Utah Court of Appeals
Must pro se litigants strictly comply with rule 7 when opposing summary judgment? Mower v. Moyer Explained
Summary
Gregory Mower sued Michael Moyer and Thrive Wholesale Growers regarding an oral contract. When Mower, proceeding pro se, failed to comply with rule 7’s requirements in opposing summary judgment, the district court deemed the defendants’ facts admitted and granted summary judgment. The court of appeals affirmed, finding no harmless error or abuse of discretion.
Analysis
In Mower v. Moyer, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a pro se litigant’s substantial compliance with rule 7 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure is sufficient to avoid having the moving party’s facts deemed admitted in summary judgment proceedings.
Background and Facts
Gregory Mower sued Michael Moyer and Thrive Wholesale Growers over an alleged oral contract involving transportation, storage, and sale of trees. After Mower’s counsel withdrew, he proceeded pro se. When Thrive moved for summary judgment, Mower filed an opposing memorandum that disputed facts in the body of his brief and included his own affidavit, but he failed to provide the verbatim restatements of disputed facts and specific record citations required by rule 7.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed whether Mower’s substantial compliance with rule 7 constituted harmless error, whether pro se litigants are entitled to leniency in complying with procedural rules, and whether the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law once their facts were deemed admitted.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court distinguished Salt Lake County v. Metro West Ready Mix, where harmless error was found because disputed facts were “clearly provided in the body of the memorandum with applicable record references.” Here, Mower failed to provide specific disputed facts with proper record references, relying only on his own contradictory affidavit. The court emphasized that pro se litigants are “held to the same standard of knowledge and practice as any qualified member of the bar,” and reasonable indulgence does not excuse procedural non-compliance.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that strict compliance with rule 7 is required when opposing summary judgment. Pro se status alone does not excuse procedural deficiencies. Practitioners must ensure that opposing memoranda include verbatim restatements of disputed facts with specific citations to supporting materials in the record.
Case Details
Case Name
Mower v. Moyer
Citation
2017 UT App 188
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20150782-CA
Date Decided
October 13, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A pro se litigant’s failure to comply with rule 7’s requirements for opposing summary judgment motions does not constitute harmless error when the litigant fails to provide specific disputed facts with record references.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment; abuse of discretion for trial court’s decision requiring compliance with rule 7 and decision not to grant pro se litigant leniency
Practice Tip
When opposing summary judgment, ensure strict compliance with rule 7 by providing verbatim restatements of disputed facts with specific record citations—substantial compliance is not sufficient to avoid having facts deemed admitted.
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.