Safaris Unlimited v. Sligar

• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 50096,50097
• Decision Date: 19 July 2024
• Citation: 552 P.3d 1183
• Parties: SAFARIS UNLIMITED, LLC, a limited liability company, as substituted party of interest, Plaintiff-Counter-defendant-Respondent, and Mike Jones, Plaintiff-Counter-defendant-Appellant, v. Jeremy SLIGAR, an individual; and Overtime Garage, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, Defendants-Counter-claimants-Respondents. Mike Jones, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Respondent, v. Jeremy Sligar, an individual; and Overtime Garage, LLC, a defunct Idaho limited liability company, Defendants-Respondents-Cross Appellants.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

552 P.3d 1183

SAFARIS UNLIMITED, LLC, a limited liability company, as substituted party of interest, Plaintiff-Counter-defendant-Respondent,

and

Mike Jones, Plaintiff-Counter-defendant-Appellant,

v.Jeremy SLIGAR, an individual; and Overtime Garage, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, Defendants-Counter-claimants-Respondents.

Mike Jones, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Respondent,

v.Jeremy Sligar, an individual; and Overtime Garage, LLC, a defunct Idaho limited liability company, Defendants-Respondents-Cross Appellants.

Docket Nos. 50096, 50097

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, February 2024 Term.

Opinion Filed: July 19, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County.Jonathan P. Brody and Eric J. Wildman, District Judges.

The district court’s judgment in Docket No. 50096 is affirmed.The district court’s judgment in Docket No. 50097 is affirmed.

Johnson May, Boise, for Appellant/Cross- Respondent, Mike Jones.Matthew T. Christensen argued.

Hepworth Law Offices, Boise, for Respondents/Cross-Appellants Jeremy Sligar and Overtime Garage, LLC.J. Grady Hepworth argued.

David W. Gadd, Stover Gadd & Associates, Twin Falls, for RespondentSafaris Unlimited LLC.

MEYER, Justice.

These two cases, referred to as Sligar I and Sligar II,¹ are consolidated on appeal.They arose from the dissolution of a joint business venture.Plaintiff-AppellantMike Jones appeals from the district court’s denial of his Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to set aside a judgment and order in Sligar I and from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Respondents-Cross AppellantsJeremy Sligar and Overtime Garage, LLC, in Sligar II.Sligar and Overtime Garage, LLC, cross-appeal from the district court’s denial of an award of attorney fees against Jones’s counsel in Sligar II.For the reasons set forth below, we affirm both judgments.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

These cases arose from a failed business relationship between Mike Jones,²Jeremy Sligar, and Sligar’s business, Overtime Garage, LLC(Sligar and Overtime Garage will be referred to collectively as "Sligar").Jones claimed that the parties formed a joint business venture in 2011 to buy and sell used vehicles through Overtime Garage.While Sligar disputed that a joint venture had been formed, Jones claimed that he bought and sold various vehicles through Overtime Garage for the benefit of the joint venture until the relationship between the parties soured and Jeremy Sligar terminated the joint venture in April 2016.

A. Sligar I

On May 9, 2016, Jones filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment as to the nature of the business relationship, dissolution and winding up of the joint venture, and the appointment of a receiver ("Sligar I").Jones alleged Sligar breached fiduciary duties owed to him.Jones also alleged that Sligar retained "several valuable items of property belonging to the parties," but did not specify which items were retained by Sligar.Jones requested attorney fees under Idaho Code sections 12-120and12-121, and costs under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 54.Sligar filed an answer and counterclaim that also sought a dissolution of the joint venture and similarly alleged breaches of fiduciary duties against Jones.Sligar sought attorney lees under Idaho Code sections 12-120and12-121.

During the Sligar I litigation, Jones was involved in a separate lawsuit with Safaris Unlimited, LLC.SeeSafaris Unlimited, LLC v. Von Jones, 158 Idaho 846, 353 P.3d 1080(2015)("Safaris I").Safaris obtained a judgment against Jones in 2017.In May 2017, Safaris and Sligar reached an agreement that resulted in Safaris buying Jones’s interest in SligarI at a sheriff’s sale, then settling Sligar I by dismissing Jones’s claims against Sligar.As part of the agreement, Sligar agreed to pay Safaris $100,000, and upon payment, Safaris would release Jones’s claims against Sligar.On June 28, 2017, Safaris purchased Jones’s interest in SligarI at a sheriff’s sale, as contemplated by the agreement.On September 18, 2018, Safaris filed a motion for substitution of partyplaintiff in place of Jones based on the sheriff’s sale.Jones challenged the validity of the sale in successive appeals to this Court.SeeSafaris Unlimited, LLC v. Von Jones, 163 Idaho 874, 421 P.3d 205(2018)("Safaris II");Safaris Unlimited, LLC v. Jones, 169 Idaho 644, 501 P.3d 334(2021)("Safaris III").

