Clear Creek v. Peterson Pipeline
Clear Creek v. Peterson Pipeline, 2024 UT App 22 (Luthy, J.)
Civil Procedure
Peterson Pipeline brought several claims against Clear Creek in a prior lawsuit. After all of Peterson Pipeline’s claims were dismissed without prejudice, Clear Creek initiated this lawsuit asserting claims that arose from the same transaction as Peterson Pipeline’s initial suit. Peterson Pipeline moved for dismissal, arguing that Clear Creek’s claims were compulsory counterclaims and were therefore barred by rule 13(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court agreed and dismissed Clear Creek’s claims. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding:
- The district court erred when it concluded that rule 13(a)’s remedy for a party’s failure to file a compulsory claim was appropriate here. Because Peterson Pipeline’s claims were dismissed without prejudice, Clear Creek’s counterclaims were not compulsory.