over a cell phone, and the security guard, plaintiff’s employee, attempted to stop the argument by taking the cell phone away from defendant. Plaintiff claimed defendant punched plaintiff’s employee in the face. Plaintiff claimed several unidentified patrons of the club, named in this suit as the Doe defendants, also joined in the fracas and began punching plaintiff’s employee. Plaintiff claimed its employee was in the course and scope of his employment with plaintiff at the time this incident occurred.

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM
Case Type – AA, TA, WA; Work-related automobile/dump-truck accident
Case Name – Margie Ewell vs. J & M Construction; and Travis VanGerven
Case Number – 060905578
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Kennedy
Verdict /Settlement – Settlement, 06/07
Amount – This case settled for an undisclosed amount.
Injuries – Plaintiff suffered unspecified injuries.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David R. Tullis of Driggs, Bills & Day
Attorney(s) - Defense – Peter H. Barlow and Jeremy G. Knight of Strong & Hanni
Damages – Plaintiff claimed over $3,000 in past medical expenses.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant VanGerven, who was in the course and scope of his employment with defendant J & M and was driving a dump-truck owned and operated by defendant J & M, rear-ended plaintiff’s vehicle after plaintiff stopped at a red light at 500 West and 4800 South. Plaintiff claimed defendant VanGerven was cited at the scene for following too closely. Plaintiff named defendant J & M under the doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds that an employer is liable for damages caused by that employer’s employee if the employee was in the course and scope of his or her employment with that employer at the time when the employee caused the damages. Defendants denied liability, claiming the accident was caused by the negligence of plaintiff or third parties over whom defendants had no control.

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM
Case Type – AA, MS, UM; Automobile/miscellaneous (scooter) accident, uninsured motorist
Case Name – Jeanie Weishar on behalf of her daughter, minor plaintiff Michaela Fullmer, vs. Danielle L. Gee
Case Number – 060910325
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Peuler
Verdict /Settlement – Settlement, 07/07
Amount – The parties settled this case. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Nationwide Assurance Company agreed to make four yearly payments of $8,177.17 to minor plaintiff for four years, comprising a total pay-out of $32,708.68. The payments are to begin on 07/06/2020, when minor plaintiff turns 18, and end on 07/06/2023, when minor plaintiff turns 21. In return for a consideration of $16,202.28, Nationwide executed an assignment of these payment obligations to Allstate Assignment Company. Allstate agreed to fund the periodic payments through the purchase of an annuity from Allstate Life Insurance Company. Nationwide also agreed to pay $8,797.72 to minor plaintiff’s mother and guardian, Jeannie Weishar, and plaintiff’s attorney, Matthew Raty, to cover the attorney’s fees of $8,333.33 and plaintiff’s mother’s out-of-pocket costs of $464.39. The parties agreed that these payments may not be pledged as security, sold, assigned or encumbered by the recipient; they may also not be accelerated, deferred, increased, decreased or anticipated.
Injuries – Minor plaintiff suffered injuries to her head, face and legs, including a scratch on her face and fractures of both ankles.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Matthew H. Raty of the Law Office of Matthew H. Raty
Attorney(s) - Defense – Defendant filed a pro-se response to plaintiffs’ complaint.
Damages – Minor plaintiff claimed unspecified past and future medical expenses. She also sought $100,000 in general damages (pain and suffering).
Facts/Contentions – Minor plaintiff, aged three, was riding her scooter at an apartment complex at 1818 West 700 North. Plaintiffs claimed defendant, while speeding, negligently ran into and injured minor plaintiff in the turn-around in front of the complex.
In her pro-se response to plaintiffs’ complaint, defendant claimed minor plaintiff emerged from between two parked cars so suddenly that defendant had no chance to stop. Defendant also claimed that the sun was shining directly on the windshield of defendant’s car, making visibility even more difficult. Defendant stated in her answer that she went to the hospital in the ambulance with minor plaintiff and attended all of minor plaintiff’s doctor appointments with minor plaintiff following the accident. Defendant therefore heard the emergency room physician say minor plaintiff would recover completely from her injuries. Defendant said she also heard minor plaintiff’s treating physician, at minor plaintiff’s final appointment, say that minor plaintiff did not need any further treatment.
Defendant contended that she had statements from witnesses to the effect that minor plaintiff was playing alone and unsupervised outside the building for about four hours before the accident occurred. She claimed the witnesses also said that defendant was unable to avoid hitting minor plaintiff. Defendant acknowledged that her car was uninsured at the time of the accident; she stated that she had only had the vehicle for three days and was trying to get Utah plates for it. Defendant denied speeding; she stated that she was traveling the posted speed limit of 5 miles per hour when minor defendant appeared from between the cars.

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM
Case Type – AA; Automobile accident
Case Name – Christy Martin for minor plaintiff Kaylynn Martin vs. Dawn Palacios
Case Number – 060910634
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Fuchs; then Skanchy
Verdict /Settlement – Settlement, 07/07
Amount – This case settled for an undisclosed amount.
Injuries – Minor plaintiff suffered unspecified injuries and claimed permanent impairment.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Brittany L. Thompson of Gregory & Swapp
Attorney(s) - Defense – Richard L. Grey of Stegall & Associates
Damages – Minor plaintiff claimed past medical expenses in excess of $5,000, as well as unspecified future medical expenses. She also sought $20,000 in general damages (pain and suffering).
Facts/Contentions – Minor plaintiff claimed defendant ran a stop sign on 500 North and crashed into the vehicle in which minor plaintiff was a passenger. The vehicle in which minor plaintiff was riding was northbound on 1000 West and stopped at the 500 North four-way stop before proceeding through the intersection.
Plaintiffs sought and were granted permission to serve defendant by publication after plaintiffs were unable to locate defendant to accomplish service. Plaintiffs filed an election to resolve this matter through binding arbitration.

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM
Case Type – AA, TA, WA; Work-related automobile/dump-truck accident
Case Name – Margie Ewell vs. J & M Construction; and Travis VanGerven
Case Number – 060905578
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Kennedy
Verdict /Settlement – Settlement, 07/07
Amount – This case settled for an undisclosed amount.
Injuries – Plaintiff suffered unspecified injuries.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David R. Tullis of Driggs, Bills & Day
Attorney(s) - Defense – Peter H. Barlow and Jeremy G. Knight of Strong & Hanni
Damages – Plaintiff claimed over $3,000 in past medical expenses.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant VanGerven, who was in the course and scope of his employment with defendant J & M and was driving a dump-truck owned and operated by defendant J & M, rear-ended plaintiff’s vehicle after plaintiff stopped at a red light at 500 West and 4800 South. Plaintiff claimed defendant VanGerven was cited at the scene for following too closely. Plaintiff named defendant J & M under the doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds that an employer is liable for damages caused by that employer’s employee if the employee was in the course and scope of his or her employment with that employer at the time when the employee caused the damages. Defendants denied liability, claiming the accident was caused by the negligence of plaintiff or third parties over whom defendants had no control.

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM
Case Type – AA, UM; Automobile accident, uninsured motorist claim
Case Name – EZ Auto Insurance Company vs. Melanie Chee; and Michael Kent
Case Number – 070908280
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Medley
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 08/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant Chee in the amount of $6,504.44, which included $2,496.98 in PIP benefits to cover medical expenses, $3,244.89 in property damages, $629.57 in accrued pre-judgment interest at 10% per annum, and $133 in costs. Post-judgment interest shall accrue on this judgment at 6.99% per annum until it is satisfied.
Injuries – Plaintiff’s insured suffered unspecified injuries.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Daniel O. Duffin of Duffin & Associates
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff paid its insured $2,496.98 in personal injury protection (PIP) damages to cover medical expenses and $3,244.89 in property damages to insured’s vehicle. Plaintiff retained full rights of subrogation.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant Chee rear-ended a vehicle driven by plaintiff’s insured, which had stopped at the intersection of 23rd Street and Washington Boulevard in Ogden. Plaintiff named defendant Kent as the owner of the vehicle driven by defendant Chee. Plaintiff claimed defendant Kent did not have insurance in force on his vehicle at the time of the accident.

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM
Case Type – AA, UM; Automobile accident, uninsured motorist claim
Case Name – Bear River Mutual Insurance Company vs. Damon S. Talbot; and Wallace J. Talbot
Case Number – 070909038
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Peuler
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 08/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant Damon S. Talbot in the amount of $160,767.64, which included $10,003.25 in PIP benefits to cover medical expenses for all three people injured, $16,245.95 in property damages, $100,000 in uninsured motorist benefits paid to plaintiff’s two insureds, $34,337.94 in accrued pre-judgment interest at 10% per annum and $180.50 in costs. Post-judgment interest shall accrue on this judgment at 6.99% per annum until it is satisfied.
