The Zion Times

Court Finds Breach of Duty, Orders Injunction

By Sachet A. Sullivan | The Zion Times
A judge has granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Diamond K Builders, a local construction company at the center of a bitter legal battle that exposes an alleged campaign of sabotage by two former employees who started a competing firm.

In a 26-page ruling signed yesterday afternoon, Judge Meb W. Anderson found that Bretten J. Lozano and Kniesha K. Carter—while still employed at Diamond K—launched their own company, White Rock Home Builders, and used confidential files, customer data, and internal connections to undercut their former employer from within.

The judge’s ruling follows five days of evidentiary hearings held last summer—on June 27, July 8, July 29, August 5, and August 19, 2024—where the court heard testimony from 19 witnesses and reviewed more than 75 exhibits. The evidence painted a picture of deep betrayal at a time when Diamond K was already under scrutiny from the Utah Division of Professional Licensing (DOPL).

“The court concludes that the evidence clearly shows that Defendants used the information wrongly taken and the misrepresentations wrongly made to steal Diamond K’s business.”

— Judge Meb W. Anderson,
Preliminary Injunction Order and Ruling
Conclusions of Law ¶7, p.17

Despite a decisive legal victory in civil court, Bruce Kuykendall—owner of Diamond K Builders—still faces criminal charges, even after the court confirmed his business was stolen from him.

A COORDINATED INSIDE JOB

The court found that Lozano and Carter had access to Diamond K’s most sensitive operations—customer lists, project pricing, design files, and subcontractor relationships. Rather than help the company navigate DOPL’s licensing investigation, the pair allegedly exploited the turmoil to gain a competitive edge.

Court documents show they:

• Secretly formed White Rock LLC while on Diamond K’s payroll;

• Downloaded, printed, and deleted thousands of internal files;

• Created external links to more than 3,800 company documents;

• Factory-reset company iPads and withheld login credentials;

• Contacted Diamond K clients and vendors directly, encouraging them to abandon Diamond K and work with White Rock.

In some cases, customers were persuaded to reroute payments to subcontractors directly—cutting Diamond K out of its 18% supervision fees. In one instance, Carter returned to the company’s bank after she quit and allegedly wired $14,800 to vendors without authorization.

“Only the requested injunction will allow Diamond K to stem the bleeding caused by Lozano’s and Carter’s illegal conduct.”

— Judge Meb W. Anderson,
Preliminary Injunction Order and Ruling,
Conclusions of Law ¶27, p.22

LIES, DEFAMATION, AND A FALSE NARRATIVE

Lozano and Carter allegedly told customers, subcontractors, and even a DOPL investigator that Kuykendall was engaging in unethical billing practices—statements the court found were both false and defamatory.

Witnesses testified they were encouraged to watch DOPL proceedings, contact investigators, and prepare for Diamond K’s license to be revoked—without ever being told that Kuykendall had a legally approved plan in place to continue operations through a licensed partner.

The court concluded that this pattern of accusations — particularly those involving claims of overcharging — constituted defamation per se:

“These statements caused damage to Diamond K. It lost customers and goodwill,” the court concluded. “Because Defendants’ statements import that Diamond K engaged in conduct incompatible with the exercise of a lawful business, it is not required to allege or prove damages.”

At least one customer, Bryon Nowell, ultimately hired White Rock and paid them a 16% fee for work previously arranged through Diamond K. According to the court’s Preliminary Injunction, Lozano and Carter failed to inform Nowell of Diamond K’s transition plan during their conversations and instead offered to help complete his home through their new company — while drawing on information they obtained during their employment with Diamond K.

THE FIGHT ISN’T OVER: KUYKENDALL STILL FACES CRIMINAL CHARGES

Despite being vindicated in civil court, Kuykendall is currently facing pending criminal charges filed by the Iron County Attorney’s Office—charges that stem directly from the same licensing issues that Lozano and Carter allegedly exploited.

According to court documents, prosecutors have alleged that Kuykendall operated without a valid license and possibly misled customers. But the civil court made clear that Diamond K had already partnered with Neway Construction to lawfully finish active builds, and that the license revocation did not prohibit the company from continuing business through a licensed qualifier.

The judge noted this explicitly:

“[Diamond K]’s license revocation does not preclude the business of the company to continue through a different entity with an approved qualifier as allowed by Utah law.”

— Judge Meb W. Anderson,
Preliminary Injunction Order and Ruling,
Conclusions of Law ¶7, p.17

And yet, Lozano—who the court confirmed used Diamond K’s credit card for thousands in personal purchases, and who pled guilty to theft in Beaver County in 2024—is not facing any charges related to this case.

Neither is Carter, despite being found to have:

• Illegally wired funds post-resignation;

• Deleted company communications;

• And lied to a state licensing investigator during an active investigation.

EDITIORIAL ANALYSIS: A TWO-TIEREDED SYSTEM OF JUSICE?

The Zion Times reviewed the full civil ruling and pending criminal charges against Kuykendall and identified several unresolved legal and procedural questions.

On one hand, the court’s findings describe a coordinated and deliberate effort by two former employees—Lozano and Carter—to sabotage Diamond K from within. They were found to have stolen company data, redirected customers, lied to regulators, and used internal access to build a rival business.

Yet today, Kuykendall—the man whose business was dismantled—is the only one facing criminal prosecution.

This contradiction raises broader legal questions:

• How can the state pursue criminal charges for alleged misconduct that the civil court concluded was caused by others?

• Why have Lozano and Carter not faced prosecution, despite being found liable for defamation, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty?

The civil court’s findings acknowledged significant harm to Diamond K:

“These damages are irreparable… and have severely jeopardized Diamond K’s business going forward.”

— Judge Meb W. Anderson,
Preliminary Injunction Order and Ruling,
Conclusions of Law ¶7, p.17

At the same time, criminal proceedings against Mr. Kuykendall remain active, while Lozano and Carter—whose conduct was the subject of the civil injunction—have not been charged.

The intersection of these two cases raises unresolved legal and procedural questions that may continue to unfold as both matters progress through the courts.

WHAT COMES NEXT?

Under the court’s preliminary injunction:

• Lozano, Carter, and White Rock are forbidden from contacting or doing business with any former Diamond K clients they worked with;

• They must return all physical and digital property taken from the company;

• Diamond K’s $30,000 bond was returned, and the injunction will remain in place through the duration of the civil lawsuit.

Kuykendall’s legal fight is not yet over. Although the court granted a preliminary injunction in his favor—finding his company had been wrongfully taken—the civil case remains open.

The preliminary injunction notes that the injunction hearings were originally presided over by Judge Jeffrey C. Wilcox, but Judge Meb. W. Anderson has since taken over the case. In the May 30 order, Judge Anderson noted that while extensive evidence was presented during the five-day hearing—including testimony from 19 witnesses and roughly 75 exhibits—he did not preside over those proceedings and will need to hear or be presented with the evidence again at trial. He also left open the possibility of using that prior testimony or evidence in future motions or trial.

Neither side has requested a jury trial. Kuykendall is scheduled to return to civil court on June 2 and criminal court on June 25.

Editor’s Note (June 1, 2025): After publication, Mr. Byron Nowell kindly reached out to clarify that his testimony did not state he was misled or persuaded to hire White Rock. We’ve carefully reviewed the court’s Preliminary Injunction, which describe the circumstances surrounding his agreement with White Rock, including omissions made by the Defendants and their continued involvement after leaving Diamond K. We have updated the article to reflect the court’s findings while honoring Mr. Nowell’s request for accuracy.

---

From the Court Record:
Direct quotations from Judge Meb W. Anderson, Fifth District Court, Case No. 240500075, Preliminary Injunction Order and Ruling, May 30, 2025:

“Defendants used the information wrongly taken and the misrepresentations wrongly made to steal Diamond K’s business.”
— Conclusions of Law, ¶7, p.17

“Only the requested injunction will allow Diamond K to stem the bleeding caused by Lozano’s and Carter’s illegal conduct.”
— Conclusions of Law, ¶27, p.22

“These statements caused damage to Diamond K. It lost customers and goodwill. Because Defendants’ statements import that Diamond K engaged in conduct incompatible with the exercise of a lawful business, it is not required to allege or prove damages.”
— Conclusions of Law, ¶15, p.19

“They never told him that Diamond K had a transition plan. … Mr. Nowell has an oral cost-plus 16% agreement with White Rock, which he has paid. … White Rock was paid 16% supervision fee on those invoices instead of Diamond K.”
— Conclusions of Law, ¶34(a), p.9

“[Diamond K]’s license revocation does not preclude the business of the company to continue through a different entity with an approved qualifier as allowed by Utah law.”
— Conclusions of Law, ¶7, p.17

“These damages are irreparable… and have severely jeopardized Diamond K’s business going forward.”
— Conclusions of Law, ¶7, p.17

“Lozano and Carter breached their fiduciary duties… and engaged in conversion of Diamond K’s property.”
— Conclusions of Law, ¶2, p.14

“This bright line prohibition is necessary given Defendants’ admitted past violations of the TRO.”
— Order Section, ¶A, p.24

“Diamond K’s requested injunctive relief is not adverse to the public interest.”
— Conclusions of Law, ¶29, p.24

Sources:

Fifth District Court, Case No. 240500075, Diamond K Builders v. Lozano et al., Preliminary Injunction Order and Ruling, entered May 30, 2025.

Testimony, exhibits, and factual findings as documented in the Preliminary Injunction Order and Ruling, including five days of evidentiary hearings held on June 27, July 8, July 29, August 5, and August 19, 2024 (see p. 2).

Utah Division of Professional Licensing records and revocation history (2024), as referenced in the Preliminary Injunction Order and Ruling.

Beaver County Justice Court records, State of Utah v. Bretten J. Lozano, Case No. 231000121, as referenced in the ruling.

Customer and subcontractor statements cited in the Preliminary Injunction Order and Ruling, including Byron Nowell.