Johnson v. Idaho Dep't of Labor
| Decision Date | 28 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 45911 |
| Citation | 165 Idaho 827,453 P.3d 261 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | Dale JOHNSON, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Idaho DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Amy Hohnstein, Appeals Bureau Director; Mark Richmond, Appeals Hearing Examiner; Janet Hardy, Appeals Hearing Examiner; Georgia Smith, Records Custodian; and John and Jane Does I-V, in their individual and official capacities as employees of the State of Idaho, Defendants-Respondents. |
James McMillan, Wallace, for appellant. James McMillan argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondents. Douglas A. Werth argued.
This appeal involves a negligence action brought against the Department of Labor for the alleged improper handling of an unemployment claim. Dale Johnson filed a claim for unemployment benefits which was denied. Johnson appealed the determination to the Appeals Bureau of the Idaho Department of Labor, but the appeal was denied after a hearing. Johnson again appealed the determination to the Industrial Commission, but, while the appeal was pending, Johnson learned that his hearing's recording was lost. The Industrial Commission remanded the case to the Appeals Bureau for a new hearing. Ultimately, after two additional hearings and a second appeal to the Industrial Commission, Johnson won his claim for benefits with the Commission finding that Johnson was eligible for benefits. Johnson subsequently filed suit against the Department of Labor for unnecessary delays and other alleged improprieties in the handling of his claim. The district court dismissed the case for failure to file a notice of tort claim pursuant to the Idaho Tort Claims Act and then denied Johnson's post-judgment motions. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
Dale Johnson maintained roller coasters for Silverwood, Inc. Among rising contentions and a dispute with Silverwood's new director of construction and maintenance, Johnson resigned his position on June 8, 2015. He subsequently applied for unemployment benefits, but his claim was denied. Johnson challenged the denial with the Appeals Bureau of the Idaho Department of Labor, and a hearing was held on August 5, 2015.
The hearing examiner denied Johnson's appeal, determining that Johnson was not entitled to benefits. Johnson appealed to the Idaho Industrial Commission. While the appeal was pending, Johnson was notified that the recording of his hearing was lost. While Johnson claims he submitted his own recording and transcript of the hearing (as recorded by his wife), that copy was rejected because it was not official. Because of the lost recording, the Commission remanded the case back to the Department of Labor for another hearing. After two additional hearings, both before the Appeals Bureau, Johnson lost his claim again and appealed for a second time to the Idaho Industrial Commission. On this second appeal the Commission reversed the Department of Labor's determination on April 29, 2016, finding that Johnson was eligible for unemployment benefits because he had good cause to quit his employment. Four months later, on August 25, 2016, Johnson filed a notice of tort claim with the Idaho Secretary of State.
On March 20, 2017, several months after filing his notice of tort claim, Johnson filed a complaint against the Department of Labor, alleging negligence and requesting damages exceeding $10,000 for the unnecessary delay of his unemployment benefits. The Department of Labor subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Johnson failed to timely file a notice of tort claim as required by the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA). The district court granted the Department of Labor's motion pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) motion and dismissed Johnson's claim with prejudice on September 14, 2017.
Johnson filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion to allow additional discovery, both of which were denied on November 15, 2017. Johnson then filed a motion for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b) and a motion to aside the judgment pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). In his supporting memorandum, Johnson also asked for the judgment to be altered or amended pursuant to Rule 59(e). The district court denied these motions on February 13, 2018, explaining that the Rule 52(b) and 59(e) motions were untimely and "that the Rule 60(b)(6) motion is improper to the extent that the plaintiff is trying to re-litigate the substance of his negligence claim and challenge the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by this Court in its original" decision. The district court also awarded attorney fees to the Department of Labor after finding that Johnson's second set of post-judgment motions were untimely and without merit.
Johnson then appealed the district court's September 14, 2017 order, November 15, 2017 order, and February 13, 2018 order in a single notice of appeal. Prior to oral argument, this Court dismissed the portions of Johnson's appeal related to the 2017 orders because they were not timely appealed. The only issues addressed here are related to the order dated February 13, 2018, because it was the only decision Johnson timely appealed.
The district court's decision to grant or deny motions under both Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) and 59(e) is within the discretion of the trial court. Pandrea v. Barrett, 160 Idaho 165, 171, 369 P.3d 943, 949 (2016) ; Eby v. State , 148 Idaho 731, 734, 228 P.3d 998, 1001 (2010). Thus, we review the district court's determinations for an abuse of discretion. Pandrea, 160 Idaho at 171, 369 P.3d at 949 ; Eby, 148 Idaho at 734, 228 P.3d at 1001. The abuse of discretion standard is well known:
When this Court reviews an alleged abuse of discretion by a trial court the sequence of inquiry requires consideration of four essentials. Whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.
Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856, 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018).
Johnson states that the district court erred in denying his motion for additional findings of facts and conclusions of law, but he fails to cite to any case law, rules, or statutes to support his position, and he fails to offer any explanation of how the court erred in denying the motion. His simple statement of an issue is insufficient—we will not address an issue where the appellant fails to make an argument or cite to authority. See, e.g., Hurtado v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 153 Idaho 13, 17, 278 P.3d 415, 419 (2012).
Johnson states that the district court erred in denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment for untimeliness because his motion for reconsideration tolled the time in which to file his Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion. Though unstated, Johnson seems to argue that the district court abused its discretion by failing to apply the correct law. We disagree.
Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) states, "A motion to alter or amend the judgment must be filed and served no later than 14 days after entry of the judgment." A motion for reconsideration must also be filed within 14 days after entry of the final judgment. I.R.C.P. 11.2(b)(1). A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment is not subject to reconsideration. I.R.C.P. 11.2(b)(2). While a motion for reconsideration tolls the time for filing an appeal until an order is entered deciding the motion, see, e.g., Castle v. Hays, 131 Idaho 373, 374, 957 P.2d 351, 352 (1998), it does not toll the filing requirements of other post-judgment motions. See Dunlap v. Cassia Mem'l Hosp. Med. Ctr., 134 Idaho 233, 236, 999 P.2d 888, 891 (2000).
In Dunlap v. Cassia Memorial Hospital Medical Center , the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration within 14 days of the certified final judgment, giving them 42 days to file an appeal following the entry of the district court's order denying that motion for reconsideration. 134 Idaho at 236, 999 P.2d at 891. Then the plaintiffs filed a second motion for reconsideration—treated by the Court as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment—more than 14 days following the certified final judgment. Id. This Court held this second motion untimely, and used the original final judgment date as the measuring stick for the motion's timeliness. Id. "This renewed motion was untimely as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the certified partial summary judgment because it was clearly made more than fourteen days after the entry of the certified judgment." Id.
Here, the district court entered its final judgment on September 14, 2017, which meant Johnson should have filed his Rule 59(e) motion by September 28, 2017. Johnson did not file his motion to amend or alter the judgment until November 29, 2017, two months too late. Johnson has equated the tolling of appeals with tolling the time requirements for post-judgment motions, a theory this Court rejected in Dunlap. Like in Dunlap, Johnson filed a Rule 59(e) motion far beyond the 14 day deadline in the hopes that his earlier motion for reconsideration would toll the timeline. It did not. Therefore, the district court was correct in finding Johnson's motion untimely and it correctly applied Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) ’s strict 14-day filing deadline. There was no abuse of discretion.
To continue reading
Request your trial