Can a successor judge overturn a predecessor's nonfinal rulings? Build v. UDOT Explained

In Build v. UDOT, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a critical question about judicial authority: whether a successor judge can reconsider and overturn nonfinal rulings made by a predecessor judge. This case provides important clarity for practitioners on the scope of judicial discretion in ongoing litigation.

Background and Facts

Build, Inc. contracted with UDOT to work on several construction projects, including the Arcadia project involving bridge replacement and highway reconstruction. During excavation, UDOT’s engineer discovered complications preventing onsite soil disposal, requiring Build to dispose of soil offsite at an additional cost of $389,000. When UDOT refused compensation, Build sued for breach of contract and consequential damages. Judge Kennedy initially denied UDOT’s summary judgment motions on both claims. After Judge Kennedy’s retirement, successor Judge Harris reconsidered the motions and dismissed both claims, prompting Build’s interlocutory appeal.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two main issues: (1) whether Judge Harris had authority under the coordinate judge rule to reconsider Judge Kennedy’s denial of summary judgment, and (2) whether the dismissals were proper on the merits. Build argued that prior Utah precedent limited successor judges’ authority to overturn predecessors’ decisions unless presented in a “different light” or the prior ruling was “clearly erroneous.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reconciled conflicting precedent by clarifying that limitations on coordinate judges are “hortatory” considerations rather than enforceable restrictions. The court emphasized that Rule 54(b) allows any judge to change nonfinal orders “at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims.” Different judges on the same case are considered “a single judicial officer,” giving successor judges the same discretion as their predecessors to revisit prior rulings. On the merits, the court affirmed both dismissals, finding Build failed to prove the engineer “knowingly and deliberately” ordered extra work and failed to adequately disclose its consequential damages calculation.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts litigation strategy when judges change mid-case. Practitioners can no longer rely on the Sittner line of cases to shield favorable nonfinal rulings from reconsideration. Instead, attorneys must ensure their legal positions are substantively sound and well-supported in the record. The ruling also reinforces the importance of proper expert disclosure under Rule 26, as Build’s failure to disclose damage calculations proved fatal to its consequential damages claim even when other procedural protections might have applied.