District Court, D. Utah — appointed by Ronald Reagan
United States v. $85,688.00 in United Sates Currency
District Court, D. Utah · 2010-09-30 · cited 1×
This case is a civil forfeiture action in which the United States sought to seize $85,688 in currency found in a vehicle during a 2008 traffic stop, with claimant Andrew Wiley asserting ownership. Wiley moved for summary judgment on the ground that the government was required to demonstrate probable cause for forfeiture at the time it filed its complaint under 19 U.S.C. § 1615. The court denied the motion, holding that the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 983, superseded the probable cause requirement of § 1615. Under CAFRA, the government bears the burden of proving forfeitability by a preponderance of the evidence and may rely on post-filing evidence, while complaints may not be dismissed for insufficient evidence at filing; these provisions conflict with and replace the earlier statute's burden-shifting approach.
criminal lawprocedure
Teeter v. LOFTHOUSE FOODS
District Court, D. Utah · 2010-02-11 · cited 1×
In Teeter v. Lofthouse Foods, the plaintiff alleged that his employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating his employment shortly after he was diagnosed with hepatitis C. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the termination was based on legitimate non-discriminatory reasons including prior instances of insubordination and poor attitude, and that the plaintiff had not established his condition as a disability under the ADA. The court granted the motion, finding no evidence that the decision-makers were aware of the plaintiff's diagnosis or treatment, and that the plaintiff had not shown his hepatitis C substantially limited a major life activity or that it was a factor in the termination decision.
labor & employmentcivil rights
American Atheists, Inc. v. Duncan
District Court, D. Utah · 2007-11-20 · cited 7×
The case concerns a challenge by American Atheists, Inc. and its members to the Utah Highway Patrol Association's placement of twelve-foot white cross memorials on state property (with Utah Department of Transportation approval) to honor state troopers killed in the line of duty. The court granted summary judgment to the state defendants and intervenor UHPA, finding no Establishment Clause violation. The reasoning rests on undisputed facts that the UHPA privately funded, designed, and maintains the memorials; the crosses serve secular purposes of memorializing sacrifice, reminding the public of trooper service, and promoting highway safety; the symbol was chosen for its historical association with honor and remembrance rather than religious endorsement; and the state played no role in selecting or funding the design.
religious liberty
Klein-Becker USA, LLC v. Product Quest Manufacturing, Inc.
District Court, D. Utah · 2005-06-02 · cited 5×
The case involved plaintiff Klein-Becker USA, the exclusive licensee of the StriVectin-SD trademark and trade dress for an anti-wrinkle cream, suing Product Quest Manufacturing and Vital Science for alleged trademark and trade dress infringement based on their manufacture and sale of a competing product called NuVectin. Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction to stop defendants' use of the NuVectin name and any confusingly similar trade dress. The court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing. The court reasoned that the requested injunction was disfavored because it would alter the status quo and was mandatory in nature, requiring plaintiff to meet a heightened burden; plaintiff failed to make the required strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits due to lack of evidence of consumer confusion (including defendants' use of disclaimers), as well as failing to establish irreparable injury, a favorable balance of harms, or that the injunction served the public interest.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Tony Divino Enterprises v. Langston (In Re Langston)
District Court, D. Utah · 2005-01-13 · cited 3×
The case involved an appeal from a bankruptcy court's dismissal of an adversary proceeding filed by Tony Divino Enterprises against debtor Barbara Langston, where Divino had objected to Langston's Chapter 7 discharge but failed to serve the summons and complaint within the 120-day period required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The district court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding no good cause for the delay, declining to grant an extension, and determining there was no excusable neglect under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b). The core reasoning centered on Divino's lack of any effort to properly serve within the deadline despite having control over service, the inadequacy of actual notice or settlement talks as excuses, and the policy favoring timely debtor discharge over the plaintiff's refiling bar.
procedure
Foutz v. City of West Valley City
District Court, D. Utah · 2004-11-24 · cited 3×
This case involved plaintiffs suing West Valley City and its police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures stemming from a warrantless entry into an apartment. Officers had responded to a neighbor's report of a domestic disturbance involving a woman screaming for help and delayed entry for about 30-36 minutes before searching the premises without a warrant. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on qualified immunity grounds after finding no constitutional violation, as exigent circumstances from the reported emergency justified the warrantless actions and officers acted diligently in their investigation. The court also ruled there was insufficient evidence for municipal liability. Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment was denied.
civil rightscriminal law