Craig v. Provo City

• Decision Date: 26 August 2016
• Docket Number: No. 20150531,20150531
• Citation: 389 P.3d 423
• Parties: Elizabeth CRAIG, Brady Harper, Nu Lite Sales, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Appellees, v. PROVO CITY, a municipal corporation, Appellant.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

389 P.3d 423

Elizabeth CRAIG, Brady Harper, Nu Lite Sales, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Appellees,

v.PROVO CITY, a municipal corporation, Appellant.

No. 20150531

Supreme Court of Utah.

Filed August 26, 2016

Barnard N. Madsen, Mark D. Stubbs, Matthew R. Howell, Diana L. Hardy, Provo, for appellees

Robert D. West, J. Brian Jones, Gary D. Millward, Provo, for appellant

Associate Chief Justice Lee authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Durrant, Justice Himonas, and Justice Pearce joined.

On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals

Associate Chief Justice Lee, opinion of the Court:

¶1 This is a tort suit under the Governmental Immunity Act, Utah Code title 63G chapter 7. The plaintiffs' suit against defendant Provo City was timely when initially filed, but the first complaint was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to submit an "undertaking" or bond as required by statute. See UTAH CODE § 63G–7–601(2). And by the time the case was refiled (this time with a bond), it was beyond the one-year filing requirement of the Governmental Immunity Act. Id. § 63G–7–402. Plaintiffs sought to sustain the timeliness of the suit by invoking the so-called Savings Statute, a provision outside the Governmental Immunity Act that generally extends the statute of limitations for plaintiffs when a complaint is dismissed other than "upon the merits." Id. § 78B–2–111.

¶2 The question presented concerns the interaction between the time-bar provision of the Governmental Immunity Act and the general Savings Statute. We consider, specifically, whether the Immunity Act forecloses the Savings Statute. We hold that it does. We interpret the Immunity Act as speaking comprehensively to the timing of a suit against a governmental entity, in a manner precluding operation of the Savings Statute.

I

¶3 The claims at issue in this case arise out of an alleged false arrest by Provo City police officers in January 2010. Provo police arrested Elizabeth Craig, Brady Harper, and Scott Lazerson for theft. The alleged theft was of personal care products of Provo's Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. Craig, Harper, and Lazerson were suspected of acquiring products set aside for Nu Skin employees and selling them outside the Nu Skin distribution network for profit.

¶4 The three charged defendants claimed to have acquired the Nu Skin products in question lawfully. They insisted that Nu Skin employees had donated excess product to them for the benefit of a charity. Eventually, the criminal charges against Craig and Harper were dismissed, and this civil suit ensued.

¶5 In the civil suit, Craig and Harper, together with Nu Lite Sales, an entity they formed to facilitate their venture, claimed that Provo City had caused them to lose income and damaged their reputations. Craig, a former Miss Utah, alleged that media reports surrounding the arrest had harmed her business associations with Brigham Young University and Deseret Book, Inc. Craig, Harper, and Nu Lite asserted claims for malicious prosecution, conversion, and tortious interference with prospective business relations.

¶6 As required by the Governmental Immunity Act, Utah Code section 63G–7–402, the plaintiffs submitted a "Notice of Claim" to Provo City before filing a formal action in court. The Notice of Claim was served on Provo City on February 16, 2011. The Notice of Claim was deemed denied on April 17, 2011. There was also a Supplemental Notice of Claim, which was served on March 1, 2011, and deemed denied on April 30, 2011. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Fourth District Court thereafter—on April 13, 2012. The complaint was timely when filed on that date, as it was filed within one year of the denial of their notice of claim as required by Utah Code section 63G–7–403(2). But it was also defective under the Governmental Immunity Act, as it was filed without the $300 bond required by Utah Code section 63G–7–601(2). The district court dismissed the action without prejudice on that basis, in an order entered on March 27, 2013. By that date, the statute of limitations had run on the plaintiffs' claims: The district court's order of dismissal was entered more than a year after the date when Provo City denied the plaintiffs' Notice of Claim.

¶7 The plaintiffs nonetheless filed a second complaint, this time with the bond required by statute. Because this suit was filed outside the original one-year limitations period under the Governmental Immunity Act, Provo City moved to dismiss.

¶8 In response, the plaintiffs pointed to the Savings Statute in Utah Code section 78B–2–111. That provision states that "[i]f any action is timely filed and ... the plaintiff fails in the action or upon a cause of action otherwise than upon the merits, and the time limited ... by law ... for commencing the action has expired, the plaintiff ... may commence a new action within one year after the reversal or failure." Id. § 78B–2–11(1). Plaintiffs asserted that this provision excused their failure to file within a year of the denial of their notice of claim by Provo City, as required by the Governmental Immunity Act. They insisted that their claim was timely because the second complaint was filed within one year after the first suit was dismissed "otherwise than upon the merits."

¶9 The district court granted Provo City's motion to dismiss. It concluded that "[c]laims against governmental parties are comprehensively governed by" the Governmental Immunity Act. Order of Oct. 28, 2013 at 2–3. And because that Act "does not contain a savings provision," the district court held that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred. Id. at 5. It accordingly entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.

¶10 Plaintiffs appealed, and the court of appeals reversed. The court of appeals concluded that the Savings Statute was applicable and thus reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. Craig v. Provo City , 2015 UT App 145, ¶ 14, 352 P.3d 139. In so doing, the court of appeals acknowledged a provision in the Governmental Immunity Act describing that statute as the "single, comprehensive chapter govern[ing] all claims against governmental entities." Id. ¶ 9 n.3 (quoting UTAH CODE § 63G–7–101(2)(b) (2013) ). But it nonetheless concluded that the Savings Statute could apply to save claims that would otherwise be time-barred under the Governmental Immunity Act. It based that holding on the notion that a "comprehensive" legal regime was not necessarily an "all-inclusive" one. Id. ¶ 10. And it highlighted legal matters not governed expressly by the Governmental Immunity Act, such as the elements of a cause of action against a governmental entity and the standards governing the admissibility of evidence in a proceeding initiated under the Act. Id. ¶ 11.

¶11 With these examples in mind, the court of appeals reasoned that the Governmental Immunity Act cannot literally be an all-inclusive statement of all laws governing claims against the government. Instead, it characterized the Act as merely "complementary" to other laws like the Savings Statute. Id . ¶ 14.

¶12 In so concluding, the court of appeals asserted that the Savings Statute did not interfere with the "purpose" of the Governmental Immunity Act—to provide the government with notice sufficient to afford "the responsible public authorities an opportunity to pursue a proper and timely investigation of the merits of [the] claim." Id . ¶ 12 (alteration in original) (quoting Shafer v. State , 2003 UT 44, ¶ 7, 79 P.3d 936 ). And it held the legislature to a requirement of a plain statement. Id . ¶ 13. Relying on Standard Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Kirkbride , 821 P.2d 1136, 1138 (Utah 1991), the court of appeals indicated that "[t]he relevant inquiry is whether the legislature made plain an intention" to foreclose the applicability of the Savings Statute to claims against the government. Craig , 2015 UT App 145, ¶ 13, 352 P.3d 139 (alteration in original). And because the legislature "certainly knows how to" make plain such an intention, yet failed to do so, the court of appeals declined to infer any such intent here. Id. (citation omitted). It accordingly held that "[t]he Savings Statute applies to claims filed against the government pursuant to" the Governmental Immunity Act "because, to the extent that they relate to one another, they are complementary." Id . ¶ 14. Thus, because the plaintiffs' claims were timely under the Savings Statute, the court of appeals reversed the decision granting Provo City's motion to dismiss.

¶13 Provo City filed a petition for certiorari, which we granted. Our review is de novo . See State v. Dean , 2004 UT 63, ¶ 7, 95 P.3d 276 (noting that "we review the court of appeals' decision for correctness," but that "[t]he correctness of the court of appeals' decision turns on whether the court correctly reviewed the trial court's decision under the appropriate standard of review"); State v. Ririe , 2015 UT 37, ¶ 5, 345 P.3d 1261 ("We review the district court's decision on a motion to dismiss de novo, yielding no deference to its analysis.").

II

¶14 Our law has long embraced a general principle of governmental immunity. The concept has deep roots in the common law. But the common law doctrine was overtaken by statute in Utah many decades ago. See Utah Governmental Immunity Act, 1965 Utah Laws 390–97. Today the law of sovereign immunity is set forth in the Governmental Immunity Act, Utah Code section 63G chapter 7.

¶15 This "comprehensive" statute "governs all claims against governmental entities or against their employees or agents arising out of the performance of the employee's duties, within the scope of employment, or under color of authority." UTAH CODE § 63G–7–101(2)(b). The general presumption is in favor of immunity: "A governmental entity and an employee of a governmental entity retain immunity from suit unless that immunity has been expressly waived in this chapter." Id . § 63G–7–101(3) ; see also id. § 63G–7–201 (stating that governmental...