POCATELLO — A local farm family’s lawsuit seeking at least $21 million in damages that was filed against the city and the private developers involved in the Northgate project in February 2022 has been dismissed.

According to court documents the Idaho State Journal obtained Wednesday, summary judgment has been awarded to the defendants in the case and the suit has been dismissed. The decision centers on late filings and is being heralded as a major victory by the defendants while the attorney representing the farming family says they intend to fight on.

The property dispute lawsuit involved undeveloped commercial real estate located immediately next to the Interstate 15 Northgate exit in Chubbuck. The Herold L. Rupp Sr. Trust and Veda J. Rupp Revocable Living Trust own the land.

The Rupp trusts alleged in the lawsuit that the city of Pocatello and Mayor Brian Blad; Millennial Development Partners and its owner Buck Swaney; Portneuf Development, Portneuf Builders and their owner Ken Pape; and 10 other unnamed individuals breached a contract when they failed “to perform provisions in the contract to allow access points to the Rupp Trusts’ property sufficient to development.”

The suit also alleged the defendants “engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deprive the value of the Rupp Trusts’ property in an effort to force a sale of the property and water rights at a fraction of their value and to punish the Rupp Trusts for deciding to annex their property into the city of Chubbuck.”

Additionally, the suit alleged the defendants “interfered with prospective purchasers of the Rupp Trusts’ property, while at the same time misleading prospective purchasers into believing the Rupp Trusts did not own the property, or by falsely representing to them that the Rupp Trusts were not selling or could not develop their property.”

As a result of the defendants’ alleged conduct, the Rupp Trusts’ claim to have “been deprived of significant economic opportunities, sustaining damages totalling to date at least $21 million.”

The Rupp Trusts’ filed the suit on Feb. 4 through Idaho Falls attorney Nathan Olsen, who previously won a multimillion dollar lawsuit against Pocatello in regards to illegally collected water, sewer and sanitation fees from 2005 to 2014.

Patrick Davis, a Pocatello attorney for Beard St. Clair Gaffney, is representing Swaney and Millennial Development Partners. John Avondet, also a Pocatello attorney for Beard St. Clair Gaffney, is representing the Portneuf defendants and owner Pape. Balke Hall and Sam Angell of Hall Angell & Associates in Idaho Falls is representing Blad and the city of Pocatello.

Six years ago, the Northgate development project east of Chubbuck and north of Pocatello was heralded as a unique partnership of private developers, municipalities and state government entities that Blad said could double Pocatello’s population once completed.

The entirety of the Northgate development project, which provided a new Interstate 15 interchange for access to the Northgate development area, represented an investment of roughly $31 million, including the $13.1 million interchange as well as connecting roads such as the main arterial street, Northgate Parkway, and its associated utility infrastructure.

Although there has been some commercial and residential construction at Northgate since the Interstate 15 interchange was completed there in late 2019, Northgate has not yet resulted in the significant boost to Pocatello’s economy and population that Blad and others predicted.

The Rupp Trusts’ lawsuits allege that Pocatello illegally annexed land and added unlawful “control strips” to both sides of Northgate Parkway, the main arterial road constructed through the Northgate development project area.

The control strips, areas of property extending along both sides of Northgate Parkway, have been deeded to a joint partnership between Millennial and Portneuf Development, preventing the Rupps from being able to access their nearby land, the lawsuits state.

Land that is inaccessible via roads is worth much less than land that has throughways, meaning that the Rupps’ lack of road access to their land from Northgate Parkway hurts its value.

In response to the lawsuit, Portneuf Development, Portneuf Builders and owner Ken Pape moved to dismiss the case twice, but the motions were ultimately denied by 6th District Judge Robert C. Naftz, who is presiding over the case.

All of the defendants then moved for summary judgment on March 8 with a hearing on those motions set for April 17.

In response, Olsen on behalf of the Rupp Trusts sought to continue the April 17 hearing in order to review additional evidence and “consider possible issues that could be decided on summary judgment in favor of the Rupp Trusts,” according to the memorandum decision and order Naftz issued on Wednesday.

A summary judgment is a final ruling in a lawsuit entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily ending the case without a full trial.

After allowing attorneys for both the Rupp Trusts and the defendants to argue the continuance request, Naftz determined there “was no showing of good cause.” With the continuance denied, April 17 remained the date when the defendants’ motions for summary judgment would be heard.

Five days before that scheduled hearing regarding the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, Olsen filed a memorandum in opposition to the motions, supported by a number of declarations, according to Naftz’s order.

The defendants then moved to strike Olsen’s response in opposition and the attached declarations as being untimely under an Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure that says any opposing documents must be served at least 14 days before the hearing, which in this case would have been April 3.

Download PDF

Olsen filed his response to the defendants’ requests for summary judgment at 5:02 p.m. on April 12, Naftz’s order states.

“In fact, instead of filing an answering brief, (Olsen) first filed a renewed motion to continue the summary judgment hearing or an alternative request to alter the time for response and reply,” Naftz wrote in his order.

Not only was Olsen’s reply brief to the defendants’ request for summary judgment submitted after the April 3 deadline, but it was also submitted after the April 10 date that he specifically requested.

The Idaho Rules of Civil Procedures requires that a party must receive motions and documents from an opposing party 28 days before the scheduled hearing. In this case, Olsen was provided with those documents 40 days before the hearing, Naftz wrote in his order.

Naftz ultimately determined there was no good cause to extend any deadlines for Olsen and decided to strike the late-filed response to the defendant’s request for summary judgment.

Because the response was stricken, “there has been no response to show a genuine issue for trial, and the defendants motions for summary judgment effectively stand unopposed,” Naftz wrote.

Because of that, Naftz determined that “summary judgment in favor of the defendants’ must be entered as (Olsen) failed to meet (his) burden pursuant to the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure.”

In response to Naftz’s order, both Davis and Avondet provided statements on behalf of their clients, as did Olsen on behalf of the Rupp Trusts. The Journal reached out to Angell and Hall but they were not immediately available for comment for this article.

In his statement, Davis said, “We agree with the court’s decision to strike the Rupp Trusts’ late filings and grant summary judgment to all defendants. The filings themselves were close to 1,000 pages, were filed nine days late and we felt gave us very little time to respond before the April 17, 2023, hearing. Millennial has maintained from the beginning that there was no merit to any claim in this lawsuit, and while we will never know for certain, we do not believe it would have changed the outcome even if the court had considered the late filings.”

Avondet’s statement read, “My clients appreciate the thoughtful and thorough analysis employed by the court in rendering its decision to dismiss the case. My clients have always believed that the plaintiffs’ claims were meritless and they are grateful to put the litigation behind them.”

Olsen on Friday responded to Naftz’s dismissal with a 30-page motion for reconsideration.

“In this case, the court’s sanction of dismissing the Rupp Trusts’ case for filing a late response to a motion for summary judgment constitutes an extremely harsh sanction that is highly prejudicial to the Rupp Trusts,” Olsen’s motion states. “The court not only failed to take into consideration the defendants’ conduct but the court failed to consider whether the defendants suffered any ascertainable prejudice for the Rupp Trusts’ late filing.”

The motion continued, “The Rupp Trusts’ response was filed several days prior to the hearing in the matter. The court has discretion… to take appropriate measures to address delays in such a manner to fulfill its obligation to effect justice. The most appropriate and fair way to accomplish such end would have been to simply allow the defendants additional time to file a reply and to take up the motion on a hearing at a later time. The court should correct its overreach and inequitable ruling by granting the Rupp Trusts’ motion for reconsideration.”