Filed: Dec. 23, 2010
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2010
Summary: Not For Official Publication MEMORANDUM DECISION ORME, Judge: "Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fericks v. Lucy Ann Soffe Trust , 2004 UT 85, 10, 100 P.3d 1200 . See Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). We review a grant of summary judgment for correctness, giving no particular deference to the district court's conclusions of law. See Fericks , 2004 UT 85, 10. Draper City listed
Summary: Not For Official Publication MEMORANDUM DECISION ORME, Judge: "Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fericks v. Lucy Ann Soffe Trust , 2004 UT 85, 10, 100 P.3d 1200 . See Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). We review a grant of summary judgment for correctness, giving no particular deference to the district court's conclusions of law. See Fericks , 2004 UT 85, 10. Draper City listed ..
More
Not For Official Publication
MEMORANDUM DECISION
ORME, Judge:
"Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fericks v. Lucy Ann Soffe Trust, 2004 UT 85, ¶ 10, 100 P.3d 1200. See Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). We review a grant of summary judgment for correctness, giving no particular deference to the district court's conclusions of law. See Fericks, 2004 UT 85, ¶ 10.
Draper City listed eighteen facts in its memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment. Van Beuge did not controvert the facts set forth in the City's memorandum. See Utah R. Civ. P. 7(c)(3)(B). Accordingly, the City's facts were deemed admitted for summary judgment purposes. See id. 7(c)(3)(A).1
We conclude that the district court did not err in holding that these facts establish that Van Beuge was not a permanent employee. Specifically, the undisputed facts show that, because of numerous job performance issues, Van Beuge was told by his superior that his probationary status was being extended an additional six months. Further, Van Beuge's supervisor confirmed in an email to the City's human resources department that he had informed Van Beuge of the extension of his probationary status. Additionally, a performance evaluation report, signed by Van Beuge, stated that Van Beuge's probationary period was ending but also recommended it be extended. Finally, although a human resources employee prepared a Personnel Action Form that purported to memorialize a change in Van Beuge's status from "probationary" to "permanent," the employee explained that she had made a copy-and-paste clerical mistake while generating a batch of personnel forms and did not have authority to change Van Beuge's employment status to permanent.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR: J. Frederic Voros Jr., Judge and Stephen L. Roth, Judge.
