Lankford v. City of Laramie

• Decision Date: 19 November 2004
• Docket Number: No. 03-205.,03-205.
• Citation: 2004 WY 143,100 P.3d 1238
• Parties: STEVIA L. LANKFORD and MARCUS C. SCHUENKE, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. CITY OF LARAMIE, a Municipal Corporation; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1 to 20, Appellees (Defendants).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

2004 WY 143

100 P.3d 1238

STEVIA L. LANKFORD and MARCUS C. SCHUENKE, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. CITY OF LARAMIE, a Municipal Corporation; and DOE DEFENDANTS , Appellees (Defendants).

No. 03-205.

Supreme Court of Wyoming. OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2004.

November 19, 2004.

Representing Appellants: Robert T. Moxley of Gage & Moxley, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming; and John E. Stanfield of Stanfield Law Office, Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees: M. Gregory Weisz and Megan Overmann of Pence and MacMillan LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

VOIGT, Justice.

[¶1] This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to the City of Laramie (the City) in a governmental claims case. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] The appellants present the issues as follows:

I. Is legislation unconstitutional which prevents recovery against a governmental entity for property damage, by imposing a $500.00 damage cap, by narrowing the standard of liability, by vesting a "designated" official with "discretion" to pay or—based on the availability of funds—deny payment, and by abolishing judicial review?

II. Can the plaintiff's complaint—a "notice pleading" prior to discovery—be sustained in setting forth a "taking or damaging" cause of action, or a claim sounding in inverse condemnation?

III. Where an amended or supplemental "governmental claim" is presented within the two-year statutory period for "presentation" of same after a cause of action accrues, may an action be commenced within one year of such claim?

The City restates the issues as follows:

I. Summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds was appropriate when appellants failed to meet the statute of limitations in the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act, appellants admitted they missed the statute of limitations, and appellants did not respond to the summary judgment motion in the district court.

II. The claims procedure and statute of limitations provisions of the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act are constitutional and are rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective.

III. The Wyoming Governmental Claims Act is presumptively constitutional and appellants' facial challenge to other portions of the Act must be rejected for lack of justiciability and appellants' failure to precisely and analytically argue the matter.

FACTS

[¶3] Stevia L. Lankford and Marcus C. Schuenke (the appellants) owned a home in Laramie. On March 4, 2001, they returned home to find raw sewage in their basement. Subsequent investigation led them to believe that their sewer line had been damaged by the City during the repair of a water main in the street in front of their home.

[¶4] On April 2, 2001, the appellants sent a letter to the City setting forth a claim for their as-yet undetermined repair costs. In a letter dated June 6, 2001, the City's Utility Maintenance Supervisor responded as follows:

In regard to the repair of your broken sewer service, please send all unpaid invoices and any costs you have paid to the City of Laramie Utilities Division for payment and/or re-imbursement. Because it appears that the service was broken due to a water main line repair that was completed by city crews, we feel it is our responsibility to restore the service.

[¶5] The matter was not quickly resolved, however, and on July 13, 2001, the appellants presented a formal claim to the City. After detailing the damages and repair work being done, and expressing a claim of $150,000.00 to $250,000.00, the appellants offered to settle for $50,000.00 plus the costs of foundation repair. The City denied the claim in a letter from its attorney on September 28, 2001. The City took the position that its earlier offer to pay for the damages was based on an inadequate investigation, and that subsequent investigation showed that the sewer line damage had been caused by the initial service main break and not by the City's responsive repair work. Further, the City contended that the appellants' damages, if any, were greatly overstated and were caused by the appellants' own failure to mitigate.

[¶6] On February 28, 2003, the appellants filed a complaint in the district court. Although somewhat unclear, it appears that the complaint states as causes of action negligence, intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, and violation of constitutional rights. An amended complaint filed on March 11, 2003, somewhat more clearly contains allegations of negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violation of Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 33 (taking or damaging private property for public use without just compensation/inverse condemnation), and violation of the appellants' rights to due process and equal protection. In addition, the amended complaint seeks declaratory relief and challenges the constitutionality of the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (the WGCA), Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-101 et seq. (LexisNexis 2003). On the same date that they filed their original complaint, the appellants also filed in the district court a second notice of claim. Two copies of this notice of claim appear in the record, neither of which shows signature by the appellants or their attorney.

[¶7] The City answered the amended complaint and on April 9, 2003, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on State Law Damage Claims.¹ The City's central argument in support of its motion was that nearly twenty months passed between presentment of the first notice of claim on July 13, 2001, and filing of the complaint on February 28, 2003, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-114.² After hearing, the district court issued its Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment & Order on Declaratory Judgment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶8] Our standard for review of summary judgments has been stated many times and need not be reiterated here. See, for example, Nuhome Investments, LLC v. Weller, 2003 WY 171, ¶ 7, 81 P.3d 940, 944 (Wyo. 2003)

and Ahrenholtz v. Laramie Economic Development Corp., 2003 WY 149, ¶ 16, 79 P.3d 511, 515 (Wyo. 2003). We will particularly note, however, the following portion of that standard:

"The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case for summary judgment. Thereafter, the party opposing summary judgment becomes obliged to marshal specific facts, as contrasted with general or conclusory allegations, which establish a genuine issue of material fact."

Coates v. Anderson, 2004 WY 11, ¶ 5, 84 P.3d 953, 956 (Wyo. 2004) (quoting Mize v. North Big Horn Hosp. Dist., 931 P.2d 229, 232 (Wyo. 1997)

. Our usual standard of review of summary judgments applies in the context of a declaratory judgment action. Hirschfield v. Board of County Com'rs of County of Teton, 944 P.2d 1139, 1141-42 (Wyo. 1997).

[¶9] Statutes carry a strong presumption of constitutionality and challengers bear a heavy burden in overcoming that presumption. Cathcart v. Meyer, 2004 WY 49, ¶ 7, 88 P.3d 1050, 1056 (Wyo. 2004) (quoting Reiter v. State; 2001 WY 116, ¶ 7, 36 P.3d 586, 589 (Wyo. 2001)

) The unconstitutionality of a statute must be clearly shown beyond a reasonable doubt. Meyer v. Kendig, 641 P.2d 1235, 1238 (Wyo. 1982) (quoting Nickelson v. People, 607 P.2d 904, 910 (Wyo. 1980)).

DISCUSSION

[¶10] Preliminarily, we must discuss the factual and legal setting in which this summary judgment was granted. As mentioned earlier herein, the single basis for the City's motion was the appellants' admitted failure to file their complaint within the one-year limitation period set by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-114. Paragraph 34 of the amended complaint contained this sentence: "This action was filed within the two year period specified in § 1-39-105 but more than one year after a Notice of Claim was filed."³ In addition to this admission, paragraph 15 of the amended complaint referred to an attached notice of claim dated July 13, 2001. The complaint was filed on February 28, 2003. The amended complaint was filed on March 11, 2003. These are the undisputed facts upon which the City based its motion for summary judgment.

[¶11] The appellants responded to the City's motion by seeking relief under W.R.C.P. 56(f), which provides:

Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.

The appellants submitted the affidavit of their attorney in support of their request for additional time in which to respond to the City's motion. The contentions in that affidavit may be summarized as follows: the appellants had not yet been informed whether the attorney general intended to participate in the action in defense of the constitutionality of the WGCA; the City's motion would only address the conduct of the appellants—the issue of timely filing of the action—and not the conduct of the City in denying the claim; the appellants' attorney was ill; the appellants' attorney was busy; discovery was necessary given the numerous causes of action stated in the amended complaint; the recent firing of the city manager may have been related to this case; and city officials may have been biased against the appellants' attorney.

[¶12] The City's reply to the appellants' motion for relief presented two arguments. First, the City pointed out that the appellants' motion was untimely under W.R.C.P. 6(c) and 56. See Harris v. Grizzle, 625 P.2d 747, 750 (Wyo. 1981)

Second, the City contended that the motion and its supporting affidavit utterly failed to show that a continuance would enable the appellants to contest the undisputed facts surrounding the only relevant issue, that being the statute of limitations. See Jensen v. Redevelopment...