Arlin Geophysical et al v. USA

Filing 485

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 484 Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion for Extension of Time to Redeem. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 12/14/2017. (blh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
ARLIN GEOPHYSICAL & LAURA
OLSON,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:08-cv-00414-DN-EJF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
District Judge David Nuffer
Defendant & Counterclaim Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN E. WORTHEN, et al.,
Counterclaim Defendants.

Counterclaim Defendant John E. Worthen seeks summary judgment determining that he
has the right to redeem certain real property sold at judicial execution sale to Salt Lake County
on May 24, 2017. 1 He also seeks determination that he has until March 5, 2018, to redeem the
property, or in the alternative, requests an extension to time to March 5, 2018, to redeem the
property. 2
DISCUSSION
Mr. Worthen’s Motion fails to comply with the summary judgment requirements of
DUCivR 56-1(b). The Motion does not include a statement of undisputed material facts or an

1

Motion for Summary Judgment and Extension of Time Pursuant to FRCP Rule 6(b)(1)(B) (“Motion”), docket no.
484, filed Dec. 4, 2017.
2

Id.

appendix of evidence. 3 And many of the purported facts in the Motion are couched in legal
argument and not accompanied by citation to evidence.
Additionally, the only basis asserted in support of an extension of the redemption period
is Mr. Worthen’s dispute with Salt Lake County and the government regarding whether the
property is subject to redemption. 4 Without more, this basis is insufficient to justify an extension
of the redemption period. 5
Mr. Worthen does not indicate that he complied, or attempted to comply, with the
requirements of Rule 69C(c) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure when informing Salt Lake
County of his intent to redeem the property. Nor does he indicate any attempt to comply with the
dispute procedures of Rule 69C(f). Mr. Worthen also fails to state when he informed Salt Lake
County of his intent to redeem the property.
In the absence of these facts, it is unknown whether Mr. Worthen’s delay is attributable
to his own action or inaction, or to action or inaction of Salt Lake County, or some combination
of both. An extension of a redemption period should occur “only when the equities of the case
are compelling and ‘move the conscience of the court.’” 6 Mr. Worthen has failed to establish that
he “acted in an equitable fashion” thereby entitling him to the equitable relief he seeks. 7 And has
failed to establish good cause or excusable neglect for an extension of the redemption period. 8

3

DUCivR 56-1(b)(3), (5).

4

Motion at 5-6.

5

Huston v. Lewis, 818 P.2d 531, 535-36 (Utah 1991); Mollerup v. Storage Sys. Int’l, 569 P.2d 1122, 1124-25 (Utah
1977).

6

Huston, 818 P.2d at 535 (Utah 1991) (quoting Mollerup, 569 P.2d at 1124).

7

Id. at 536-37; Mollerup, 569 P.2d at 1124-25.

8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), (B).

2

ORDER
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Worthen’s Motion 9 is DENIED.
Signed December 14, 2017.
BY THE COURT

________________________________________
District Judge David Nuffer

9

Docket no. 484, filed Dec. 4, 2017.

3