The court entered judgment against defendant Wallace J. Talbot in the amount of $6,843.24, which included $5,253.25 in PIP benefits to cover medical expenses for plaintiff’s two insureds, $1,419.99 in accrued pre-judgment interest at 10% per annum and $170 in costs. Post-judgment interest shall accrue on this judgment at 6.99% per annum until it is satisfied.
Injuries – Plaintiff’s two insureds and an additional passenger suffered unspecified injuries.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Daniel O. Duffin and Thomas A. Duffin of Duffin & Associates
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff paid its insureds $4,750 in personal injury protection (PIP) benefits for medical expenses incurred in treating injuries to insured #1; $3,000 in personal injury protection (PIP) benefits for medical expenses incurred in treating injuries to insured #2; and $2,253.25 in personal injury protection (PIP) benefits for medical expenses incurred in treating injuries to insured’s passenger. Plaintiff also paid insured #1 $50,000 in uninsured motorist benefits and insured #2 $50,000 in uninsured motorist benefits. Plaintiff paid its insureds $16,245.95 in property damages.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant Damon Talbot rear-ended a vehicle driven by plaintiff’s insured #1, which had slowed to avoid a stalled vehicle ahead on northbound exit 291 off I-15. Plaintiff’s insured #2 and another party were passengers in the vehicle driven by plaintiff’s insured when defendant Damon Talbot rear-ended it. Plaintiff named defendant Wallace Talbot as the owner of the vehicle driven by defendant Damon Talbot. Plaintiff claimed defendant Wallace Talbot did not have insurance in force on his vehicle at the time of the accident.

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM
Case Type – AA; Automobile accident claim
Case Name – Christy Martin for minor plaintiff Kaylynn Martin vs. Dawn Palacios
Case Number – 060910634
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Fuchs; then Skanchy
Verdict /Settlement – Settlement, 07/07
Amount – This case settled for an undisclosed amount.
Injuries – Minor plaintiff suffered unspecified injuries and claimed permanent impairment.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Brittany L. Thompson of Gregory & Swapp
Attorney(s) - Defense – Richard L. Grey of Stegall & AssociatesB Damages – Minor plaintiff claimed past medical expenses in excess of $5,000, as well as unspecified future medical expenses. She also sought $20,000 in general damages (pain and suffering).
Facts/Contentions – Minor plaintiff claimed defendant ran a stop sign on 500 North and crashed into the vehicle in which minor plaintiff was a passenger. The vehicle in which minor plaintiff was riding was northbound on 1000 West and stopped at the 500 North four-way stop before proceeding through the intersection.
Plaintiffs sought and were granted permission to serve defendant by publication after plaintiffs were unable to locate defendant to accomplish service. Plaintiffs filed an election to resolve this matter through binding arbitration.

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM
Case Type – AA, TA, WA; Work-related automobile/dump-truck accident claim
Case Name – Margie Ewell vs. J & M Construction; and Travis VanGerven
Case Number – 060905578
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Kennedy
Verdict /Settlement – Settlement, 07/07
Amount – This case settled for an undisclosed amount.
Injuries – Plaintiff suffered unspecified injuries.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David R. Tullis of Driggs, Bills & Day
Attorney(s) - Defense – Peter H. Barlow and Jeremy G. Knight of Strong & Hanni
Damages – Plaintiff claimed over $3,000 in past medical expenses.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant VanGerven, who was in the course and scope of his employment with defendant J & M and was driving a dump-truck owned and operated by defendant J & M, rear-ended plaintiff’s vehicle after plaintiff stopped at a red light at 500 West and 4800 South. Plaintiff claimed defendant VanGerven was cited at the scene for following too closely. Plaintiff named defendant J & M under the doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds that an employer is liable for damages caused by that employer’s employee if the employee was in the course and scope of his or her employment with that employer at the time when the employee caused the damages. Defendants denied liability, claiming the accident was caused by plaintiff’s own negligence or that of third parties over whom defendants had no control.
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM Case Type – PI; Personal injury claim Case Name – Andy Rukavina v. Thomas Sprague Case Number – 20060600-CA Judges – McHugh (author of opinion), Billings, Thorne Trial Court/Judge – 3rd District/Barrett Date of Opinion – 10/07 Opinion – The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s refusal to grant relief from judgment. Attorney(s) - Appellant – Nathan N. Jardine Attorney(s) - Appellee – Bruce C. Burt of Nelson, Chipman, Quigley & Payne Facts/Contentions – Rukavina claimed Sprague’s negligence was the proximate cause of Rukavina’s injuries. The case went to trial, and a jury found Sprague’s negligence was not the cause of Rukavina’s injuries. The trial court imposed sanctions on Rukavina for his attorney’s failure to comply with discovery before the trial. Though his attorney acknowledged that he did fail to comply with discovery, Rukavina moved for relief from judgment and asked for a new trial. The trial court denied the motion. Rukavina appealed. Rukavina’s attorney claimed he was “reasonably surprised” by the sanctions the trial court imposed, and the sanctions should therefore be reversed. The Court of Appeals noted that appeals of the type filed by Rukavina usually address only the propriety of the grant or denial of relief and do not in most cases reach the merits of the underlying judgment from which relief is sought. The Court of Appeals held that Rukavina’s attorney should have known the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure provide for sanctions like those imposed on Rukavina when parties fail to comply with discovery as Rukavina’s attorney did.

Contract

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Cambridge Insurance Company vs. Continental Exposition South; and Noble Convention Freight Systems
Case Number – 030913489
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Medley
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendants in the amount of $19,732.40 plus accrued interest and costs to be determined.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Kyle W. Jones
Attorney(s) - Defense – For defendant Continental Exposition: Richard K. Glauser of Smith & Glauser (withdrew after this defendant’s answer was filed)
Damages – Plaintiff claimed its insured suffered damages to its property in the amount of $19,732.40; plaintiff also sought accrued interest on these damages.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff was the insurance carrier for a third-party company. Plaintiff claimed its insured gave its property to defendant Convention Exposition to be delivered to Salt Lake City. Plaintiff claimed the property was left in the care of defendant Noble for shipment. Plaintiff claimed that when the truck arrived in Salt Lake City, the property was not on board. Plaintiff claimed defendants were negligent in failing to keep the property safe.
Defendant Continental Exposition denied that plaintiff’s insured ever gave its property to this defendant.
When this defendant’s attorney withdrew, plaintiff served this defendant with notice to appoint new counsel. This defendant failed to do so within the time allowed by law.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Phil Bates vs. Gina L. Eborn
Case Number – 040920802
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Quinn
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $29,928.64, which included $10,064 in accrued pre-judgment interest on the promissory notes, $1,862.64 in accrued pre-judgment interest on the two loans, and $155 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Ronald C. Barker of the Barker Law Office
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff sought $15,500 in damages for the promissory note and $2,847.00 in damages for the two loans.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on a promissory note which defendant executed in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff further claimed that defendant failed to repay two loans which plaintiff made to defendant.
When both parties failed to appear at a court-ordered show-cause hearing, the court dismissed this case without prejudice. Shortly after the dismissal, the parties entered into a stipulated agreement for installment repayments of the amount defendant owed plaintiff. The stipulation included $775 in plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and $180.50 in costs and service fees. When defendant failed to sign and return the stipulated agreement and also failed to make the payments, plaintiff moved the court to vacate the dismissal without prejudice for excusable neglect. The court granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Studio H2O vs. Temperature Dynamics; Westridge Construction, Incorporated; and Joshua Crowther
Case Number – 060912407
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Fuchs
Verdict /Settlement – Settlement, 12/06
Amount – All of the parties in this case settled for an unspecified amount.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Michael A. Jensen; then Jason H. Robinson of Babcock Scott & Babcock
Attorney(s) - Defense – For defendant Temperature Dynamics: Conrad H. Johansen of Olsen, Skoubye & Nielson; for defendants Westridge and Crowther: Lincoln Harris of Richards, Brandt, Miller & Nelson
Expert Witness(es) - Plaintiff – Plaintiff retained Erik Fetzer of Fetzer Architectural Woodwork–cabinetry expert.
