Utah Supreme Court
What constitutes excusable neglect under Utah rule 60(b)? Jones v. Layton/Okland Explained
Summary
After Jones’s heirs failed to timely oppose a summary judgment motion, claiming they received an open-ended extension from opposing counsel, the district court denied their rule 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment. The heirs waited two months after being served with a notice to submit before taking any action.
Analysis
In Jones v. Layton/Okland, the Utah Supreme Court clarified the standard for determining excusable neglect under rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that while courts have broad equitable discretion, parties must demonstrate sufficient diligence to justify relief from judgment.
Background and Facts
After Llewellyn Jones died in a construction accident, his heirs filed a wrongful death action against Layton/Okland. When Layton/Okland moved for summary judgment in December 2006, Jones’s counsel requested and received extensions to file their opposition. Jones’s counsel claimed that during a phone call, opposing counsel granted an open-ended extension. However, when Layton/Okland filed a notice to submit for decision in February 2007, Jones’s counsel failed to respond for nearly two months until April 2007, after the court had already granted summary judgment.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Jones demonstrated excusable neglect sufficient to warrant setting aside the summary judgment under rule 60(b). The case also addressed the proper test for determining excusable neglect—whether courts must apply strict due diligence requirements or may exercise broader equitable discretion.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court held that district courts have broad discretion to consider all relevant factors when determining excusable neglect, rejecting overly rigid formulations from earlier cases. However, the court emphasized that some level of diligence is required—perfect diligence is not necessary, but complete absence of diligence cannot be excused merely based on other equitable considerations. The court distinguished “neglect” from “negligence,” noting that neglect simply means failing to do something required, while negligence implies a subjective mental state.
Practice Implications
This decision provides important guidance for Utah practitioners seeking rule 60(b) relief. While courts will consider factors like prejudice to the parties and good faith, these cannot overcome a complete lack of diligence. The two-month delay after Jones learned of the expired deadline was fatal to their claim. Practitioners should document extension agreements in writing and act immediately upon learning of missed deadlines to preserve arguments for excusable neglect.
Case Details
Case Name
Jones v. Layton/Okland
Citation
2009 UT 39
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20070813
Date Decided
July 14, 2009
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A district court has broad discretion to consider and balance all relevant factors in determining whether a party has exercised sufficient diligence to justify relief from the consequences of its neglect under rule 60(b), but some diligence is required.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for denial of rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment
Practice Tip
When claiming excusable neglect under rule 60(b), document all extension agreements in writing and act immediately upon notice that deadlines have expired to demonstrate diligence.
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.