District Court, D. Utah — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
United States v. Mitchell
District Court, D. Utah · 2010-08-16 · cited 4×
In United States v. Mitchell, defendant Brian David Mitchell, charged with kidnapping Elizabeth Smart and transporting her across state lines, moved to transfer venue from the District of Utah, arguing that extensive pretrial publicity and community bias would prevent a fair trial under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21. The court denied the motion under the constitutional standard for presumed prejudice, finding that the defendant's survey evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that publicity had displaced the judicial process, as the questions were too broad and leading. However, the court reserved its ruling on the Rule 21 motion until after reviewing responses to a detailed pretrial juror questionnaire, which it believed could adequately address concerns about impartiality, and permitted supplemental memoranda from the parties afterward.
criminal lawprocedure
American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Olsen
District Court, D. Utah · 2010-07-15
This case involves a challenge by out-of-state professional fundraising consultants and an advocacy group to the constitutionality of Utah's Charitable Solicitations Act, which mandates registration with the state for entities assisting charities in solicitations. The plaintiffs, represented in part by American Charities, alleged violations of the dormant Commerce Clause, First Amendment, and due process rights due to the Act's application despite their lack of contacts with Utah. Defendant, the Director of Utah's Division of Consumer Protection, moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of standing, ripeness, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and various abstention doctrines. The court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs had standing and ripeness, the suit fell under the Ex Parte Young exception to immunity, Rule 5.1 did not apply, and abstention was inappropriate as the issues were federal constitutional questions with no ongoing state proceedings.
business & regulatoryfree speechcivil rights
United States v. Mitchell
District Court, D. Utah · 2010-03-01 · cited 5×
The case concerned a determination of whether defendant Brian David Mitchell was competent to stand trial on federal charges of kidnapping and unlawful transportation of a minor under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1) and 2423(a). The court applied the Dusky standard, requiring both a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings and the ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. After an evidentiary hearing featuring testimony from multiple experts (including Drs. Weiner, Gardner, and DeMier) as well as lay witnesses, the court evaluated evidence of Mitchell's religious beliefs, selective refusal to participate in evaluations, and indications of possible malingering. The court concluded that Mitchell was competent, adopting findings that his beliefs aligned with his cultural and religious background rather than demonstrating a lack of rational contact with reality.
criminal lawprocedure
Nilson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA
District Court, D. Utah · 2009-12-23 · cited 12×
This case involves a dispute between JPMorgan Chase Bank and other lenders (the Bank Group) and shareholders of Woodside Group, including Ezra Nilson and related trusts, arising from Woodside's bankruptcy and conversion to an LLC that generated substantial tax refunds. The banks sought a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo by restricting the shareholders' use of the tax refunds, which the banks claimed should be available to satisfy potential judgments on their claims. The court granted the motion for preliminary injunction after applying the standard factors under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, finding that the banks showed a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm from dissipation of funds, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored preserving the funds in an investment account. The decision emphasized that the injunction was prohibitory rather than mandatory and noted it was not binding on the ultimate merits. The core reasoning focused on evidence that the refunds were obtained through the conversion and that commingling or spending would undermine the banks' ability to trace or recover them if they prevailed.
business & regulatoryproceduretaxes
Singer v. Department of Health and Human Services
District Court, D. Utah · 2009-07-23 · cited 2×
In Singer v. Department of Health and Human Services, an obstetrician who received $50,000 from the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program to repay her student loans in exchange for two years of service at an approved site left her position after about 18 months, prompting the government to seek repayment of the funds plus penalties for breach of contract. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that Singer breached her contractual and statutory obligations by failing to complete her service term. The core reasoning was that the contract terms, set by statute, required full performance, Singer presented no valid defenses such as waiver or estoppel, and she was not entitled to credit for service performed before entering the contract or partial performance.
healthcarefederal power
Weeks v. Unum Group
District Court, D. Utah · 2008-09-18 · cited 1×
This case involves plaintiff Kathryn Weeks's ERISA challenge to the termination of her long-term disability benefits under a policy issued by First Unum to her employer, after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Weeks moved for partial summary judgment arguing that de novo review should apply because a Utah regulation invalidates the policy's discretionary clause and because UnumProvident (the parent company) rather than First Unum made the decision; she also sought additional discovery outside the administrative record. The court denied the summary judgment motion in part, finding ERISA likely preempts the state rule and that further information was needed on the corporate relationship and any delegation of authority, denied some discovery requests while ordering production of a services agreement between the companies, and denied the protective order as moot, deferring final rulings pending additional briefing.
healthcareprocedurebusiness & regulatory