Opinion ID: 2773045
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Control Liability Claim

Text: ¶ 47 The Manuses and the Marquezes argue that the district court erred when it struck evidence, offered for the first time on reconsideration, to support their theory of control-person liability. As part of their motion to reconsider, plaintiffs attached exhibits that consisted of additional Declarations of the Plaintiffs, a Central Registration Depository database summary listing Mr. Campbell‘s securities registration (CRD listing), a notice from NASD to members, and FINRA arbitration resolutions. This evidence was an attempt to show that HTK ―controlled‖ both Mr. Wheeler (as HTK‘s agent to the Marquezes) and Mr. Campbell (as HTK‘s agent to the Manuses). HTK filed a motion to strike, which the district court granted in full. Plaintiffs appeal the district court‘s rejection of their control-personal liability claim. ¶ 48 As with their general negligence claim, plaintiffs did not present this issue in their Third Amended Complaint or at summary judgment. Instead, plaintiffs raised control liability as a theory of recovery for the first time in their motion for reconsideration. The district court struck the evidence proffered on reconsideration by plaintiffs as untimely because the evidence was available prior to HTK‘s motion for summary judgment. 40 R.C.S. v. A.O.L. (In re Baby Girl T.), 2012 UT 78, ¶ 34, 298 P.3d 1251 (internal quotation marks omitted). 24 Cite as: 2015 UT 8 Opinion of the Court The evidence in question and the new control liability theory were presented three years after fact discovery and seventeen months after summary judgment was granted. Therefore, as with the negligence claim, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to consider the newly presented evidence and claim. We thus affirm the district court‘s ruling on the control liability claim.