Brian Theadore Stewart

This case involved debtor Fred Cranmer's appeal from a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of his Chapter 13 plan. The bankruptcy court had required inclusion of the debtor's and his spouse's Social Security income in the calculation of projected disposable income under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b) and treated its exclusion as relevant to good faith. The district court reversed, holding that 11 U.S.C. § 101(10A)(B) expressly excludes Social Security benefits from current monthly income and that 42 U.S.C. § 407 further protects those benefits from being considered in the projected disposable income analysis. The court found that the bankruptcy court's approach was inconsistent with the statutory text and the Supreme Court's decision in Hamilton v. Lanning, and remanded for further proceedings.

procedure

In Zimpfer v. Aramark Management Services, LP, the plaintiff, a grounds worker, alleged retaliatory discharge under Title VII after reporting to management that he had discovered two coworkers engaged in sexual activity in a supply closet and that his supervisor took no action. The defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiff failed to state a prima facie retaliation claim. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiff could not have held a good-faith, reasonable belief that the reported conduct violated Title VII. The opinion reasoned that an isolated instance of consensual sexual activity does not constitute actionable sexual harassment, and existing precedent requires the opposed practice to be one that a reasonable person would view as unlawful discrimination. Because this finding disposed of the claim, the court did not address the defendant's other arguments.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Plaintiffs, former students at Everest College owned by Defendant Corinthian Colleges, filed a putative class action alleging deceptive practices under the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act as well as claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and declaratory judgment. Defendant moved to compel individual arbitration and stay the proceedings under arbitration provisions in the students' enrollment agreements, some of which included class-action waivers. The court granted the motion, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act mandates enforcement of the agreements because the Plaintiffs did not dispute their existence or that the claims fell within their scope. The court rejected arguments that the UCSPA barred the waivers or that the agreements were unconscionable, relying on the FAA's strong policy favoring arbitration and Supreme Court precedent such as Stolt-Nielsen requiring a contractual basis for class arbitration.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved former Hertz employee Michael Sell suing the company after his termination in a 2009 reduction in force, alleging breach of contract, violation of the Utah Payment of Wages Act, and promissory estoppel over unpaid quarterly bonuses under the company's Off-Airport Bonus Plan for the first and second quarters of 2008. The bonuses were tied to increased revenue from temporary Micron Technology rentals at Sell's location, which Hertz treated as excludable windfalls under the plan's terms. The court granted Hertz's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. It reasoned that Sell's at-will employment included clear disclaimers that the bonus plan was discretionary, not a binding contract, and subject to modification or exclusion of items at Hertz's sole discretion, so there was no enforceable promise or reasonable reliance to support any of the claims.

labor & employment

This admiralty case arose from an incident on Lake Powell in which houseboat renters allegedly suffered carbon monoxide poisoning, resulting in injuries and one death. Aramark, the vessel owner, filed a limitation of liability proceeding under the Limitation of Liability Act and obtained a court order restraining all other suits related to the incident. The Howeth claimants, who had received notice and participated in the limitation action, nonetheless filed a separate lawsuit in federal court in Illinois naming Aramark as a defendant and moved to lift the restraining order. The court denied the motion to dissolve the stay, granted Aramark's motion for civil contempt, and awarded attorney fees, reasoning that the restraining order was clear and unambiguous, the claimants had actual notice of it, and their filing violated the procedures governing limitation proceedings.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a dispute between SCO and Novell over ownership of UNIX and UnixWare copyrights and related rights following Novell's sale of part of its UNIX business to Santa Cruz (SCO's predecessor) under a 1990s Asset Purchase Agreement. A jury found that the amended APA did not transfer the copyrights from Novell to SCO, so SCO's slander of title claim was not reached. The court is left to decide SCO's claim for specific performance to compel copyright transfer, Novell's counterclaim for declaratory judgment on its rights under APA Section 4.16, and SCO's claim that Novell breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in exercising those rights, along with related findings of fact on the parties, technology, and agreement terms.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involves a naturalized U.S. citizen of Hispanic origin suing a St. George police officer and the city under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force, false arrest, and related claims after the officer handcuffed him roughly, struck his legs with a baton, and caused injury while he tried to retrieve a lost cell phone. The court ruled on multiple pretrial motions by granting the motion to strike an untimely expert report that failed to meet disclosure requirements, granting in part and denying in part summary judgment based on qualified immunity analysis for the constitutional claims, granting the motion to exclude the plaintiff's criminal record as unduly prejudicial, and denying the motion to exclude another expert's opinion. Core reasoning relied on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37 for expert disclosures, the two-prong qualified immunity test examining constitutional violations and clearly established law, and balancing of relevance versus prejudice for evidentiary matters.

civil rightsprocedurecriminal law

The case involves a dispute between SCO Group and Novell over statements allegedly slandering SCO's title to certain software copyrights. Defendant Novell moved for a ruling that First Amendment protections, including the actual malice standard from New York Times v. Sullivan, apply to slander of title claims and that SCO qualifies as a limited-purpose public figure. The court granted the motion, holding that the First Amendment requires SCO to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Novell acted with actual malice. The reasoning draws on Supreme Court precedents extending heightened scrutiny to various speech-based torts and lower court decisions treating injurious falsehood claims similarly to defamation, emphasizing the need to protect free expression while balancing interests in property rights.

free speechtorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between parties who collaborated on producing the film Shannon's Rainbow, centering on disagreements over its distribution, ownership rights, and the terms of settlement agreements documented in term sheets that were never finalized into a long-form contract. Plaintiffs filed suit in Utah federal court in November 2008 alleging breach of agreements and related claims; defendants responded by filing a nearly identical action in New York federal court in April 2009 and moved to dismiss the Utah case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (challenging diversity based on LLC citizenship), personal jurisdiction, and improper venue, while also seeking transfer. Plaintiffs countered by seeking to enjoin the New York action under the first-to-file rule. The court denied the motions to dismiss, finding diversity jurisdiction satisfied after determining LLC citizenship through member citizenship, personal jurisdiction and venue proper in Utah, and granted the injunction to halt the second-filed New York case to avoid duplicative litigation.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a biological mother's petition to invalidate the adoption of her child C.D.K. under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), after a 2007 relinquishment hearing in state court where she gave up parental rights shortly after birth. The adoptive parents argued that ICWA did not apply because C.D.K. was not an Indian child at the time. The court granted the petitioner's motion for summary judgment and denied the respondents' motion, holding that C.D.K. was an Indian child under ICWA because her great-grandfather was an enrolled Cherokee Nation member and tribal enrollment determinations control, and that the hearing violated ICWA's mandatory ten-day waiting period after birth.

family lawfederal powercivil rights

This case involved a claim by parents against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the wrongful death of their unborn child, allegedly caused by medical providers' failure to diagnose and treat the mother's intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that the FTCA waives sovereign immunity only to the extent a private party would be liable under state law, and Utah's 2007 wrongful death statute authorizing suits for the death of a 'minor child' did not extend to unborn children based on the statute's plain language, distinctions in other Utah statutes between 'minor' and 'unborn' children, and relevant case law. The court therefore concluded there was no waiver of sovereign immunity for this type of claim.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a plaintiff who prevailed at trial on claims that a defendant violated his Eighth Amendment and Utah constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment, resulting in a $25,000 monetary judgment. The plaintiff then sought attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as limited by the Prison Litigation Reform Act to 150% of the judgment ($37,500), with the dispute centering on the fee-shifting provision in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(2) requiring that a portion of the judgment (up to 25%) be applied to the fees. The court determined that the statute grants discretion to set a percentage below the 25% maximum rather than mandating the full amount, and it ordered that 10% of the judgment ($2,500) be applied to fees, with the defendant responsible for the remaining $35,000.

criminal lawcivil rights

In United States v. Peck, the government moved to reconsider a prior court order from a James hearing that excluded certain co-conspirator statements against defendants Burks and Guerrero in a case involving charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, transport stolen vehicles, and distribute controlled substances. The court had previously found insufficient evidence that those defendants were aware of the full scope of what it viewed as a single overarching conspiracy. The government argued that it had always alleged two separate but interlocking conspiracies rather than one, and sought to have the order modified to admit statements related to the vehicle theft conspiracy. The court denied the motion to reconsider, holding that its earlier factual finding of a single conspiracy was not clearly erroneous given the government's prior representations in briefing, but permitted the government an opportunity at trial to lay a foundation for admitting the statements under an alternative theory of two interlocking conspiracies.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Engstrum, the defendant was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) for possessing a firearm after a prior misdemeanor domestic violence conviction and moved to dismiss, claiming the statute violated his Second Amendment rights to keep a firearm for home defense. The court denied the motion, holding that the statute as applied did not impermissibly burden those rights. The decision rested on the finding that the prohibition was narrowly tailored to advance the compelling government interest in preventing domestic violence, consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance in District of Columbia v. Heller that longstanding restrictions on firearm possession by certain categories of persons remain presumptively lawful. The court applied strict scrutiny but concluded the law survived that review given the targeted nature of the domestic violence misdemeanor disqualification.

gunscriminal law

The case involved defendants charged in a 34-count indictment with RICO conspiracy, bank fraud, violations of the Wire Act for transmitting wagering information, and money laundering, arising from an alleged enterprise that processed credit card and wire payments for illegal online gambling websites by misclassifying transactions and using foreign accounts to conceal operations. Defendants moved to dismiss the Wire Act counts, the RICO count, and all related counts on grounds that the indictment was insufficient and that prosecution violated U.S. obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The court denied all three motions, holding that the indictment adequately alleged the elements of each offense, including the existence of an enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity, and that GATS and related treaties do not create private rights enforceable in U.S. courts or bar application of domestic criminal statutes.

criminal law

This case involved a challenge by Herriman City and residents of the Jordan School District to a Utah statutory scheme allowing cities to initiate a ballot measure creating a new East Side School District, with voting limited to residents within the participating cities' boundaries while excluding other district voters. Plaintiffs sought emergency and permanent injunctive relief, claiming the scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause by creating unequal voter qualifications. The court denied the motion, holding that the restriction was subject to rational basis review under precedents like Holt v. City of Dickinson and similar cases, as the issue involved a special-interest referendum where those in the proposed district were most directly affected. It found a legitimate state interest in limiting the franchise to that group, satisfying constitutional requirements without needing strict scrutiny.

electionscivil rights

This case concerns the State of Utah's lawsuit against Eli Lilly alleging that the company caused improper Medicaid expenditures for off-label prescriptions of Zyprexa and seeking recovery under the Utah False Claims Act as well as state-law claims for product liability, fraud, negligence, and related theories. The defendant moved to stay proceedings pending potential transfer to an existing Zyprexa multidistrict litigation, while the plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion to stay and granted remand, holding that federal courts are of limited jurisdiction and that neither substantial federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 nor preemption supplied a basis for federal jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case was a class action brought by owner-operator truck drivers against C.R. England alleging violations of the Federal Truth in Leasing Act and related regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 376) in the company's Independent Contractor Operating Agreements. Plaintiffs claimed the agreements failed to properly disclose charge-backs from compensation, improperly required purchases of services as a lease condition, and mishandled escrow funds without required accountings or timely returns. After a bench trial, the court applied a strict compliance standard to the regulations, confirmed a private right of action for equitable relief under 49 U.S.C. § 14704, and addressed whether the agreements met disclosure, specification, and accounting mandates for charge-backs, forced purchases, and escrows. The court had previously ruled that actual damages were not required for liability and that equitable remedies like injunctions, accountings, and restitution were available.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

In Milne v. USA Cycling Inc., participants in an open-course mountain bike race sued the race organizers (USA Cycling/NORBA, Cycle Cyndicate, and Eric Jean) after a collision with a vehicle driven by another defendant caused injuries and a death, asserting claims of negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death. The plaintiffs had signed a release agreement waiving all claims, including those based on the organizers' negligence. The court first granted the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiffs' expert affidavit and testimony, finding the expert unqualified and the opinions unreliable under Daubert standards. It then granted summary judgment to the defendants on the negligence claims, holding that the release was a clear and unequivocal waiver enforceable under Utah law, and on the gross negligence claims because the undisputed facts showed no evidence meeting that higher standard. The court also dismissed the wrongful death claim as barred by the release.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a patent dispute in which Edizone, LC sued Cloud Nine, LLC and related defendants over the validity and alleged infringement of several patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 5,749,111, 6,026,527, and 5,994,450. After the PTO issued notices confirming the validity of the first two patents, the plaintiff sought reconsideration of an earlier order denying summary judgment on the defendants' invalidity counterclaims and also moved for summary judgment on infringement of claim 24 of the '450 patent. The court denied the defendants' motion to continue the hearing, found that the PTO's actions constituted new evidence but did not eliminate genuine issues of material fact regarding validity or strengthen the presumption of validity enough to warrant summary judgment for the plaintiff, and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the infringement issue because the defendants failed to raise a triable factual dispute.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure