Can Utah courts grant summary judgment on arguments first raised in reply briefs? Compagni v. Klemesrud Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed an important procedural issue in Compagni v. Klemesrud, emphasizing that district courts cannot grant summary judgment based on arguments first raised in reply briefs without giving the opposing party an opportunity to respond.

Background and Facts
Compagni slipped and fell on snow and ice accumulated on a public sidewalk bordering Klemesrud’s property, sustaining severe leg injuries. She sued Klemesrud for negligence, arguing he had a duty to clear the sidewalk under a Millcreek city ordinance requiring abutting property owners to remove snow within twelve hours. Klemesrud moved for summary judgment, initially arguing only that the snow and ice posed an open and obvious danger under premises liability theory. In his reply brief, Klemesrud raised a new argument that he had no common law duty as an abutting property owner to clear the public sidewalk.

Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether the municipal ordinance created a private right of action for snow removal violations, and (2) whether district courts can consider arguments first raised in reply briefs. The court also examined the proper application of the Colosimo framework for determining when ordinances impose tort duties.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed that the ordinance did not create a private right of action, as it imposed only criminal penalties for violations and was designed to have the city provide a public service rather than create civil liability. However, the court reversed the summary judgment grant because the district court improperly considered Klemesrud’s common law duty argument that was first raised in reply. Under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 7(e)(1), reply memoranda must be limited to rebuttal of new matters, and parties cannot raise substantive new arguments without giving opponents a chance to respond.

Practice Implications
This decision reinforces the fundamental principle of procedural fairness in motion practice. Practitioners should avoid raising new substantive arguments in reply briefs and ensure that all key arguments are presented in opening motions. When opponents do raise new issues in reply, consider requesting leave to file a sur-reply or asking the court to strike the improper arguments. The decision also provides guidance on analyzing municipal ordinances under the Colosimo framework for determining when they create tort duties.