nga tuyet thi ho v. jim's enterprises, inc dba silver ... brigham young university law school byu...

Download NGA Tuyet Thi Ho v. Jim's Enterprises, Inc dba Silver ... Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law

Post on 14-Mar-2021

0 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons

    Utah Supreme Court Briefs

    2000

    NGA Tuyet Thi Ho v. Jim's Enterprises, Inc dba Silver Smith Casino & Resort and John Does 1-10 : Reply Brief Utah Supreme Court

    Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc2

    Part of the Law Commons

    Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Supreme Court; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Vinh K. Ly; attorneys for appellant. Cynthia K.C. Meyer, Jeffrey C. Miner; Morgan, Meyer & Rice; attorneys for appellee.

    This Reply Brief is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Supreme Court Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at hunterlawlibrary@byu.edu with questions or feedback.

    Recommended Citation Reply Brief, Ho v. Jim's Enterprises, No. 20000023.00 (Utah Supreme Court, 2000). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc2/378

    https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu?utm_source=digitalcommons.law.byu.edu%2Fbyu_sc2%2F378&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc2?utm_source=digitalcommons.law.byu.edu%2Fbyu_sc2%2F378&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc2?utm_source=digitalcommons.law.byu.edu%2Fbyu_sc2%2F378&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/578?utm_source=digitalcommons.law.byu.edu%2Fbyu_sc2%2F378&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc2/378?utm_source=digitalcommons.law.byu.edu%2Fbyu_sc2%2F378&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html

  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH

    -00O00-

    NGA TUYET THI HO,

    Plaintiff and Appellant,

    REPLY BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT NGA TUYET THI HO

    JIM'S ENTERPRISES, INC., dba SILVER SMITH CASINO & RESORT, and JOHN DOES #1 through #10,

    Defendant and Appellee.

    Priority No. 15

    Case No. 2000-0023-SC

    Trial Court Case No 99-0906928

    —ooOoo—

    APPEAL FROM FINAL ORDER OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

    SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH (HONORABLE STEPHEN L. HENRIOD)

    Vinh K. Ly, #6922 2900 South State Street Ste 208 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Email: lawyerVinh@aol.com Telephone: (801) 487-9111 Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant

    Cynthia Meyer, #5050 Jeffrey C. Miner, #7258 136 South Main Street, Eight Floor SLCUT 84101 Telephone (801) 531-7888 Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee

    F I L E

    CLERK SUPREME COURT UTAH

    mailto:lawyerVinh@aol.com

  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH

    -ooOoo—

    NGA TUYET THI HO,

    Plaintiff and Appellant,

    REPLY BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT NGA TUYET THI HO

    JIM'S ENTERPRISES, INC., dba SILVER SMITH CASINO & RESORT, and JOHN DOES #1 through #10,

    Defendant and Appellee.

    Priority No. 15

    Case No. 2000-0023-SC

    Trial Court Case No. 99-0906928

    —ooOoo—

    APPEAL FROM FINAL ORDER OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

    SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH (HONORABLE STEPHEN L. HENRIOD)

    Cynthia Meyer, #5050 Jeffrey C. Miner, #7258 136 South Main Street, Eight Floor SLC UT 84101 Telephone (801) 531-7888 Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee

    Vinh K. Ly, #6922 2900 South State Street Ste 208 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Email: lawyer Vinh@aol.com Telephone: (801)487-9111 Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant

    mailto:Vinh@aol.com

  • TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Page

    TABLE OF CONTENTS ii

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii

    REPLY TO APPELLEE'S NATURE OF THE CASE 1

    REPLY TO APPELLEE'S COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS 1

    REPLY TO APPELLEE'S STATEMENT OF FACTS 2

    REPLY TO APPELLEE'S SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 2

    ARGUMENT 4

    POINT I. UTAH COURTS HAVE GENERAL PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER SILVER SMITH 4

    POINT II. PLAINTIFF'S INJURIES DIRECTLY AROSE OUT OF DEFENDANT'S CONTACTS WITH UTAH AND, THEREFORE, SPECIFIC PERSONAL JURISDICTION EXISTS 14

    POINT III. THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE BUDDENSICK OPINION WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS NOT MOOT AND SILVER SMITH'S ARGUMENTS IN THIS REGARD FAIL 18

    CONCLUSION 25

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 25

    ii

  • TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page

    CASE LAW

    Abbott G.M. Diesel v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 578 P.2d 850, 853 n.6. (Utah 1978) .. 14

