Opinion
Case No. 20010888-CA.
FILED February 6, 2003. (Not For Official Publication)
Third District, Salt Lake Department, The Honorable Ronald E. Nehring.
Attorneys: Michael J. Petro, Springville, for Appellant.
Michael L. Deamer and Gregory N. Hoole, Salt Lake City, for Appellees.
Before Judges Jackson, Greenwood, and Thorne.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
This case comes before this court on appeal from a grant of summary judgment for Defendants, Jones, Jenson, Orton Co. (JJOC) and Robert Gordon Jones. Plaintiff, Paperwise, Inc. fka Techknowlogy Acquisition, Inc. (Paperwise), brought suit against JJOC and Jones for negligence and negligent misrepresentation based on Defendants' annual audit for a third company, Techknowlogy, Inc. (Techknowlogy). Paperwise was negotiating to acquire Techknowlogy through a share exchange during JJOC's audit. In granting Defendants' summary judgment motion, the trial court determined both that there was no privity between JJOC and Paperwise, and that JJOC did not cause any damage to Paperwise. Paperwise appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there were material issues of fact as to JJOC's knowledge of Paperwise's acquisition negotiations and damages suffered by Paperwise. We affirm.
"Summary judgment is granted only when `there is no genuine issue as to any material fact' and `the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" Bearden v. Croft, 2001 UT 76,¶ 5, 31 P.3d 537 (quoting Utah R.Civ.P. 56(c)). "In considering an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts in a light most favorable to the losing party below . . . [giving] no deference to the trial court's conclusions of law: those conclusions are reviewed for correctness." Blue Cross Blue Shield v. State, 779 P.2d 634, 636 (Utah 1989).
The trial court granted summary judgment because it concluded "[t]here is no evidence in the record that would support a finding that Plaintiff suffered any damage as a result of JJOC's conduct." We agree and affirm on that basis. FootnotePaperwise has no standing because they did not provide any evidence to show they were damaged by JJOC's audit of Techknowlogy. "To have standing, [Paperwise] `must be able to show that [it has] suffered some distinct and palpable injury.'" Stocks v. United States Fid. Guar. Co., 2000 UT App 139,¶ 10, 3 P.3d 722 (quoting Jenkins v. Swan, 675 P.2d 1145, 1148 (Utah 1983)).
Paperwise has not suffered "palpable injury," regardless of JJOC's involvement with Techknowlogy's audit, because there is no evidence of monetary loss. FootnoteFirst, Paperwise never received the Asian Pacific account receivable, that they claim was misstated in the audit.FootnoteSecond, Paperwise was not damaged by any alleged accounting error because Paperwise never paid for the Techknowlogy stock.FootnotePaperwise was not damaged by any action of JJOC; therefore, we hold that the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Norman H. Jackson, Presiding Judge, and William A. Thorne Jr., Judge, concur.