Opinion ID: 2639745
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Issue of Whether the District Court Erred in Striking the Weight Report Is Ripe for Appeal

Text: ¶ 29 A dispute is ripe when `a conflict over the application of a legal provision [has] sharpened into an actual or imminent clash of legal rights and obligations between the parties thereto.' [18] An issue is not ripe for appeal if `there exists no more than a difference of opinion regarding the hypothetical application of [a provision] to a situation in which the parties might, at some future time, find themselves.' [19] If, however, an issue was raised, argued, and resolved by the trial court prior to the entry of a final judgment, then that issue is ripe for appeal, and the failure to raise [it] on appeal result[s] in a waiver of the[] right to raise [it] at a later time. [20] ¶ 30 Bank One argues that the issue of whether the district court erred in its decision to strike the Weight Report is not ripe for appeal because there may be some future scenario in which an appellate court would not have to reach the issue. That future scenario would occur if the district court, on remand, were to enter summary judgment on one of Bank One's alternative theories, the case settled, or the case eventually reaches a jury and the jury finds against Bodell. To support its position, Bank One relies upon Pett v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. [21] and State v. Ortiz. [22] ¶ 31 In Pett, we granted an interlocutory appeal challenging a district court's decision to grant a party leave to amend an answer to plead a particular affirmative defense. [23] The respondent asked us to determine whether Utah law recognized the affirmative defense that the petitioner sought to plead. [24] We declined to determine the scope of Utah law as it related to the affirmative defense because we determined that the issue had not matured to the extent that we [could] know with certainty the facts and law which [would] shape its final outcome. [25] ¶ 32 In Ortiz, two defendants challenged the sentencing structure applicable to the crimes with which they were charged. [26] Because the defendants had not yet been convicted, we determined that the challenge was not ripe. We stated, there are several possible circumstances under which we would not need to address the constitutionality of [the sentencing structure]. [27] ¶ 33 In both Pett and Ortiz, the challenged law had not yet been applied to the parties, and we determined that without such application the challenges were not ripe. This case is markedly different. Bodell has sought to submit the Weight Report, and the district court, applying Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 37(f) to the facts, struck the report. Though it is possible that the case could be later decided or settled on issues unrelated to the information in the Weight Report, the admissibility of the Weight Report is still properly before us. The issue has been squarely presented to the district court, the court has ruled on the issue, the issue was ripe when the court ruled on it, and the court has issued a final judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the issue is ripe for our determination.