Utah Code § 13-11-19
Actions by consumer
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Whether a consumer seeks or is entitled to damages or otherwise has an adequate remedy at law, the consumer may bring an action to:
obtain a declaratory judgment that an act or practice violates this chapter; and
enjoin, in accordance with the principles of equity, a supplier that has violated, is violating, or is likely to violate this chapter.
A consumer who suffers loss as a result of a violation of this chapter may recover actual damages plus court costs, but not in a class action except as provided in this section.
Whether a consumer seeks or is entitled to recover damages or has an adequate remedy at law, the consumer may bring a class action for declaratory judgment, an injunction, and appropriate ancillary relief against an act or practice that violates this chapter.
A consumer who suffers loss as a result of a violation of this chapter may bring a class action for the actual damages caused by an act or practice specified as violating this chapter by a rule adopted by the division under Section 13-11-9 before the consumer transactions on which the action is based, or declared to violate Section 13-11-4 or 13-11-5 by a final judgment of the appropriate court or courts of general jurisdiction and appellate courts of this state that was either officially reported or made available for public dissemination under Subsection 13-11-7(1)(c) by the division 10 days before the consumer transactions on which the action is based, or with respect to a supplier who agreed to a consent judgment, was prohibited specifically by the terms of a consent judgment that became final before the consumer transactions on which the action is based.
If an act or practice that violates this chapter unjustly enriches a supplier and the damages can be computed with reasonable certainty, damages recoverable on behalf of consumers who cannot be located with due diligence shall be transferred to the state treasurer in accordance with Title 67, Chapter 4a, Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act.
If a supplier shows by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation of this chapter resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid the error, recovery under this section is limited to the amount, if any, in which the supplier was unjustly enriched by the violation.
Except for services performed by the division, the court may award to the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee limited to the work reasonably performed if:
the consumer complaining of the act or practice that violates this chapter has brought or maintained an action the consumer knew to be groundless; or a supplier has committed an act or practice that violates this chapter; and
an action under this section has been terminated by a judgment or required by the court to be settled under Subsection 13-11-21(1)(a).
Except for consent judgment entered before testimony is taken, a final judgment in favor of the division under Section 13-11-17 is admissible as prima facie evidence of the facts on which an action is based in later proceedings under this section against the same person or a person in privity with the person against which the judgment is entered.
When a judgment under this section becomes final, the prevailing party shall mail a copy to the division for inclusion in the public file maintained under Subsection 13-11-7(1)(e).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Andreason v. Felsted
Andreason v. Felsted (2006)
“" Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19 (2) (2005) (emphasis added).”
Workman v. Nagle Construction, Inc. (1990)
“Alternatively, the action could be pursued, not by a class, but by the individual parties in their own names, see Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19 (1986). Once the condominium owners have properly become parties (assuming no further involvement by the State), the court and the parties…”
Young v. Npas, Inc. (2019)
“Young also alleges that she is entitled to "damages" from the defendants "pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19 (2)." (Am. Compl.”
In re Gen. Motors LLC (2018)
“" *332 Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19 (2) (emphases added).”
Miller v. Basic Research, LLC (2010)
“Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-1 et seq.; Utah Code Ann.”
In re Generic Pharm. Pricing Antitrust Litig. (2019)
“at 42 ( citing Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19 (4)(a) (permitting class actions for "actual damages" caused by certain statutory violations) and Utah Code Ann.”
Stetser v. Tap Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. (2004)
“510/3 (1999); Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19 (2001). Some states allow plaintiffs to recover punitive damages.”
Wade v. Jobe (1991)
“CONCLUSION The decision of the trial court dismissing the tenant's counterclaim for declaratory relief under the UCSPA is affirmed. Its determination regarding the implied warranty of habitability, however, is reversed.”
Miller v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (2011)
“Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19 (4)(a). 15 . Docket No.”
Roberts v. C.R. England, Inc. (2017)
“Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19 (4)(a). . Dkt. 206 at 63-67.”
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. (2018)
“may bring an action individually to recover actual damages"); and Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19 (2) ("A consumer who suffers loss as a result of a violation of this chapter may recover, but not in a class action, actual damages or $2,000, whichever is greater, plus court costs.”
Roberts v. C.R. Eng., Inc. (2018)
“As a matter of state law, do Utah Code Ann. §§ 13-11-19 (2) and 13-11-23 of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA) mean that in a class action relating to a transaction governed by the UCSPA, class members cannot seek statutory or actual damages for violations of the Utah…”
— Utah Code § 13-11-19(1) — 3 cases
Johnson v. Blendtec (2020)
— Utah Code § 13-11-19(1)(a) — 2 cases
Johnson v. Blendtec (2020)
— Utah Code § 13-11-19(1)(b) — 1 case
AAAG California v. Kisana (2020)
— Utah Code § 13-11-19(2) — 6 cases
Andreason v. Felsted (2006)
“" Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19 (2) (2005) (emphasis added).”
Tidwell v. Jensen (2026)
Stokes v. TLCAS, LLC (2015)
Johnson v. Blendtec (2020)
— Utah Code § 13-11-19(3) — 4 cases
Miller v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (2011)
“Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19 (4)(a). 15 . Docket No.”
Johnson v. Blendtec (2020)
— Utah Code § 13-11-19(4) — 1 case
Miller v. Basic Research, LLC (2010)
“Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-1 et seq.; Utah Code Ann.”
— Utah Code § 13-11-19(4)(a) — 4 cases
Workman v. Nagle Construction, Inc. (1990)
“Alternatively, the action could be pursued, not by a class, but by the individual parties in their own names, see Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19 (1986). Once the condominium owners have properly become parties (assuming no further involvement by the State), the court and the parties…”
Johnson v. Blendtec (2020)
— Utah Code § 13-11-19(5) — 2 cases
Andreason v. Felsted (2006)
“" Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19 (2) (2005) (emphasis added).”
— Utah Code § 13-11-19(8) — 1 case
Miller v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (2011)
“Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19 (4)(a). 15 . Docket No.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.