Damages – Plaintiff sought monetary damages of $12,480 plus punitive damages.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff and defendant Temperature entered into an agreement whereby defendant Temperature was to construct and install cabinets in plaintiff’s hair and nail salon in the Gateway Center. Plaintiff paid defendant Temperature $5,000 up front, with another $5,000 due upon completion of the job. Plaintiff claimed defendant constructed and delivered the cabinets, but failed to install them, so that plaintiff had to hire its contractor, defendant Westridge, to install the cabinets. Plaintiff claimed it paid defendant Westridge about $1,000 for the installation. Plaintiff claimed that after the cabinets were installed, plaintiff noticed defects in the construction and workmanship and complained to defendant Temperature; plaintiff claimed it finally asked Temperature to remove the cabinets, telling Temperature it could keep the original $5,000 prepayment. Plaintiff claimed defendant Temperature refused to do anything about the cabinets and instead filed a mechanic’s lien on plaintiff’s property for the unpaid $5,000. Plaintiff claimed it paid defendant Temperature another $5,980.11 to obtain a release of the lien, and when defendant Temperature still refused to remove the cabinets or negotiate with plaintiff in any way, plaintiff filed this lawsuit. Plaintiff claimed its expert concluded that the cabinets did not meet any of the cabinetry standards with which the expert was familiar.
Plaintiff claimed defendant Westridge, acting as general contractor for plaintiff, awarded the contract to install the cabinets to defendant Temperature on the basis of a friendship between the owner of defendant Westridge and employees of defendant Temperature. Plaintiff claimed defendant Westridge knew or should have known that defendant Temperature was an HVAC company and did not have the experience, knowledge or skills necessary to construct the cabinets properly.
Plaintiff named defendant Crowther as the sle owner of defendant Westridge, claiming that defendant Crowther was the alter ago of defendant Westridge.
Defendant Temperature denied liability, claiming that it was not until the cabinets were installed and defendant Temperature finally threatened to file a lien on the property if plaintiff did not send payment that plaintiff began to express concerns about the quality of the work. Defendant Temperature denied that its work on the cabinets was unsatisfactory. Defendant Temperature denied that plaintiff ever asked defendant Temperature to remove the cabinets. Defendant Temperature denied that it was an HVAC business and contended that it holds a B100 General Building Qualifier License and is fully capable of building and installing the cabinets.
Defendants Westridge and Crowther moved the court to dismiss them from the case, contending that plaintiff’s claim against them was barred by Utah’s economic loss rule. The economic loss rule, defendants Westridge and Crowther claimed, bars plaintiff’s recovery of purely economic losses (costs of repair and replacement) from these defendants for an unintentional tort claim, since plaintiff did not have a contract with these defendants for the construction and installation of the cabinets.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Jordan Credit Union vs. Manuel Guerra
Case Number – 060912710
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Medley
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $16,326.64, which included $405.13 in accrued pre-judgment interest, $625.50 in attorney’s fees and $191.53 in accrued costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Richard C. Terry of Corbridge, Baird & Christensen
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff sought its monetary damages of $15,104.48 plus interest, costs and attorney’s fees as specified in the note.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on a promissory note which defendant executed in favor of plaintiff.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Hi-Land Credit Union vs. Christopher Callahan
Case Number – 060909319
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Quinn
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $1,325.40 plus unspecified accrued pre-judgment interest, $591 in attorney’s fees and $98 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Kendall S. Peterson and Timothy J. Curtis of Peterson Reed Warlaumont & Stout
Attorney(s) - Defense – Defendant answered pro se.
Damages – Plaintiff sought its monetary damages of $1,325.40 plus accrued interest, attorney’s fees and costs.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on a promissory note which defendant executed in favor of plaintiff.
Defendant filed a pro se answer acknowledging the debt and asking the court for a specific garnishment arrangement.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Outsource Recovery Company vs. David Bailey
Case Number – 060914234
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Peuler
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $1,664.56, which included $374.17 in accrued pre-judgment interest, $250 in attorney’s fees and $71 in costs, with credit given for a $50 payment previously received.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – John E. Cawley
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff sought its monetary damages of $1,019.39 plus accrued interest, attorney’s fees and costs.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff is the successor in interest to Smiles Dental. Plaintiff claimed defendant failed to pay for goods and services which Smiles Dental provided to defendant in accordance with an agreement between the parties.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Zions First National Bank vs. Terry L. Nielson
Case Number – 060914489
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Medley
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $303.51 for the overdraft line of credit plus $31.97 in accrued pre-judgment interest and $872.85 for the credit card plus $49.60 in accrued pre-judgment interest; the court also awarded plaintiff its attorneys’ fees and costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David M. McGrath and Brent A. Waite
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff sought its monetary damages of $303.51 for the overdraft line of credit plus $31.97 in accrued pre-judgment interest, $872.85 for the credit card plus $49.60 in accrued pre-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on an overdraft line of credit which plaintiff extended to defendant. Plaintiff also claimed defendant failed to make payments on a credit card which plaintiff issued to defendant.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Pangaea Group, Incorporated; and Brian McAdam vs. Shaddo Corporation; Trevor Kaplan; and Renae Kaplan
Case Number – 040926476
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Frederick; then Himonas; then Lindberg
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – After the parties reached a settlement agreement (terms undisclosed), the court issued the following orders: Within 14 days of the execution of the settlement agreement, defendants must deliver nine trailers, with clear titles, premium tires and wheels, and spare tires, to plaintiff Pangaea. One trailer must be delivered with a clear bra and one trailer must be delivered with a bike-rack. Defendants must also execute a promissory note in favor of plaintiff Pangaea in the amount of $8,000, to be paid over 36 months at 8% per annum. Plaintiffs shall have the right to assign or sell the note. In case of a breach of this agreement, plaintiffs shall have the right to judgment, and defendants shall pay all attorney’s fees, costs and legal expenses.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – B. Ray Zoll of Zoll & Tycksen
Attorney(s) - Defense – Diane S. Jones
Damages – Plaintiff sought monetary damages of $65,208 plus accrued interest, expenses and costs.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff McAdam is the owner of plaintiff Pangaea. Plaintiffs claimed plaintiff Pangaea and defendant Shaddo entered into a contract whereby plaintiff Pangaea lent $40,000 to defendant Shaddo for a three-week term. Plaintiffs claimed defendant Shaddo agreed, in partial return for the loan, to give plaintiff Pangaea stock or equity ownership in Shaddo amounting to 10% of the company, and also to give one position on Shaddo’s board of directors and one executive vice presidential position to Pangaea personnel. Plaintiffs claimed they further agreed to provide expertise in the leadership and management of Shaddo and help Shaddo market its products. Plaintiff claimed the expertise and assistance were worth at least $25,000. Plaintiff claimed defendant Shaddo failed to repay the loan when it came due.
Plaintiff named the Kaplan defendants, who are husband and wife, as owners/officers of defendant Shaddo. Defendant Trevor Kaplan signed the contract as Shaddo’s president.
Defendants moved the court to dismiss the lawsuit on grounds that plaintiffs’ complaint was not filed in a timely fashion. Defendants stated that their corporation was involuntarily dissolved by the State of Nevada before plaintiffs filed their claim.
Plaintiffs contended that defendants asserted their intention to repay the debt as recently as November 15, 2002; plaintiffs claimed these assertions prohibited defendants from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense.
