Utah Code Ann. § 34A-5-107(15). See e.g., Billy v. Edge Homes, No. 2:19-cv-00058-JNP-EJF, 2020 WL 2572522, at *10 (D. Utah May 21, 2020) (concluding that “the UADA preempt[ed] [the p]laintiff's breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cause of action because [plaintiff] c[ould] not maintain that claim without alleging that [the d]efendants breached the covenant based on discriminatory retaliation”); Stewart v. IM Flash Techs., LLC, No. 2:15CV005552-DS, 2016 WL 1611117, at *4 (D. Utah Apr. 21, 2016) (concluding that “[the p]laintiff's negligent infliction of emotional distress claim is grounded on the same alleged acts of harassment and discriminatory conduct as his employment discrimination claims and is preempted under the Utah Supreme Court's holding in Gottling.”).
Christensen v. Graco Fishing & Rental Tools, Inc, No. 2:20-cv-00888-HCN-JCB, 2021 WL 3010096, at *6 (D. Utah May 18, 2021) (citing Youren v. Tintic Sch. Dist., 86 P.3d 771, 773 (Utah Ct. App. 2004)). Although courts generally decline to provide a private right of action for criminal provisions, this court has considered private rights of action for “civil assault” and ‘“civil battery” claims. See Billy v. Edge Homes, No. 2:19-CV-00058-JNP-EJF, 2020 WL 2572522, at *5 (D. Utah May 21, 2020).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(g)(2), (h)(2). Billy v. Edge Homes, No. 2:19-CV-00058-JNP-EJJ, 2020 WL 2572522, at *2 n.2 (D. Utah May 21, 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Lipari v. U.S. Bancorp NA, 345 Fed.Appx. 315, 317 (10th Cir. 2009) (finding that “the district court permissibly treated the defendants' second Rule 12(b)(6) as though it had been styled under 12(c)”). Santa Fe All. for Pub. Health & Safety v. City of Santa Fe, 993 F.3d 802, 809 n.3 (10th Cir. 2021)