Mutual v. Thomasson

• Decision Date: 06 February 2014
• Docket Number: No. 59176.,59176.
• Citation: 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 4,317 P.3d 831
• Parties: LIBERTY MUTUAL; and Carson City Senior Citizens Center, Appellants/Cross–Respondents, v. Robert THOMASSON, Respondent/Cross–Appellant.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

317 P.3d 831

130 Nev. Adv. Op. 4

LIBERTY MUTUAL; and Carson City Senior Citizens Center, Appellants/Cross–Respondents,

v.Robert THOMASSON, Respondent/Cross–Appellant.

No. 59176.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Feb. 6, 2014.

Piscevich & Fenner, and Kimberley Fenner, and Mark J. Lenz, Reno, for Appellants/Cross–Respondents.

Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers, and W. Darrell Nedd, Senior Deputy, Carson City, for Respondent/Cross–Appellant.

BEFORE HARDESTY, PARRAGUIRRE and CHERRY, JJ.

OPINION

By the Court, PARRAGUIRRE, J.:

Appellant/cross-respondent Liberty Mutual filed a petition for judicial review in the Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County, challenging an appeals officer's decision that reversed Liberty Mutual's denial of respondent/cross-appellant Robert Thomasson's workers' compensation claim. Thomasson filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Liberty Mutual could not file its petition in the Second Judicial District because it was not a resident of Washoe County. Liberty Mutual opposed, seeking either consideration on the merits or a transfer of venue. The Second Judicial District Court transferred venue. NRS. 233B.130(2)(b) provides that a petition for judicial review of an agency determination must be filed in Carson City, the aggrieved party's county of residence, or the county where the agency proceeding occurred. We conclude that NRS 233B.130(2)(b) is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement and that because Liberty Mutual is not a resident of Washoe County, the Second Judicial District Court lacked jurisdiction to consider its petition for judicial review and should have dismissed it rather than transfer venue. We accordingly vacate the district court's order transferring venue and remand this matter to the district court with directions to dismiss Liberty Mutual's petition for judicial review.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Carson City Senior Citizens Center employed Thomasson to deliver meals to elderly persons in Carson City. In May 2010, Thomasson slipped down a flight of stairs while delivering a meal and injured his knee. Thomasson filed a workers' compensation claim for the injury, but Liberty Mutual, his employer's workers' compensation insurer, found that the injury did not occur within the scope of Thomasson's employment and denied the claim. Thomasson administratively appealed, and although the Department of Administration hearing officer affirmed Liberty Mutual's decision, the appeals officer reversed the claim denial.¹ Liberty Mutual then filed a petition for judicial review in the Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County.

Thomasson filed a motion to dismiss Liberty Mutual's petition on the ground that it did not comply with NRS 233B.130(2)(b). Thomasson argued that NRS 233B.130(2)(b) is a jurisdictional statute that specifically sets forth the courts in which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and because Liberty Mutual is not a resident of Washoe County, the petition did not comply with the statutory residency requirement. In opposition, Liberty Mutual argued that since it has an office in Reno, venue was proper and, in the alternative, the motion to dismiss should be treated as a motion to transfer venue. The district court agreed with Thomasson that filing the petition in the Second Judicial District Court was improper, but the court granted Liberty Mutual's request to treat the motion to dismiss as a motion to transfer venue. Accordingly, the district court ordered that the case be transferred to the First Judicial District Court in Carson City. The parties now bring this appeal and cross-appeal.

DISCUSSION

In addressing the district court's order transferring venue, we must first consider the threshold issue of jurisdiction raised by Thomasson's cross-appeal. We conclude that NRS 233B.130(2)(b) is mandatory and jurisdictional and that because Liberty Mutual is not a resident of Washoe County, the petition failed to satisfy the jurisdictional burden imposed by NRS 233B.130(2)(b). As a result, the Second Judicial District Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. Furthermore, because NRS 233B.130(2)(c) provides that the petition must be brought within 30 days and that time period has passed, Liberty Mutual cannot amend or refile its petition to correct the deficiency. We therefore vacate the district court's order transferring venue and remand the matter to the district court with directions to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.²

NRS 233B.130(2)(b) is mandatory and jurisdictional

Thomasson argues that NRS 233B.130(2)(b) sets forth a mandatory jurisdictional requirement, and because Washoe County was the incorrect location for Liberty Mutual to file its petition for judicial review, the Second Judicial District Court did not have jurisdiction to consider the petition. Furthermore, Thomasson asserts that the time frame for filing the petition in NRS 233B.130(2)(c) has lapsed, and thus Liberty Mutual cannot now correct its error. Whether NRS 233B.130(2)(b) establishes a jurisdictional requirement or a venue requirement is a matter of first impression in Nevada.

We review questions of law, such as statutory interpretation, de novo. Washoe Cnty. v. Otto, 128 Nev. ––––, ––––, 282 P.3d 719, 724 (2012). Nevada's Administrative Procedure Act (APA), codified at NRS Chapter 233B, sets forth the procedure for judicial review of agency decisions. At issue in this appeal is one of three filing requirements delineated in NRS 233B.130(2), which provides:

Petitions for judicial review must:

(a) Name as respondents the agency and all parties of record to the administrative proceeding;

(b) Be instituted by filing a petition in the district court in and for Carson City, in and for the county in which the aggrieved party resides or in and for the county where the agency proceeding occurred; and

(c) Be filed within 30 days after service of the final decision of the agency.

(Emphases added.) We have previously construed NRS 233B.130(2)(a) and (c) to be mandatory jurisdictional requirements, but we have not before addressed NRS 233B.130(2)(b). See Otto, 128 Nev. at ––––, 282 P.3d at 725 (construing paragraph (a)); Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 186, 189, 42 P.3d 268, 271 (2002) (addressing paragraph (c)). ³

Otto provides a straightforward answer to the question raised in this appeal. There, this court held that paragraph (a) is mandatory and jurisdictional, and we stated that nothing in NRS 233B.130(2)'s plain language “suggests that its requirements are anything but mandatory and jurisdictional.” 128 Nev. at ––––, 282 P.3d at 725. We explained that the word “must” which precedes paragraphs (a) through (c), imposes a mandatory requirement, that this court previously held that the requirements of paragraph (c) are mandatory and jurisdictional, see Civil Serv. Comm'n, 118 Nev. at 189, 42 P.3d at 271, and that there is no reason to construe paragraph (a) differently than paragraph (c). Otto, 128 Nev. at ––––, 282 P.3d at 725.

Despite this precedent, Liberty Mutual argues that this court has read similar language in another statute as imposing a venue requirement, not a mandatory jurisdictional requirement. In In re Nevada State Engineer Ruling No. 5823, we interpreted a forum clause in NRS Chapter 533 as imposing a venue requirement, not a mandatory jurisdictional requirement. 128 Nev. ––––, ––––, 277 P.3d 449, 457 (2012). NRS 533.450(1) provides that a party seeking judicial review of a water rights decision by the State Engineer “must be initiated in the proper court of the county in which the matters affected or a portion thereof are situated.” Noting that the forum language of NRS 533.450(1) “speaks the language of venue,” we held that the forum clause addressed venue, not jurisdiction. In re Nev. State Eng'r Ruling No. 5823, 128 Nev. at ––––, 277 P.3d at 457.

Although the forum language of NRS 533.450(1) is superficially similar to the APA, NRS Chapter 533 is a separate statutory scheme, and we have consistently held that the APA has strict jurisdictional requirements for judicial review of agency decisions. Crane v. Cont'l Tel. Co. of Cal., 105 Nev. 399, 401, 775 P.2d 705, 706 (1989) (holding that “[c]ourts have no inherent appellate jurisdiction over official acts of administrative agencies except where the [L]egislature has made some statutory provision for judicial review,” and such procedures are therefore controlling). Thus, when seeking judicial review of an administrative decision pursuant to the APA, the petitioner must challenge that decision according to the APA's specific procedures in order to invoke the district court's jurisdiction. Otto, 128 Nev. at ––––, 282 P.3d at 725. Therefore, a party must strictly comply with the APA's jurisdictional requirements, and “ ‘[n]oncompliance with the requirements is grounds for dismissal.’ ” Id. (quoting Kame v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 105 Nev. 22, 25, 769 P.2d 66, 68 (1989)).

Accordingly, In re Nevada State Engineer Ruling No. 5823 does not provide useful guidance in interpreting whether NRS 233B.130(2)(b) is jurisdictional. Instead, we agree with Thomasson that Otto directly applies to the issue on appeal and conclude that NRS 233B.130(2)(b) is mandatory and jurisdictional. Thus, failure to strictly comply with NRS 233B.130(2)(b) requires dismissal.⁴

Liberty Mutual is not a resident of Washoe County under NRS 233B.130(2)(b)

In order for its petition for judicial review, filed in the Second Judicial District Court, to comply with NRS 233B.130(2)(b), Liberty Mutual must be a resident of Washoe County. The district court determined that Liberty Mutual was not a resident of Washoe County, and we now address Liberty Mutual's argument that the district court erred in making this determination because it has an office in Reno. The term “resides,” as used in NRS 233B.130(2)(b), is not defined, and its definition in this context is an issue of first impression.

We review questions of...