Sunridge Dev. Corp. v. RB

• Decision Date: 13 June 2013
• Docket Number: No. 20111049–CA.,20111049–CA.
• Citation: 736 Utah Adv. Rep. 19,305 P.3d 171
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals
• Parties: SUNRIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and Sunridge Enterprises, LLC, Plaintiffs, Appellant, and Cross-appellee, v. RB & G ENGINEERING, INC., Defendant, Appellee, and Cross-appellant.

305 P.3d 171

736 Utah Adv. Rep. 19

SUNRIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and Sunridge Enterprises, LLC, Plaintiffs, Appellant, and Cross-appellee,

v.RB & G ENGINEERING, INC., Defendant, Appellee, and Cross-appellant.

No. 20111049–CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

June 13, 2013.

Stephen Quesenberry and Jessica Griffin Anderson, Attorneys for Appellant and Cross-appellee.

Craig C. Coburn, Lincoln Harris, and Zachary E. Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee and Cross-appellant.

Judge J. FREDERIC VOROS JR. authored this Opinion, in which Judge WILLIAM A. THORNE JR. concurred. Judge CAROLYN B. McHUGH concurred in the result.

Opinion

VOROS, Judge:

¶ 1 Sunridge Enterprises, LLC, appeals the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of RB & G Engineering, Inc. (RB & G). We affirm. ¹

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 Sunridge Enterprises and Sunridge Development Corporation sued RB & G for breach of contract and negligence. The facts of the underlying suit are set out in previous decisions issued by this court and our supreme court. See Sunridge Dev. Corp. v. RB & G Eng'g, Inc., 2008 UT App 29, 177 P.3d 644,rev'd,2010 UT 6, 230 P.3d 1000. On remand from the supreme court, the trial court ruled that Sunridge Development had assigned all interest in the underlying contract with RB & G to Sunridge Enterprises. RB & G then moved for summary judgment on the ground that Sunridge Enterprises could not prove damages. By the time the court decided the motion, the sole remaining claim was a claim by Sunridge Enterprises for lost profits from fourteen additional housing units that it was allegedly unable to build due to RB & G's failure to correctly identify fault lines. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of RB & G and dismissed the case. Sunridge Enterprises appeals the dismissal of its claim, and RB & G cross-appeals the trial court's ruling regarding the assignment.

ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶ 3 First, Sunridge Enterprises contends that the trial court should have reopened discovery because Sunridge Enterprises did not have an opportunity to conduct full discovery on its claims. This contention involves a challenge to the trial court's discovery ruling and its underlying factual findings regarding the extent to which discovery had been conducted. We review a trial court's factual findings for clear error, State v. Pinder, 2005 UT 15, ¶ 20, 114 P.3d 551 (citing Utah R. Civ. P. 52(a)), and we review its ultimate denial of a request for additional time to conduct discovery for an abuse of discretion, Reperex, Inc. v. May's Custom Tile, Inc., 2012 UT App 287, ¶ 11, 292 P.3d 694.

¶ 4 Second, Sunridge Enterprises contends that genuine issues of material fact preclude granting summary judgment in favor of RB & G. On appeal, we “review[ ] a trial court's legal conclusions and ultimate grant or denial of summary judgment for correctness and view[ ] the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Orvis v. Johnson, 2008 UT 2, ¶ 6, 177 P.3d 600 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).²

ANALYSIS

I. Request To Reopen Discovery

¶ 5 Sunridge Enterprises contends that the trial court should have allowed it additional time to conduct discovery on the issue of damages after the supreme court remanded the case. The trial court rejected this request, stating, “[Sunridge] Enterprises is incorrect in its assertion that discovery has not been permitted on its claim for the lost units.... [Sunridge] Enterprises enjoyed a full opportunity to participate in discovery, and to produce any admissible evidence in order to advance its claim of damages for the lost units.” ³

¶ 6 Sunridge Enterprises challenges the trial court's finding that it had the opportunity to fully conduct discovery on its claim for damages for the lost units. Sunridge Enterprises states that discovery was not closed until “the judge's ruling, closing discovery in [February] 2006,” five months after Sunridge Enterprises had been dismissed. Sunridge Enterprises argues that the resulting denial of its request was an abuse of discretion because the nature of the litigation had changed due to the intervening trial court and appellate court decisions in this case. Therefore, Sunridge Enterprises argues, it should now be given an opportunity to complete discovery pertinent to its newly revived claim.

¶ 7 We disagree with Sunridge Enterprises' characterization of the record. Discovery appears to have been completed on January 11, 2005. On January 13, 2005, Sunridge Enterprises certified its readiness for trial and requested a trial date. Rather than proceeding to trial, however, Sunridge Enterprises and Sunridge Development stipulated to RB & G's request to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions. While Sunridge Enterprises was dismissed as a party on summary judgment in September 2005, a portion of Sunridge Development's claims survived summary judgment at that time. However, we agree with the trial court that the record in this case “does not reflect ongoing discovery after [Sunridge] Enterprises was dismissed.” Sunridge Enterprises' reference to a 2006 ruling closing discovery is also inaccurate. In February 2006, Sunridge Development and RB & G simply stated to the court that discovery was in fact complete. Sunridge Enterprises has thus failed to demonstrate clear error in the trial court's finding that it had “a full opportunity to participate in discovery” relating to its claim for lost profits.

¶ 8 The trial court acted within its discretion in denying Sunridge Enterprises' request for additional discovery. Sunridge Enterprises certified its readiness for trial after discovery was complete and well before it was initially dismissed on summary judgment. If Sunridge Enterprises had proceeded to trial in 2005 as it certified it was ready to do, it would have been required to prove its damages at that time because proof of the amount of damages is a crucial element of any breach of contract claim, see Bair v. Axiom Design, LLC, 2001 UT 20, ¶ 14, 20 P.3d 388. The 2005 dismissal and its subsequent reversal on appeal do not alter the situation. Sunridge Enterprises asserted a breach of contract claim jointly with Sunridge Development, both entities certified their readiness for trial, the trial court dismissed Sunridge Enterprises, the supreme court reversed, and Sunridge Enterprises has reasserted the claim on remand. Sunridge Enterprises has identified no distinction between the breach of contract claim that it originally asserted and the claim before the trial court on remand.

¶ 9 Furthermore, Sunridge Enterprises has not adequately explained why additional discovery was needed; all evidence of damages would be within the control of Sunridge Enterprises, not RB & G. Indeed, counsel for Sunridge Enterprises stated in oral argument that it sought a discovery extension for the purpose of supplementing its discovery responses to RB & G. We see no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of a request for additional discovery to obtain evidence in the exclusive control of the requesting party when the request was made six years after discovery was complete and that party certified readiness for trial.⁴

II. Summary Judgment

¶ 10 Sunridge Enterprises' next contention on appeal is that the trial court erred by entering summary judgment in favor of RB & G. Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c).

¶ 11 “A summary judgment movant, on an issue where the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, may satisfy its burden on summary judgment by showing, by reference to ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ that there is no genuine issue of material fact.” Orvis v. Johnson, 2008 UT 2, ¶ 18, 177 P.3d 600 (quoting Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “Upon such a showing, whether or not supported by additional affirmative factual evidence, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who ‘may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings,’ but ‘must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ ” Id. (quoting Utah R. Civ. P. 56(e)). “The allegations of a pleading or factual conclusions of an affidavit are insufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact.” Overstock.com, Inc. v. SmartBargains, Inc., 2008 UT 55, ¶ 12, 192 P.3d 858 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶ 12 Furthermore, “[s]upporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.” Utah R. Civ. P. 56(e). “A plaintiff's failure to present evidence that, if believed by the trier of fact, would establish any one of the [elements] of the prima facie case justifies a grant of summary judgment to the defendant.” Stevens–Henager College v. Eagle Gate College, 2011 UT App 37, ¶ 14, 248 P.3d 1025 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶ 13 Sunridge Enterprises claims that the trial court erred by ruling that it had not provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the amount of damages. To succeed on a breach of contract claim, “[a] plaintiff is required to prove both the fact of damages and the amount of damages.” Id. ¶ 16. To prove the amount of damages, the plaintiff must produce “evidence that rises above speculation and provides a reasonable, even though not necessarily precise, estimate of damages.” TruGreen Cos. v. Mower Bros., Inc., 2008 UT 81, ¶ 15, 199 P.3d 929 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “...