Bradburn v. Alarm Protection Technology, LLC, 2019 UT 33 (July 17, 2019)
Plaintiff took an advance on his sales commissions and signed a confession of judgment which included his choses in action against the company. When he quit, he sued the company for unpaid commissions, among other things. The company, meanwhile, executed on the confession of judgment, held a constable sale, purchased plaintiff’s choses in action against itself, moved to substitute itself as plaintiff, and dismissed the case. On appeal from the order granting substitution, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that plaintiff’s failure to appeal either the underlying judgment or the constable sale meant the court could not address his argument that the confession of judgment was against public policy. Instead, the court was jurisdictionally limited to evaluation of the substitution order, which was proper.