Direct Appeal Fourth District, Provo The Honorable Kraig
Powell No. 170400290
Keele, Chicago, Illinois, for appellant
A. Olson, Jason R. Hull, Trevor C. Lang, Salt Lake City, for
Justice Durrant authored the opinion of the Court, in which
Associate Chief Justice Lee, Justice Himonas, Justice Pearce,
and Justice Petersen joined.
DURRANT, CHIEF JUSTICE
Ryan Bradburn worked for Alarm Protection Technology (APT) as
a sales representative in the summer of 2015. After his
employment ended, he sued APT for alleged unpaid commissions.
APT, executing on a confession of judgment it had previously
obtained from Mr. Bradburn, initiated a constable sale and
purchased Mr. Bradburn's right to sue APT. After
obtaining his right to sue, APT substituted itself into this
case for Mr. Bradburn and dismissed all claims against
itself. Mr. Bradburn argues that the district court erred in
allowing APT to substitute itself as the plaintiff and
extinguish the claims against it. Because we find that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting
APT's substitution as plaintiff, we affirm.
Alarm Protection Technology is an alarm services company that
sells alarm systems mainly through door-to-door sales. Mr.
Bradburn worked for APT as a sales representative after
signing an agreement in June 2013. In December 2014, Mr.
Bradburn signed a confession of judgment and a promissory
note in APT's favor for $24, 000 in exchange for advances
on his commission. He stopped working for APT in June 2015.
On March 1, 2017, Mr. Bradburn filed suit against APT in our
fourth judicial district, alleging "causes of action for
violation of the Utah Sales Representative Commission Payment
Act, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit,
and promissory estoppel." He alleged $348, 434 in unpaid
commissions and treble damages, all totaling $1, 045, 302.
Later that day, APT filed the December 2014 confession of
judgment and promissory note in the third district. The case
file in third district "does not reflect that APT served
or notified Bradburn of th[at] filing." In May 2017, the
third district court entered judgment against Mr. Bradburn
for $24, 000 pursuant to the promissory note and confession
of judgment. APT then filed a notice of entry of judgment and
served notice on Mr. Bradburn.
After entry of judgment, APT sought a writ of execution
requesting a constable sale of all Mr. Bradburn's
"rights, claims, interest and choses in
action" against APT and its affiliates. He moved
to quash or stay the writ of execution. The district court
granted the stay in part, allowing him the opportunity to
file a rule 60(b) motion instead. He then filed a rule 60(b)
motion seeking to vacate the judgment or stay the execution.
The district court denied his motion after two days of
evidentiary hearings. He did not appeal that denial.
The next month, APT served Mr. Bradburn with notice of a
constable sale. At that sale, APT purchased his choses in
action against APT and its affiliates for $2, 500. Mr.
Bradburn alleges he did not have the money to bid on his own
choses in action because he had not been paid his commission.
There were no other bidders at the sale. He did not move to
vacate the sale.
The next day, APT filed a notice of transfer of claims and a
motion to substitute itself as the only plaintiff in Mr.
Bradburn's pending action against APT. The district court
granted the motion to substitute, which precluded Mr.
Bradburn from further participation in the case. APT then
extinguished all claims against itself and the other
defendants in the case. Mr. Bradburn now appeals from that
order granting APT's substitution.
Mr. Bradburn timely appealed to this court. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-3-102(3)(j).