American National Property and Casualty v. McNeely
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 29 Motion to Certify Question to Utah Supreme Court. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 11/22/16. (dla)
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
NORTHERN DIVISION
AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY
AND CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LLOYD MCNEELY,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CERTIFY QUESTION TO
UTAH SUPREME COURT
Case No. 1:16CV7DAK
Judge Dale A. Kimball
This matter is before the court on Defendant Lloyd McNeely’s Motion for Certification of
Question of Law to the Utah Supreme Court. On November 16, 2016, this court issued a
Memorandum Decision and Order on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. After
receiving an adverse ruling from this court, Defendant filed the present motion, seeking to have
the court certify to the Utah Supreme Court “the question of Utah law that was raised by the
parties’ cross motions for summary judgment.” Def. Mot. For Cert., Docket No. 29 at 1.
Defendant contends that at the October 26, 2016 hearing on the cross motions for
summary judgment he requested that the court certify the questions to the Utah Supreme Court in
the event the court did not find that the Iverson v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 2011 UT 34, 256
P.3d 222 (Utah 2011) decision applied in the manner advocated by Defendant. This
representation is somewhat disingenuous. At the hearing, both parties presented their arguments
on the cross motions without asking the court to certify the question. The court raised the issue
after each side had presented their arguments, stating: Now neither of you has asked me to certify
this, I assume if you wanted me to, one of you would have asked.” Defendant’s counsel
responded that Utah law was clear, but that “if the court disagrees with that or finds it to be
unclear, then we would ask that the question be certified, but we don’t think it is unclear.”
Rule 41(a) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that “the Utah Supreme
Court may answer a question of Utah law certified to it by a court of the United States when
requested to do so by such certifying court . . . if the state of the law of Utah applicable to a
proceeding before the certifying court is uncertain.” Utah R. App. P. 41(a). The certification
order must state the “question of law to be answered,” “that the question certified is a controlling
issue of law in a proceeding pending before the certifying court,” and “that there appears to be no
controlling Utah law.” Id. 41(c). Courts have found that certification is appropriate “when the
case concerns a matter of vital public concern, where the issue will likely recur in other cases,
where resolution of the question to be certified is outcome determinative of the case, and where
the state supreme court has yet to have an opportunity to illuminate a clear path on the issue.”
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Pate, 275 F.3d 666, 672 (7th Cir. 2001). A court should
consider whether certification of the issue “would further the interest of comity and federalism by
giving the Utah Supreme Court an opportunity to answer it in the first instance should it elect to
do so under Utah R. App. P. 41.” See Ohio Cas. Ins. v. Unigard Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1160297 at
*5 (10th Cir. April 28, 2009).
The court considers Defendant’s present motion to be untimely. A party cannot assert
that Utah law is clear on an issue and then seek redress from another court when it receives an
2
unfavorable ruling. At this stage of the litigation, if Defendant disagrees with the court’s
analysis, his recourse is to file an appeal to the Tenth Circuit. Defendant can ask the Tenth
Circuit to certify the issue prior to its analysis of the issue. Prior to this court’s analysis of the
issue, Defendant’s only position was that the issue was clear and that the court should certify the
question only if the court thought it was unclear or disagreed with Defendant. Disagreement with
a party’s position does not make the issue unclear. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for
Certification of Question of Law to the Utah Supreme Court is DENIED.
DATED this 22nd day of November, 2016.
__________________________________
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?