Price v. Armour
| Decision Date | 09 December 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 960540,No. 312,312,960540 |
| Citation | 949 P.2d 1251 |
| Parties | 332 Utah Adv. Rep. 3 Jeffery R. PRICE, an individual, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Edward B. ARMOUR, an individual, and Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union, a labor organization, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Robert F. Babcock, Darrel J. Bostwick, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.
Mary J. Woodhead, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellees.
Jeffery Price appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendants Edward B. Armour and the Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 312 ("the Union"). Price's suit alleged that defendants had made defamatory statements. In granting summary judgment, the trial court ruled that the statements in question were privileged against Price's claims of libel, libel per se, and intentional interference with business relations. We affirm.
Armour, a member of the Union, sought employment in March of 1995 with Madsen Mechanical ("Madsen"), a sheet metal contractor. Madsen rejected his employment application. In April of 1995, Armour filed charges against Madsen with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"), alleging that Madsen refused to hire Armour because of his union membership, in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 to 191. On June 9, 1995, the NLRB issued a complaint against Madsen based on the allegation of discrimination. Armour represented himself in this action, while Madsen was represented by attorney Jeffery Price.
In an attempt to encourage settlement of the pending NLRB matter, Armour tried to contact Price by telephone on June 12, 1995. Price, unaware that Armour was representing himself, did not respond to Armour directly, believing that the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct prohibited him from On that same day, Armour sent a letter to Madsen on Union letterhead that contained the heading "RE: Settlement of NLRB cases...." In that letter, Armour sought settlement of the case and in doing so made comments about Price and his representation of Madsen. In part, he wrote:
directly contacting a party. Instead, Price faxed his response that same day to an attorney, Kathy Sure, who he believed was representing Armour. In a letter dated June 19, 1995, Sure informed Price that she did not represent Armour.
I attempted to contact your attorney, Mr. Jeffery Price.... Mr. Price refused to answer my calls. He has instead chosen to fax a letter to an attorney in California who does not in any way represent our interests.... It is my understanding that Mr. Price represents, and has represented in the past a number of companies who have lost cases before the NLRB, and lost big. I would hope that Mr. Price truly represents your wishes, as delay on your part to settle will result in a dramatic increase in the damage awards with regards to backpay should the ALJ rule against you at the hearing in March. While it may or may not be in Mr. Price's best financial interest to prolong such matters, it is my belief that these matters could be settled far in advance of the March, 1996 hearing. Mr. Price's delay, or attempt at obfuscation will only result in higher costs to you should the ALJ rule against you.
It is my duty, and experience to inform you that the National Labor Relations Board does not typically issue complaint [sic] unless it believes there to be sound evidence of Unfair Labor Practices. It is also my experience that the National Labor Relations Board encourages the interested parties to settle before the hearing.
Price filed a civil complaint based on these comments in state court on June 18, 1996, against Armour and the Union, alleging libel, libel per se, and intentional interference with business relations. He sought damages of not less than $20,000 plus punitive damages. In response, Armour and the Union 1 moved to dismiss and for summary judgment, with a supporting memorandum. Armour argued that the comments in the letter were privileged because they were made in the course of, and in reference to, a judicial proceeding. He also argued that Price's claims should be dismissed for failure to plead essential elements. Finally, Armour requested a hearing on the matter.
On July 30, 1996, Price filed a memorandum in opposition to Armour's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, arguing that the comments were not privileged as to defamation because they were not relevant to the proceeding at hand. He further argued that the privilege did not apply against a claim of intentional interference with business relations. 2
The trial court granted Armour's request for hearing and set the hearing for November 25, 1996. However, on November 8, 1996, prior to the scheduled hearing, the trial court ruled on the matter, granting Armour's motion for summary judgment. The trial court held that the privilege applied inasmuch as the comments in the letter were in reference to the pending judicial proceedings and that the privilege applied to both the claims of libel and the claim of intentional interference with business relations. Price appealed to this court.
