Labor Comm'n and Industrial Accidents Division v. Vuki and Lui Enterprises

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---Labor Commission, Industrial Accidents Division, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Salote Vuki, dba Vuki S&A Take-Out Catering, Defendant. ______________________________ Lui Enterprises, Garnishee and Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20070149-CA F I L E D (July 25, 2008) 2008 UT App 281 ----Third District, Salt Lake Department, 056909867 The Honorable Tyrone E. Medley Attorneys: T. Laura Lui and Filia H. Uipi, Salt Lake City, for Appellant Mark E. Medcalf, South Jordan, for Appellee ----- Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Orme. ORME, Judge: We have determined that "the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument." Utah R. App. P. 29(a)(3). Moreover, the issues presented are readily resolved under applicable law. Appellant Lui Enterprises has the burden to show that service of process was invalid. See Cooke v. Cooke, 2001 UT App 110, ¶ 9, 22 P.3d 1249. Invalidity of service must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. See id.; Classic Cabinets, Inc. v. All Am. Life Ins. Co., 1999 UT App 88, ¶ 11, 978 P.2d 465. Given that the record contains a copy of the signed order along with proof of service, Lui Enterprises has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that service was improper, that the order served upon it was unsigned, or that the order was irregular in any way. Turning to the rule 60(b)(1) motion, see Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), "[w]e will generally reverse a trial court's denial of a rule 60(b) motion only where the court has exceeded its discretion," Fisher v. Bybee, 2004 UT 92, ¶ 7, 104 P.3d 1198, and "[w]e grant broad discretion to [a] trial court's rule 60(b) rulings," id. There are only limited circumstances where relief is appropriate, including where there is "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Lui Enterprises has not demonstrated that there were circumstances rising to this level, and we therefore affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to set aside the default judgment. Given this disposition, we need not reach the other issues raised by Lui Enterprises. Affirmed. ______________________________ Gregory K. Orme, Judge ----WE CONCUR: ______________________________ Russell W. Bench, Judge ______________________________ James Z. Davis, Judge 20070149-CA 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.