Perez v. South Jordan City
2013 UT 1
Utah2013Background
- Perez, a South Jordan City police officer for 14 years, was terminated on November 12, 2009 for alleged high-speed chase policy violations and prior disciplinary actions.
- The South Jordan City Appeal Board conducted a May 2010 hearing and affirmed the termination in a June 7, 2010 Decision and Order.
- The Board certified the Decision and Order to the City Recorder on June 10, 2010, and Perez was mailed a copy with a cover letter citing a 30-day appeal window from issuance.
- Perez filed a petition for review with the Utah Court of Appeals on July 9, 2010, which the court dismissed as untimely under § 10-3-1106(6) based on June 7 issuance.
- The Utah Supreme Court reversed, clarifying the trigger for the 30-day appeal period and holding the order issued on June 10, 2010, not June 7, 2010, remanding for merits evaluation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What triggers the thirty-day appeal period under § 10-3-1106(6)? | Perez contends issuance occurred June 10, not June 7. | South Jordan City argues issuance was June 7, the order’s face date. | Issuance occurs when disseminated; June 10 triggers appeal period. |
| Is the final action for purposes of § 10-3-1106(6) timely if not yet issued to the public on the date signed? | Finality may be delayed until dissemination to the public. | Finality may occur when signed and ready for issuance. | Final issuance requires dissemination; June 10 timely. |
| Does the absence of a clear dissemination mechanism affect finality and timeliness? | Lack of dissemination would delay issuance dates and timeliness. | Certification or timing should not alter issuance if signed. | Municipal code must define issuance/finality mechanism; not doing so delays timeliness analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dusty's, Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 842 P.2d 868 (Utah 1992) (issuance date controls appeal period; date on face of order matters)
- Goggin v. Goggin, 267 P.3d 885 (Utah 2011) (jurisdictional nature of timely appeal; 30-day window is jurisdictional)
- Tri-Par Investments, L.L.C. v. Sousa, 680 N.W.2d 190 (Neb. 2004) (illustrates caution against gamesmanship in timing rules)