Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.8 Page 1 of 41
`
`R
`
`EXECUTIVE
`
`J. Tayler Fox (12092)
`John V. Tipton (17334)
`DnNroNs Dunn¿.vr Jo¡,rns Pr¡rncAR P.C.
`l1l South Main Street, Suite 2400
`PO Box 4050
`salt Lake city, uT 84110-4050
`Telephone: (801) 415-3000
`tavl er. foxlâdenton s. co m
`john.tipton@dentons. com
`
`Auorneys þr Plaintff
`
`SERVED
`DÆE
`
`RELATION
`IIME
`
`\0"4q-
`
`NO,
`
`WÀSAÎCH ÆÏORNÊY
`,l40ü
`S0, #7
`r 24 W,
`SAI.I I.AKE CIY UT 64
`
`rì5
`
`#Pl00877
`
`800-970-8220
`
`If you do not respond to this
`document within applicable time
`limits, judgment could be entered
`against you âs requested.
`
`IN THE FOURTH JI]DICIAL DISTRICT COURT
`MILLARD COTINTY, STATE OF UTAH
`
`DARRELL SMITH,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS
`
`UTAH DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
`AND FOOD, SIIANN FINLINSON; THANE
`MARSHALL; COREY CATTLE
`COMPANY,LLC; and MIKE COREY,
`
`Defendants.
`
`STATE OF UTAH TO DEFENDANT:
`
`SUMMONS
`
`Case No. 210700043
`
`Judge Anthony Howell
`
`Tier 3 Discovery
`
`Utah Department of Agriculture and Food
`c/o Office of the Attomey General
`Utah State Capitol Complex
`350 North State Street Suite 230
`Salt Lake city, uT 84114-2320
`
`You are hereby summoned and required to flrle an Answer in writing to the attached
`
`Complaint wrth the Clerk of the above Court located at765 S UT-99 Suite 6, Fillmore, UT,
`
`84631, and to serve upon or mail to J. Tayler Fox, attomey for Plaintiff, at I I 1 South Main
`
`Street, Suite 2400, PO Box 4050, Salt Lake City, Utah 841I l, a copy of said Answer, \ryITHIN
`
`TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS after service of this Summons upon you. If you fail to do so,
`
`sLC 565326r.1
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.9 Page 2 of 41
`
`judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in said Complaint, which
`
`has been filed with the Court, a copy of which is attached hereto and herewith served upon you.
`
`DATED: November 29, 2021
`
`Dnxroxs DunrreuJoNEs PINEGAR P.C.
`
`/s/ J. Tavler Fox
`J. Tayler Fox
`John V. Tipton
`
`At to rn e y s fo r P I ai nt iff
`
`sl,c 5653261.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.10 Page 3 of 41
`
`Bilingual Notice to Responding Party for ln-State Summons (for compliance with URcP 4)
`
`A lawsuit has been filed against you. You
`must respond in writing by the deadline for
`the court to consider your side. The written
`response is called an Answer.
`
`Deadlinel
`Your Answer must be filed with the court
`and served on the other party within 2l
`days of the date you were served with this
`Summons.
`
`lf you do not file and serve your Answer by
`the deadline, the other party can ask the
`court for a default judgment. A default
`judgment means the other party can get
`what they asked for, and you do not get the
`chance to tell your side of the story.
`
`Read the complainUpetition
`The Complaint or Petition has been filed
`with the court and explains what the other
`party is asking for in their lawsuit. Read it
`carefully.
`
`Answer the complainUpetition
`You must file your Answer in writing with
`the court within 2l days of the date you
`were served with this Summons. You can
`find an Answer form on the court's website:
`
`utcourts.gov/ans'ffi
`
`Scan QR code
`to visit page
`
`Se ha presentado una demanda en su
`contra. Si desea que eljuez considere su
`lado, deberá presentar una respuesta por
`escrito dentro del periodo de tiempo
`establecido. La respuesta por escrito es
`conocida como la Respuesta.
`¡Fecha lfmite para contestar!
`Su Respuesta debe ser presentada en el
`tribunal y también con la debida entrega
`formal a la otra parte dentro de 21días a
`partir de la fecha en que usted recibió la
`entrega formal del Citatorio.
