Spoons v. Lewis, 980176.

Decision Date03 September 1999
Docket NumberNo. 980176.,980176.
Citation1999 UT 82,987 P.2d 36
PartiesDebra SPOONS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The Honorable Leslie LEWIS, Ronald Yengich, and the Utah Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, Defendants and Appellee.
CourtUtah Supreme Court

Debra Spoons, pro se.

Jan Graham, Att'y Gen., Nancy L. Kemp, Asst. Att'y Gen., Salt Lake City, for Judge Lewis.

Stephen J. Trayner, Salt Lake City, for Ronald Yengich.

RUSSON, Justice:

¶ 1 This case arises out of Debra Spoons' lawsuit against the Honorable Leslie Lewis, Ronald Yengich, and the Utah Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. The suit alleges that defendants tortiously conspired to interfere with Ms. Spoons' "reasonable economic expectancies." This appeal involves only Ms. Spoons' claims against Judge Lewis. Upon receipt of Ms. Spoons' complaint, Judge Lewis moved for dismissal pursuant to Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Judge Lewis asserted that the district court had no subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Spoons' suit because Ms. Spoons had failed to comply with the Utah Governmental Immunity Act's notice of claim provisions. The district court granted the motion, and Ms. Spoons appeals.

¶ 2 Ms. Spoons was a bailiff at the Third District Court. In her complaint, she alleges that she was involved in an ongoing dispute with attorney Ron Yengich concerning court security procedures, which culminated in an incident in which Yengich "hit[] her on the buttocks" and became verbally abusive after Ms. Spoons protested. Thereafter, Ms. Spoons claims, "Defendant[s] Yengich, Lewis, and the Utah Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys entered into a pervasive conspiratorial and unjustified course of tortious malicious, wilful, vicious, and wanton conduct for the specific purpose of securing the termination of Plaintiff's employment, ruining her reputation, and destroying her law enforcement career...." These harms were allegedly accomplished by contacting members of the bar and courthouse staff members, and encouraging them to write trumped up complaints against Plaintiff; by making false and slanderous statements about Plaintiff to the press and to public officials; and by putting overwhelming pressure on the Sheriff to terminate Plaintiff's employment, all the while knowing and intending that her career would be destroyed.

¶ 3 Ms. Spoons filed her suit without complying with the Governmental Immunity Act's notice of claim provisions.1 On appeal, Ms. Spoons raises three arguments. She contends that (1) the district court erred by failing to treat Lewis' motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment because Lewis' motion included affidavits verifying Ms. Spoons' failure to file notice; (2) the Governmental Immunity Act does not apply to Judge Lewis because Lewis is not "an employee" of the government, but is instead a "public officer"; and (3) her suit was brought against Judge Lewis only in Lewis' capacity as a private person.

¶ 4 Ms. Spoons' first argument mistakenly assumes that a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under rule 12(b)(1) is converted to a motion for summary judgment if affidavits are attached. Rule 12 states that if a motion based on subsection (b)(6), or a motion for judgment on the pleadings (after the pleadings are closed), includes matters outside the pleadings, it shall be treated as a motion for summary judgment. See Utah R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 12(c). The purpose of this provision is to allow parties an adequate opportunity to rebut materials outside the pleadings. See Bekins Bar V Ranch v. Utah Farm Prod. Credit Ass'n, 587 P.2d 151, 152 n. 4 (Utah 1978).

¶ 5 Rule 12, however, does not convert motions based on subsections (b)(1) through (5) (which are raised as part of the initial responsive pleadings) into motions for summary judgment simply because they include some affirmative evidence relating to the basis for the motion. In this case, Judge Lewis attached affidavits from relevant government officials for the purpose of demonstrating that Ms. Spoons had not filed a notice of claim. On appeal, Ms. Spoons openly admits she did not comply with the notice of claim provisions. Ms. Spoons therefore cannot complain that the district court's treatment of the motion prevented her from rebutting the evidence establishing her failure to comply with the notice statute.

¶ 6 Ms. Spoons also incorrectly reads the Governmental Immunity Act's applicability to judges. Section 63-30-2(2)(a) of the Act states that the term "`[e]mployee' includes a governmental entity's officers." Judge Lewis is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Mallory v. Brigham Young Univ.
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • August 23, 2012
    ...See id. R. 56(f) (motion for further discovery). The Utah Supreme Court has previously rejected this argument. ¶ 14 In Spoons v. Lewis, 1999 UT 82, 987 P.2d 36, a plaintiff sued a district court judge without first filing a notice of claim under the predecessor of the GIAU, the UGIA. Seeid.......
  • Salt Lake Cnty. v. State, Delta Air Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • May 18, 2020
    ...Counties cite four cases in support of their argument: (1) Coombs v. Juice Works Development Inc. ,32 (2) Wheeler v. McPherson ,33 (3) Spoons v. Lewis ,34 and (4) America West Bank Members, L.C. v. State .35 But none of these cases supports the Counties’ position. ¶31 In Coombs , the Utah C......
  • Amundsen v. Univ. of Utah
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • August 15, 2019
    ...the motion into one for summary judgment. Utah R. Civ. P. 12(b) ; see also Wheeler v. McPherson , 2002 UT 16, ¶ 20, 40 P.3d 632 ; Spoons v. Lewis , 1999 UT 82, ¶¶ 4–5, 987 P.2d 36. Accordingly, when adjudicating a motion brought under rule 12(b), with the exception of a rule 12(b)(6) motion......
  • Coombs v. JUICE WORKS DEVELOPMENT INC.
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • November 14, 2003
    ...some affirmative evidence relating to the basis for the motion.'" Wheeler v. McPherson, 2002 UT 16, ¶ 20, 40 P.3d 632 (quoting Spoons v. Lewis, 1999 UT 82, ¶ 5, 987 P.2d 36). One reason a motion to dismiss for improper venue is not converted into a motion for summary judgment is because a p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT