Singh v. Jensen

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Jeff Singh and Ann Singh,
Plaintiffs and Appellees,

v.

Richard M. Jensen,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030001-CA
 

F I L E D
(March 13, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 73

-----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys: Richard M. Jensen, Brigham City, Appellant Pro Se

Bryce M. Froerer, Ogden, for Appellees

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on a petition for extraordinary relief, pursuant to rule 65B(d) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.(1) Petitioner seeks relief in the nature of mandamus, claiming that the trial court failed to rule on several motions pending before it. These motions include a motion to disqualify Judge Hadfield, a motion to arbitrate, a motion to dismiss, a motion to compel, a notice to submit, and a motion for stay.

This court cannot compel the trial court to rule on issues over which the trial court lacks jurisdiction. A related appeal is currently pending in this court in this case based on the trial court's ruling regarding the arbitration clause. The related appeal is based on a notice of appeal filed by Petitioner. Therefore, the trial court does not have jurisdiction to rule on pending motions until the issues before this court are resolved. A ruling denying a motion to compel arbitration is immediately appealable. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-31a-19(1) (1996); Pledger v. Gillespie, 1999 UT 54,¶17, 982 P.2d 572. However, an appeal taken immediately from the ruling on the arbitration clause results in delay of ruling on the issues remaining in the trial court until the appeal is resolved.

With respect to the request for extraordinary relief regarding the denial of the motion to compel arbitration, relief in the form of a writ is also not available because Petitioner has an alternative plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the form of the direct appeal, which is currently before this court. See Utah R. Civ. P. 65B(a).

For these reasons, the relief sought by Petitioner is unavailable. The petition for extraordinary relief is denied.

______________________________

Russell W. Bench, Judge

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

1. Petitioner has mistakenly captioned the petition as an appeal and failed to name the trial court judge as the Respondent. Moreover, Petitioner has not provided a certificate verifying service upon the trial court judge as required by rule 19 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Therefore, no response has been filed by Respondent.