prevailing party analysis in Utah

2024Park LC v. Sealsource Int’l LLC, 2019 UT App 76, ¶ 51 , 443 P.3d 764 (“Although the comparison of [a party’s] award to its claim is a relevant factor under the prevailing party analysis, . . . the factor cannot be weighed in isolation.”).

2024Park LC v. Sealsource Int’l LLC, 2019 UT App 76, ¶ 51 , 443 P.3d 764 (“Although the comparison of [a party’s] award to its claim is a relevant factor under the prevailing party analysis, . . . the factor cannot be weighed in isolation.”).

2021We review a district court’s determination of which party prevailed “under an abuse of discretion standard.” See Olsen v. Lund, 2010 UT App 353, ¶ 5 , 246 P.3d 521 (cleaned up). ¶17 Because we vacate the judgment against David and do not consider the counterclaim as part of the prevailing party analysis, we need not reach the sufficiency argument to resolve this appeal.

2021We review a district court’s determination of which party prevailed “under an abuse of discretion standard.” See Olsen v. Lund, 2010 UT App 353, ¶ 5 , 246 P.3d 521 (cleaned up). ¶17 Because we vacate the judgment against David and do not consider the counterclaim as part of the prevailing party analysis, we need not reach the sufficiency argument to resolve this appeal.

2005Id. at 953-54 .

2005Id. at 953-54 .

2021If the counterclaim is excluded from the analysis, the Fishers argue that “the case is a draw” because “the Fishers had no liability for the [fraud] claim, just as Lavern had no liability on the breach of contract claim.” In other words, they both “successfully defended against the others’ [claims] but were unsuccessful in recovering any monetary damages against 20190769-CA 12 2021 UT App 38 Fisher v. Davidhizar the other.” We agree with the Fishers in principle that the district court should not have considered Lavern’s counterclaim against David in determining whether Lavern was the prevaili

2020But counting the claim against Sanone did not affect the district court’s prevailing party analysis because, as Wihongi acknowledges, the court “does not appear to have given those numbers any significance.” 20180800-CA 6 2020 UT App 109 Wihongi v. Catania SFH Although Wihongi prevailed on his two remaining claims, “no damages were awarded for the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” Therefore, the court concluded that Wihongi “prevailed on one claim with an award of damages.” Catania brought two counterclaims and similarly “prevailed on one counterclaim with an award of dam

2020But counting the claim against Sanone did not affect the district court’s prevailing party analysis because, as Wihongi acknowledges, the court “does not appear to have given those numbers any significance.” 20180800-CA 6 2020 UT App 109 Wihongi v. Catania SFH Although Wihongi prevailed on his two remaining claims, “no damages were awarded for the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” Therefore, the court concluded that Wihongi “prevailed on one claim with an award of damages.” Catania brought two counterclaims and similarly “prevailed on one counterclaim with an award of dam

2020Moreover, our supreme court rejected a similar argument in Neff v. Neff, 2011 UT 6 , 247 P.3d 380 , where one party cited “as the basis of his victory the fact that he obtained all of the relief he ultimately requested at trial—after he had reduced his million dollar-plus damages request to a mere request for nominal damages.” Id. ¶ 73. ¶23 In arguing that his recovery should be measured against the $105,000 in damages sought in his original complaint and at 20180800-CA 10 2020 UT App 109 Wihongi v. Catania SFH trial, rather than the $244,000 demand in his amended complaint, Wihongi contends t

2020Moreover, our supreme court rejected a similar argument in Neff v. Neff, 2011 UT 6 , 247 P.3d 380 , where one party cited “as the basis of his victory the fact that he obtained all of the relief he ultimately requested at trial—after he had reduced his million dollar-plus damages request to a mere request for nominal damages.” Id. ¶ 73. ¶23 In arguing that his recovery should be measured against the $105,000 in damages sought in his original complaint and at 20180800-CA 10 2020 UT App 109 Wihongi v. Catania SFH trial, rather than the $244,000 demand in his amended complaint, Wihongi contends t

2020Culpability ¶26 Finally, Wihongi argues “that the court ignored Catania’s culpability, a dispositive factor in the prevailing party analysis.” Relying on Brown v. Richards, 840 P.2d 143 (Utah Ct. App. 1992), and First Southwestern Financial Services v. Sessions, 875 P.2d 553 (Utah 1994), Wihongi argues that “’[i]t is the determination of culpability, not the amount of damages, that determines who is the prevailing party.’” See Sessions, 875 P.2d at 556 (quoting Brown, 840 P.2d at 155 ).

2020Culpability ¶26 Finally, Wihongi argues “that the court ignored Catania’s culpability, a dispositive factor in the prevailing party analysis.” Relying on Brown v. Richards, 840 P.2d 143 (Utah Ct. App. 1992), and First Southwestern Financial Services v. Sessions, 875 P.2d 553 (Utah 1994), Wihongi argues that “’[i]t is the determination of culpability, not the amount of damages, that determines who is the prevailing party.’” See Sessions, 875 P.2d at 556 (quoting Brown, 840 P.2d at 155 ).

2019Although the comparison of Landlord's award to its claim is a relevant factor *778 under the prevailing party analysis, see id. , the factor cannot be weighed in isolation.

2018We also note that regardless of whether the subtraction or addition approach is used, there are scenarios under which the party deemed nonprevailing under the provision is the party all would concede is the nonprevailing party under a traditional prevailing party clause. 12 But having discerned no support for the trial court's bifurcated approach in the plain language of the Employment Agreement, we cannot "make a better contract for the parties than they have made for themselves." Bakowski v. Mountain States Steel, Inc. , 2002 UT 62 , ¶ 19, 52 P.3d 1179 .

2018We also note that regardless of whether the subtraction or addition approach is used, there are scenarios under which the party deemed nonprevailing under the provision is the party all would concede is the nonprevailing party under a traditional prevailing party clause. 12 But having discerned no support for the trial court's bifurcated approach in the plain language of the Employment Agreement, we cannot "make a better contract for the parties than they have made for themselves." Bakowski v. Mountain States Steel, Inc. , 2002 UT 62 , ¶ 19, 52 P.3d 1179 .

2009In order to be valid, a premarital agreement must not "unreasonably constrain the court's equitable and statutory duties." See Reese, 1999 UT 75 , 1 25.

2004Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d). ¶ 21 In Cantrell , the Tenth Circuit considered whether a defendant is a prevailing party under rule 54 when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses its case prior to trial. 69 F.3d at 456 .

2004The court held that “a defendant is a prevailing party under Rule 54 when, in circumstances not involving settlement, the plaintiff dismisses its case against the defendant, whether' the dismissal is with or without prejudice.” Id.