Opinion ID: 2628309
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ockey's Request for an Equitable Remedy Fails Because an Adequate Remedy at Law Exists

Text: ¶ 44 By waiving his legal claim for damages, Ockey chose to invoke only the equitable jurisdiction of the court. However, [t]he right to an equitable remedy is an exceptional one, and absent statutory mandate, equitable relief should be granted only when a court determines that damages are inadequate and that equitable relief will result in more perfect and complete justice. [41] The general rule regarding equitable jurisdiction is that equitable jurisdiction is precluded if the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer substantial irreparable injury. [42] ¶ 45 In Buckner v. Kennard , deputy sheriffs in the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office sought to invoke this court's equitable jurisdiction by requesting back pay as compensation for past pay inequity they suffered in violation of a state civil service statute. [43] We declined to treat their claim as an equitable claim because the deputies had an adequate remedy at law. Furthermore, they did not argue that their injury was substantial, irreparable, unconscionable, or caused by duress. [44] ¶ 46 Similarly, there is an adequate remedy at law for Ockey's claimed injury. In Broadwater v. Old Republic Surety, we acknowledged the difficulty of fashioning a remedy for conversion when the property converted, such as stock, fluctuates in value. [45] In light of this difficulty, we adopted the New York rule, which sets the measure of damages as the highest intermediate value of the stock between the time of conversion and a reasonable time after the owner receives notice of the conversion. [46] This rule provide[s] the fairest measure of damages to all involved by indemnifying the plaintiff, the rightful owner of the converted stock, for his loss without affording a windfall at the expense of the defendant. [47] An alternative rule, allowing the measure of damages to be calculated at the time of trial or at the highest value of the property between the date of conversion and the date of trial, would allow the plaintiff to ride the stock market at the defendant's risk and expense until trial. [48] ¶ 47 Although the New York rule was formulated in the context of a conversion claim, we find it to be applicable to Ockey's claim for breach of fiduciary duty because Ockey's breach of fiduciary duty claim arises from Lehmer's alleged conversion of the stock. Because the two claims share the same operative facts, we apply the same standard to Ockey's breach of fiduciary duty claim that we would apply to Ockey's conversion claim. ¶ 48 In summary, Ockey had an adequate remedy at law, and he waived the opportunity to pursue it because his preferred remedy would be far more lucrative. Because equitable relief is only available in those cases where legal relief is unavailable, we affirm the district court's refusal to fashion an equitable remedy for Ockey.