`
`Si usted no presenta una respuesta ni
`hace la entrega formal dentro del plazo
`establecido, la otra parte podrá pedirle al
`juez que asiente un fallo por
`incumplimiento. Un fallo por
`incumplimiento significa que la otra parte
`recibe lo que pidió, y usted no tendrá la
`oportunidad de decir su versión de los
`hechos.
`
`Lea la demanda o petición
`La demanda o petición fue presentada en
`el tribunal y ésta explica lo que la otra
`parte pide. Léala cuidadosamente.
`
`Cómo responder a la demanda o
`petición
`Usted debe presentar su Respuesta por
`escrito en el tribunal dentro de 21días a
`partir de la fecha en que usted recibió la
`entrega formal del
`Citatorio. Puede
`encontrar el formulario
`para la presentación
`Para accesar esta página
`escanee el código QR
`de la Respuesta en la
`página del tribunal: utcou rts.gov/ans-
`span
`
`Serve the Answer on the other party
`You must email, mail or hand deliver a
`
`Entrega formal de la respuesta a la otra
`parte
`
`7015GEJ Approved January 22,2018 I
`Revised January 21,2021
`
`Bilingual Notice to Responding Party for
`ln-State Summons
`(for compliance with URCP 4)
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.11 Page 4 of 41
`
`Bilingual Notice to Responding Party for ln-State Summons (for comptiance with URcP 4)
`
`copy of your Answer to the other party (or
`their attorney or licensed paralegal
`practitioner, if they have one) at the
`address shown at the top left corner of the
`first page of this Summons.
`
`Finding help
`The court's Finding Legal
`Help web page
`(utcourts.gov/help¡
`provides information about Y.1,.3* "oo"
`ihe ways you can get legal 1o vrsrt pase
`help, including the Self-Help Center,
`reduced-fee attorneys, limited legal help
`and free legal clinics.
`
`Usted deberá enviar por correo
`electrónico, correo o entregar
`personalmente una copia de su Respuesta
`a la otra parte (o a su abogado o asistente
`legal, si tiene) a la dirección localizada en
`la esquina izquierda superior de la primera
`hoja del citatorio.
`
`Gómo encontrar ayuda legal
`Para información
`sobre maneras de
`obtener ayuda legal,
`vea nuestra página de Para accesar esta página
`lntefnet CómO
`escanee elcódieo QR
`Encontrar Ayuda Legal.
`(utco u rts. gov/h el p-spa n)
`Algunas maneras de obtener ayuda legal
`son por medio de una visita a un taller
`jurídico gratuito, o mediante el Centro de
`Ayuda. También hay ayuda legal a precios
`de descuento y consejo legal breve.
`
`An Arabic version of this document is available on the court's website:
`.>.9 i:r:.ri.,¡ñiyl Jr a^l*.!l y¡. Jr a¡Jtl oi¿ cr fur* åå*,j
`utcourts.gov/arabic
`
`¡åg--Jr,
`ll ¡_.¡l l
`o i¡;
`ó_.¡t ;j J Li - Jl
`A Simplified Chinese version of this document is available on the court's
`website:
`
`utcourts.gov/chinese
`
`A Vietnamese version of this document is available on the court's website
`Mqt bån tiéng Viêt cùa tài liêu này có sån trên trang web cùa tòa:
`utcourts.gov/viet
`
`iÊ+lffioR{-9ì¡
`lì.lFnn.
`
`Xin vui lòng quét mä
`QR (Trà loi nhanh)dè
`viéng trang
`
`701SGEJ Approved January 22,2018 I
`Revised January 21,2021
`
`Bil¡ngual Notice to Responding Party for
`ln-State Summons
`(for compliance with URCP 4)
`
`Page 2 ol 2
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.12 Page 5 of 41
`
`Ifyou do not respond to this
`document within applicable time
`limits, judgment could be entered
`against you as requested.
`
`J. Tayler Fox (12092)
`John V. Tipton (17334)
`DnNroNs DunnauJorns Pnvnc¡,n P.C.
`111 South Main Street, Suite 2400
`PO Box 4050
`Salt Lake City, UT 84110-4050
`Telephone: (801) 41 5-3000
`tayler. fox@dentons. com
`john.tipton@dentons. com
`
`Anorneys þr Plaintiff
`
`IN THE FOURTH JTJDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
`MILLARD CO['NTY, STATE OF UTAH
`
`DARRELL SMITII
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs
`
`UTAH DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
`AND FOOD; SHANN FINLINSON; THANE
`MARSHALL; COREY CATTLE
`COMPANY,LLC; and MIKE COREY,
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`Case No. 210700043
`
`Judge Anthony Howell
`
`Tier 3 Discovery
`
`Plaintiff Darrell Smith complains and alleges against Defendants Utah Department of
`
`Agriculture and Food, Shann Finlinson, Thane Marshall, Corey Cattle Company, LLC, and Mike
`
`Corey as follows:
`
`Utah.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
`
`Plaintiff Darrell Smith ("Mr. Smith") is an individual residing in Utah County,
`
`Defendant Utah Department of Agriculture and Food ("UDAF") is an agency of
`
`the State of Utah, organized underUtah Code $ 4-2-101, et seq.
`
`sLc 5592928.6
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.13 Page 6 of 41
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Shann Finlinson ("Mr, Finlinson") is an individual who is and was
`
`during all times relevant to the claims herein employed by UDAF as the full-time livestock and
`
`brand inspector for Millard County.
`4.
`
`Defendant Thane Marshall ("Mr. Marshall") is an individual v¡ho is and was
`
`during all times relevant to the claims herein employed by UDAF as the full-time supervisor
`
`brand inspector supervisor for Southem Utah.
`5.
`
`Defendant Corey Cattlø Company, LLC ("Corey Cattle") is a Utah limited
`
`liability company with its principal place of business in Delta, Utah.
`6.
`
`Defendant Mike Corey ("Mr. Corey") is an individual residing in Millard County,
`
`Utah.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, Mr. Corey is and was during all times relevant to the
`
`claims herein an owrrer and member of Corey Cattle.
`8.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over UDAF, Mr, Finlinson, and Mr. Marshall pursuant
`
`to Utah Code $ 63G-7-501.
`9.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over Corey Cattle and Mr. Corey pursuant to Utah
`
`Code $ 784-5-102.
`10. This Court is the proper venue for this action pursuant to Utah Code $$ 63G-7-
`
`s02(l ) and 788-3-3 07(1 ).
`11. This is a Tier 3 discovery case inasmuch as Plaintiff seeks more than $300,000 in
`
`damages.
`
`sLc 5592928.6
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.14 Page 7 of 41
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`12. Mr. Smith is an owner and member of Rising Sun Cattle Company, LLC ("Rising
`
`Sun"), a Utah limited liability company with its principal place of business in Payson, Utah.
`13. Rising Sun is a small cattle operation that specializes in raising and selling
`
`premium full blood and Fl Wagyu cattle.
`14. Mr. Smith has invested most of his personal assets into Rising Sun and raising
`
`Wagyu cattle.
`15. Mr. Smith and Rising Sun use a cattle brand registered in Utah as brand number
`
`I-7701-25 LH, '¡¿hich is placed on each cow's left hip and resembles the following ("Smith's
`
`Brand"):
`
`16. Corey Cattle operates a cartle feed lot in Delta, Utah where independent ranchers
`
`can house their cattle (the "Feed Lot").
`17, Corey Cattle raises its own cattle which it also houses on the Feed Lot.
`
`sLC 5592928.6
`
`J
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.15 Page 8 of 41
`
`18. Corey Cattle uses a cattle brand registered in Utah as brand number 1-0805-75
`
`RR, which is placed on each cow's right rib and resembles the following ("Core]¡ Cattle Brand"):
`
`Agreement w ith Core)¡ C attle
`19. In approximately March 2013, Mr. Smith began housing cattle on the Feed Lot
`
`that were either owned by Rising Sun or by Mr. Smith personally.
`20, This is a standard practice for cattle ranchers who have limited space available for
`
`gr azng and housing their livestock.
`21. Mr. Smith and Rising Sun would pay Corey Cattle for the costs of food and
`
`housing the cattle in exchange for placing the cattle on the Feed Lot and having Corey Cattle
`
`watch and care for the cattle while they grew and fattened for sale and slaughter.
`22. Additionally, Mr. Smith/Rising Sun and Corey Cattle agreed for a period that
`
`Corey Cattle could sell their cattle so long as Corey Cattle remitted all sales proceeds after
`
`deducting the costs of food and housing.
`23. However, Mr. Smith and Rising Sun revoked their permission for Corey Cattle to
`
`sell their cattle after an incident in2016 where Corey Cattle failed to remit nearly $68,000.00 of
`
`proceeds from the sale of cattle owned by Rising Sun.
`
`sLC 5592928.6
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.16 Page 9 of 41
`
`24. Because of this incident, Mr. Smith expressly told Mr. Corey that neither he nor
`
`Corey Cattle were authorized to sell any cattle owned by Mr, Smith or Rising Sun without their
`
`prior consent.
`25. Mr. Smith further instructed Mr. Corey to contact him when potential sales
`
`opportunities arose for consideration.
`
`Plainttff's Cattle
`26, Between Apnl2017 and January 2019, Mr. Smith transported 133 head of cattle
`
`from Salem, Utah to the Feed Lot.
`27. These 133 cattle were each marked with Smith's Brand.
`28. On or about October 15, 2018, Mr. Smith purchased 87 head of cattle from Leroy
`
`Oliver, a rancher in Pleasant View, Colorado.
`29. Leroy Oliver uses a cattle brand registered in Colorado as brand number 627050,
`
`which is placed on each cow's ear and resembles the following ("Oliver's Brand"):
`
`L.rO
`
`30. The 87 cattle Mr. Smith purchased were marked with Oliver's Brand.
`31. The 87 cattle were transported directly from Colorado to the Feed Lot on or about
`
`October 23,2018.
`32. Mr. Smith instructed Mr. Corey to re-brand the 87 cattle with Smith's Brand once
`
`they arrived from Colorado.
`
`sLC 5592928.6
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.17 Page 10 of 41
`
`33. Mr. Corey agreed to re-brand the 87 cattle when they arrived as instructed by Mr
`
`Smith,
`
`34. Upon information and beliel these 87 cattle were never re-branded with Smith's
`
`Brand and remain marked with Oliver's Brand.
`35. On or about December 12,2018, Mr. Smith purchased 63 head of cattle from Dan
`
`Duncan, a rancher in Yellow Jacket, Colorado.
`36. Dan Duncan uses a cattle brand registered in Colorado as brand number 198450,
`
`which is placed on each cow's left rib and resembles the following ("Duncan's Brand"):
`
`N
`
`37. The 63 cattle Mr. Smith purchased were marked with Duncan's Brand.
`38. The 63 cattle were transported directly from Colorado to the Feed Lot on or about
`
`December 12,2018.
`39. Mr. Smith again instructed Mr. Corey to re-brand the 63 cattle with Smith's
`
`Brand when they arrived from Colorado.
`' 40. Mr. Corey agreed to re-brand the 63 cattle when they arrived as instructed by Mr.
`
`Smith.
`
`4I. Upon information and belief, these 63 cattle were also never re-branded with
`
`Smith's Brand and remain marked with Duncan's Brand.
`42. In all, Mr. Smith placed 282 caltle on the Feed Lot from April 2017 to January
`
`2019, which are the cattle at issue in this action (the"282 Cattle").
`
`sLC 5592928.6
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.18 Page 11 of 41
`
`43. Mr. Smith never agreed to sell or otherwise transfer ownership of any of the 282
`
`Cattle to Corey Cattle or any other third-party.
`44. Mr. Smith never authorized Corey Cattle to brand any of these cattle with Corey
`
`Cattle's Brand or any brand other than Smith's Brand.
`45. Mr. Smith visited the Feed Lot several times per month to monitor the health and
`
`growth of his cattle.
`46. During these regular visits, Mr. Smith typically met with Mr. Corey or other
`
`employees of Corey Cattle to discuss any updates or issues regarding the cattle.
`
`Wrongful Trans.fer o.f the 282 Cattle
`47. On or about June 29,2019, Mr. Corey/Corey Cattle authorized the release and
`
`transportation of approximately 900 head of cattle from the Feed Lot, including Mr. Smith's 282
`
`Cattle, out of the State of Utah.
`48. Mr. Corey did this without Mr. Smith's knowledge or consent.
`49. Utah law required Corey Cattle to have a brand inspection conducted by the
`
`IIDAF before it could transport the 282 Cattle across state lines. See Utah Code $ 4-24-303.
`50. As part of the brand inspection LIDAF was required to verify the ownership of the
`
`inspected cattle based on their brand registrations, which are recorded in a central database often
`
`referred to as a "brand book."
`51. The brand inspection at issue was performed by Mr. Finlinson on June 29,2019.
`52. This inspection is evidenced by the Brand Inspection Certificates, attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.
`
`sLC 5592928.6
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.19 Page 12 of 41
`
`53. The Brand Inspection Certificates identify the "owner" of the 282 Cattle as "Titan
`
`Livestock" ("Titan"), a company based in Fort Collins, Colorado.
`54, However, Titan was not the owner of Mr. Smith's 282 Cattle.
`55. None of the brands on the 282 Cattle were registered to Titan.
`56. Corey Caffle was also not the owler of Mr. Smith's 282 Cattle.
`57. None of the brands on the 282 Cattle were registered to Corey Cattle.
`58. Rather, at the time of the inspection, Corey Cattle owed Titan millions of dolla¡s
`
`for stolen cattle and fraudulent feeding contracts. See Titan Feeding, LLC v. Corey CaÍtle
`
`Company, LLC,U.S. District of Colorado, Case No. l:I9-cv-02541,.
`59. To satisfy Corey Cattle's debts to Titan, Mr. Corey released the 900 head of
`
`cattle, including Mr. Smith's 282 Cattle, to Titan.
`60. Mr. Corey misrepresented in the Brand Inspection Certificates that he was an
`
`owner and/or agent of Titan with authority to transport the cattle.
`61. While conducting the brand inspection, Mr. Finlinson knew or should have
`
`known that the 282 Cattle were not owned by or registered to Titan or Corey Cattle based on the
`
`information available to him in the brand book.
`62. Mr. Finlinson knew or should have known that the 282 Cattle were owned by
`
`and/or registered to Mr. Smith, Mr. Oliver, and Mr. Duncan based on the brands on each of the
`
`cattle and the information available to Mr. Finlinson in the brand book.
`63. Mr. Finlinson knew or should have known that the Brand Inspection Certificates
`
`were falsified because they expressly misstated that cattle with brands registered to Mr. Smith,
`
`Mr. Oliver, and Mr. Duncan were owned by Titan.
`
`sLC 5592928.6
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.20 Page 13 of 41
`
`64. Mr. Finlinson never contacted Mr. Smith nor inquired whether Mr. Smith had
`
`sold or otherwise transfered any of the 282 Cattle to Corey Cattle or to Titan.
`65. Mr. Finlinson failed to stop the transportation of Mr. Smith's 282 Cattle despite
`
`the fact that their brands were not registered to Titan or Corey Cattle.
`66. Mr. Smith had no prior knowledge that any of his cattle would be removed from
`
`the Feed Lot and/or transported to Titan.
`67. Mr. Smith never authorized nor consented to the sale, ffansfer, or transportation of
`
`any of his cattle.
`68. Around this same time, Mr. Smith began negotiating with purchasers for the sale
`
`of the 282 Cattle, which had fattened and were ready for slaughter.
`69. Unaware that the 282 Cattle had been transported to Titan without his consent,
`
`Mr. Smith visited the Feed Lot to verify the weight and health of the cattle he was planning to
`
`sell.
`
`70. Mr. Corey informed Mr. Smith that Corey Cattle had sold the 282 Cattle.
`71. Mr. Corey assured Mr. Smith that he would receive the sale proceeds, less the
`
`agreed upon deductions for housing and feeding costs.
`72. In reliance on Mr. Corey's representation, Mr. Smith did not take any immediate
`
`legal action against Corey Cattle, further investigate the wrongful transfer of his 282 Cattle, or
`
`otherwise seek to recover them.
`73. It was not until the spring of 2020 when Mr. Corey informed Mr. Smith that
`
`Corey Cattle had not in fact sold the 282 Cattle, but had actually released them to Titan.
`
`sLC 5592928.6
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.21 Page 14 of 41
`
`C ommunic atio n s w i th Thane Mar shal I
`74. On or about March 9,2020, Mr. Smith met with Mr. Marshall in Payson, IJtah,
`
`and requested information and records about the unauthorized inspection, transfer, and
`
`transportation of the 282 Cattle.
`75. Mr. Marshall later contacted Mr. Smith via telephone and represented that he had
`
`visited the Feed Lot and reviewed the records of the Jwrc 29,2019 inspection.
`76. Mr. Marshall stated that the Brand Inspection Certificates indicated that Corey
`
`Cattle was the record owner of the 282 Cattle and that no mistakes had been made by Mr.
`
`Finlinson or UDAF during the inspection.
`77. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Marshall to provide him with copies of the Brand Inspection
`
`Certificates.
`78. Mr. Marshall refused to provide the requested records to Mr. Smith.
`79. Mr. Smith then informed Mr. Marshall that he had confirmed with Mr. Corey and
`
`other Corey Cattle employees that none of the 282 Cattle had been re-branded with Corey
`
`Cattle's Brand and that Corey Cattle could not have been the record owner at the time of the June
`
`29,2019 inspection.
`80. Mr. Marshall responded that he would need to take a closer look at the inspection
`
`records to better understand what happened the day of the lune 29,2019 inspection and stated
`
`that he would contact Mr. Smith r¡¡hen he had additional information.
`81. Mr. Smith never received any further communication from Mr. Marshall.
`82. Pursuant to Utah Code $ 63G-7-40I, Plaintiff filed a notice of claim letter with
`
`TIDAF and the Office of the Attorney General on April 5,2021.
`
`sLC 5592928.6
`
`l0
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.22 Page 15 of 41
`
`83. Plaintiff received no response from UDAF or the Office of the Attomey General.
`84. The 60 day waiting period to file an action against UDAF outlined in Utah Code $
`
`63G-7-403 has now passed.
`
`I.IRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Negligence - Against UDAF
`85. Plaintiff incorporates herein all preceding allegations set forth above.
`86. Mr. Finlinson is an employee of UDAF.
`87. As the livestock inspector for Millard County, performing brand inspections and
`
`issuing brand inspection certificates is within the scope of Mr. Finlinson's employment.
`88. On June 29,2079, Mr. Finlinson performed a brand inspection at the Feed Lot
`
`r¡lrere he inspected approximately 900 head of cattle, which included the 282 Cattle.
`89. As outlined in Utah Code $ 4-24-303, Mr. Finlinson had a duty to verify the
`
`ownership of the inspected cattle before issuing the Brand Inspection Certificates.
`90. As outlined in Utah Code $ 4-24-303(3), Mr. Finlinson had a duty to record the
`
`cattle ov¿rer's name, together with the number, sex, breed, and brand of each cow inspected on
`
`the Brand Inspection Certificates.
`91. As outlined in Utah Code $ 4-24-303(4), Mr. Finlinson had a duty to demand
`
`evidence of ownership of the 282 Cattle before issuing the Brand Inspection Certifïcates because
`
`those cattle were marked with brands other than Titan's Brand.
`92. Mr. Finlinson breached this duty by, among other things;
`a. issuing the Brand Inspection Certifrcates vúrich failed to adequately record the
`
`cattle or¡¡ner's name together with the number, sex, breed, and brand of each cow
`
`inspected,
`
`sLC 5592928.6
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.23 Page 16 of 41
`
`b. issuing the Brand Inspection Certificates which identified Titan as the owner of
`
`the inspected cattle despite the fact that Mr. Finlinson observed that none of the
`
`cattle were marked with Titan's Brand, including Plaintiffls 282 Cattle;
`c. failing to demand evidence documenting ownership of the 282 Cattle or otherwise
`
`properly verif ing the or¡mership of the 282 Cattle before issuing the Brand
`
`Inspection Certifi cates ;
`
`d. failing to contact Plaintiff, Mr. Oliver, or Mr. Duncan or inquire whether Plaintiff,
`
`Mr. Oliver, or Mr. Duncan had sold or otherwise transferred any of the 282 cattle
`
`to Corey Cattle or Titan after observing the 282 Cattle were marked with either
`
`the Smith Brand, the Oliver Brand, or the Duncan Brand;
`
`e. failing to verify Mr. Corey's representation that the 282 Cattle were not being
`
`inspected due to a change in ownershipl and
`f. failing to verify Mr. Corey's representation that he was an owner and/or agent of
`
`Titan.
`93. Mr. Marshall is an employee of UDAF.
`94. As the supervisor brand inspector for Southem Utah, supervising and overseeing
`
`brand inspections of UDAF employees is within the scope of Mr. Marshall's employment.
`95. Mr. Marshall negligently stated that Corey Cattle was the record owrìer of the 282
`
`Cattle when the Brand Inspection Certifrcates showed that they were branded and registered to
`
`Plaintiff, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Oliver.
`96. As a direct and proximate result of Mr, Finlinson's and Mr. Marshall's negligent
`
`acts and omissions, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but for no
`
`sLC 5592928.6
`
`t2
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.24 Page 17 of 41
`
`less than $876,5 86.00 through the loss of the 282 Cattle and the proceeds Plaintiff expected to
`
`receive from their sale.
`97. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against UDAF for Mr. Finlinson's
`
`and Mr. Marshall's negligent acts and omissions in the amount of $876,586.00, or such greater
`
`amount as may be proven attrial.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Willful Misconduct under Utah Code S 63c-7-202(3)(c)(i) - Against Mr. Finlinson and Mr.
`Marshall
`98. Plaintiff incorporates herein all preceding allegations set forth above.
`99. Mr. Finlinson is an employee of IIDAF.
`100. As the livestock inspector for Millard County, performing brand inspections and
`
`issuing brand inspection certificates is within the scope of Mr. Finlinson's employment,
`
`101. On June 29,2019, Mr. Finlinson performed a brand inspection at the Feed Lot
`
`where he inspected approximately 900 head of cattle, which included Plaintiffs 282 Cattle.
`
`102. During this inspection, Mr. Finlinson observed that the 282 Cattle were marked
`
`with either Smith's Brand, Oliver's Brand, or Duncan's Brand.
`
`103. As outlined in Utah Code $ 4-24-303, Mr. Finlinson had a duty to verify the
`
`ownership of the inspected cattle before issuing the Brand Inspection Certificates.
`I04. As outlined in Utah Code $ 4-24-303(3), Mr. Finlinson had a duty to record the
`
`cattle owner's name, together with the numberl sex, breed, and brand of each cow inspected on
`
`the Brand Inspection Certificates.
`
`sLc s592928.6
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.25 Page 18 of 41
`
`105. As outlined in Utah Code $ 4-24-303(4), Mr. Finlinson had a duty to demand
`
`evidence of ownership of the 282 Cattle before issuing the Brand Inspection Certificates because
`
`those cattle were marked with brands other than Titan's Brand.
`
`106. Mr. Finlinson willfully and knowingly issued the Brand Inspection Certificates
`
`which failed to adequately record the cattle owner's name together with the number, sex, breed,
`
`and brand of each cow inspected.
`
`107. Mr. Finlinson willfully and knowingly issued the Brand Inspection Certificates
`
`which identified Titan as the owner of the inspected cattle despite the fact that Mr. Finlinson did
`
`not observe any cattle marked with Titan's Brand.
`
`108. Mr. Finlinson willfully and knowingly failed to demand evidence documenting
`
`ownership of the 282 Cattle or otherwise properly verify the ownership of the 282 Cattle before
`
`issuing the Brand Inspection Certificates.
`
`109. Mr. Finlinson willfully and knowingly failed to contact Plaintiff, Mr. Oliver, or
`
`Mr. Duncan or inquire whether Plaintiff, Mr. Oliver, or Mr. Duncan had sold or otherwise
`
`transferred any of the 282 caltle to Corey Cattle or Titan after observing the 282 Cattle were
`
`marked with either the Smith Brand, the Oliver Brand, or the Duncan Brand.
`
`110. Mr. Finlinson willfully and knowingly failed to verify Mr, Corey's representation
`
`that the 282 Cattle were not being inspected due to a change in ownership.
`11 l. Mr. Finlinson willfully and knowingly failed to verify Mr. Corey's representation
`
`that he w¿Ìs an owrrer andlor agent of Titan.
`ll2. Mr. Marshall is an employee of UDAF.
`
`sLC 5s92928.6
`
`T4
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.26 Page 19 of 41
`
`I13. As the supervisor brand inspector for Southem Utah, supervising and overseeing
`
`brand inspections of UDAF employees is within the scope of Mr. Marshall's employment.
`Ll4. Mr. Marshall willfully and knowingly stated that Corey Cattle was the record
`
`owner of the 282 Cattle when the Brand Inspection Certificates showed that they were branded
`
`and registered to Plaintitr, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Oliver.
`
`115. As a direct and proximate result of Mr. Finlinson's and Mr. Marshall's willful
`
`misconduct, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined attrial, but for no less
`
`than $876,586.00 through the loss of the 282 Cattle and the proceeds Plaintiff expected to
`
`receive from their sale.
`
`116. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Mr. Finlinson and Mr.
`
`Marshall for their willful misconduct in the amount of $876,586.00, or such greater amount as
`
`may be proven attrial.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Breach of Contract - Against Corey Cattle
`Il7. Plaintiff incorporates herein all preceding allegations set forth above.
