Court of Appeals hears Bloodworth challenge to disqualification, denied amendment and arbitration referral

Summary

In oral argument before a three-judge Utah Court of Appeals panel, appellant Sage Bloodworth argued she was denied the right to amend her pleading and that multiple tribunals failed to substantively address whether opposing counsel should have been disqualified; appellees urged discretion and reliance on arbitration and existing precedent.

A three-judge panel of the Utah Court of Appeals on the bench led by Judge Ryan Tenney on Thursday heard argument in Bloodworth v. Bennett, where appellant Sage Bloodworth urged the court to overturn rulings that she says denied her the right to amend pleadings and failed to substantively resolve whether counsel for the company should have been disqualified.

Bloodworth, speaking for the appellant, told the panel that the central error below was procedural and dispositive: "The number 1 issue that I would like to focus on here is the fact that I never was given a right to amend my pleading based on their amended pleading," she said, describing a stay entered December 2021 and subsequent orders she says altered the parties' litigation posture. She also argued the district court did not supply findings explaining its decision on disqualification and described delay and the referral to arbitration as entwined problems.

The issue matters, Bloodworth told the court,…

Court of Appeals hears Bloodworth challenge to disqualification, denied amendment and arbitration referral

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading