Utah Court of Appeals
Can attorneys blame electronic filing problems for missing court deadlines? Aghdasi v. Saberin Explained
Summary
The Aghdasis sued after a physical altercation involving a cab driver. When their attorney failed to respond to City Cab’s motion for summary judgment, claiming he never received the electronic filings despite court records showing delivery, the district court denied their Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In Aghdasi v. Saberin, the plaintiffs sued after a physical altercation between cab drivers. City Cab filed a motion for summary judgment through the court’s electronic filing system. Court records confirmed that the plaintiffs’ attorney received electronic notice of both the motion and supporting memorandum in October 2013, as well as the request to submit for decision in December 2013. However, the attorney never responded to the motion.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether an attorney’s claim that he accidentally deleted or lost electronic court filings constituted excusable neglect under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The plaintiffs also argued that opposing counsel violated Utah Standards of Professionalism by failing to notify them before seeking entry of what they characterized as a “default” summary judgment.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals applied an abuse of discretion standard and found no error in the trial court’s denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. The court emphasized that excusable neglect requires evidence of diligence. Drawing analogies to cases involving misplaced physical documents, the court saw “little difference between the inadvertent loss or misplacement of an electronic document and the inadvertent loss or misplacement of a physical document.”
The court noted that other jurisdictions have been “largely unsympathetic” to attorneys blaming computer glitches, citing a D.C. Circuit case that called such excuses “an updated version of the classic ‘my dog ate my homework’ line.” Significantly, the court emphasized that attorneys must make the same effort to monitor electronic filings as they would with paper filings.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that electronic filing mishaps will not excuse attorney neglect. Practitioners must implement robust systems for managing electronic communications and monitoring court dockets. The court’s reference to an attorney’s obligation to “monitor the court’s docket” suggests that passive reliance on email notifications is insufficient. Additionally, while the Standards of Professionalism encourage courtesy notifications, violation of these aspirational guidelines cannot form the basis for setting aside judgments.
Case Details
Case Name
Aghdasi v. Saberin
Citation
2015 UT App 73
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20140173-CA
Date Decided
March 26, 2015
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
An attorney’s inadvertent deletion or misplacement of electronic court filings does not constitute excusable neglect under Rule 60(b).
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for denial of rule 60(b) motion
Practice Tip
Implement robust email management systems and regularly monitor court dockets to avoid missing electronic filings, as technical difficulties will not excuse neglect.
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.