Craig v. Provo City
389 P.3d 423
| Utah | 2016Background
- In 2010 Provo City police arrested Craig, Harper, and Lazerson for alleged theft; criminal charges against Craig and Harper were later dismissed and they sued Provo City for malicious prosecution, conversion, and tortious interference.
- Plaintiffs served timely Notices of Claim under the Governmental Immunity Act (GU IA); their first district-court complaint was filed within the one-year period but lacked the $300 undertaking (bond) required by Utah Code § 63G-7-601(2) and was dismissed without prejudice.
- After dismissal (which occurred after the one-year limitations period expired), plaintiffs refiled with the bond but outside the Immunity Act’s one-year filing window; Provo City moved to dismiss as time-barred.
- Plaintiffs invoked the general Savings Statute, Utah Code § 78B-2-111, arguing their second suit was timely because the first timely-filed suit was dismissed otherwise than on the merits.
- The district court held the Governmental Immunity Act exclusively governs timing and dismissed; the Utah Court of Appeals reversed, applying the Savings Statute; the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding the Governmental Immunity Act’s detailed timing and filing scheme forecloses application of the Savings Statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Governmental Immunity Act (GU IA) time-bar provisions are subject to the general Savings Statute | Savings Statute saves the second suit because the first complaint was timely filed and dismissed otherwise than on the merits | GUIA is a comprehensive, exclusive scheme governing timing and filing; it precludes supplement by the Savings Statute | The GUIA’s detailed timing and filing requirements occupy the field for suits against government and foreclose the Savings Statute |
| Whether the Legislature must make a "plain statement" to displace the Savings Statute | Standard Federal requires an explicit legislative statement to displace general statutes like the Savings Statute | GUIA’s text and structure implicitly but sufficiently exclude general savings rules for government claims | No special plain-statement requirement; GUIA’s detailed scheme is enough to displace the Savings Statute |
| Whether courts should rely on statutory purpose (notice/investigation) over text to allow Savings Statute to apply | Once notice requirements are met, GUIA’s purpose is satisfied so the Savings Statute may revive procedural-defect refilings | Text controls; multiple legislative purposes (finality, bond protection) require enforcement of all GUIA conditions | Text governs; courts must apply the statute’s terms rather than prioritize an inferred single purpose |
| Whether allowing Savings Statute would undermine GUIA’s procedural hurdles (e.g., bond) | Applying Savings Statute does not defeat notice purpose and does not conflict with GUIA’s goals | Revival would permit circumvention of bond and one-year limit, undermining finality and protections for government | Revival would permit strategic delay and inconsistent enforcement of GUIA requirements; GUIA precludes such revival |
Key Cases Cited
- Peak Alarm Co. v. Werner, 297 P.3d 592 (Utah 2013) (held the GUIA’s limitations scheme replaces general limitations in Title 78B for claims against government)
- Graves v. N.E. Servs., Inc., 345 P.3d 619 (Utah 2015) (statutory interpretation requires primary focus on text; legislative purpose is secondary)
- Standard Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Kirkbride, 821 P.2d 1136 (Utah 1991) (discusses interaction between savings statute and other statutory preconditions to suit)
- Shafer v. State, 79 P.3d 936 (Utah 2003) (describes GUIA’s notice purpose: allowing prompt government investigation)
- Schroeder Invs., L.C. v. Edwards, 301 P.3d 994 (Utah 2013) (courts must implement the policy balance reflected in statutory text)