Sharon R. Hammer v. Nils Ribi, 162 Idaho 570

Hammer, Sun Valley City Administrator, alleged Ribi, a city council member, committed a civil assault during a council meeting on Sept. 15, 2011, by making a threatening gesture and words that caused her to fear imminent contact.
Hammer initially sued in federal court; the federal court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the assault claim and she refiled in Idaho state court.
Ribi moved to dismiss; the district court first dismissed Hammer’s original complaint (but gave leave to amend), then denied her I.R.C.P. 35 motion to compel a mental examination, and later granted a 12(b)(6) dismissal of the amended complaint on the ground Ribi was immune under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA).
On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s dismissal standard, whether the amended complaint sufficiently negated ITCA immunity, and the denial of the mental-exam motion.
The Court held ICJI 4.30 correctly states the elements of civil assault, concluded the district court erred in dismissing the amended complaint on ITCA grounds at the pleading stage (immunity is an affirmative defense), vacated the dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.
The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Hammer’s motion to compel a mental examination, finding Hammer failed to show the defendant’s mental health was ‘‘in controversy’’ or good cause for Rule 35 testing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper legal standard for civil assault	Hammer: ICJI 4.30 correctly states assault elements (fear of imminent contact suffices).	Ribi: District court questioned ICJI 4.30, claiming overt violent act required.	Court: ICJI 4.30 accurately states Idaho law; no overt-gesture requirement beyond reasonable apprehension.
Whether amended complaint must negate ITCA immunity at pleading stage	Hammer: Complaint sufficiently alleged acts were outside scope of employment and malicious.	Ribi: Argued complaint failed to plead facts to overcome ITCA immunity.	Court: Immunity is an affirmative defense; plaintiff need not plead around it; dismissal on 12(b)(6) for immunity was improper — vacated and remanded.
District court’s denial of I.R.C.P. 35 mental examination	Hammer: Defendant’s mental state and credibility are in controversy; prior related litigation put mental health at issue.	Ribi: Mental condition is not genuinely in controversy here; request was speculative.	Court: Affirmed denial; mental condition not sufficiently ‘‘in controversy’’ nor shown by good cause under Schlagenhauf standard.
Attorney fees on appeal	Hammer: Sought fees after partial success.	Ribi: Also sought fees.	Court: Mixed result; no prevailing party; no fees awarded.

Losser v. Bradstreet, 145 Idaho 670 (discussing 12(b)(6) standard and summary-judgment review) (explains pleadings-only review and inference-drawing in dismissal contexts)
Young v. City of Ketchum, 137 Idaho 102 (clarifying that 12(b)(6) looks only to pleadings) (pleadings-only inquiry for motion to dismiss)
Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1964) (Rule 35(a) requires mental condition to be ‘‘in controversy’’ and good cause for examination)
Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (exception to the rule that an amended complaint supersedes the original when amendment is involuntary) (instructive on reviewability of dismissal of original complaint)
Teurlings v. Larson, 156 Idaho 65 (addresses immunity as an affirmative defense under ITCA) (immunity treated as affirmative defense)
Idaho Wool Growers Ass’n, Inc. v. State, 154 Idaho 716 (covers standard for drawing inferences for non-moving party on dismissal) (pleadings must be taken as true on 12(b)(6))