Cheek v. Iron County
427 P.3d 522
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2010 Cheek sued Iron County, the Iron County Attorney (Scott Garrett), and Cedar City in federal court asserting §1983 claims and Utah "unnecessary rigor" claims arising from her arrest, alleged illegal collection of samples, and a failure to protect her from sexual assault while jailed.
- The federal court dismissed claims against Garrett in his official capacity (with prejudice) and Cheek conceded to dismissal of her federal claims; the court dismissed the federal case and advised she could pursue state-law claims in state court.
- In 2015 Cheek refiled two Utah unnecessary-rigor claims in state district court against the same defendants, but service was imperfect: she served the County Recorder rather than the County Clerk for Iron County.
- Cedar City moved to dismiss for failure to file a Governmental Immunity Act notice of claim; Garrett asserted res judicata based on the federal dismissal; Iron County moved to dismiss for defective service.
- The state court dismissed Cedar City for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (relying on GIA notice rules), dismissed Garrett with prejudice (res judicata), and dismissed Iron County for lack of personal jurisdiction (defective service). Cheek appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plaintiff must name the individual employee as a party to proceed against a governmental employer on an unnecessary-rigor claim | Cheek: No; unnecessary-rigor claims against a governmental employer are not subject to the Governmental Immunity Act notice rule and need not name the individual employee as a named defendant at filing | Cedar City: Plaintiff must name the individual employee whose conduct caused the injury to proceed against the government; thus dismissal of employees moots City suit | Court: Reversed dismissal of Cedar City; held plaintiff need not name the individual employee as a named defendant at filing to proceed against the governmental employer (Bott does not impose a mandatory pleading rule) |
| Whether Garrett is precluded by res judicata from Cheek's state unnecessary-rigor claim | Cheek: Federal dismissal of Garrett wasn’t a judgment on the merits of the unnecessary-rigor claim because the federal court never decided the substantive state-law issue | Garrett: Federal dismissal for failure to plead the claim is a final judgment on the merits and has preclusive effect | Court: Affirmed dismissal of Garrett; dismissal in federal court (failure to state a claim) is a final judgment on the merits that precludes relitigation |
| Whether Iron County was subject to personal jurisdiction despite defective service because other co-defendants were served | Cheek: Rule 4(b)(ii) allowed additional time where other co-defendants had been served; court should have found jurisdiction or allowed re-service | Iron County: Rule 4 required service on county clerk; insufficient service defeats personal jurisdiction; co-defendant pendency exception is inapplicable once served co-defendants were dismissed | Court: Affirmed dismissal of Iron County; under Hunter and Rule 4, plaintiff had to serve unserved defendant within 120 days once served co-defendants were formally dismissed, and Cheek failed to meet that requirement |
| Whether the district court’s jurisdictional error as to Cedar City is moot given dismissal of city employees | Cedar City: Dismissal of all city employees with prejudice moots any jurisdictional error because individual tortfeasors were dismissed | Cheek: Not moot; Bott does not require naming an employee and dismissal of employees does not defeat City liability | Court: Rejected mootness argument; reversed dismissal of Cedar City and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bott v. DeLand, 922 P.2d 732 (Utah 1996) (discusses unnecessary-rigor liability and employer responsibility for employee conduct)
- Mack v. Utah State Dep’t of Commerce, 221 P.3d 194 (Utah 2009) (motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim can have res judicata effect)
- Hunter v. Sunrise Title Co., 84 P.3d 1163 (Utah 2004) (co-defendant service rule does not save unserved defendants once served co-defendants are dismissed; 120-day service rule applies)
- Miller v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 44 P.3d 663 (Utah 2002) (definition of judgment "on the merits" for res judicata context)
- Gregory v. Shurtleff, 299 P.3d 1098 (Utah 2013) (standard of review on motion to dismiss)