Opinion ID: 857420
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the replacement judge’s reconsideration

Text: OF THE RETIRED JUDGE’S RULING WAS PROPER BECAUSE THE RETIRED JUDGE’S RULING WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE ¶21 McLaughlin argues that the retired judge’s order of a fairness hearing was the law of the case and that the replacement judge should not have reconsidered the issue. Cookietree and Schenk argue that the replacement judge was not bound to follow the prior order. We hold that the retiring judge’s ruling, in which he ordered a fairness hearing, did not fall within the law of the case doctrine. The replacement judge therefore was free to reconsider the issue. ¶22 Under the law of the case doctrine, “a court [may] decline to revisit issues within the same case once the court has ruled on them.” IHC Health Servs., Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 26, 196 P.3d 588. However, this doctrine is generally discretionary, with three exceptions for extraordinary circumstances in which reconsideration is mandatory. Law of the case does not prohibit a district court judge from revisiting a previously decided issue during the 6 Cite as: 2013 UT 20 Opinion of the Court course of a case, regardless of whether the judge has changed or remained the same throughout the pro- ceedings. Rather, the doctrine allows a court to decline to revisit issues within the same case once the court has ruled on them. Mid-Am. Pipeline Co. v. Four-Four, Inc., 2009 UT 43, ¶ 11, 216 P.3d 352 (internal quotation marks omitted). “While a case remains pending before the district court prior to any appeal, the parties are bound by the court’s prior decision, but the court remains free to reconsider that decision. It may do so sua sponte or at the suggestion of one of the parties.” IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 27 (footnote omitted). ¶23 This rule correctly tracks rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that “any order or other form of decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims . . . is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” Therefore, in this case, the replacement judge was free to reconsider the fairness hearing issue that had been previously ruled upon by the retired judge. ¶24 McLaughlin correctly points out that there are exceptions to the law of the case. In these situations, a judge is required to reassess a prior ruling. These situations are “(1) when there has been an intervening change of authority; (2) when new evidence has become available; or (3) when the court is convinced that its prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Mid-Am. Pipeline, 2009 UT 43, ¶ 14 (internal quotation marks omitted). “While there are exceptions to the doctrine of law of the case, these exceptions function only to dictate when the district court has no discretion but rather must reconsider a previously decided, unappealed issue.” Id. The exceptions do not operate to bar a replacement judge from reconsidering an issue previously ruled on by a prior judge in the same case. We therefore hold that the replacement judge did not abuse his discretion when he decided to re-visit the retired judge’s decision ordering a fairness hearing.