Hanft v. City of Laramie
Decision Date | 15 April 2021 |
Docket Number | S-20-0068,S-20-0069 |
Citation | 2021 WY 52 |
Parties | JENNIFER P. HANFT, as Personal Representative of the Estate of BRET LEE VANCE, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. CITY OF LARAMIE, Appellee (Defendant). CITY OF LARAMIE, Appellant (Defendant), v. JENNIFER P. HANFT, as Personal Representative of the Estate of BRET LEE VANCE, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of Albany County
The Honorable Dawnessa A. Snyder, Judge Representing Jennifer P. Hanft, Personal Representative of the Estate of Bret Lee Vancy:
A. Joe Hageman, Attorney at Law, Laramie, Wyoming
Representing City of Laramie:
William S. Helfand of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Houston, Texas; Amanda F. Esch of Davis & Cannon, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Helfand.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ., and TYLER, DJ.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
[¶1] In 2012, the City of Laramie (City) discharged Bret Vance from his employment as a shift commander with the City's fire department, an action that required consent of the City's Fire Department Civil Service Commission (Commission). Through a series of administrative proceedings and appeals, the Commission issued various orders concerning Mr. Vance's discharge, including an order by which it denied its consent to the discharge. In 2016, this Court issued a decision that gave effect to that order. Vance v. City of Laramie, 2016 WY 106, ¶ 44, 382 P.3d 1104, 1114-15 (Wyo. 2016). When the City did not reinstate Mr. Vance after our 2016 decision, he filed a complaint against it seeking reinstatement and damages for breach of contract and violation of statutory duties.
[¶2] On summary judgment, the district court ruled that Mr. Vance was entitled to reinstatement in 2016 and that he was entitled to damages for his wrongful termination and the City's failure to reinstate him. The court further ruled that the only questions remaining for trial were the amount of damages and whether Mr. Vance took reasonable steps to mitigate those damages. At trial, the jury awarded Mr. Vance damages of approximately $280,000, and the court entered a judgment on the verdict but denied Mr. Vance's post-trial motion for attorney fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. Both parties appeal.1
[¶3] We affirm the judgment on the verdict, which as a matter of law bears post-judgment interest. We also affirm the denial of attorney fees and prejudgment interest. We reverse the denial of costs and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[¶4] In its appeal, the City presents seven issues, which we restate as follows:
[¶5] In her appeal, Ms. Hanft presents four issues, which we restate as follows:
FACTS
[¶6] In Vance, we described the events that led to Mr. Vance's discharge and the proceedings that followed.
Vance, ¶¶ 6-9, 382 P.3d at 1105-06.
[¶7] In ruling on the jurisdictional issue, which we found to be dispositive, we concluded:
Under the civil service statutes, Commission Decision # 2 refusing to consent to Mr. Vance's discharge was final and was not subject to judicial review. The district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the City's petition for judicial review. Consequently, its decision reversing and remanding Commission Decision # 2 is void and, hereby, vacated. In addition, all of the proceedings that followed Commission Decision # 2 were improper, meaning that Commission Decision # 3 and the district court's dismissal of Mr. Vance's petition for review of that decision are void and, hereby, vacated. Because the district court did not have jurisdiction over the matter, we, likewise, lack jurisdiction beyond determining that the district court had no jurisdiction to review Commission Decision # 2. Rock v. Lankford, 2013 WY 61, ¶ 18, 301 P.3d 1075, 1080 (Wyo. 2013), quoting Hall v. Park Cnty., 2010 WY 124, ¶ 3, 238 P.3d 580, 581 (Wyo. 2010). This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Vance, ¶ 44, 382 P.3d at 1114-15.
[¶8] We issued our decision in Vance on November 7, 2016. On December 12, 2016, the City, through its attorney, sent a letter to Mr. Vance's counsel, which stated:
The City understands Mr. Vance seeks re-employment with the Laramie Fire Department. The City is evaluating that request. As part of that evaluation, the City needs to determine whether Mr. Vance is eligible and fit for re-employment. In order to make that determination, Mr. Vance must undergo abackground (including driver's license) check, employment drug and alcohol test, and physical by the department doctor.
[¶9] Mr. Vance completed the tasks outlined in the city attorney's letter to the City's satisfaction, but nonetheless the City did not reinstate him. Instead, the city attorney sent another letter on March 13, 2017, which stated, "it has not been possible for the City to finish a review of your client's earlier request for re-employment (however it is characterized), as I have confirmed your client voluntarily retired some time ago."
[¶10] Following its March 13, 2017 letter, the City did not seek additional information...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Winney v. Jerup
...materially the same as would have been developed had the prevailing party raised the alternative basis for affirmance below. Hanft v. City of Laramie , 2021 WY 52, ¶ 34, 485 P.3d 369, 381 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Prancing Antelope I, LLC v. Saratoga Inn Overlook Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. , 2021 WY......
-
Tram Tower Townhouse Ass'n v. Weiner
... ... omitted). We may affirm a summary judgment ruling on any ... basis found in the record. Hanft v. City of Laramie , ... 2021 WY 52, ¶ 34, 485 P.3d 369, 381 (Wyo. 2021) (citing ... Prancing ... ...
-
Am. Collection Sys., Inc. v. Judkins
...and (b) whether or not it is provided for in the judgment. 2017 WY 28, ¶ 37, 391 P.3d 611, 624 (Wyo. 2017); see also Hanft v. City of Laramie, 2021 WY 52, ¶¶ 92-94, 485 P.3d 369, 393-94 (Wyo. 2021). "We have held that since decrees and judgments for the payment of money bear post-judgment i......
-
Cornella v. City of Lander
...inquiry does not stop there, however, because we may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any basis appearing in the record. Hanft v. City of Laramie, 2021 WY 52, 34, 485 P.3d 369, 381 (Wyo. 2021) (citing Prancing Antelope I, LLC v. Saratoga Inn Overlook Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc., 2021 WY 3,......