Opinion ID: 789742
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sua sponte certification is unnecessary here.

Text: 107 We next consider whether we should certify this question to the Utah Supreme Court directly. Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(a) states: 108 The Utah Supreme Court may answer a question of Utah law certified to it by a court of the United States when requested to do so by such certifying court acting in accordance with the provisions of this rule if the state of the law of Utah applicable to a proceeding before the certifying court is uncertain. 109 Thus, there is a procedural mechanism for certification to the state court that we may consider using. However, we note that a necessary but not controlling component is the difficulty in determining the local law. Cf. Lehman Bros., 416 U.S. at 390, 94 S.Ct. 1741 ([T]he mere difficulty in ascertaining local law is no excuse for remitting the parties to a state tribunal for the start of another lawsuit.). Lehman Brothers further noted that [w]e do not suggest that where there is doubt as to local law and where the certification procedure is available, resort to it is obligatory. Id. at 390-91, 94 S.Ct. 1741. 110 While no Utah court has rendered a decision on the precise issue in question, our analysis above establishes that there is no unusual difficulty in deciding the state law question or a likelihood that Lloyd's theory of liability would be adopted by the Utah courts. Thus, given the above conclusions, certification is unnecessary. 111