Opinion ID: 2632550
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Menzies' 60(b) Motion Was Timely

Text: ¶ 65 The first question we must consider is whether Menzies' 60(b) motion was timely. A motion under 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time and for reason[ ] (1) . . . not more than 3 months after the judgment . . . was entered. Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b). In cases where subsection (b)(1) applies, a movant may not attempt to circumvent the three-month filing period by relying on another subsection. Russell v. Martell, 681 P.2d 1193, 1195 (Utah 1984); Laub v. S. Cent. Utah Tel. Ass'n., 657 P.2d 1304, 1308 (Utah 1982); Richins v. Delbert Chipman & Sons Co., 817 P.2d 382, 387 (Utah Ct.App.1991). Under rule 60(b), a reasonable time depends upon the facts of each case, considering such factors as the interest in finality, the reason for the delay, the practical ability of the litigant to learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, and prejudice to other parties. Gillmor v. Wright, 850 P.2d 431, 435 (Utah 1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In general, the moving party satisfies the reasonable time requirement if she shows that she acted diligently once the basis for relief became available, and that the delay in seeking relief did not cause undue hardship to the opposing party. Workman v. Nagle Constr., Inc., 802 P.2d 749, 752 (Utah Ct.App.1990) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 66 In the case before us, the district court's judgment dismissing Menzies' case was entered on January 11, 2002. Brass filed Menzies' 60(b) motion exactly three months later, on April 11, 2002. This motion was not accompanied by a supporting memorandum, but instead stated that [t]he specific grounds for this motion shall be set forth in a subsequent memorandum. However, Brass never filed a subsequent memorandum, and the 60(b) motion was not supported until Hunt entered her appearance and filed a supporting memorandum on August 12, 2003. Thus, sixteen months elapsed between the time Brass filed the 60(b) motion and the time that motion was properly briefed. Our task is to determine whether Menzies' 60(b) motion was timely filed under these circumstances. ¶ 67 The State argues that Menzies' 60(b) motion was insufficient under the Utah rules governing motion practice and was therefore untimely. The State argues that the motion did not meet rule 7(b)(1) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that [a] motion shall be in writing and state succinctly and with particularity the relief sought and the grounds for the relief sought. The State also argues that Menzies' motion was required to be accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities . . . relied on in support of the motion. Utah Code J.D. Admin. 4-501(1)(A) (repealed 2003). As the State correctly notes, Menzies' 60(b) motion filed on April 11, 2002, did not meet either of these requirements. The State asserts that Menzies therefore did not file a proper motion until nineteen months after the district court entered judgment, when Hunt filed the supporting memorandum. According to the State, this renders Menzies' 60(b) motion untimely. ¶ 68 The problem with the State's argument is that the State fails to distinguish between a motion that is properly supported for purposes of the particularity requirement and a motion that is timely filed for purposes of avoiding the limitations provisions of 60(b). Both rule 7 and rule 4-501 are designed to promote the policies of (1) mitigating prejudice to opposing parties by allowing that party to respond to the motion . . . and (2) assuring that a court can be apprised of the basis of a motion and rule upon it with a proper understanding. See Holmes Dev., LLC v. Cook, 2002 UT 38, ¶ 58, 48 P.3d 895 (discussing requirements for motions to amend). If a party fails to comply with Utah's formal motion practice rules, a district court may, within its discretion, deny the motion on the grounds that it is insufficient. Id. ¶ 59. However, sufficiency is not a logically necessary component of timeliness. A party can timely move the court for relief despite the fact that its motion may be insufficient because, for example, it lacks particularity. In such a situation, the court has the discretion, consistent with the policy concerns noted above, either to deny the motion as being insufficient or to allow the party to supplement the originally insufficient motion. In the case before us, the district court chose the latter option, holding that Menzies' 60(b) motion was timely filed and that Menzies should be allowed to supplement the motion under the circumstances. The district court was entirely within its discretion to do so. ¶ 69 We hold that Menzies' 60(b) motion was timely filed. Menzies not only complied with the three-month limitation contained in rule 60(b), but also moved the district court to set aside the default judgment within a reasonable time under the circumstances. Although the motion was not supported until sixteen months later, this delay was due to Brass' deficient representation and the fact that he was misleading Menzies about the status of the case. Menzies was not fully aware of the grounds for relief until August 2003, when Hunt finally informed him of Brass' failures. At that point, Hunt promptly filed a supporting memorandum on Menzies' behalf, and the State had adequate opportunity to oppose Menzies' motion. Moreover, the State acquiesced in the delay during the entire sixteen months. The State never challenged Menzies' motion on the basis of particularity but instead waited nine months and then requested permission to file a late response. The district court never ruled on the State's request, and the State did not raise the issue again. Under these circumstances, the factors militate in favor of Menzies. See Gillmor, 850 P.2d at 435 (In assessing whether a movant requested 60(b) relief within a reasonable time, the court considers such factors as the interest in finality, the reason for delay, the practical ability of the litigant to learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, and prejudice to other parties. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we hold that Menzies' 60(b) motion was timely filed and proceed to address the asserted grounds for relief.