Lundahl v. Alta View

Lundahl v. Alta View

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

M.T. Lundahl and Holli Lundahl,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

Alta View Hospital and Doug Murdock, M.D.,
Defendants and Appellees.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20020749-CA
F I L E D
(April 24, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 120

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Timothy R. Hanson

Attorneys: M.T. Lundahl and Holli Lundahl, Orem, Appellants

Pro Se

Larry R. White and Patrick L. Tanner, Salt Lake

City, for Appellee Alta View Hospital

Curtis J. Drake and Timothy B. Schade, Salt Lake

City, for Appellee Murdock

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Billings, and Bench.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on Alta View Hospital's (Alta View) and Murdock's motions for summary disposition based on an untimely notice of appeal and that the questions presented are so insubstantial as to not merit further consideration. See

Utah R. App. P. 10.

Murdock argues that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. The trial court issued final orders dismissing Lundahl's amended complaint in an order issued June 7, 2002. Lundahl filed a timely motion entitled, "Rule 54(b) motion or alternatively rule 59 motion to correct judgment dismissing plaintiff's first amended complaint for due process violations by the trial court (verified)." This motion was filed within ten days of the orders dismissing the amended complaint as required by rule 59 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, and, therefore, it tolled the time for filing a notice of appeal. However, the rule 59 motion was not timely from orders issued by the trial court on November 28, 2001; December 26, 2001; and January 7, 2001. Therefore, Lundahl's notice of appeal, filed within thirty days of entry of the signed minute entry denying her rule 59 motion, is timely with respect to the ruling issued June 7, 2002. Her notice of appeal was not timely from the other orders, and those orders will not be considered on appeal.

Alta View and Murdock argue that the questions presented in the appeal are so insubstantial as to not merit further consideration by this court. Lundahl argues, in her response to the motions, that she was somehow unable to respond to Alta View's and Murdock's motions to dismiss her amended complaint because the trial judge had the court file at his home. Therefore, she claims the trial court's determination that the motions were unopposed was incorrect. Lundahl further argues that she was not served with the motions to dismiss and that the result was her ill-fated attempt to get the court file to review the filings. The trial court ruled that there had been no denial of due process. Lundahl has not demonstrated that the ruling was in error. Rather, Lundahl makes factual assertions that are not supported in the record and makes arguments that should have been presented to the trial court in opposition of the motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The trial court clearly determined that her claim that she was not properly served with the motions to dismiss was without merit. This court has been presented with no evidence contained in the record that supports the conclusion that the trial court's determination was incorrect.

Therefore, we summarily affirm the trial court's dismissal of Lundahl's amended complaint.

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Russell W. Bench, Judge