 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Yanaki v. Iomed5/26/2005
For Official Publication
Before Judges Davis, Jackson, and Orme.
Jamal Yanaki appeals the trial court's dismissal of his claims against Iomed, Inc. (Iomed), Robert J. Lollini, and Mary Crowther (collectively, Defendants). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In April 2002, Iomed filed suit against Yanaki (the first case), claiming that he had breached two agreements he had entered into during his employment with Iomed (the IP Agreement and the Education Agreement). In response to this suit, Yanaki filed a counterclaim against Iomed in early 2003, joining Lollini and Crowther, and asserting that Iomed had breached the IP Agreement, that Iomed had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and that Defendants had published defamatory statements about him.
After Iomed had initiated the first case, but before Yanaki filed his counterclaim against Defendants, Yanaki filed complaints with both the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division (UALD) and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that Defendants had engaged in discriminatory employment practices against him by reason of his Arab ethnicity. On March 26, 2003, Yanaki received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, indicating that it would not investigate his case any further, but that he had a right to privately pursue the matter in court.
On June 24, 2003, Yanaki filed a separate suit against Defendants (the instant case), alleging that they engaged in discriminatory employment practices, which included Iomed's attempts to enforce the IP Agreement and the Education Agreement. On July 29, 2003, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the instant case, arguing that all of Yanaki's claims in the instant case should have been brought as compulsory counterclaims, see Utah R. Civ. P. 13(a), in the first case. The trial court agreed with Defendants and dismissed all of Yanaki's claims in the instant case without prejudice. Yanaki appeals this dismissal.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Yanaki argues that the trial court erred by dismissing his claims in the instant case under rule 13(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. "Because the propriety of a motion to dismiss is a question of law, we review for correctness, giving no deference to the decision of the trial court." Shipman v. Evans, 2004 UT 44, , 100 P.3d 1151 (quotations and citation omitted).
ANALYSIS
Rule 13(a) provides, in relevant part, that " pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject-matter of the opposing party's claim." Utah R. Civ. P. 13(a). "The purpose of rule 13(a) is to ensure that all relevant claims arising out of a given transaction are litigated in the same action." Raile Family Trust v. Promax Dev. Corp., 2001 UT 40, , 24 P.3d 980.
After reviewing Iomed's complaint in the first case, Yanaki's counterclaim, and Yanaki's claims in the instant case, we hold that Yanaki's claims in the instant case should have been brought as compulsory counterclaims in the first case, pursuant to rule 13(a). The central issues in both cases are based upon Yanaki's employment relationship with Iomed, the IP Agreement, and the Education Agreement. As such, we conclude that Yanaki's claims in the instant case clearly "arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject-matter of" the first case. Utah R. Civ. P. 13(a). Requiring Yanaki to bring his claims from the instant case as counterclaims in the first case will ensure that all the relevant claims
Page 1 2 3 Utah Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|