We need not and do not determine whether the trial court was bound by the doctrine of collateral estoppel to follow the federal court in denying further discovery. Plaintiffs' sole claim against Woodbury and Vestwood is for unjust enrichment. As a matter of law, that claim cannot succeed. The Tenth Circuit held that under Utah law plaintiffs did not have a property interest in the information it supplied to the City. An auto mall is not a unique concept or novel idea.
Auto malls exist in other cities.
Indeed, in this case, plaintiffs traveled with officials from the city to southern California to discuss the auto mall concept with a local expert, and to visit and inspect numerous different auto mall complexes located there. The Tenth Circuit's ruling that plaintiffs did not have any property interest in the information it disclosed to the City and RDA is res judicata of that issue in this action. Therefore, even though Woodbury and Vestwood may have made use of Jensen's plans, no property interest was appropriated that would give rise to an action for unjust enrichment against them. Plaintiffs have also failed to demonstrate how any further discovery would have assisted them in defending against summary judgment on their negligence claim against Newton. The trial court ruled that Newton could not be sued for negligence due to the bar imposed by Utah Code Ann.