2015 UT App 83

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

EDISON GUIMARAES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20140244-CA

Filed April 9, 2015

Second District Court, Farmington Department

The Honorable David M. Connors

No. 129705443

Edison Guimaraes, Appellant Pro Se

Gregory M. Constantino, Attorney for Appellee

Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME, JAMES Z. DAVIS, and 

J. FREDERIC VOROS JR.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Edison Guimaraes appeals a summary judgment in favor 

of Asset Acceptance, LLC (Asset Acceptance) in a debt collection 

case. We affirm.

¶2 We review a grant of summary judgment for correctness, 

as a question of law, giving no deference to the district court’s 

legal conclusions. See Basic Research, LLC v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2013 

UT 6, ¶ 5, 297 P.3d 578. Summary judgment is appropriate only 

when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact . . . and 

the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 

Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). Rule 56(e) of the Utah Rules of Civil 

Procedure states, in relevant part,
Asset Acceptance, LLC v. Guimaraes

When a motion for summary judgment is made 

and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse 

party may not rest upon the mere allegations or 

denials of the pleadings, but the response, by 

affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, 

must set forth specific facts showing that there is a 

genuine issue for trial. Summary judgment, if 

appropriate, shall be entered against a party failing 

to file such a response. 

¶3 Guimaraes claims both that the summary judgment 

motion was “premature” and that it was barred by the equitable 

doctrine of laches because the case had been abandoned. Neither 

claim has merit. Asset Acceptance filed the summary judgment 

motion after the case had been pending for roughly one year and 

it was not premature. Although the district court had given 

notice that the case was subject to dismissal for lack of 

prosecution, Asset Acceptance’s subsequent filing of the motion 

for summary judgment demonstrated that the case had not been 

abandoned and the case was not barred by laches.

¶4 The district court did not err in failing to hold a hearing 

on the summary judgment motion. Guimaraes quotes the

portion of rule 7(e) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure stating 

that the trial court “shall grant a request for a hearing on a 

motion under Rule 56 . . . unless the court finds that the motion 

or opposition to the motion is frivolous or the issue has been 

authoritatively decided.” Utah R. Civ. P. 7(e). However, the 

language immediately preceding that statement clarifies that a 

party must request a hearing in the motion, in a memorandum, 

or in the request to submit for decision. Id. Neither party 

requested a hearing on the summary judgment motion, the 

district court did not deny a request for a hearing, and the court

did not err by not holding a hearing.

¶5 The district court also did not err in granting the motion 

for summary judgment, which was supported by the affidavit of 

20140244-CA 2 2015 UT App 83
Asset Acceptance, LLC v. Guimaraes

an Asset Acceptance employee “familiar with the manner and 

method by which Asset Acceptance, LLC creates and maintains 

its business records.” The affidavit stated that the records 

demonstrated that Asset Acceptance “purchased the receivable 

at issue in this case from WELLSFARGO-WF PERSONAL LCA,”

stated the original account number, and stated the amount 

claimed based upon the “records associated with the receivable.” 

Guimaraes’s arguments that the affiant was anonymous and that 

the affidavit was insufficient to establish the facts stated therein 

lack merit. Contrary to Guimaraes’s assertion on appeal, the 

district court was not required to make findings of fact and 

conclusions of law on the summary judgment because the 

motion was not based upon alternative theories. See Utah R. Civ. 

P. 52.

¶6 Finally, the district court did not err in denying 

Guimaraes’s request for a continuance of a status conference for

the case, and Guimaraes was not prejudiced by that denial.

¶7 Affirmed.

20140244-CA 3 2015 UT App 83