David Sam

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denied the motion, holding that the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 983, superseded the probable cause requirement of § 1615.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

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

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

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

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

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

This case involves a motion by plaintiff Ultradent Products, Inc. to disqualify the law firm Holme Roberts & Owen (HRO) from representing defendant Dentsply International, Inc. in patent litigation, due to the prior employment of attorney David Seeley at Ultradent's firm, Workman Nydegger. The court decided to grant the motion and disqualify HRO. The core reasoning was that Seeley had received confidential information material to the litigation while at the prior firm, triggering imputation of the conflict to HRO under Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(b), and that screening measures were insufficient because the rule does not provide for such an exception without client waiver.

procedure

The case involves an African-American IRS employee who sued his employer alleging a hostile work environment based on race, gender, and EEO activities, discriminatory non-selection for a promotion, and constructive discharge. On a motion for summary judgment, the court denied the motion as to the hostile work environment and non-selection claims, holding that evidence of repeated racial slurs, comments, and potentially pretextual hiring decisions created triable issues of fact for a jury under Title VII standards. The court granted summary judgment on the constructive discharge claim because the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by timely contacting an EEO counselor within 45 days of the alleged discharge dates. The decision applied standards from cases like Celotex and O'Shea, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff while emphasizing that severity and pervasiveness are factual questions. Topics include employment discrimination under federal civil rights law.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned an indictment against Diane C. Christensen and her husband for their role in an employee leasing business, alleging they spent approximately $1.2 million left in their accounts after a bank negligently failed to transfer payroll funds, along with related tax violations such as aiding false W-2 forms and failing to file income tax returns. Christensen moved to dismiss the bank fraud counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1005, arguing the statute applied only to bank insiders, and to dismiss certain tax counts as time-barred. The court denied the motion in full. It held that paragraph four of § 1005, added in 1989, reaches any person who receives bank-derived funds with intent to defraud regardless of insider status, following Eighth Circuit precedent, and found the tax charges timely under the applicable six-year limitations period.

criminal lawtaxesbusiness & regulatory

In Zisumbo v. McLeodusa Telecommunications Services, Inc., plaintiff Jodi Zisumbo alleged that her employer subjected her to disparate treatment and a hostile work environment based on gender and pregnancy in violation of Title VII after she was reassigned from Senior Account Executive to Account Executive while pregnant, and she asserted related state-law claims for invasion of privacy, defamation, and negligent training and supervision. The district court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on all claims and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on any claim, including that the reassignment was discriminatory, that the work environment was objectively hostile, or that she was constructively discharged.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

This case involves a contractual dispute between Amoco Oil Company (now BP) and Premium Oil Company over Jobber Contracts for petroleum product purchases and related Incentive Contracts for modernizing Amoco-branded service stations in Utah. Amoco seeks pro-rated reimbursement of incentive payments after Premium de-branded its stations to Sinclair Oil before the 10-year contract terms expired, while Premium contends it was excused due to Amoco's alleged anticipatory breach by announcing plans to sell refinery assets. The court addresses cross-motions for partial summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, focusing on whether genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the contracts, personal guaranties, and any positive indication of intent to abandon the market.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a father's federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against two Utah state judges and the State of Utah, challenging state court orders granting visitation rights to his daughter's maternal grandparents after the mother's death and full custody to the father. The plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order to halt enforcement of the visitation orders, claiming they violated his constitutional parental rights. The court dismissed the entire action with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, holding that the claims were inextricably intertwined with prior state court judgments that the plaintiff had already litigated and appealed through the Utah courts. The decision noted that federal district courts cannot review or undo state court custody rulings, and the plaintiff's proper recourse was to seek certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.

family lawcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a construction company, H.E. Davis & Sons, suing its insurer, North Pacific Insurance, for breach of contract after the insurer denied coverage under a commercial general liability policy for costs arising from inadequate soil compaction at a school project site. The plaintiff had performed excavation work, later removed and replaced the soil at its expense, and then sought reimbursement for those costs plus a later settlement with the school district tied to an arbitration award. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims did not qualify as covered losses. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that defective workmanship does not constitute an "occurrence" or "accident" under the policy language, as supported by Utah precedent and similar cases from other jurisdictions defining such terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a motion by defendant Jaime Trejo-Islas to suppress post-arrest statements made following a vehicle accident where he was suspected of transporting illegal immigrants. The court granted the motion after an evidentiary hearing, ruling that statements made at the hospital and during an INS interview must be suppressed. The core reasoning was that the hospital statements resulted from custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings, and the waiver at the INS interview was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent due to the defendant's medical condition, language barriers, and inadequate explanation of rights.

criminal lawprocedureimmigrationcivil rights

In Nester v. Bank One Corp., the plaintiff, widow of a former employee, sued Bank One and its CEO alleging that repeated mailings to her deceased husband regarding pension benefits caused her severe emotional distress, asserting claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice, also finding the individual claim against the CEO unsupported and personal jurisdiction lacking. The core reasoning was that ERISA preempts the state-law claims as they relate to the administration of an ERISA-governed pension plan, and alternatively, the complaint failed to allege facts supporting key elements of the tort claims such as outrageous conduct, severe distress, or a duty of care. The court further held that amendment would be futile.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In United States v. Welch, two executives of the Salt Lake City Olympic bid committee were indicted on charges including conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, mail fraud under § 1341, and wire fraud under § 1343, based on alleged payments and benefits provided to International Olympic Committee members to secure the 2002 Winter Games. After the court dismissed related Travel Act counts that relied on Utah's commercial bribery statute, the defendants moved to dismiss the remaining counts, arguing the grand jury's decision may have been tainted. The court granted the motion and dismissed the conspiracy, mail fraud, and wire fraud counts, reasoning that bribery allegations permeated the indictment and the same underlying payments supported all charges, making it impossible to determine the grand jury would have proceeded without the defective Travel Act references.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a class action by health plan participants against United Healthcare of Utah, an HMO and insurer, alleging that co-payments were improperly calculated as a percentage of providers' full billed charges rather than the lower contracted rates negotiated with those providers, contrary to the terms of the Certificates of Coverage and Schedules of Benefits under ERISA-governed plans from 1992-1995. Plaintiffs sought relief under ERISA § 1132(a)(1)(B) to recover benefits due and § 1132(a)(3) for breach of fiduciary duty based on nondisclosure of the calculation method in plan documents and EOBs. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court analyzed undisputed facts about plan definitions of 'Eligible Expenses' and 'Reasonable and Customary Charges,' the exclusivity of ERISA remedies, and preemption of state-law claims, concluding that relief under § 1132(a)(1)(B) precludes separate fiduciary claims under § 1132(a)(3) per established circuit precedent.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

In United States v. Welch, the defendants, former executives of the Salt Lake City Olympic bid committee, faced federal charges including violations of the Travel Act (18 U.S.C. § 1952) for allegedly using interstate facilities to bribe International Olympic Committee members, with Utah Code § 76-6-508 (commercial bribery) serving as the predicate state offense. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss counts 2 through 5, holding that the Utah statute was not a valid Travel Act predicate under the facts alleged. The reasoning centered on the Travel Act's legislative history limiting it to organized crime enterprises rather than isolated conduct, the absence of any state prosecution under the commercial bribery law in this context, prior narrow application of the statute, and due process concerns arising from an overly expansive interpretation in these unique circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns the United States' efforts to collect over $250,000 in unpaid federal income taxes assessed against David and Elizabeth Reed for tax years 1990-1992 after they failed to file proper returns and asserted sovereign citizen status exempting them from taxation. The government moved for summary judgment to establish that defendant DeLoa Reed holds an equity interest in the Acacia Property as the Reeds' nominee, based on a series of transfers including a 1992 trust deed and 1993 foreclosure that shifted value from the Reeds' prior home to DeLoa and Gilbert Reed's property, which the Reeds then occupied without paying rent. The court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment and denied the cross-motion, finding no genuine issues of material fact because multiple nominee factors weighed in the government's favor, including the Reeds' continued possession and use of the property, lack of consideration for the transfer, and the timing amid known tax delinquencies; it therefore ordered foreclosure of the tax liens on the $23,300 equity interest plus appreciation. The decision applied standard summary judgment standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and nominee doctrine precedents.

taxespropertyfederal power

This case involved federal charges against defendants under the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, based on alleged violations or intended violations of Utah's commercial bribery statute. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss counts 2 through 5 of the indictment. It declined to follow the magistrate judge's recommendation and concluded that the Utah statute was ambiguous and unconstitutionally vague as applied to the case. The court further determined that the state law could not serve as a valid predicate for the federal Travel Act charges.

criminal law