    Alexander v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 939 F.2d 847, 854 (9th Cir. 1991),

    reversed, 972 F.2d 261 (9th Cir. 1991) 16

    AMS Salt Indus., Inc. v. Magnesium Corp. of America, 942 P.2d 315 (Utah 1997) 13

    Arguello v. Indus-Woodworking Mach. Co., 838 P.2d 1120 (Utah 1992) 15

    Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 114 (1987) 8

    Buddensick v. Stateline Hotel, Inc. 972 P.2d 928 (Utah Ct. App. 1998),

    cert, denied, 982 P.2d 88 (Utah 1999), cert, denied, 120 S. Ct. 34

    (1999) 3, 4, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25

    Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) 11

    Carnival Cruise Lines Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991) 16

    Cottrill v. Cottrill Sodding Serv., 744 P.2d 895 (Mont. 1987) 12, 14

    Ensign Bank v. Gerald Modell, Inc., 557 N.Y.S. 2d 370 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990) .. 12

    Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1985) . . . . 7,8,9

    Hill v. Zale Corp., 482 P.2d 332 (Utah 1971) 11

    INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) 20

    Johnson v. Allen, 158 P.2d 134 (Utah 1945) 25

    McGriff v. Charles Antell, Inc., 256 P.2d 703, 704-705 (Utah 1953) 6, 7

    Munlev v. Second Judicial District Court, 761 P.2d 414 (Nev. 1988) 17

    Parry v. Ernst Home Center Corp., 779 P.2d 659 (Utah 1989) 12, 15

    Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952) 7-8, 9

    Radcliff v. Akhavan, 875 P.2d 608, 611 (Utah 1994) 16

    Regional Sales Agency, Inc. v. Reichert, 830 P.2d 252 (Utah 1992) 20

    iii

  • Page

    Rhoades v. Wright. 622 P.2d 343 (Utah 1980) 9, 10, 11,15

    Rocky Mountain Claim Staking v. Frandse. 884 P.2d 1299 (Utah App. 1994) 16

    Rush v. Savchuk. 433 U.S. 320 (1980) 10

    Sevy v. Security Title Co.. 902 P.2d 629 (Utah 1995) 22

    Shaffer v. Heintner. 433 U.S. 186 (1977) 10

    State v. Archambeau. 820 P.2d 920 (Utah App. 1991) 12

    State v. Brown. 856 P.2d 358 (Utah App. 1993) 12

    State ex rel. Circus Circus Reno v. Pope. 854 P.2d 461 (Ore. 1993) 17

    Unitah Oil Refining Co. v. Continental Oil Co.. 226 F. Supp. 495 (Utah 1964) . . . 21

    Wims v. Beach Terrace Motor Inn. Inc.. 759 F. Supp. 264 (E.D. Pa. 1991) 17

    Winegar v. Slim Olsen, Inc.. 252 P.2d 205 (Utah 1953) 21

    World-Wide Vokswagen Corp. v. Woodson. 444 U.S. 286, 298 (1980) 11

    STATUTES

    UTAH CODE ANNOTATED

    § 78-27-22 14

    RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

    Rule 3.3(a)(3) 23-24

    OTHER AUTHORITIES

    Black Law's Dictionary. 7th Ed. p. 128 (1999) 21

    Rule 11 and Federalizing Lawyer Ethics. B.Y.U. L. Rev. 959 (1991) 21

    IV

  • Appellant Nga Ho respectfully submits her Reply Brief.

    REPLY TO APPELLEE'S NATURE OF THE CASE

    Although Appellee claims it is a Nevada corporation and does business in

    Wendover, Nevada, it conducted and continues to conduct substantial and continuous

    business in Wendover, Utah and in the entire State of Utah.

    REPLY TO APPELLEE'S COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS

    In its Course of Proceedings and elsewhere, it is inaccurate for Silver Smith to

    state only interrogatories 8 and 9 sought jurisdictional facts and others did not.

    Interrogatory #1 asked for names of the incorporators., date and place of business; #10

    concerned other lawsuits, including parties' names, filing place, court case numbers

    and disposition; #16 asked for other accidents, parties' names and addresses, and legal

    proceedings relating thereto prior to this case; #17 asked for other accidents, parties'

    names and addresses, and legal proceedings relating thereto subsequent to this case;

    #19 asked for identities (address and phone numbers) of any party that might be

    related to the case; #32 requested for identities, addresses of persons receiving notice,

    reports, statement relating to the case; #41 asked for information on insurer and policy

    custodians' names and addresses. (R. 93 - 106). Most, if not all, of these

    interrogatories sought jurisdictional facts. Had Appellee honestly answered them, the

    alter ego and others would have been exposed as one entity of unity of interest, their

    common owners revealed as Utah residents, and named under John Does 1-10.

    1

  • While admittedly not until after the Motion to Reconsider was decided that the

    trial court entered the Order of Dismissal, Silver Smith did not file with the trial court

    the Order of Dismissal at anytime prior the Motion to Reconsider was considered until

    12