Utah Court of Appeals
When can Utah courts grant summary judgment on causation issues? Triesault v. Greater Salt Lake Business District Explained
Summary
Plaintiffs sought SBA financing through defendant CDC for a Spanish Fork movie theater, which became profitable until a competing Payson theater opened in the same market area. When plaintiffs’ theater failed and they lost their investment, they sued the CDC alleging breach of fiduciary duty and intentional interference with economic relations. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant.
Analysis
Background and Facts
The Triesault case arose when business owners sought SBA financing through Deseret Certified Development Company to open a movie theater in Spanish Fork. After the theater became profitable, Deseret assisted competitors in opening a theater in nearby Payson. When the Spanish Fork theater subsequently failed, the owners sued Deseret for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional interference with prospective economic relations.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether plaintiffs could establish causation linking defendant’s assistance to competitors with their theater’s failure. The court also addressed whether a certified development company’s assistance to multiple businesses in the same market constituted improper interference with existing clients’ economic relations.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment, holding that causation issues can be decided as a matter of law when the proximate cause of injury is left to speculation. Despite temporal correlation between the competing theater’s opening and plaintiff’s revenue decline, the court found this insufficient evidence. The defendant presented expert testimony identifying multiple potential causes for the theater’s failure, including movie selection and other competing theaters. Plaintiffs failed to present expert testimony establishing that defendant’s assistance to competitors caused their losses.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Utah courts will grant summary judgment on causation when evidence requires jury speculation. Practitioners must present affirmative evidence, typically expert testimony, to establish causation unless the issue falls within common knowledge. Temporal correlation alone will not create a triable issue of fact. When challenging business relationships that arguably create conflicts of interest, parties must demonstrate actual improper conduct rather than theoretical conflicts.
Case Details
Case Name
Triesault v. Greater Salt Lake Business District
Citation
2005 UT App 489
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20040811-CA
Date Decided
November 10, 2005
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Summary judgment was appropriate where plaintiff failed to present evidence creating a triable issue of fact on causation for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional interference claims.
Standard of Review
Correctness (questions of law); facts viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party
Practice Tip
When challenging summary judgment on causation, ensure expert testimony supports your causation theory unless the issue is within common knowledge of laypeople—temporal correlation alone will not defeat summary judgment.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.