1. The Honorable Judi th M. Billings, Seni or Judge, sa t by speci al assi gnment as authorized by law

. See gen erally Utah Code Jud. Admi n. R. 11-201(6)

. 2013 UT App 264

_________________________________________________________



### T HE 

### U T AH 

### C OU RT O F 

### A PPEALS

A H EAL TH Y C HOI CE , Plainti ff and Appellant , v. M I CH ELL E B R O WN , K ELLY B R O WN , AN D K ELSEY B R O WN

Defendan ts and Appellees.

P er Cu ri amD ec i s i on No. 20 12 06 47 -C A Filed N ov ember 7, 2013

Second Di stric t Co urt, F armi ngto n Department Th e H ono rab le D avi d M. Connors

No. 100700291

M. D i rk Ea s tm ond an d T erry R. Spe nc er, Attorn eys

for Appellant J. P res tonSti eff, Attorn ey f or Ap pe ll ees

Be fo re J UD GE S S T EP HEN L. R OTH , M I CH ELE M. C H RI S TI ANSE N , and

J U D I T H M. B I LL I NGS

. 1

P ERCUR IAM:
¶1 A H ea lthy Ch oi c e ( He al thy Ch oi c e) ap pe al s the tri al c ou rt’s
or der g ranting summary j udgment i n favor of Michelle, Kelly, and Kelsey Br own and di smi ssing the action. We affi rm.
¶2 Mont hs after the close of di scov e r y i n thi s matter, t he Br ow ns mo ved to di s mi s s the c as e b as ed on H ea lthy Ch oi c e’sA Healthy Choice v. Brown

20120647-CA 2 2013 UT App 264 fai lure to prov i de any fact ua l supp or t for i ts clai m of intentional i nte rfe ren c e w i th ec ono mi c rel ati ons al le ged i n i ts c om pl aint. At a he aring o n th e m oti on to di s mi s s , th e tri al c ou rt c ons i de red ma tters outsi de of the pleadi ngs and therefor e noted t hat the mot i on w ould proceed as a sum mary j udgment motion. SeeUtah R. Ci v. P. 12(b ) (stat i ng tha t a m oti on t o di s mi s s s ha llbe trea ted as a m oti on f or
s um ma ry jud gm en t i f m atte rs be yon d t he pl ea dings are
c ons i de red ). Th e B row ns ha d p revi ou s ly s ub mi tted affi da vi ts denyi ng th e p ri m a ry a l l e ga ti onof th e c om p l a i n t th a t th e y h ad repo rt ed false information t o t he C o ns um e r Pr o t e ct io n A g e ncy. The tr i al court gav e Healthy Choice addi tional ti me to pr esent evidenc e to e stabli sh a di spute of material f act that might defeat the

sum mary j udgment motion.
¶3 He al thyCh oi c e p rovi de d tw o affi da vi ts i n a n a ttem pt to
s up port i ts c la i m. T he tri al c ou rt de term i ne d th at th e a ffi da vi ts fa i le d to c rea te a d i s pu te of ma teri al fa c t an d th at, rega rdl es s , th ey were unti mely based on the closure of di scovery . Accordi ngly, t he tr i al court g ranted t he sum mary j udgment motion.
¶4 Summary j udgment may be gr anted only when there i s no genuine i s s ue of

ma teri al fa c t an d t he mo vi ng p arty i s en ti tle d to judgment as a matter of law. Id. R.56(c). An ap pellate courtrev i ews a gr ant of a motion for summary judgment for cor rectness. SeeRo ss v. Epic Eng’

g, PC, 2013 UT App 136, ¶ 13, 307 P.3d 57 6

. When a defendant moves for summary judgment on an i ssu e on whi ch the plain t iff will h ave t he burden of proo f at tr i al, a defendant may meet i ts burden by showing, wi th refer ence to dis cover y mater i als

an d a ffi da vi ts , i f a ny, tha t th ere i s no genuine i s s ue of ma teri al fa c t. Id. Wh ena defen da nt ma kes s uch a sho w i ng, the bu rde n s hi ft s to the plai nti ff, who may not rest upon the mer e alle gations of the complaint, but mus t set fo rt h spec i fi c fac ts showing ther e i s a genui ne i ssu e for t rial. Id. Affi da vi ts i n su pp ort of or i n op pos i ti on to a mo tion for sum mary j udgment “shall be made on personal knowledge, [and] sh all set fort h such facts as would be admi ssi ble i n eviden ce.” Utah R. Civ. P. 56( e).A Healthy Choice v. Brown

2. Be c a u s e th e t r i a l c o u r td i d n o te r r i ng r a n t i n g s u m m ary judgment, we do not address the other i ssu es raised in Healthy Choic e’s bri ef. SeeSt a tev. Ca rt er , 776 P.2d 886, 888 (Utah 1989).

20120647-CA 3 2013 UT App 264 ¶5 In this case, even if t he tr i al court had not str uck the affi da vi ts provi de d b y Healt hy C hoi c e a s un ti me ly, the affi da vi ts fai led to establis h any speci fi c materialfact that would pr eclude

sum mary j udgment. The complaint alleged, upon in formation and be li ef , that the Browns ha d provi de d i nf orm ati on t o th e Co ns um er Prot ecti on Age ncy whi ch caus ed an admini strat i ve action to be pursued agai nst Healthy Choic e. Faced wi th affi davits s peci fi cally denyi ng that a llegation, Healthy Choic e was requi red t o pro vide some eviden ce bas ed on personal kno wledge that t he Browns had i n fa c t provi de d th at inf orm ati on. At th e m oti on h ea ri ng, c ou ns el repr esented that such e videnc e could be obtained i n t he form of an affi da vi t f rom anem pl oyee of the C ons um er P rotec ti on A gen c y. However , no affi davit fr om the Co nsu mer Prot ecti on Age ncy was pre s en ted . Ra the r, th e a ffi d a v i t s s ub mi tted byHe al thyCh oi c e w ere from a p a r t -o wner of Healthy Choice and one of its em ployees. Nothing in those affidavi ts supp or ted the alleg ation that the Brow ns provi de d inf orm ati o n t o th e C ons um er P rotec ti on A gen c y. Mos t of the al le gati ons i n th e a ffi da vi t of He al thyChoic e’s employee r elated to a di vo rce acti on and were not r elevant t o the al le gati ons or c au s e of ac ti on i n th e c om pl aint. Ac c ordingl y, th ere
was n o g e nu i n e i s s u e of m a te ri a l f a c t e s tab l i s h e d re ga rdin g
w he the r the Brow ns provi de d inf orm ati on t o th e Co ns um er P rotec ti on A gen c y.
¶6 Wi th no ge nuine i ssu e of fact demonstrated and no factual ba s i s fo r He al thy Ch oi c e’s c la i m of i nte nti ona l i nte rfe r en ce with

ec ono mi crel ati ons es tab li s he d, t he Browns w ere e nti tle d to judgment as a matter of law. 2

¶7 Affi rmed.