Bluemel v. Freestone

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Darren C. Bluemel,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Wayne A. Freestone and David J. Angerhofer,

Defendants and Appellees.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040485-CA
 

F I L E D
(October 28, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 387

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Stephen L. Henriod

Attorneys: Darren C. Bluemel, Draper, Appellant Pro Se

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

Darren C. Bluemel appeals from a summary judgment that dismissed his case against attorneys Wayne A. Freestone and David J. Angerhofer (the law firm) without prejudice.

"Whether a third-party beneficiary status exists is determined by examining a written contract." American Towers Owners v. CCI Mech., 930 P.2d 1182, 1188 (Utah 1996). The determination of third-party beneficiary status "can be decided on summary judgment as a question of law," and is reviewed for correctness. Id. To have enforceable rights under a contract between the law firm and the Department of Corrections, Bluemel must establish that he is an intended beneficiary of a specific contract. See id.

The narrow issue presented by this appeal is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment because Bluemel has not identified the contract covering him as a state inmate housed at the Garfield County jail, where he had contacts with the law firm. The district court ruled that the dismissal was without prejudice to proceeding on an amended complaint "upon receipt or knowledge of the appropriate contract." On the present state of this record, the district court did not err in entering summary judgment without prejudice.

Bluemel contends that discovery was ongoing when the court granted summary judgment. Nevertheless, he did not oppose summary judgment based upon rule 56(f) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Instead, Bluemel continued to argue that Contract # 996581 could be interpreted to cover inmates regardless of the location where they were housed. However, that contract is expressly limited to inmates located at the Draper, Utah facilities of the Utah State Prison. Even assuming that similar contracts exist pertaining to inmates housed at other facilities, Bluemel must identify the contract under which he claims third-party beneficiary status. The amended complaint listed three contracts by number, although one of those contracts was Contract # 996581. Nevertheless, to the extent that the complaint alleged a theory based upon third-party beneficiary status, the district court did not err in requiring Bluemel to identify a contract as to which he was "an intended beneficiary."

We affirm the summary judgment, which dismissed the case without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint specifically identifying the appropriate contract.

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge