You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Monavie, LLC v. Iverson

Citations: 2012 UT App 141; 279 P.3d 843; 708 Utah Adv. Rep. 10; 2012 Utah App. LEXIS 140; 2012 WL 1623379Docket: 20110522-CA

Court: Court of Appeals of Utah; May 10, 2012; Utah; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves an appeal by the Defendants, who contested the district court's decision to grant Monavie, LLC’s motion for summary judgment, which dismissed their counterclaims. The primary legal issue centers on whether the district court erred in its judgment despite the existence of disputed material facts. Under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendants were required to present specific facts to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial but failed to respond timely to Monavie’s motion. Consequently, the court deemed Monavie's facts admitted. Additionally, the Defendants did not preserve their arguments concerning the untimely response by failing to file necessary motions or objections. Issues regarding their rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment were not properly before the appellate court, as they were not raised in a separate appeal. The appellate court, comprising Judges Orme, Thorne, and Roth, affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the summary judgment in favor of Monavie, LLC.

Legal Issues Addressed

Preservation of Issues for Appeal

Application: The Defendants failed to preserve their arguments on the untimely opposition by not filing a motion for acceptance of their late response or objecting to the proposed order.

Reasoning: The Defendants failed to preserve their arguments regarding the untimely opposition, as they did not file a motion for acceptance of the late response or object to Monavie’s proposed order.

Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment

Application: Issues related to the Defendants' rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment were not considered by the appellate court as they were not properly raised in a separate appeal.

Reasoning: Issues concerning the district court's decision on their rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment are not properly before the appellate court, as they must be addressed in a separate appeal.

Summary Judgment under Utah Rules of Civil Procedure

Application: The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Monavie, LLC because the Defendants did not timely respond to the motion, resulting in the acceptance of Monavie's facts as admitted.

Reasoning: Failure to respond timely to a summary judgment motion results in the moving party's facts being deemed admitted.