While Safaris III was pending before this Court, Jones filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.Jones also filed two small claim actions related to a Ford F-800 truck and an electric pickup that Jones received from Sligar in December 2017.Jones claimed that the trucks were his separate property and that Sligar had damaged both.Sligar then filed a motion to consolidate the small claim actions with Sligar I, claiming that the trucks were part of the disputed property in Sligar I. Jones objected to the consolidation.The district court entered a stay regarding the motion to consolidate until this Court decided the validity of the sheriff’s sale in Safaris III, the second case brought by Jones that appealed the validity of the sale.

During the stay, Jones’s counsel moved to withdraw.A copy of the motion to withdraw was served on Jones.Sligar filed a notice of non-opposition.On November 10, 2021, the district court signed the order granting the withdrawal of counsel.The order required Jones to notify the district court and the other parties in writing of his intent to represent himself in the lawsuit or be represented by new counsel.The order advised Jones that if he did not file a written notification within 21 days, the district court could enter his default.A copy of the order was served on Jones.

Jones was familiar with the requirement for filing a new notice of appearance or self-representation following withdrawal of counsel because, throughout the Sligar I litigation, Jones’s counsel changed several times.Jones’s previous counsel withdrew in February 2018.In March 2018, Jones filed a notice of appearance and intent to proceed as his own attorney.He indicated that he would accept service of any documents while he sought new counsel.In May 2018, Jones obtained new counsel.In November 2021, when Jones received the order authorizing the withdrawal of his then-attorney, Jones did not file a new notice of appearance or indicate to the district court in writing how he intended to proceed in the case.

On December 3, 2021, this Court affirmed the validity of the sheriff’s sale in Safaris III.Safaris then filed an application for entry of default judgment against Jones.Sligar joined the motion and served a copy of their motion on Jones.On December 15, 2021, the district court entered default against Jones.

On January 14, 2022, the district court received the remittitur in Safaris III.That same day, Safaris and Sligar filed a stipulation to substitute Safaris as the plaintiff in place of Jones in Sligar I. Safaris and Sligar also stipulated to lifting the stay, transferring the small claim actions to the district court, and consolidating those actions with Sligar I. Jones was not served with a copy of the stipulation.On January 21, 2022, the district court issued an order based on the remaining parties’ stipulation, which (1) substituted Safaris as the partyplaintiff in place of Jones, (2) lifted the stay, and (3) consolidated the small claim actions into Sligar I. Jones was served with a copy of the order.

Safaris and Sligar then filed a joint stipulation to dismiss Sligar I with prejudice.The stipulation included a request to dismiss Jones’s claims and Sligar’s counterclaim and to award Sligar "sole and exclusive ownership and right to possession of all vehicles … where ever [sic] located, that were the subject of the underlying dispute and claims between the parties(including the preceding partyPlaintiff/Counterdefendant Michael Von Jones)."On January 31, 2022, the district court entered a judgment that dismissed Sligar I with prejudice and an order that reflected the terms of the joint stipulation.A copy of the Judgment was promptly served on Jones.

On March 25, 2022, Jones filed a second lawsuit against Sligar (Sligar II); that will be discussed in more detail in Section I.B.

Several months later, on July 19, 2022, Jones filed a motion to set aside the judgment and order dismissingSligar I under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (b)(3), and (b)(6).Jones argued that he did not have notice of the other parties' stipulations to lift the stay and consolidate his small claim actions into SligarI and that the language in the stipulated motion to dismiss and the district court's judgment were a surprise to him under Rule 60(b)(1).He also claimed fraud, misconduct, and misrepresentation by Safaris and Sligar because the judgment awarded property to Sligar as opposed to merely dismissing Jones’s claims.

On August 25, 2022, the district court heard argument on Jones’s motion.The district court questioned Jones’s counsel regarding Jones’s default in the case and the timing of the Rule 60(b) motion, and counsel replied that "the choice was made by Mr. Jones to pursue a separate accounting first, when it became clear that that accounting was or that decision was not going to be made prior to that six-month period running, then the motion was filed to preserve that issue before this [c]ourt as well."The district court also heard arguments from both parties regarding the substance of Jones’sRule 60(b) motion, where Jones alleged both surprise and fraud based on the scope of the judgment, and argued that the small claim actions should not have been consolidated with Sligar I.

Following oral arguments, the district court ruled from the bench and denied Jones’sRule 60(b) motion in its entirety.The district court ruled:

THE COURT: … The motion is denied in all respects.And I think there’s a lot to touch on.

To the

...