Price argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment without a hearing. He states that the court granted a hearing pursuant to rule 4-501(3) of the Utah Code of Judicial Administration and then, without holding the hearing or explaining why it did not hold a hearing, granted Armour's motion. Price points out that rule 4-501(3) requires the court to grant a request Price also argues on appeal that the court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment on the merits. He argues that the comments in the letter were not relevant to the NLRB proceeding in that they were not made in reference to, or in the course of, a judicial proceeding and therefore were not privileged. He contends that the statements were "couched in an alleged settlement letter but not related to settlement." Instead, he claims the letter was an "attempt to defame Price and intimidate Madsen," having nothing to do with the allegations of discrimination and therefore not related to settlement.
for a hearing if the motion before the court involves an issue that has not been authoritatively decided. He argues that a hearing was necessary because the issue of whether the judicial proceeding privilege protects against a claim of intentional interference with business relations is an issue of first impression and therefore inappropriate for summary judgment without hearing.
Price further argues that even if the statements are privileged, the court erred in ruling that the privilege protects against a cause of action for intentional interference with business relations. Price claims that there is no Utah case law that supports the trial court's ruling and, consequently, it erroneously relied on a California case that is distinguishable on the facts. He contends that the privilege simply does not apply to the intentional interference claim.
In response, Armour argues that Price waived his right to a hearing inasmuch as he failed to request one in the first place. Armour requested the hearing, and therefore, he contends, he is the only party who can object for failure to hold a hearing. He also argues that the comments were absolutely privileged because they were made in the course of a judicial proceeding. He asserts that the communication in question need not be relevant as an evidentiary matter but need only have some relation to the proceeding. The letter, Armour claims, was clearly an attempt to settle the NLRB matter, and comments as to the opposing counsel's record and his lack of incentive to settle were clearly related to settlement and therefore "in reference to the proceeding."
Armour further argues that the privilege applies to both the libel claims and the claim of intentional interference with business relations.
In the alternative, Armour claims that summary judgment was also appropriate on grounds other than those relied upon by the trial court. He argues that Price's complaint should be dismissed because Price failed to properly plead damages with respect to his intentional interference with business relations claim.
The first issue before us is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment without holding a hearing. The second issue is whether the court erred in ruling that the privilege applied to this communication and, if it applied, whether it protects against a claim of intentional interference with business relations as well as a claim of libel. The third issue is whether summary judgment should be affirmed on the alternative ground of insufficient pleadings. Since we decide this case on the first two issues, we do not reach the third issue, concerning insufficient pleadings.
The question of whether the court erred in granting summary judgment without a hearing is governed by rule 4-501(3) of the Utah Code of Judicial Administration and is therefore a matter of statutory construction which is reviewed for correctness. State v. Petersen, 810 P.2d 421, 424 (Utah 1991). The existence of a privilege is a question of law for the court, which we review for correctness, giving no deference to the trial court's determination. Russell v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc., 842 P.2d 896 (Utah 1992).
Rule 4-501(3) governs whether a hearing shall be granted on a motion before the court. In relevant part, it states:
(a) A decision on a motion shall be rendered without a hearing unless ordered by (b) In cases where the granting of a motion would dispose of the action or any issues in the action on the merits with prejudice, either party at the time of filing the principle memorandum in support of or in opposition to a motion may file a written request for a hearing.
the Court, or requested by the parties as provided in paragraphs (3)(b) or (4) below.
(c) Such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State In Interest of L.L.
...of law for the court, which we review for correctness, giving no deference to the trial court's determination." Price v. Armour , 949 P.2d 1251, 1254 (Utah 1997).ANALYSISI. The Juvenile Court Correctly Deferred to the BIA's Construction of the Phrase "Qualified Expert Witness" as Used in IC......
-
Sodergren v. JOHNS HOPKINS
...negotiations that made derogatory comments about one party's attorney was therefore subject to absolute privilege. Price v. Armour, 949 P.2d 1251, 1253 (Utah 1997). The rationale of the Price Court was that the letter satisfied the three requirements necessary in Utah to qualify for an abso......
-
Kocontes v. McQuaid
...Dairies v. Raritan Valley Farms, Inc., 19 N.J. 552, 117 A.2d 889 (1955); Hernandez v. Hayes, 931 S.W.2d 648 (Tex.App.1996); Price v. Armour, 949 P.2d 1251 (Utah 1997). 80. See McLaughlin v. Copeland, supra note 81. Rainier's Dairies v. Raritan Valley Farms, Inc., supra note 79, 19 N.J. at 5......
-
Cline v. Dcfs
...is available to protect participants in judicial proceedings from claims for damages stemming from their actions. See Price v. Armour, 949 P.2d 1251, 1256 (Utah 1997) ("[J]udges, jurors, witnesses, litigants, and counsel in judicial proceedings have an absolute privilege against defamation.......