Call v. Town of Thayne
288 P.3d 1214
Wyo.2012Background
- In 2009 WYDOT awarded the Town of Thayne a grant for canal landscaping funded under federal and state guidelines.
- Four bids were submitted; Call was the low bidder at $29,894 but Council set meetings with bidders and Call missed his meeting.
- A higher bid with add-ons was considered; other bidders were asked to resubmit with add-ons to be fair.
- April 22, 2010 a different bidder was awarded; Call protested to WYDOT, resulting in withdrawal of grant monies, with the Town later declining the grant in June 2010.
- Call filed a June 2010 complaint later dismissed for GMC Act compliance; February 2011 complaint asserted §1983, independent observation, and breach-of-covenant claims and sought damages.
- The district court granted summary judgment on §1983 and dismissed the remaining claims for failure to state a claim; on appeal, the case was summarily affirmed due to deficient briefing and record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal for failure to state a claim | Call contends district court erred in dismissing his pro se complaint. | Thayne argues the claims fail as a matter of law and records support dismissal. | Affirmed; dismissal upheld. |
| Merits of alleged constitutional rights deprivations via bid process | Call asserts Town deprived rights secured under Constitution and laws through bid process. | Thayne maintains no viable constitutional claim shown; record deficient. | Not reached; record deficiencies prevent review. |
| Independent observation of evaluation process for federal-funded project | Call argues Town failed to provide independent observation during bid evaluation. | Thayne contends claims lack factual support and are barred by record issues. | Not reached; record deficiencies prevent review. |
| Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing from open invitation to bid | Call contends there was an implied covenant arising from the bid invitation. | Thayne challenges viability of implied covenant and procedural grounds. | Not reached; record deficiencies prevent review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berg v. Torrington Livestock Cattle Co., 272 P.3d 963 (Wyo. 2012) (court may summarily affirm for deficient briefing)
- Finch v. Pomeroy, 130 P.3d 437 (Wyo. 2006) (summarily affirm for deficient brief)
- In re Estate of George, 77 P.3d 1219 (Wyo. 2003) (record deficiency aids presumption of trial court findings)
- Nish v. Schaefer, 138 P.3d 1134 (Wyo. 2006) (appellate record burden to provide adequate transcript)
- Capshaw v. Schieck, 44 P.3d 47 (Wyo. 2002) (verifies importance of record for evidentiary review)
- Forbis v. Forbis, 203 P.3d 421 (Wyo. 2009) (require cogent argument and pertinent authority)