The court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice. Defendants then filed an answer in which the Kaplan defendants denied liability, contending that only defendant Shaddo entered into the contract with plaintiffs.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Zions First National Bank vs. Austin C. Avery
Case Number – 060918618
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Quinn
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $3,099.77, which included $132.54 in accrued interest, $310 in attorneys’ fees and $66.50 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David M. McGrath and Brent A. Waite
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff sought $1,621.13 in past-due payments on the Visa account
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on payments for a Visa credit card which plaintiff extended to defendant.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Zions First National Bank vs. Heidi E. Simmons
Case Number –060918621
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Fuchs; then Skanchy
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $2,027.54, which included $87.50 in accrued interest, $310 in attorneys’ fees and $70 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David M. McGrath and Brent A. Waite
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages –.Plaintiff sought $1,560.04 in past-due payments on the credit card.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on payments for a credit card which plaintiff extended to defendant.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Zions First National Bank vs. James A. Duffield
Case Number – 060919252
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Quinn
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of 4,498.59, which included $612.36 in accrued interest, $310 in attorneys’ fees and $134 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David M. McGrath and Brent A. Waite
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff sought $3,422.23 to pay off the overdraft.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant failed to pay off an overdraft on defendant’s account with plaintiff’s bank.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Zions National Bank vs. L. Kim Nyleen
Case Number – 060914659
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Medley
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $4,199.91, which included $475.10 in accrued interest, $390 in attorneys’ fees and $123 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David M. McGrath and Brent A. Waite
Attorney(s) - Defense – /None listed
Damages – Plaintiff sought $3,211.71 in past-due payments on the credit card.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on payments for a credit card which plaintiff extended to defendant.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Zions First National Bank vs. Jason D. Hansen
Case Number – 060912335
Court/Judge – 3rd District
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $1,015.71, on the promissory note which included $304.11 in accrued interest; $1,199.19 on the first bankcard, which included $192.78 in accrued interest; and $1,517.27 on the second bankcard, which included $180.65 in accrued interest. The judgment also included $467.50 in attorneys’ fees and $198.50 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David M. McGrath and Brent A. Waite
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff sought $711.60 for the promissory note, $1,006.41 for the first bankcard agreement, and $1,336.62 for the second bankcard agreement.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on a promissory note and two bankcard agreements.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Newspaper Agency Corporation vs. Equity Auto, Incorporated; and Jason Kikel
Case Number – 060910383
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Himonas
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 02/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant Equity in the amount of $11,625.09 plus accrued pre-judgment interest at 10% per annum, $3,836.28 in attorney’s fees and $218.40 in costs associated with the filing of this suit. The court declined to enter judgment against defendant Kikel. Judge Himonas noted in his ruling on this matter that although plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of time in which to serve defendant Kikel with notice of this action, plaintiff did not file the motion until 21 days after the 120-day window allowed by Utah law for service had already closed. The court added that plaintiff did not provide any reasonable explanation of why it could not have filed the motion within the 120 days allowed by law for service of notice. Judge Himonas therefore denied plaintiff’s motion for an extension and dismissed defendant Kikel from this action.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Darwin H. Bingham of Scalley Reading Bates Hansen & Rasmussen
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendants had a $11,625.09 balance owing on their account with plaintiff.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant Equity defaulted on a credit agreement between plaintiff and defendant Equity whereby plaintiff agreed to provide defendant Equity with goods or services on account. Plaintiff named defendant Kikel as personal guarantor of defendant Equity’s debt.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Hospitality Services Company, LLC vs. Central California Granite General Contractor, Incorporated; and Frank D. Hogge Case Number – 060920577
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Fratto
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment 03/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendants in the amount of $3,538.72 plus accrued pre-judgment interest at 24% per annum, attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the filing of this suit.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Scott O. Mercer and Ryan B. Hancey of Kesler & Rust
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendants had a $3,538.72 balance owing on the installment purchase agreement.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant Central California Granite defaulted on an installment purchase agreement whereby plaintiff furnished labor and materials to defendant Central California Granite. Plaintiff named defendant Hogge as personal guarantor of defendant Central California Granite’s debt.
The agreement between the parties provided for initial interest at a lower rate, but stated that if the balance was not paid within 30 days, the interest rate would jump to 24% per annum and accrue at that rate until the unpaid balance was paid.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Zions first National Bank vs. Daniel G. Allen
Case Number – 020910797
Court/Judge – 3rd District/
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment 02/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $47,529.37, which included $12,963.62 in accrued pre-judgment interest, $490 in attorneys’ fees and $149 in costs associated with the filing of this suit.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David M. McGrath, Kami L. Peterson and Brent A. Waite
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendant had a $50,726.75 outstanding principal balance owing on his credit line.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on payments for a Reddi-Credit Line which plaintiff extended to defendant.
Defendant acknowledged the debt and executed a stipulated agreement with plaintiff whereby defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $1,000 per month until the balance of the debt was paid off. In this agreement, defendant expressly consented to the entry of judgment against him if he defaulted on the $1,000 monthly payments. Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion asking the court to enter judgment against defendant, claiming defendant defaulted on the $1,000 monthly payments. Defendant paid $16,800 on the outstanding balance before defaulting, and plaintiff asked the court to credit this amount against the outstanding balance when entering this judgment.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Zions First National Bank vs. Crystal Curfew aka Crystal Hill
Case Number – 060917839
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Medley
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 02/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $8,315.22, which included $686.60 in accrued pre-judgment interest, $430 in attorneys’ fees and $130 in costs associated with the filing of this suit.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David M. McGrath and Brent A. Waite
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendant had an $8,068.62 principal balance outstanding on the installment sale and security agreement.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on an installment sale and security agreement in the amount of $11,659.31.
Plaintiff claimed defendant used the loan proceeds to purchase a vehicle; plaintiff sought to take possession of the vehicle, sell it and apply the proceeds of the sale to the outstanding balance owing. Plaintiff claimed defendant took steps to prevent plaintiff from taking possession of the vehicle; plaintiff therefore asked the court to order the sheriff or other law enforcement authority to seize the vehicle and deliver it to plaintiff.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Mountain America Federal Credit Union vs. Lorie Tafoya
Case Number – 060918786
Court/Judge – 3rd District/
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 02/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $16,289.21, which included $789.50 in attorney’s fees and $214.60 in costs associated with the filing of this suit. The court also ordered that pre- and post-judgment interest shall be added to this judgment. The court ordered plaintiff to take possession of the vehicle purchased with the loan proceeds, sell it and apply the sale proceeds to the outstanding balance owing.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Darwin H. Bingham of Scalley Reading Bates Hansen & Rasmussen
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendant had a $15,276.19 principal balance outstanding.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on a retail installment contract and security agreement in the amount of $21,177.92. Plaintiff claimed defendant used the loan proceeds to purchase a vehicle; plaintiff sought to take possession of the vehicle, sell it and apply the proceeds of the sale to the outstanding balance owing. Plaintiff claimed defendant took steps to prevent plaintiff from taking possession of the vehicle; plaintiff therefore asked the court to allow plaintiff to seize the vehicle.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Zions First National Bank vs. Kara E. La Grow
Case Number – 060915606
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Iwasaki
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 02/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $1,765.14, which included $132.66 in accrued pre-judgment interest, $447.50 in attorneys’ fees and $68 in costs associated with the filing of this suit.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David M. McGrath and Brent A. Waite
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendant had a $1,117.48 principal balance outstanding on the credit card account.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on payments for a credit card account which plaintiff extended to defendant.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Dr. Melvin K. Knight, Incorporated vs. Kristine J. Rowley; and David W. Rowley
Case Number – 060915855
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Quinn
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 02/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendants in the amount of $18,524.40, which included accrued pre-judgment interest, attorney’s fees and costs associated with the filing of this suit.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Gregory N. Hoole of Hoole & King
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed he provided defendants with over $19,000 worth of dental work, but defendants only paid him $1,254.60 and then failed to pay any more.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff is a dentist who specializes in periodontics. He claimed he provided periodontic treatment too defendant Kristine Rowley pursuant to a written contract between the parties, but defendants failed to pay for the treatment plaintiff provided.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Timothy P. Connor vs. Jeffrey Mauck; Derek C. Brown; and Platinum Investments aka Platinum Investment Group
Case Number – 060915933
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Medley
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 02/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendants in the amount of $11,250 for the principal balance outstanding; $375 in late fees; a $5,000 non-refundable deposit; $6,250 for the reasonable rental value of the property during the time defendants occupied it without paying and kept plaintiff from leasing or selling it to anyone else; an unspecified amount for damage caused to the property by defendants; $1,972 in attorney’s fees; and $155 in costs associated with the filing of this suit. The $5,000 deposit part of the judgment may be replaced by the amount of the costs plaintiff incurs in selling or re-leasing the property if the latter figure is higher.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Stephen B. Watkins of Halliday & Watkins
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendant Platinum Investments owed $11,250 in back rent.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant Platinum Investments breached a written agreement whereby defendant Platinum Investments leased real property from plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed defendant Platinum Investments failed to pay the rent on time and also failed to pay agreed late charges. Plaintiff further claimed that when defendant Platinum Investments vacated the property after plaintiff posted notice to pay or quit, defendant Platinum Investments damaged the property and took items belonging to plaintiff.