`I 18. Plaintiff and Corey Cattle entered into an enforceable agreement whereby
`
`Plaintiff placed approximately 282head of cattle on the Feed Lot.
`
`119. Plaintiff performed all of his material obligations under the agreement.
`
`120. Corey Cattle breached the agreement by, among other things:
`
`a. failing to re-brand the 87 cattle Plaintiff purchased from Leroy Oliver when
`
`they were delivered to the Feed Lot;
`
`b. failing to re-brand the 63 cattle Plaintiff purchased from Dan Duncan when
`
`they were delivered to the Feed Lot;
`
`sl,c 5592928.6
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.27 Page 20 of 41
`
`c. procuring an inspection of the 282 Cattle in order to release them to Titan
`
`without Plaintiffls knowledge or consent,
`
`d. misrepresenting to Mr. Finlinson that the 282 Cattle were owned by Corey
`
`Cattle and/or Titan;
`
`e. arranging for and authorizing the transportation of the 282 Cattle to Titan
`
`without Plaintiff s knowledge or consent in order to satisfu debts Corey Cattle
`
`owed to Titan;
`f. misrepresenting to Plaintiff that the 282 Cattle had been sold; and
`g. misrepresenting to Plaintiff that he would receive payment for the value of the
`
`282 CattIe in the form of the proceeds from the unauthorized sale, which
`
`Plaintiff reasonably relied on to his detriment.
`l2l. As a direct and proximate result of Corey Cattle's breach, Plaintiff has been
`
`damaged in an amount to be determined attrial, but for no less than $876,586.00 through the loss
`
`of the 282 Cattle and the proceeds Plaintiff expected to receive from their sale.
`I22, Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Corey Cattlo in the amount
`
`of $876,586.00, or such greater amount as may be proven attnal.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RDLIEF'
`Promissory Estoppel - Against Corey Cattle & Mr. Corey
`I23. Plaintiff incorporates herein all preceding allegations set forth above.
`I24. Mr. Corey informed Plaintiff that Corey Cattle had sold the 282 Cattle without
`
`Plaintiff s knowledge, authorizaion, or consent.
`
`125, Mr. Corey promised Plaintiffthat he would receive payment for the value of the
`
`282 Cattle in the form of the proceeds from the unauthorized sale.
`
`sLC 5592928.6
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.28 Page 21 of 41
`
`126. Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied on Mr. Corey's representation that he
`
`would receive payment for the value of the 282 Cafrle and fully expected to receive such
`
`payment from Corey Cattle.
`
`127. Plaintiff, reasonably and justifiably relying on these representations and acting
`
`reasonably and in ignorance of the falsity of these representations, w¿rs thereby induced to not
`
`take any immediate legal action against Corey Cattle, further investigate the disposition of the
`
`282 Cattle, or otherwise seek to recover the 282 Cattle.
`
`128. As a direct and proximate result of Mr. Corey and Corey Cattle's fraudulent
`
`misrepresentation, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but for no
`
`less than $876,586.00 through the loss of the 282 Cattle and the proceeds Plaintiffexpected to
`
`receive from their sale.
`
`129. Injustice will occur if Mr. Corey and Corey Cattle do not pay Plaintiff for the
`
`value of the 282 Cattle.
`
`130. Therefore, Mr. Corey and Corey Cattle should be estopped from denying Plaintiff
`
`the benefits of their promise to pay for the value of the 282 Cattle.
`13 1. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Mr. Corey and Corey Cattle
`
`in the amount of $876,586.00, or such greater amount as may be proven at trial.
`
`132. Additionally, Mr. Corey and Corey Cattle's conduct was grossly negligent,
`
`reckless, intentional, and a known violation of the law, entitling Plarntiff to an award of punitive
`
`damages against Mr. Corey and Corey Cattle under Utah Code $ 788-8-201, or as otherwise
`
`allowed under Utah law.
`
`sLC 5592928.6
`
`T7
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00118-DN Document 2-2 Filed 12/02/21 PageID.29 Page 22 of 41
`
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF'
`Fraudulent Misrepresentation - Against Corey Cattle & Mr. Corey
`133. Plaintiff incorporates herein all preceding allegations set forth above.
`
`134. Mr. Corey informed Plaintiff that Corey Cattle had sold the 282 Cattle without
`
`Plaintiff s knowledge, authorizati on, or consent.
`
`135. Mr. Corey also promised Plaintiffthat he would receive payment