Opinion ID: 2639418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: utah legal malpractice litigation

Text: ¶ 17 At the same time Jones Waldo and Post Kirby were pursuing the bar order and the contempt sanctions before the California federal district court and the Ninth Circuit, Bennett's case before the Utah district court remained pending. In response to the filing of Bennett's original complaint and various amended complaints, Jones Waldo moved to dismiss Bennett's action and stay the briefing of that motion in light of and in deference to the California federal district court's issuance of the bar order and resolution of the contempt motions and interpretation of the relevant rulings by the California federal courts. The motion to stay was not an overall stay of the proceedings but rather a stay of the briefing of the motion to dismiss. Bennett was allowed to file amended complaints even though the stay on briefing was in effect. The stay on briefing was issued on April 26, 1995. On July 6, 1998, the trial court officially lifted that stay. ¶ 18 On July 7, 1998, Bennett filed his fourth amended complaint, naming Post Kirby and Kirby, individually, and Jones Waldo attorneys Baucom and Lowrie, individually, as defendants for the first time. ¶ 19 In response to Bennett's fourth amended complaint, on September 4, 1998, the Jones Waldo defendants moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel/issue preclusion. [4] On November 25, 1998, the Post Kirby defendants moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Both motions were fully briefed by both sides. The trial court heard oral argument on both motions on August 30 and October 25, 1999. ¶ 20 On January 7, 2000, the trial court granted the Post Kirby defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and instructed them to prepare a conforming order. The minute entry granting the motion explained that Post Kirby's motion was granted based upon all of the analytical points and authorities set forth in Post Kirby's memorandum in support and in reply. The Post Kirby defendants submitted a proposed order on January 14, 2000, and Bennett filed an objection to the minute entry and the proposed order on January 28, 2000. On February 7, 2000, the Post Kirby defendants filed their response to Bennett's objections accompanied by another copy of the proposed order. The trial court signed the proposed order on February 11, 2000. On February 16, 2000, Bennett filed a reply to the Post Kirby defendants' response. The following day, the Post Kirby defendants filed a notice to submit. ¶ 21 On February 28, 2000, apparently having forgotten that it signed the order previously, the trial court once again signed the Post Kirby defendants' proposed order. However, the trial court failed to give notice to the parties that it had signed the proposed order and entered judgment. It was not until May 9, 2000, that the Post Kirby defendants learned of the entry of judgment. Upon discovering the entry of judgment, the Post Kirby defendants served Bennett with a notice of entry of judgment on the following day. ¶ 22 On May 26, 2000, Bennett filed a rule 60 motion to vacate the February 28 order and judgment and to decide its rule 59 motion. Bennett apparently effectively made a rule 59 motion as part of his objections and response to the Post Kirby defendants' proposed order. ¶ 23 On June 9, 2000, Bennett filed a notice of appeal from the February 28 order. However, realizing that the judgment was not final due to the pendency of the rules 60 and 59 motions, Bennett moved to remand and vacate the briefing schedule, which was granted by this court on October 25, 2000. ¶ 24 On October 2, 2000, the trial court heard oral argument on Bennett's May 26 rules 60 and 59 motions. On October 6, 2000, the trial court denied Bennett's rule 60 motion. On February 21, 2001, the trial court heard oral argument on all outstanding motions and issues. The trial court signed an order denying Bennett's outstanding rule 59 motion on February 28, 2001. ¶ 25 At the same time the trial court was addressing the Post Kirby defendants' motion to dismiss, it was also considering the Jones Waldo defendants' dispositive motions. On February 11, 2000, the trial court granted the Jones Waldo defendants' rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. In the minute entry granting the motion, the trial court explained that [a]fter further review of all memoranda and all controlling authorities cited by counsel... Jones Waldo's [m]otion ... is granted based upon all of the analytical points and authorities set forth in Jones Waldo's memorandum in support, reply and oral argument. The trial court failed to give notice to the parties of this entry, and an order of dismissal was not submitted and signed until October 6, 2000. ¶ 26 Eventually, Bennett appealed the trial court's grant of the Jones Waldo defendants' motion to dismiss. However, on February 23, 2001, this court dismissed Bennett's appeal because of the apparent pendency of Bennett's rule 59 motion as to the trial court's entry of judgment in favor of the Post Kirby defendants. Once the trial court issued an order denying Bennett's rule 59 motion and any other outstanding motions on February 28, 2001, the case was finally ripe for appeal. ¶ 27 On appeal, Bennett argues that the trial court erred in granting the Jones Waldo defendants' and the Post Kirby defendants' respective motions to dismiss the fourth amended complaint. As to the Jones Waldo defendants' motion to dismiss, Bennett argues that (1) dismissal of the fourth amended complaint was improper because the complaint sufficiently pled the four causes of action therein, (2) the trial court erred when it dismissed the fourth amended complaint on res judicata or collateral estoppel grounds without an evidentiary hearing thereon and without entering findings of fact and conclusions of law when it did so, (3) the trial court erred when it dismissed Bennett's claims even though he had opted out of the underlying class action suit, (4) the trial court erred when it dismissed Bennett's claims against Baucom and Lowrie as barred by the statute of limitations, and in doing so, failed to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its dismissal on that ground, and (5) the trial court erred in dismissing the fourth amended complaint against the Post Kirby defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. ¶ 28 The Jones Waldo defendants respond that the trial court did not err in dismissing the fourth amended complaint because (1) it did not state any claims upon which relief could be granted, (2) the fourth amended complaint is essentially an improper collateral attack on the class action settlement and is barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion, and (3) the claims against Baucom and Lowrie are barred by the statute of limitations. Furthermore, the Jones Waldo defendants maintain that the trial court adequately supported its ruling with a brief written statement explaining the grounds for its decision. ¶ 29 The Post Kirby defendants argue that Bennett's appeal of the grant of their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was not timely. In the alternative, the Post Kirby defendants argue that the trial court was correct in dismissing the fourth amended complaint as to the Post Kirby defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction because the Post Kirby defendants did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the state of Utah required by due process of law to justify the trial court's exercising personal jurisdiction over them.