Jaysen McCleary v. City of Des Moines Zoning Board of Adjustment
16-0620
| Iowa Ct. App. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- McCleary sought zoning variances and permits in Sept 2014 to operate a home pet‑boarding business; the Des Moines Zoning Board denied his requests (decision filed Oct 23, 2014).
- McCleary filed a petition for writ of certiorari on Nov 25, 2014; removed to federal court where his federal claims were dismissed and the case was remanded to state court.
- McCleary moved to disqualify the Board’s attorney, alleging prior representation; federal court denied disqualification and later the Polk County district court likewise denied it after a renewed motion.
- The Board moved to dismiss in state court arguing McCleary’s certiorari petition was untimely under Iowa Code § 414.15 (30‑day filing rule); the district court granted the motion and dismissed all claims, including declaratory relief, as untimely.
- McCleary moved to amend/enlarge to preserve declaratory claims; the district court denied that motion. McCleary appealed the dismissal and the denial of disqualification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of certiorari appeal | McCleary argued the 30‑day period starts on actual notice of the Board’s filed decision and that his Nov 25 filing was timely (or related back to Nov 24 attempt) | Board argued § 414.15 requires filing within 30 days after the decision is filed in the Board’s office; McCleary filed after 30 days so petition is untimely | Court held § 414.15’s 30‑day filing rule is clear; McCleary’s Nov 25 filing was untimely and deprived the court of jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Survival of declaratory relief claims | McCleary argued declaratory relief is a separate avenue not subject to the certiorari timeliness rule | Board argued any challenge to the Board’s decision, regardless of label, is subject to § 414.15 timing | Court held choice of remedy does not alter the statutory 30‑day limit; declaratory claims tied to the Board’s decision were also untimely and dismissed |
| Relation‑back of attempted filing | McCleary claimed his Nov 24 attempted e‑filing (rejected for docketing/fee error) should relate back to meet the deadline | Board relied on official filing rules and argued correct filing date is the electronic file stamp on the accepted filing | Court rejected relation‑back claim under the circumstances; filing date rules control and McCleary’s petition remained untimely |
| Disqualification of Board’s counsel | McCleary argued prior representation by Board’s counsel of McCleary created a conflict requiring disqualification | Board argued prior work was limited, not substantially related, and no confidential information would materially advance the Board’s position | Court held the prior representation was minimal and not substantially related; denial of disqualification was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hedlund v. State, 875 N.W.2d 720 (Iowa 2016) (standard for reviewing motion to dismiss)
- Chrischilles v. Arnolds Park Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 505 N.W.2d 491 (Iowa 1993) (statutory 30‑day appeal requirement for zoning board decisions)
- Sergeant Bluff‑Luton Sch. Dist. v. City Council of Sioux City, 605 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 2000) (untimely certiorari petition deprives court of jurisdiction)
- Bottoms v. Stapleton, 706 N.W.2d 411 (Iowa 2005) (standard of review for attorney disqualification rulings)
- Doe ex rel. Doe v. Perry Cmty. Sch. Dist., 650 N.W.2d 594 (Iowa 2002) (factors for determining whether matters are substantially related under conflict rule)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Stoller, 879 N.W.2d 199 (Iowa 2016) (examples of significant prior representation relevant to disqualification analysis)
- Jacobs v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 887 N.W.2d 590 (Iowa 2016) (rules on electronic filing and when resubmitted filings may relate back)