Hyland v. Dixie State University, 2:15-cv-00036

Plaintiff Dallas Hyland, a former Dixie State University student, sued after disciplinary suspension and alleged defamation in his fourth cause of action.
Hyland served a notice of claim November 20, 2013, but never filed the UGIA-required undertaking (minimum $300) when he filed his federal Complaint on January 20, 2015.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on failure to comply with the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (UGIA) undertaking requirement.
Hyland argued the undertaking did not apply in federal court because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern; the court rejected that argument.
The Utah Legislature later amended the UGIA (2017) to allow refiling in limited circumstances; the court examined whether that amendment should apply retroactively to revive Hyland’s claim.
The court held the amendment could not be applied retroactively because doing so would eliminate Defendants’ vested statute-of-limitations defense; therefore Hyland’s fourth cause of action was dismissed with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the UGIA undertaking is required in federal court	Hyland: undertaking not required in federal court because Federal Rules apply	Defs: UGIA undertaking applies to suits in federal court; noncompliance deprives court of jurisdiction	Court: undertaking requirement applies in federal court; failure deprives jurisdiction
Whether failure to file undertaking requires dismissal	Hyland: did not contest dismissal type separately	Defs: failure requires dismissal; limitations defense bars refiling	Court: dismissal required for lack of jurisdiction
Whether 2017 UGIA amendment allowing refiling applies retroactively to revive claim	Hyland: amendment should permit refiling and salvage claim	Defs: amendment cannot divest their vested statute-of-limitations defense	Court: amendment is procedural but cannot be applied to revive a claim once a defendant’s limitations defense vested; not retroactive here
Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice	Hyland: sought ability to refile under amendment	Defs: dismissal with prejudice because claim time-barred and limitation defense vested	Court: dismissed Hyland’s fourth cause of action with prejudice

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage)
Greene v. Utah Transit Auth., 37 P.3d 1156 (Utah 2001) (UGIA requires undertaking to confer jurisdiction)
Rippstein v. City of Provo, 929 F.2d 576 (10th Cir. 1991) (UGIA undertaking applies in federal court)
Craig v. Provo City, 389 P.3d 423 (Utah 2016) (failure to pay undertaking can lead to dismissal with prejudice when limitations period has expired)
Del Monte Corp. v. Moore, 580 P.2d 224 (Utah 1978) (limitations statutes relate to remedies; extensions are remedial)
Roark v. Crabtree, 893 P.2d 1058 (Utah 1995) (statute-of-limitations defense is a vested right)