Westover v. Idaho Counties Risk Mgmt. Program

• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HORTON, Justice.
• Decision Date: 28 November 2018
• Docket Number: Docket No. 45368,Docket No. 44722
• Citation: Westover v. Idaho Counties Risk Mgmt. Program, Docket No. 44722, Docket No. 45368 (Idaho Nov 28, 2018)
• Parties: VAL D. WESTOVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IDAHO COUNTIES RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, Defendant-Respondent.

VAL D. WESTOVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IDAHO COUNTIES RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, Defendant-Respondent.

Docket No. 44722

Docket No. 45368

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Boise, June 2018 Term

November 28, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

SUBSTITUTE OPINION. THE COURT'S PRIOR OPINION DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2018, IS HEREBY WITHDRAWN.

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Franklin County. Hon. Mitchell W. Brown, District Judge.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Atkin Law Office, PC, Clifton, for appellant. Blake S. Atkin argued.

Anderson, Julian & Hull, LLP, Boise, for respondent. Phillip J. Collaer argued.

____________________

HORTON, Justice.

Val D. Westover filed this action seeking a declaration that the existence of the Idaho Counties Risk Management Program (ICRMP) violates Idaho law. Westover appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of ICRMP. Westover also appeals the district court's decision to award attorney fees to ICRMP under Idaho Code section 12-121. The district court held that Westover did not have standing to pursue his claim. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This litigation follows an earlier dispute between Westover and Jase Cundick, the Franklin County Assessor. That dispute came before this Court in Westover v. Cundick, 161 Idaho 933, 393 P.3d 593 (2017). There, Westover advanced claims for slander of title and intentional interference with existing or potential economic relations and sought writs of mandate and prohibition. Id. at 935, 393 P.3d at 595. After Westover voluntarily dismissed the slander oftitle and tortious interference claims, the district court denied his requests for extraordinary writs and dismissed the action. Id. at 936, 393 P.3d at 596. Westover appealed. We affirmed the judgment of the district court and declined to award attorney fees to either party. Id. at 937-38, 393 P.3d at 597-98.

Westover then brought this action, seeking a declaration that ICRMP's existence and relationship with county governments violates the directive in Idaho Code section 12-117(3) that attorney fees awarded against a state agency or political subdivision "shall be paid from funds in the regular operating budget . . . ."

ICRMP moved for summary judgment, contending that Westover lacked standing to pursue his claim. In response, Westover moved for an order compelling discovery and opposed ICRMP's motion for summary judgment on the basis that ICRMP had failed to adequately respond to his discovery requests. The district court treated Westover's opposition as a motion under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) to defer decision on the motion for summary judgment. The district court denied the motion because Westover had not complied with the affidavit or declaration requirement of the rule. The district court then granted ICRMP's motion. In a written opinion, the district court held that Westover lacked standing to pursue the action, relying on this Court's decision in Brooksby v. Geico General Insurance Company, 153 Idaho 546, 286 P.3d 182 (2012), overruled on other grounds by Tucker v. State, 162 Idaho 11, 394 P.3d 54 (2017).

After granting ICRMP's motion for summary judgment, ICRMP moved for attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-121 on the grounds that Westover's appeal was frivolous and without foundation. The district court denied this request solely because none of the materials in support of ICRMP's motion itemized the claimed expenses as required. ICRMP filed a motion to reconsider the district court's denial of attorney fees. The district court granted the motion to reconsider and subsequently granted the request for attorney fees after the itemization issue was resolved.¹ Westover timely appealed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) for an extension of time to file additional affidavits, depositions, and interrogatories in opposition to a motion for summary judgment is committed to the discretion of the district court. Haight v. Idaho Dep't of Transportation, 163 Idaho 383, 388, 414 P.3d 205, 210 (2018). "The awarding of attorney fees and costs is within the discretion of the trial court and subject to review for an abuse of discretion." Smith v. Mitton, 140 Idaho 893, 897, 104 P.3d 367, 371 (2004). When this Court reviews an alleged abuse of discretion by a trial court, we consider "[w]hether 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).

