Utah Supreme Court
Must an interlocutory order comply with Rule 7(f)(2) before Rule 54(b) certification? Butler v. Corp. of the Pres. Explained
Summary
Butler sued COP for personal injury, and COP obtained summary judgment. COP then sought Rule 54(b) certification without having first obtained a Rule 7(f)(2) implementing order for the summary judgment ruling. Butler’s appeal was filed after the time period had allegedly run.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Christy Butler filed a personal injury lawsuit against Lauren K. Ford and the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (COP), seeking to hold COP vicariously liable under respondeat superior theory. The district court granted COP’s motion for summary judgment in a memorandum decision, but no implementing order was prepared or entered as required by Rule 7(f)(2). Approximately one month later, COP filed a motion for Rule 54(b) certification seeking to make the summary judgment ruling immediately appealable. The court signed the proposed certification order, but COP failed to properly serve it on Butler as required by the rules.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two critical questions: (1) whether an interlocutory decision is subject to the implementing order requirements of Rule 7(f)(2), and (2) whether a Rule 54(b) certification can satisfy Rule 7(f)(2) requirements for an interlocutory decision. The court also had to determine whether Butler’s appeal was timely filed given the procedural irregularities.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court answered both questions in the affirmative but emphasized that a single order satisfying both rules must meet the requirements of each. The court held that Rule 7(f)(2) compliance is a prerequisite to valid Rule 54(b) certification. Because the summary judgment ruling lacked a proper implementing order under Rule 7(f)(2), the subsequent Rule 54(b) certification was invalid. The court explained that while a district court may issue a combined order satisfying both rules simultaneously, it must strictly comply with both sets of requirements.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies the relationship between Rule 7(f)(2) and Rule 54(b), establishing that procedural compliance with implementing order requirements cannot be bypassed through certification. Practitioners must ensure that interlocutory rulings first satisfy Rule 7(f)(2) through one of three methods: court approval of a proposed order submitted with the initial memorandum, proper service of a proposed order within the required timeframe, or explicit court direction that no additional order is necessary. The decision promotes certainty in determining when appeal periods begin to run and prevents confusion about the finality of court rulings.
Case Details
Case Name
Butler v. Corp. of the Pres.
Citation
2014 UT 41
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
Nos. 20130612, 20130709
Date Decided
October 3, 2014
Outcome
Dismissed
Holding
A district court may not certify as final an interlocutory ruling under Rule 54(b) that has not satisfied the implementing order requirements of Rule 7(f)(2).
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law regarding appellate jurisdiction
Practice Tip
When seeking Rule 54(b) certification of an interlocutory ruling, ensure that a Rule 7(f)(2) implementing order has first been properly prepared, served, and entered for the underlying ruling.
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.