Anderson et al v. University of Utah, No. 2:2017cv00950 - Document 33 (D. Utah 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefing within twenty eight (28) days of this Order. The briefs should be limited to ten (10) pages. See order for further details. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 12/14/17. (jlw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Anderson et al v. University of Utah Doc. 33 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH DAVE ANDERSON, BRYAN FLAKE, SPENCER HOGUE, JIM JACKETTA, MATT OGLESBY, BRITT MILLER, JESSICA PRATHER, MARK SCHAEFER, & JIM STONE, as TRUSTEES OF THE UTAH-IDAHO TEAMSTERS SECURITY FUND, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Case No. 2:17-CV-950 TS Plaintiffs, v. District Judge Ted Stewart UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, Defendant. The Declaratory Judgment Act provides: “In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” 1 To determine whether there is an “actual controversy” that is ripe for decision, the Court must decide whether “there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” 2 This inquiry “is intended to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements.” 3 1 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). Lake Carriers’ Ass’n v. MacMullan, 406 U.S. 498, 506 (1972) (quoting Md. Casualty Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941)). 3 Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians v. Nielson, 376 F.3d 1223, 1237 (10th Cir. 2004). 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com In the present action, Plaintiffs and Defendant both make arguments regarding preemption and priority in an attempt to determine the rights each party has in the $100,000 “that Farmers has tendered to Mixon . . . under the Insurance Policy to settle Mixon’s claims against Headley.” 4 However, Mixon represented in his Motion to Intervene that there is no more than an oral agreement to settle for $100,000 and that he can reject the offer at any time. 5 If Mixon’s representations are true, then there may never be a settlement to which the subrogation provisions of Plaintiffs’ benefit plan or Defendant’s lien might apply, and the Court would be left issuing an advisory opinion rather than declaratory relief. Therefore, the Court requests supplemental briefing on the ripeness of this action. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefing within twenty eight (28) days of this Order. The briefs should be limited to ten (10) pages. SO ORDERED. DATED this 14th day of December, 2017. BY THE COURT: Ted Stewart United States District Judge 4 5 Docket No. 2, ¶ 15. Docket No. 17, at 6. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