Plaintiff named defendants Mauck and Brown as owners and general partners of defendant Platinum Investments. Plaintiff claimed the company was the alter ego of these defendant individuals, and that defendant individuals were personally liable for the debts and obligations of defendant Platinum Investment.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract claim
Case Name – Tower Engineering vs. Harding Mechanical; and Does 1 through 10
Case Number – 060908584
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Iwasaki
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant Harding in the amount of $200,104.03, which included $23,692.74 in accrued pre-judgment interest, $3,825 in attorneys’ fees, $230 in costs and $37.50 in service fees.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Kevin Egan Anderson and Todd D. Weiler of Parry Anderson & Gardiner
Attorney(s) - Defense – Benson E. Hathaway and Peter C. Schofield of Kirton & McConkie (withdrew after plaintiff filed motion for summary judgment)
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendant Harding promised to pay $174,351.81, which was the combined balance defendant Harding owed on both towers.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed it entered into a contract with defendant Harding whereby plaintiff provided components, equipment and services for the construction of two high-performance ceramic-fill cooling towers. The first tower was constructed at the Henry Eyring Chemistry Building on the University of Utah campus, and the second tower was constructed at the University of Utah HPER Complex. Plaintiff claimed the original agreed price for the first tower was $123,745, and the agreed price for the second tower was $162,500.
Defendant Harding contended that plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The parties executed the agreement in 2004, and plaintiff filed its claim in 2006. Defendant Harding further claimed plaintiff’s suit should fail for lack of privity of contract. Plaintiff moved the court to enter summary judgment against defendant Harding, claiming that defendant Harding executed a promissory note in plaintiff’s favor on December 29, 2005, promising to pay plaintiff $174,351.81, which was the combined total balance owing at the time on both towers.
After plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment, defendant Harding’s attorneys moved the court for permission to withdraw on grounds that defendant Harding had ceased business operations and could no longer pay its counsel. The court granted the motion to withdraw. Defendant Harding did not oppose plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract claim
Case Name – Conrad Prusse vs. Daniel R. Boone
Case Number – 050901461
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Noel; then Lindberg
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $2,094.72 plus accrued pre-judgment interest, attorney’s fees and costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Tracy Scott Cowdell of Armknecht & Cowdell, Lindon
Attorney(s) - Defense – Defendant was represented pro se.
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendant owed plaintiff $2,094.72 in back wages.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff worked for defendant, an attorney. Plaintiff claimed defendant gave plaintiff several paychecks which were returned for insufficient funds. Plaintiff claimed defendant owed plaintiff the wages covered by the returned checks, as well as plaintiff’s costs and attorney’s fees. Plaintiff claimed defendant admitted to plaintiff that defendant owed plaintiff the money; plaintiff also claimed defendant promised to pay plaintiff the money defendant owed plaintiff.
Defendant filed a pro se answer in which defendant agreed that he promised to pay plaintiff. However, defendant added, after he made the promise, he discovered that plaintiff was operating another business out of defendant’s office and was spending time on the operations of that business when he should have been working for defendant. Defendant therefore claimed that plaintiff’s work was unsatisfactory; defendant argued that he should be entitled to an offset for the time plaintiff spent on the other business.
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his behalf, contending that there were no disputed material issues in the case. Defendant did not oppose the motion for summary judgment, and the court granted it.

CONTRACT DISPUTE/
FRAUD CLAIM
Case Type – BC, MF; Breach of contract claim, fraud claim
Case Name – Zions First National Bank vs. Adagio; Adagio Stone; Adagio Stone, Incorporated; Adagio Ceramics; Adagio Wood; Jeffrey F. Geddes; JFG Partners; The J. F. Geddes Family Limited Partnership; Adagio Investments; and Home Depot Import
Case Number – 050908290
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Frederick; then Toomey
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against all the defendants in the amount of $925,188.95, which included $156,864.73 in attorneys’ fees and costs and $375,955.73 in plaintiff’s costs and disbursements other than for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Randall D. Benson, Lawrence R. Dingivan and T. Richard Davis of Callister, Nebeker & McCullough (attorney Benson later withdrew)
Attorney(s) - Defense – Edward W. Stone and Jeffrey Salberg of The Stone Law Firm, Park City; and James L. Stith of Black, Stith & Argyle, Park City (all of these attorneys later withdrew)
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendants had an outstanding balance of $392,368.49 owing on the principal.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendants were borrowers and/or guarantors who defaulted on a revolving line of credit which plaintiff extended to defendants. Plaintiff claimed the maximum principal amount of credit available to defendants was $30 million. Plaintiff claimed defendants actually entered into several loan agreements with plaintiff, and the loans were secured by various individual promissory notes, commercial guaranty agreements and commercial security agreements. Plaintiff claimed the borrowers were supposed to use the loan proceeds to purchase the Adagio inventory for Home Depot and/or to finance Home Depot’s accounts receivable. Plaintiff further claimed defendants were also supposed to use Home Depot’s collections to make the payments on the loan. Plaintiff claimed defendants made these promises fraudulently and did not ever intend to do any of the things they promised and were supposed to do.
Plaintiff moved the court to issue a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from selling or transferring any of their assets. The court issued the order and the injunction, and defendants’ assets were seized by the FBI and delivered to plaintiffs. Defendants then moved the court to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting plaintiff from disposing of any of defendants’ property. After filing this motion, defendants’ attorneys withdrew.
Thomas R. Karrenberg and John A. Bluth of Anderson & Karrenberg, as representatives of Bruce and Carol Hosford, sought leave to intervene in the case, claiming the Hosfords had a material interest in the outcome of the suit. Bruce Hosford is a minority investor/shareholder/member of the Adagio companies. The court granted the motion to intervene and also admitted the Hosfords’ attorneys from King County, Washington, S. Val Tollefson and Christopher T. Won, pro hac vice (for the specific and limited purpose of representing their clients in the Third District Court with respect to this lawsuit only).
Defendants claimed the plaintiffs-in-intervention had an ownership interest in the Adagio companies and should therefore be held partially responsible for any damages incurred by plaintiff Zions if the court issued any judgment against defendants.
After defendants’ attorneys withdrew, plaintiff served defendants with notice to appear or appoint counsel. Defendants did not do either, and plaintiff moved the court to issue summary judgment against defendants.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract claim
Case Name – Jordan Credit Union vs. Shannon K. Lucas
Case Number – 060914044
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Kennedy
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $2,893.89, which included $72.61 in accrued pre-judgment interest, $536 in attorney’s fees and $166 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Richard C. Terry of Corbridge Baird & Christensen
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendant owed $2,119.28 on the promissory note.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on a promissory note which defendant executed in favor of plaintiff.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract claim
Case Name – Zions First National Bank vs. Cody D. Isaacson
Case Number – 050920407
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Medley
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 01/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $15,958.75, which included $3,844 in accrued pre-judgment interest, $370 in attorneys’ fees and $175 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David M. McGrath and Brent A. Waite
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendant owed an outstanding balance of $11,569.75 on the promissory note after the vehicle bought with the proceeds of the note was repossessed and sold and the sale proceeds were applied on the outstanding balance.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on a promissory note which defendant executed in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed defendant used the money obtained from the loan to buy a vehicle; plaintiff repossessed the vehicle, sold it, and applied the proceeds from the sale to the outstanding balance on the note. Plaintiff filed this suit to recover the remainder owing on the note after the repossession and sale of the vehicle.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC, CX; Breach of contract, counter-claim
Case Name – Industrial Communications, Incorporated dba General Telephone vs. Horizon Lines; Union Pacific Railroad Company; and Does 1 through 5
Case Number – 050910425
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Medley
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 03/07
Amount – When plaintiff failed to appoint new counsel by the court-appointed deadline, the court granted defendant Horizon’s motion, struck plaintiff’s complaint, entered judgment against plaintiff and dismissed plaintiff’s case with prejudice. Defendant Horizon’s attorneys asked the court to award defendant Horizon $8,736.79 in attorneys’ fees and $231.29 in costs, and the court complied.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Shawn D. Turner of Larson, Turner, Dalby & Ethington (withdrew after filing an answer to the counter-claim) Attorney(s) - Defense – For defendant Horizon: Edwin S. Wall of Wall Law Offices and William D. De Voe of Holmes Weddle & Barcott, Seattle, Washington (admitted pro hac vice, for the purpose of appearing in a Utah court on defendant Horizon’s behalf in this case only); for defendant Union Pacific: Jeffery J. Devashrayee
Damages – Plaintiff sought an injunction ordering defendants to release the container; plaintiff indicated its willingness to post a bond in the amount of the disputed charges. Plaintiff further sought damages for breach of contract and conversion.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed that a pager business in Hawaii hired defendant Horizon to transfer pager transmitters and other communications equipment to plaintiff, with transport to be made by cargo container. Plaintiff claimed defendant Horizon created a bill of lading in the amount of $2,982.27. Plaintiff claimed the pager company offered to pay these charges when the container was delivered to Hawaii to be loaded and again when it was loaded in Hawaii, but defendant Horizon told the pager company they would have to wait for the bill. When the goods arrived in California, plaintiff company’s owner was visiting his daughter in Washington state. Upon his return, plaintiff company’s owner claimed, he found that the container was at the railhead in Salt Lake City, but shipping charges had increased to $3,090.27 and the container had incurred storage charges of $50 per day for five days and charges of $150 per day thereafter. Plaintiff claimed defendants never informed plaintiff about the storage fees before the container was shipped, and plaintiff never agreed to these fees. Plaintiff claimed that plaintiff and defendants agreed that the best thing to do would be to get the container released from storage and resolve the dispute later, but when plaintiff hired a trucking company to pick up the container, the trucking company could not pick up the container without an authorization number from the railroad, and the railroad refused to issue the number. By this time the storage fees had increased to $2,050. Plaintiff claimed that when plaintiff contacted defendant Horizon about the situation, defendant Horizon again promised to have the container released on payment of the shipping charges. Plaintiff later discovered that the railroad was not holding plaintiff’s property; plaintiff therefore stipulated to the dismissal of defendant Union Pacific from the case.
Defendant Horizon agreed that if plaintiff paid Union Pacific its $2,350 demurrage charge and posted a bond in the amount of $5,440.27, defendant Horizon would release the cargo to plaintiff. The parties stipulated to these terms and to the dismissal of defendant Union Pacific from the case.
Defendant Horizon denied that it failed to inform plaintiff that storage charges would accrue. Defendant Horizon counter-claimed against plaintiff for failure to pay the shipping and storage charges. Plaintiff denied liability on the counter-claim.
When plaintiff’s counsel withdrew, defendant Horizon served plaintiff with notice to appoint new counsel, and plaintiff failed to do so within the time allowed. Defendant Horizon then moved the court to dismiss plaintiff’s claim on grounds that plaintiff failed to comply with defendant Horizon’s discovery requests. The court gave plaintiff ten days to appoint new counsel; if plaintiff failed to do so, the court stated, it would strike plaintiff’s complaint.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Zions First National Bank vs. James T. Brown
Case Number – 060903431
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Fratto
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 03/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $8,330.09, which included $2,921.64 in accrued pre-judgment interest at 17% per annum, $525 in attorneys’ fees, $115 in costs and $300 in repossession costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David M. McGrath and Brent A. Waite
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff repossessed and sold the vehicle which defendant bought with the proceeds of the note, applying the proceeds from the sale of the vehicle to the outstanding balance due on the note. Plaintiff filed this suit to recover the $4,468.45 remaining balance outstanding on the note.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on a promissory note which defendant executed in favor of plaintiff.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Jordan Credit Union vs. Spencer D. Sim aka Spencer D. Pacheco
Case Number – 060903918
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Dever
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 03/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $7,923.26, which included $655.40 in accrued pre-judgment interest, $1,498 in attorney’s fees and $267 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Richard C. Terry of Corbridge Baird & Christensen
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed the balance outstanding on the Visa was $5,110.15, and the balance outstanding on the overdraft was $392.71. The interest rate on the Visa was 11.5%.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on a Visa agreement which defendant executed with plaintiff. Plaintiff further claimed defendant defaulted on an overdraft agreement which defendant executed with plaintiff.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Zions First National Bank vs. Andrea M. Bates
Case Number – 060909864
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Kouris; then Faust
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 03/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $4,492.09, which included $585 in accrued pre-judgment interest at prime plus 9% per annum, $350 in attorneys’ fees and $134 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David M. McGrath and Brent A. Waite
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed the balance outstanding on the Visa was $3,422.70.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on a Visa agreement which defendant executed with plaintiff.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Zions First National Bank vs. Ricardo Aguilera; and Carmen Aravena
Case Number – 060910615
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Hilder; then Trease
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 03/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $3,221.29, which included $749.63 in accrued pre-judgment interest at 22.99% per annum, $20 in repossession costs, $495 in attorneys’ fees and $134.25 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David M. McGrath and Brent A. Waite
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed the balance outstanding on the installment agreement was $1,823.41.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendants defaulted on a retail installment agreement which defendants executed with plaintiff.
Plaintiff repossessed and sold the vehicle which defendants bought with the proceeds from the loan, applying the proceeds from the sale to the balance outstanding on the loan. Plaintiff filed this suit to recover the balance owing on the loan.
Plaintiff and defendants entered into a stipulated agreement whereby plaintiff agreed to stay judgment proceedings and defendants agreed to make monthly payments on the balance owing. The parties agreed that if defendants defaulted on the payments, the court would enter judgment against them for the balance owing plus various other costs. Plaintiff moved the court for an entry of judgment when defendants defaulted on the payments.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Zions First National Bank vs. Niinabi A. Tackie Yarboy
Case Number – 060911184
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Iwasaki
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 03/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $1,920.86, which included accrued $172.50 in pre-judgment interest at prime plus 9% per annum, $620 in attorneys’ fees and $92 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David M. McGrath and Brent A. Waite
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed the balance outstanding on the Visa was $1,036.36.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on a Visa agreement which defendant executed with plaintiff.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Zions First National Bank vs. Michael L. Warner; and Luann G. Warner
Case Number – 060913199
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Skanchy; then Faust
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 03/07
Amount – The court granted plaintiff’s motion and entered summary judgment against defendants in the amount of $27,731.59, which included $6,873.35 in accrued pre-judgment interest at prime plus 5%, $1,115 in attorneys’ fees and $210.50 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David M. McGrath and Brent A. Waite
Attorney(s) - Defense – Defendants were represented pro se.
Damages – Plaintiff claimed the balance outstanding on the home equity loan was $19,532.74.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on a home equity loan which defendant executed with plaintiff. The trust deed covered real property in Payson. Plaintiff claimed its lien on the property was foreclosed by a lienholder senior to plaintiff.
Defendants claimed they had paid approximately $36,400 since taking out the loan and never received a demand for payment in full before being served with notice of the lawsuit. Defendants claimed they paid the home equity loan off in full in October of 1999. However, defendants wrote, when defendants called the bank three days before Christmas, a bank employee told them that the home equity line of credit was still open, and they began borrowing again, with the result that the account was soon maxed out. Defendants claimed they continued paying on the loan until defendant husband lost his job unexpectedly on the same day defendant wife quit hers. Defendants claimed the home was sold at foreclosure auction and they moved out; when this happened, they claimed, they were no longer able to make the payments on the home equity loan. However, defendants claimed, they showed good faith by continuing to making payments for two years after they lost their jobs and ten months after they lost their home. Defendants said they then got a letter from the bank telling them they should never have reopened the home equity account.
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on grounds that defendants did not dispute that they owed the money to plaintiff and thus there were no material issues in dispute. Defendants did not appear at the hearing on the motion.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – United Rentals Northwest, Incorporated vs. Western Structures & Precast; and Eugene Loveridge
Case Number – 060916896
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Medley
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 02/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant Loveridge in the amount of $20,232.20, which included $1,787.41 in accrued pre-judgment interest, $775 in attorneys’ fees and $264.30 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Erik A. Olson and Jason R. Hull of Durham Jones & Pinegar
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed the principal amount outstanding on the rental invoice was $17,405.49.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendants failed to pay rental fees for heavy machinery, equipment and industrial supplies which plaintiff rented to defendant company pursuant to an agreement between the parties. Plaintiff named defendant Loveridge as personal guarantor for defendant company in the contract.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Cyprus Credit Union vs. Jeremy Perea
Case Number – 060914916
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Lindberg
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 03/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $64,311.26, which included $2,009.21 in accrued pre-judgment interest at 7% per annum, $821 in attorney’s fees and $214.50 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Richard C. Terry of corbridge Baird & Christensen
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed the outstanding balance on the real property note was $61,266.55.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on a single-installment fixed-rate real property promissory note in the amount of $263,500 which defendant executed in plaintiff’s favor. Plaintiff foreclosed and sold the property at auction. Plaintiff was the highest bidder with a bid of $90,000. Plaintiff applied the proceeds of the sale to the outstanding balance and filed this suit to recover the remaining balance outstanding on the note after the sale proceeds were applied.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC, CX; Breach of contract, cross-claim
Case Name – Burton Lumber & Hardware Company vs. Jason R. Palmer; Jenifer M. Palmer; Construction Capital Course, LC; Griffiths & Turner Title Insurance; IndyMac Bank, FSB; Fidelity National Title Insurance Company; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Incorporated; Countrywide Home Loans, Incorporated; and Stuart T. Matheson
Case Number – 060915539
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Fratto
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 03/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendants Construction Capital Source and Griffiths & Turner Title Insurance. The court ordered that the interests held by these defendants in the subject parcel of real estate be foreclosed and extinguished by plaintiff’s mechanic’s lien. The court ordered the sheriff to sell the property free and clear of these defendants’ interests and apply the proceeds towards the satisfaction of plaintiff’s mechanic’s lien. The court also awarded plaintiff its costs and attorneys’ fees, to be determined upon submission by plaintiff of evidence proving the amount of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David R. Nielson and Nathan D. Ashcraft of Olsen Skoubye & Nielson
Attorney(s) - Defense – For defendants Jason R. Palmer and Jenifer Palmer: Denver C. Snuffer and Daniel B. Garriott of Nelson, Snuffer, Dahle & Poulsen; for defendants IndyMac and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems: Brian J. Babcock of Babcock Scott & Babcock; for defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Countrywide and Matheson: Stuart T. Matheson, Jon M. Jeppson and Armand J. Howell of Matheson, Mortensen, Olsen & Jeppson
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendants Jason and Jenifer Palmer owed plaintiff $53,672.95 on account plus accrued pre-judgment interest at 24 % per annum.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant Jason Palmer ordered building materials on credit for use for the improvement of real property in Bluffdale. Plaintiff claimed defendants Jason and Jenifer Palmer failed to pay for the building materials. Plaintiff filed a mechanic’s lien against the BLuffdale property to preserve its interest after the building materials were used on the property.
Plaintiff named defendants Jason and Jenifer Palmer as the owners of the Bluffdale property. Plaintiff named defendant Construction Capital Source as a party claiming an interest in the Bluffdale property which was secured by a supplemental trust deed. Plaintiff named defendant Griffiths & Turner Title Insurance as a party having an interest in the Bluffdale property as trustee under the supplemental trust deed. Plaintiff named defendant IndyMac Bank as a party having an interest in the Bluffdale property as a lender on the property. The IndyMac loan was secured by a trust deed. Plaintiff named defendant Fidelity National Title Insurance as a party having an interest in the Bluffdale property as trustee under the IndyMac trust deed. Plaintiff named defendant Countrywide as a party having an interest in the Bluffdale property as a line-of-credit lender on the property. The line of credit was secured by a trust deed. Plaintiff named defendant Matheson as a party having an interest in the Bluffdale property as trustee under the Countrywide trust deed. Plaintiff named defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration systems as a party having an interest in the Bluffdale property as beneficiary under both the IndyMac and Countrywide trust deeds.
Plaintiff sought to exercise its mechanic’s lien and extinguish the defendants’ interests in the Bluffdale property. However, plaintiff did not seek to extinguish the interests held by defendant Construction Capital Source and Griffiths & Turner Title Insurance under the original deed of trust, but only the interests these defendants held under the supplemental trust deed.
The Palmer defendants asserted the defenses of breach, lack of consideration, mutual mistake, and release, accord and satisfaction.
Defendants IndyMac Bank and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems claimed plaintiff’s lien was an “:abuse of lien” under Utah law. These defendants cross-claimed that the Palmers failed to discharge the claims and the interests in the property of the other defendants and plaintiff. These cross-claimed that the Palmers’ failure to do so constituted a breach of the contract which existed between these defendants and the Palmers. These defendants further cross-claimed that under the terms of the contract between these defendants and the Palmers, the Palmers should be required to defend and indemnify these defendants.
The Palmers asserted the defenses of breach, lack of consideration, mutual mistake and release, accord and satisfaction in the cross-claim. Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Countrywide and Matheson contended that plaintiff’s lien did not have priority over these defendants’ interests.
After they responded to plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff dismissed defendants Matheson and Countrywide without prejudice.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Afton Thomas, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Kent Thomas, vs. Kimball Roofing, LLC; and Kimball Strickland dba Kimball Roofing
Case Number – 060916954
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Skanchy; then Faust
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 03/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendants in the amount of $20,421 for material damages plus $8,525 in attorneys’ fees and $1,672.44 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Ray G. Martineau, Anthony R. Martineau and Brett D. Cragun of the Law Office of Ray Martineau
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed Damages – Plaintiff claimed she and decedent suffered unspecified material damages. Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff filed her claim individually and as widow of decedent Kent Thomas and beneficiary of decedent’s will. Plaintiff claimed defendants entered into a contract with plaintiff and decedent whereby defendants agreed to remove old roofing and insulation from property owned by plaintiff and decedent, install a new roof and a new tapered insulation system, flash all penetrations with custom-made boots and curbs, wrap all outside edges with Duro-Last and secure them with trim bar and fascia covers, clean up all roofing debris and haul it away, and provide a five-year warranty on the work and a 15-year warranty on the materials. Plaintiff claimed defendants undertook the work negligently, carelessly and with a willful disregard for the applicable professional standards and the contract specifications. Plaintiff claimed the new roof leaked and water pooled on and under the new roof rather than moving off the roof as it should have done if the new system had worked correctly. Plaintiff claimed chimney and window seams were not sealed. Plaintiff claimed she and decedent made repeated demands that defendants correct the problems they caused, but defendants failed, neglected and refused to do so.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Scott H. Dahlquist vs. Michael Nielsen; and Brooke Nielsen
Case Number – 060918603
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Skanchy
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 04/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant Michael Nielsen in the amount of $25,424.86, which included $859.50 in attorneys’ fees and $155.36 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Thomas D. Walk and Michael D. Johnston of Kirton & McConkie
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff sought $24,410 in past-due dental charges, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff, a dentist, claimed he entered into a trade agreement with defendants, who were husband and wife, whereby plaintiff would provide dental services to defendants’ family members. Plaintiff claimed defendant Mike Nielsen transferred the deed to a one-acre lot in Summit County to plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed the lot had a value of $7,500, leaving a balance of over $30,000 owing.
Plaintiff claimed he discussed the situation with defendant Mike Nielsen and agreed to accept $25,000 as payment in full if payment was tendered immediately. Plaintiff claimed defendant Mike Nielsen did not send any payment until over a year later, when he sent plaintiff a partial payment of $9,000. Plaintiff therefore filed this suit seeking the full balance defendants owed.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Jordan Credit Union vs. Mauro Gutierrez
Case Number – 060916243
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Dever
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 04/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $8,956.13, which included $452.34 in accrued pre-judgment interest, $670 in attorney’s fees and $309.90 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Richard C. Terry of Corbridge, Baird & Christensen
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendant had an outstanding principal balance of $7,523.89 owing on the note, plus interest at the contract rate of 10.4%.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant defaulted on a promissory note which defendant executed in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff sought and was granted leave to serve defendant by publication after plaintiff was unable to locate defendant to serve him in person.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Zions First National Bank vs. Richard S. Martinez; and Christina L. Martinez
Case Number – 060917664
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Himonas
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 04/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendants in the amount of $9,242.62, which included $1,328.08 in accrued pre-judgment interest, $674 in repossession costs, $390 in attorneys’ fees and $150.50 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – David M. McGrath and Brent A. Waite
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendants had an outstanding principal balance of $6,700.04 owing on the note, plus accrued interest at the contractual rate of 17.99%.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendants defaulted on a retail installment note which defendants executed in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff repossessed and sold the vehicle which defendants purchased with the proceeds of the note. After plaintiff applied the proceeds of the sale to the balance owing, plaintiff filed this suit to recover the remainder of the balance owing under the terms of the note.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Outsource Recovery Company vs. William Miller
Case Number – 060914051
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Fratto
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 04/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $830.41, which included $286.62 in accrued pre-judgment interest, $250 in attorney’s fees and $63 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – John E. Cawley
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendant had an outstanding principal balance of $530.79 owing on his account.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff is the successor in interest to a third-party dentist who provided services to defendant. Plaintiff claimed defendant failed to pay for the services he received from the third party.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC, MF; Breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation
Case Name – Business Growth Funding, LLC; and O H Investment Group, LLC vs. Charles McIntyre; Mrs. Charles McIntyre; and Does 1 through 10
Case Number – 060912100
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Toomey
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 04/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant Charles McIntyre in the amount of $350,182, which included $182 in costs. The total judgment against defendant Charles McIntyre on all causes of action was $350,000. The judgment was entered against defendant Charles McIntyre alone because the court had no record of service upon defendant Mrs. Charles McIntyre and no affidavit of military service on file with regard to her.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Nathan W. Drage
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff sought $350,000 from defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation, $350,000 for breach of contract, $350,000 for breach of fiduciary duty, $350,000 for conversion, $350,000 for negligence and $350,000 for detrimental reliance. Plaintiffs originally also sought $3,500,000 in punitive damages, but they withdrew this claim at the time when judgment was entered and agreed to a consolidated judgment on the various causes of action in their complaint.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiffs are companies that trade securities on the public stock market. Plaintiffs claimed they met defendant Charles McIntyre and learned that he made a substantial living trading currencies on the public stock market. Plaintiffs had no experience in this type of trading. Plaintiffs claimed defendant Charles McIntyre sought to enter into an investment agreement with plaintiffs and mapped out for plaintiffs an investment strategy whereby, defendant Charles McIntyre claimed, plaintiffs might also realize a considerable profit from the currency trade. Plaintiffs claimed defendant agreed to generate a specific trade once every week and split the profits with plaintiffs 50/50. Plaintiffs stated that they started with an investment of $5,000. On the basis of text messages and spreadsheets from defendant Charles McIntyre, they eventually increased it to $350,000. Plaintiffs claimed defendant Charles McIntyre promised not to begin trading with this money until a written agreement was signed by all of the parties. However, at this point, plaintiffs claimed, defendant Charles McIntyre stopped communicating with them, stopped sending them spreadsheets and text messages, and began trading multiple times every week without waiting for the written agreement to be signed. Plaintiffs claimed defendant Charles McIntyre lost all of plaintiffs’ money in these trades. Plaintiffs claimed defendant Charles McIntyre knew when he entered into the investment agreement with plaintiffs that he had no intention of abiding by its terms. Plaintiffs claimed defendant Charles McIntyre fraudulently misrepresented material facts to plaintiffs in order to induce them to give him their money. Plaintiff claimed defendant Mrs. Charles McIntyre lived with her husband at the time he lost plaintiffs’ money and conspired with her husband to persuade plaintiffs to invest it.CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Geneva Rock Products, Incorporated vs. CAT Supply; and Gary Rasmussen
Case Number – 060906039
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Quinn
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 04/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $3,059, which included $704 in attorneys’ fees and $149 in costs.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Brian J. Babcock and Jason H. Robinson of Babcock Scott & Babcock
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff originally sought judgment against defendant in the amount of $5,210.87 plus accrued pre-judgment interest at 18%. However, by the time the court entered judgment against defendant, the balance owing had diminished to $2,206.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant CAT ordered ready-mix concrete and/or other goods from plaintiff and then failed to pay for them. Plaintiff claimed defendant Gary Rasmussen signed a personal guarantee agreeing to pay if defendant CAT defaulted.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Page Industrial Supply vs. Itec Manufacturing, LLC; and Barton Penrod
Case Number – 060919712
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Fratto
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 05/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $13,440.80, which included $1,012.50 in attorney’s fees and $359 in costs. Judgment also included pre-judgment interest at 24% per annum and post-judgment interest at 6.99% per annum, which shall accrue until the judgment is satisfied.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Lester A. Perry of Hoole & King
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendants owed plaintiff $12,009.30 plus accrued interest.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendants failed to pay for products which plaintiff provided to defendant Itec on open account. Plaintiff named defendant Penrod as having signed a personal guarantee for the Itec account.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Jose Euan-Pat vs. Max Franco
Case Number – 060919749
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Medley
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 05/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $10,000 plus post-judgment interest at 6.99% per annum, which shall accrue until the judgment is satisfied.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Marsha C. Thomas of Thomas Tax and Law
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed the current balance owing on the loan was $10,000.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed he loaned defendant $25,000. Plaintiff claimed defendant agreed to repay the loaned amount with interest, but failed to repay all of it. Plaintiff claimed defendant stopped making payments after repaying $15,000 of the loan.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – SS, Incorporated dba Utah Sprinkler Supply Company vs. Kacey J. Crane
Case Number – 070900127
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Faust
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 05/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $986, which included $418.35 in treble damages, $250 in attorney’s fees, $170 in costs and $9 in accrued pre-judgment interest at 10% per annum. Interest shall accrue on this judgment at 6.99% per annum until it is satisfied.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Daniel O. Duffin of Duffin & Associates
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed the amount of the dishonored check was $139.45. Plaintiff sought treble damages, claiming defendant willfully and intentionally set out to defraud plaintiff when he wrote the check.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant wrote a check to plaintiff to pay for labor, materials and services which plaintiff provided to defendant. Plaintiff claimed the check was returned by the bank for insufficient funds.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – Pacific Painting & Wallcovering, Incorporated vs. In Vision Construction Services, Incorporated
Case Number – 070901964
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Iwasaki
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 05/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $2,303.11, which included $426.61 in accrued pre-judgment interest at 10% per annum and $96.50 in costs. Interest shall accrue on this judgment at 6.99% per annum until it is satisfied.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Jan P. Malmberg of Perry, Malmberg & Perry, Logan
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendant owed $1,780 on the contract.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed it entered into a contract with defendant to paint Morgan Jewelers in St. George, Utah. Plaintiff claimed the agreed payment for the job was $3,700. Plaintiff claimed defendant paid plaintiff $2,000 and then failed to make any more payments.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – All American Sod Farms, Incorporated vs. Victor Magna
Case Number – 070903197
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Henriod
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 05/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $1,220.81, which included $252.31 in accrued pre-judgment interest at 10% per annum and $108.50 in costs. Interest shall accrue on this judgment at 10% per annum until it is satisfied.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Daniel O. Duffin of Duffin & Associates
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendant had a balance owing of $860.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed it provided sod to defendant for defendant’s residence in Magna. Plaintiff claimed defendant never paid for the sod.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – United Rentals Northwest, Incorporated vs. Blue Sky Construction, LLC; and Jeff Condie
Case Number – 070903530
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Fratto
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 05/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $18,252.59, which included $1,451 in accrued pre-judgment interest at 24% per annum, $775 in attorneys’ fees and $185.60 in costs. Interest shall accrue on this judgment at 24% per annum until it is satisfied.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – Erik A. Olsen and Jason R. Hull of Durham, Jones & Pinegar
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed defendants owed plaintiff $15,840.98 on the open account. Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant company defaulted on payments for a credit account which plaintiff opened for defendant company. Plaintiff claimed defendant company rented equipment, heavy machinery and industrial supplies to defendant company, but defendant company failed to pay the rent for them. Plaintiff claimed defendant Condie signed a personal guarantee for the open account agreement.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – AAA Spring Specialists vs. Julie T. Russell
Case Number – 070903996
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Lindberg
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 05/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $419.63, which included $0.67 in accrued pre-judgment interest at 10% per annum, $20 in returned check charges, $20 in collection fees, $65 in costs, $250 in attorney’s fees and $47.97 in treble damages. Interest shall accrue on this judgment at 6.99% per annum until it is satisfied.
Attorney(s) - Plaintiff – John E. Cawley
Attorney(s) - Defense – None listed
Damages – Plaintiff claimed the amount of the dishonored check was $15.99. Plaintiff sought treble damages, claiming defendant willfully and intentionally set out to defraud plaintiff when she wrote the check.
Facts/Contentions – Plaintiff claimed defendant wrote a check to plaintiff which was returned by defendant’s bank for insufficient funds.

CONTRACT DISPUTE
Case Type – BC; Breach of contract
Case Name – David Meade Investments, LLC vs. Martha Montoya; and Does 1 through 10
Case Number – 070904329
Court/Judge – 3rd District/Faust
Verdict /Settlement – Judgment, 05/07
Amount – The court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $3,715.62, which included $500 per month rent for two months, $666.67 in lost rent surcharge for the occupation of the premises by the Doe defendants, $50 in late charges, $1,767.95 in attorneys’ fees and $231 in costs. The court granted plaintiff an order of restitution directing defendant Montoya and all of the Doe defendants to remove their personal property from the premises and vacate the premises within three business days following service of the order or be forcibly removed by a sheriff or constable.