A judge has agreed to dismiss a substantial portion of a 2022 lawsuit filed by 12 local off-highway vehicle (OHV) businesses and an advocacy group against the City of Moab and Grand County, for ordinances that restricted OHVs and related businesses.
Seventh Judicial District Judge Don Torgerson agreed to dismiss 11 of 12 claims with prejudice, meaning they cannot be brought back to the attention of the court. Only one claim, for declaratory relief, remains.
Moreover, all individual defendants were released from the lawsuit, which remains against only the city and county themselves. The 17 individuals included members of the previous Grand County Commission and Moab City Council as well as other elected officials and staff.
Grand County Attorney Stephen Stocks said he viewed the March 28 order as a big win.
“That’s exciting news for the county, as the ability for [the plaintiffs] to get substantial damages is now no longer a threat,” Stocks said at the April 2 Grand County Commission meeting.
The plaintiffs — originally 12, now 11 local OHV outfitter and rental companies and the BlueRibbon Coalition, a motorized recreation advocacy group — had sought $1 million from the city and county. Their Sept. 26, 2022, complaint alleged that various local regulations enacted in 2020 and 2021 had unduly burdened their operations, costing revenue and clientele.
But plaintiffs said they found it wise to drop many of the allegations after a 2022 Utah bill — passed by the state Legislature the same days plaintiffs filed the preludes to their lawsuit — repealed many of the regulations the lawsuit itself targeted.
BlueRibbon Coalition Executive Director Ben Burr said the legislation, House Bill 146, rendered somewhat moot the businesses’ claims of financial harm.
“To this day, these businesses can still point to their balance sheets to where the actions from the city and county hurt their business,” Burr said. “[But] once HB 146 got passed, it really mitigated some of those damages that were starting to occur and brought some relief to the situation.”
The bill rolled back Grand County laws that required OHV companies to test their vehicles for compliance with a noise ordinance; maintain inventory lists; install whip flags and stickers on vehicles; restrict their caravan and fleet sizes; and, in some cases, become liable for clients’ behavior.
It did not touch, however, a cap on OHV businesses in the county, or noise ordinances passed by both Moab and Grand County. The noise ordinances require motor vehicles to comply with decibel limits, typically capped at 92 decibels as measured 20 inches from an exhaust outlet. Both ordinances also set stricter limits overnight.
Burr said BlueRibbon still believes the noise ordinances may illegally target street-legal OHVs. That’s what he hopes the sole outstanding claim, for declaratory relief, will clarify.
“We would still like to see what a judge has to say about that so we know where we stand,” Burr said. “We’ll decide what to do next from there.”
A declaratory judgement doesn’t typically result in substantial damages — Stocks said either side could win a symbolic sum, like $1 — but it would provide clarity about the legality of the ordinances germane to the original lawsuit.
“The government … passed some ordinances and based on that the county was sued,” Stocks said. “Now the question is whether it was legally permissible to have passed those ordinances.”
Stocks said arguments for that claim will likely occur in late summer or early fall.
Originally, plaintiffs alleged that the city and county had passed “broad and sweeping” prohibitions “repugnant to law” that had unfairly targeted their OHV outfitter, guide and rental operations, making it harder for them to obtain business licenses and conduct day-to-day operations.
The two government entities, the lawsuit argued, “acted with malicious intent, or at the very least with a reckless disregard,” costing plaintiffs no less than $1 million in lost revenue.
The 11 now-dismissed claims include gross negligence, ordinary negligence, intentional interference with economic relations, civil conspiracy and violations of the rights to: free speech, free association, due process, and employment and the free market.
The county, however, contended that its regulations were entirely lawful, fair and justified to protect citizens’ health.
“Grand County has acted at all times to further the legitimate governmental interest of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its inhabitants and its visitors,” reads the county’s October 2022 response to the lawsuit. “And its actions are grounded in science, law and equity.”
Similarly, lawyers for the City of Moab argued their ordinances were legitimate attempts to ensure public safety and curb noise pollution, calling the lawsuit’s claims “baseless and untenable.”
“In the end, if the various BlueRibbon plaintiffs are unhappy about their city’s ordinances and resolutions, their avenue of redress lies at the ballot box, not the courthouse,” reads the city’s Feb. 29 motion for summary judgement.