"Jurisdictional issues, like standing, are questions of law, over which this Court exercises free review." Tucker v. State, 162 Idaho 11, 17, 394 P.3d 54, 60 (2017) (quoting In re Jerome Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 153 Idaho 298, 308, 281 P.3d 1076, 1086 (2012)). "[J]usticiability challenges are subject to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) since they implicate jurisdiction." Id. at 18, 394 P.3d at 61. "[J]justiciability doctrines can be raised sua sponte at any time." Id. at 18 n.4, 394 P.3d at 61 n.4.

III. ANALYSIS

A. The district court did not err in ruling on ICRMP's motion for summary judgment.

As a preliminary issue, Westover argues that the district court erred by not considering his motion to compel that was filed in opposition to ICRMP's motion for summary judgment. The district court treated this motion as made under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). That Rule provides:

If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.

I.R.C.P. 56(d). We recently explained these requirements in Fagen, Inc. v. Lava Beds Wind Park, LLC, 159 Idaho 628, 368 P.3d 1193 (2016):

The rule clearly contemplates that such a motion must be supported with an affidavit stating the reasons why the continuance is necessary. The party seeking a continuance has the burden of setting out what further discovery would reveal thatis essential to justify their opposition, making clear what information is sought and how it would preclude summary judgment.

Id. at 632, 364 P.3d at 1197 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

The district court found no basis for delaying consideration of ICRMP's motion:

Westover has wholly failed to comply with I.R.C.P. 56(d). He did not file a motion requesting any relief allowed pursuant to I.R.C.P. 56(d) . . . . He did not file an affidavit or declaration setting forth a "specified reason" for any of the relief allowed . . . .

On appeal, Westover does not dispute the district court's description of the procedural posture of his motion. Indeed, his opening brief does not identify the standard of review relating to a motion pursuant to Rule 56(d), I.R.C.P., much less attempt to explain why the district court's decision constituted an abuse of discretion. This is fatal to his contention that the district court erred by entertaining ICRMP's motion for summary judgment without deciding his motion to compel. Mortensen v. Berian, 163 Idaho 47, 53, 408 P.3d 45, 51 (2017).

B. The district court properly dismissed Westover's action.

Turning to the substance of Westover's appeal, he challenges the district court's determination that he lacked standing to advance his claim that ICRMP's existence and relationship with county governments violates the requirement in Idaho Code section 12-117(3) that attorney fees awarded against a state agency or political subdivision "shall be paid from funds in the regular operating budget . . . ." Westover contends that Idaho Code section 10-1202 gives him standing as a "person interested . . . whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute [or] contract . . . ." The district court granted summary judgment after finding that Westover had "no contractual, tortious or other legal basis or standing to sue" and, absent an actual or justiciable controversy, Idaho's Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, Idaho Code sections 10-201-10-1216, did not independently give Westover standing to pursue his claim.

"Justiciability is generally divided into subcategories—advisory opinions, feigned and collusive cases, standing, ripeness, mootness, political questions, and administrative questions." Wylie v. State, 151 Idaho 26, 31, 253 P.3d 700, 705 (2011) (quoting Miles v. Idaho Power Co., 116 Idaho 635, 639, 778 P.2d 757, 761 (1989)). "Concepts of justiciability . . . identify appropriate or suitable occasions for adjudication by a court." Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. Denney, 161 Idaho 508, 513, 387 P.3d 761, 766 (2015) (quoting State v. Philip Morris, Inc., 158 Idaho 874, 881, 354 P.3d 187, 194 (2015)). This Court has previously stated that Idaho Code section10-1202 applies only " 'in a case where an actual or justiciable controversy exists.' This concept precludes courts from deciding cases which are purely hypothetical or advisory." Wylie, 151 Idaho at 31, 253 P.3d at 705 (quoting State v. Rhoades, 119 Idaho 594, 597, 809 P.2d 455, 458 (1991)). Because the Idaho Constitution does not contain a strict case or controversy requirement—unlike the federal Constitution—the justiciability requirement is a "self-imposed constraint" that may be relaxed in rare cases to guarantee "important constitutional provisions." Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 161 Idaho at 513-14, 387 P.3d at 766-67.

The different justiciability doctrines are closely related and can often overlap when no actual case or controversy exists. Although the district court considered only whether Westover had standing, we are free to affirm the...