Strong & Hanni has long been recognized as one of the top litigation firms in the State of Utah.  Here are just a few examples of recent courtroom victories by Strong & Hanni attorneys:

Dismissal of Wrongful Termination Case Affirmed on Appeal

Kristin VanOrman and Jeremy Knight obtained a summary judgment on behalf of their client, Davis County, in a case filed by former police officer who claimed he was wrongfully terminated by the County. The trial court’s ruling was affirmed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that the officer had not been deprived of his procedural or substantive due process rights, and had not been constructively discharged. 

Summary Judgement Granted In Favor of Property Manager in Construction Defect Case

Robert Janicki and Michael Ford obtained summary judgment in favor of their client, a property manager, in a construction defect case. The case arose out of a flooding incident that occurred at a warehouse as a result of the failure of a sprinkler pipe that was part of the fire suppression system. The insurance company for the warehouse tenant sued the property manager and the fire sprinkler inspection company, alleging negligence by both. Strong & Hanni filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of its client, arguing that the property manager owed no duty of care to a tenant to discover a latent defect in the property. The trial court agreed and granted the motion for summary judgment.

Summary Judgement Granted to Olive Distributor in Tuna Sandwich Case

Steve Trayner and Scott Jacobson obtained summary judgment in a food defect claim involving allegations that the plaintiff broke several teeth when he bit into what was alleged to be an olive pit in a tuna sandwich purchased from a sandwich shop. Strong & Hanni’s client was the olive distributor that sold the olives to the sandwich shop. The food expert retained to test the alleged olive pit fragments determined that the objects were actually pebbles covered with asphalt. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the olive distributor after plaintiff was unable to rebut the food expert’s findings, and unable to produce any evidence to suggest that the pebbles may have been packaged with the olives. Plaintiff was allowed to proceed with his claims against the sandwich shop.

Summary Judgment Granted in two Medical Malpractice Cases

Cathy Larson and Suzette Goucher obtained summary judgment in favor of their client, the defendant doctor in a medical malpractice claim. The case involved claims filed on behalf of a decedent who had gone to the emergency room complaining of chest pain. After several tests, including a CT angiogram, the decedent was discharged with instructions to return for a follow up visit. The decedent died several days later as a result of an ascending aortic dissection. Plaintiff alleged that the doctor was negligent in his treatment of the decedent and failure to diagnose the condition. Strong & Hanni moved for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff’s sole medical expert failed to present evidence establishing the standard of care which the doctor was required to meet. The trial court agreed that plaintiff had failed to meet the burden of introducing expert medical testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, and therefore, dismissed the claim on summary judgment.  

Scott Williams, Suzette Goucher, and Jennifer Carrizal obtained summary judgment in favor of their clients, the defendants in a medical practice claim. The case involved a claim that defendants were negligent with regards to the techniques used to obtain radiology images of plaintiff’s back, and that plaintiff was injured during the course of obtaining the images. After several different expert designation deadlines passed without plaintiff designating any medical experts, Strong & Hanni moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff had failed to meet her burden of presenting expert medical testimony to establish both the standard of care and causation. The trial court agreed that Utah law requires expert medical testimony in medical malpractice cases to establish the standard of care and causation, and that plaintiff had failed to present a prima facie case of medical negligence by failing to designate a medical expert on either of these issues. Therefore summary judgment was granted, and plaintiff’s claims dismissed.    

Dismissal of Employment Discrimination and Retaliation Claim Affirmed

Stan Fitts and Aaron Jacobs successfully defended McDonalds and CES, Inc. in a recent employment discrimination and retaliation case before the Utah Anti-Discrimination Division. The plaintiff asserted a variety of discrimination claims on the basis of age, gender, national origin and ethnic background arising out of two separate adverse employment determinations. The plaintiff also asserted retaliation claims on the basis that the second adverse employment decision followed the plaintiff’s initial charge with the Utah Labor Commission. The ALJ granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against McDonalds and CES, Inc. The ALJ’s decision was affirmed on appeal to the Utah Labor Commission.

Claims Against California Insurance Broker Dismissed for Lack of Persona Jurisdiction

Steve Trayner and Scott Jacobson prevailed on a motion to dismiss on behalf of their client, a California insurance broker. The case involved a suit filed by a Utah based financing company against a California insurance broker and a Louisiana based insurance company seeking to recover property damages sustained to a trailer which had been leased to a non-Utah resident. Strong & Hanni moved for dismissal of the claims against its client for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the California insurance broker had not conducted any business in Utah and had done nothing to subject itself to the jurisdiction of the Utah state court. The trial court agreed and dismissed the claims against the insurance broker for lack of jurisdiction.

Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Employee Driver

Steve Trayner and Arek Butler recently obtained summary judgment dismissing one of their clients as a defendant in a personal injury case. Strong & Hanni’s client, an employee of a Salt Lake City business, was involved in an auto accident while commuting home from work. Plaintiff incurred over $100,000 in medical expenses allegedly due to the accident. Plaintiff filed suit against the business claiming the employee was acting in the scope and course of his employment at the time of the accident. However, plaintiff failed to name the employee as a party to the suit in his original complaint, but filed an amended complaint adding the employee as a party eight days after the running of the statute of limitations on the cause of action. Plaintiff argued that the amended complaint related back to the date of the original complaint pursuant to Rule 15 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Strong & Hanni successfully argued that for the amended complaint to relate back, the employee must have an “identity of interest” with the employer, but because the employee and the employer would have different defenses at trial they could not have a legal “identity of interest.”   The trial court agreed in granting summary judgment and dismissing all claims against Strong & Hanni’s client.