Davis v. Central Utah Counseling Center

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the State of Utah and Juab County and affirmed summary judgment for Central Utah Counseling Center and its employees. The court held that Central Utah Counseling Center was a properly formed interlocal agency entitled to governmental immunity and that the plaintiffs failed to strictly comply with the Utah Governmental Immunity Act's notice-of-claim requirements. The court also held that the plaintiffs' failure to serve the notice of appeal on the State and Juab County was not jurisdictionally fatal, but affirmed dismissal of the claims against those parties.

Holdings

1. Timely filing of a notice of appeal is the only jurisdictional requirement for appellate review under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(a); failure to serve the notice on opposing parties may support discretionary dismissal or sanctions but is not jurisdictionally fatal.
2. CUCC was not an agency or instrumentality of the State of Utah, and liability for the acts of CUCC's employees and officials rested with CUCC rather than the State.
3. Unauthorized oral representations by State employees and information on a State website could not impose liability on the State for CUCC's conduct or excuse plaintiffs' failure to comply with the Immunity Act.
4. The dismissal of Juab County was affirmed because plaintiffs failed to adequately brief any legal or factual basis for reversal.
5. CUCC was a properly formed interlocal agency and political subdivision entitled to the protections of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act.
6. Plaintiffs' notice was invalid because they did not direct and deliver it to a member of CUCC's governing board, CUCC's executive director, or CUCC's executive secretary within one year after the claim arose.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Utah Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the dismissal of the State and Juab County despite plaintiffs' failure to serve those parties with the notice of appeal.
2. Whether the State of Utah could be liable for CUCC's conduct because of CUCC's statutory, administrative, and financial relationship with the State.
3. Whether oral or published representations by state employees could impose liability on the State or excuse plaintiffs' failure to serve CUCC with a notice of claim.
4. Whether Juab County's dismissal should be disturbed when plaintiffs inadequately briefed the issue on appeal.
5. Whether CUCC was a properly formed interlocal agency and therefore a governmental entity protected by the Utah Governmental Immunity Act.
6. Whether plaintiffs' notice to the State Attorney General's office and Juab County Clerk satisfied the Immunity Act's requirement that notice be directed and delivered to CUCC's governing board member, executive director, or executive secretary.
7. Whether an exception to the Immunity Act's strict-compliance requirement was warranted by the alleged confusion and misdirection surrounding CUCC's governmental status.

Disposition

affirmed