Hooban v. Unicity Int'l, Inc.
Annotate this CaseRoger Hooban sued Unicity International for breach of a distribution agreement. The district court entered summary judgment for Unicity, holding that Hooban was not a party to the agreement and lacked standing to sue for its enforcement. Unicity then filed a motion for attorney fees under Utah's reciprocal attorney fees statute, Utah Code Ann. 78B-5-826. The district court denied the motion on the ground that section 826 was inapplicable given that Hooban was not a party to the underlying contract. The court of appeals reversed, interpreting the Supreme Court's opinion in Bilanzich v. Lonetti to dictate a fee award in litigation that is based on a written contract where the contract allows at least one party to the litigation to recover fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding section 826 authorized the court to award fees to Unicity because, had Hooban's theory of the case prevailed in the district court, he would have been a party to the contract and the contract would have allowed Hooban to recover fees.
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.