Summary
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a motion under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to vacate summary judgment entered after the plaintiffs failed to timely oppose the motion. The court held that excusable neglect is an equitable determination requiring sufficient diligence, and concluded that the plaintiffs had shown no diligence justifying relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What standard governs whether relief from a judgment should be granted for excusable neglect under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)?
- Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Jones's rule 60(b) motion after counsel failed to timely oppose summary judgment and then waited nearly two months after receiving notice of the neglect to assert plaintiffs' rights?
Holdings
- In deciding whether to grant relief from a judgment for excusable neglect, a district court must determine whether the moving party exercised sufficient diligence that it would be equitable to relieve the party from the consequences of the neglect. The court may consider and balance all relevant factors and assign each factor the weight it deems appropriate; the moving party need not necessarily show that circumstances beyond its control forced the neglect.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones's rule 60(b) motion because the record showed no diligence sufficient to justify excusing counsel's neglect.
Key quotations
“Therefore, we hold that, in deciding whether a party is entitled to relief under rule 60(b) on the ground of excusable neglect, a district court must determine whether the moving party has exercised sufficient diligence that it would be equitable to grant him relief from the judgment entered as a result of his neglect.” (¶ 25)
“In making this determination, the district court is free to consider all relevant factors and give each factor the weight that it determines it deserves.” (¶ 25)
“Because Jones, in failing to oppose Layton/Okland's summary judgment motion, did not exercise even a minimal level of diligence, we affirm the district court's denial of Jones's rule 60(b) motion to set aside the summary judgment.” (¶ 31)
Factual background
Llewellyn Jones died in a fall while working on a 1998 construction project for which Layton/Okland was the general contractor. His heirs filed a wrongful-death action. After Layton/Okland served a summary judgment motion, plaintiffs' counsel obtained extensions but failed to file an opposition by the extended deadline, did not respond to Layton/Okland's request to submit the motion for decision, and did not respond to the proposed order. The district court entered summary judgment and later denied plaintiffs' rule 60(b) motion because counsel's repeated inaction demonstrated insufficient diligence.
Procedural history
The district court granted Layton/Okland's summary judgment motion after Jones failed to file a timely opposition. Jones later moved to vacate the judgment under rule 60(b), asserting excusable neglect based on counsel's alleged understanding that he had received an open-ended extension and counsel's workload. After a hearing, the district court found that counsel had acted in good faith but had repeatedly failed to act prudently and denied the motion. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed.