Buy This Entire Record For
Mint Solar, LLC v. Savage
United States District Court, D. Utah
December 9, 2019
MINT SOLAR, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, and KNIGHT WEST CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Utah corporation, Plaintiffs,
BART SAVAGE, an individual, AARON HALDERMAN, an individual, OLIVIA BLACK, an indivdual, PRIZM ENERGY LLC, a Utah limited liability company, PRIZM ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Utah limited liabilty company, PRIZM HOME LLC, a Utah limited liability company, and DOES 1-10, Defendants. BART J. SAVAGE, an individual, AARON HALDERMAN, an individual, OLIVIA BLACK, an individual, PRIZM ENERGY, LLC a Utah limited liability company, Cross-Complainants,
SCOTT SHUMWAY, an individual; SPENCER SHUMWAY, an individual; SIMON KEOGH, an individual; COLTON CHESTNUT, an individual; BYRON SMITH, an individual; BLAINE THATCHER, an individual; BRENDAN HAYS, an individual; TOMAS REYES, an individual; KNIGHT WEST CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Utah corporation; MINT ENERGY, LLC, a Utah limited liability company; and MNT HOLDINGS, INC., nominally, and ROES 1-100. Cross-Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTION
FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND DISMISSAL
STEWART, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on a Renewed Motion for Entry of
Default and Dismissal filed by Plaintiffs, Counterclaim
Defendants, and Third-Party Defendants (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”). For the reasons discussed below,
the Court will grant Plaintiffs' Motion.
Mint Solar, LLC (“Mint”) and Knight West
Construction, Inc. (“Knight”) initially filed
this action in state court against Defendants Bart Savage,
Aaron Halderman, Olivia Black, Prizm Enterprises, LLC and
Prizm Home LLC (collectively, “Defendants”).
Defendants removed this action to this Court on July 17,
2018. On July 24, 2018, Defendants filed a Cross-Complaint.
September 10, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
seeking dismissal of all of Plaintiffs' claims. The Court
denied that motion on November 13, 2018.
the motion to dismiss was denied, the parties agreed to
multiple extensions for Defendants to file their answer.
April 9, 2019, prior to an answer being filed,
Defendants' counsel sought to withdraw. On April 15,
2019, the Court granted counsel's motion. As part of the
Court's order, the Court directed Defendants to file a
notice of substitution of counsel or a notice of appearance
within twenty-one days. Defendants were further advised that
the entity Defendants must be represented by an attorney.
Defendants were warned that failure to comply could result in
sanctions, including dismissal or default.
failed to comply with this order. Defendant Olivia Black
sought and received an extension of time to file a notice of
appearance or notice of substitution of counsel but failed to
do so. Defendant Savage and Halderman both filed untimely
9, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the entry of
default against all Defendants except Ms. Black and the
dismissal of their counterclaims and third-party claims. The
Court denied that motion without prejudice to “afford
Defendants one last opportunity to come into compliance with
the Court's orders and participate in this
litigation.” The Court allowed an additional fourteen
(14) days to file a notice of substitution of counsel or a
notice of appearance. While, as noted, Defendants Savage and
Halderman have filed untimely answers, none of the remaining
Defendants have complied with the Court's Order.
now file the instant Motion. Plaintiffs request the Court
enter default against Defendants, Counterclaimants, and
Third-party Plaintiffs Prizm Energy LLC, Prizm Enterprises,
LLC, Prizm Home LLC (collectively, the “Prizm
Entities”) and to dismiss their counterclaims and
third-party claims based on their failure to comply.
Plaintiffs originally sought default against Ms. Black but
have since withdrawn this request and she has been dismissed
from this action.
move for default judgment and dismissal as a result of the
Prizm Entities failure to comply with the Court's Order.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1)(c) provides that a
court “may issue any just orders, including those
authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party or its
attorney . . . fails to obey a . . . pretrial
order.” Rule 37(b)(2)(A) referenced in Rule
16(f)(1)(c) provides for sanctions including:
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or
opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing
designated matters in evidence;
(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole ...