Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706

Background

Priority Medical Transport (two North Platte fire dept. employees own two-thirds) applied for a $500,000 Quality Growth Fund grant; the CRC recommended a $350,000 loan and the City Council approved a $350,000 loan without Priority Medical revising its application.
Appellants Tryon and Sellers sued, alleging the CRC and City Council failed to provide sufficient public notice that the applicant was a business associated with public employees.
Initial complaint was dismissed without prejudice for lack of specificity; an amended complaint alleged "bare legal notice" but insufficient description of agenda items; actual meeting notices were not attached.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6); the district court dismissed with prejudice, concluding plaintiffs could not cure defects.
On appeal, plaintiffs argued they stated viable claims under the Open Meetings Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1411) and the Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49-14,102) based on insufficiency of the meeting agenda/notice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amended complaint states a claim under the Open Meetings Act (§ 84-1411) that agenda notice was not "sufficiently descriptive"	The agenda/meeting notices did not disclose that a contract involving public employees would be considered, so notice was insufficient	Plaintiffs admitted "bare legal notice" was given, which defendants say satisfies the statute as a matter of law	Court: Plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to plausibly allege § 84-1411 notice was insufficient; dismissal with prejudice was error
Whether the amended complaint states a claim under § 49-14,102 (open and public process for contracts with businesses associated with public employees)	§ 49-14,102 requires prior public notice of proposals and contracts; plaintiffs allege the notice was insufficient to inform public of the conflict	Defendants read § 49-14,102 to require only notice of meeting; plaintiffs' admission of "bare legal notice" defeats claim	Court: Allegations that the contract involved public employees and that notice was insufficient plausibly state a § 49-14,102 claim; dismissal with prejudice was error
Whether the meaning of "notice" in § 49-14,102 can be resolved on a motion to dismiss	Plaintiffs: interpretation at least requires notice of conflicts before award	Defendants: plain text requires only meeting notice; issue suitable for dismissal	Court: Interpretation is novel and facts (actual notices) are needed; cannot decide statute's scope on this record
Whether dismissal should have been with prejudice and without leave to amend	Plaintiffs: pleadings plausibly state claims and discovery may disclose necessary facts; dismissal with prejudice improper	Defendants: plaintiffs already admitted bare notice; no cure possible	Court: Dismissal with prejudice was improper; plaintiffs stated plausible claims and should proceed to further proceedings

Key Cases Cited

First Neb. Ed. Credit Union v. U.S. Bancorp, 293 Neb. 308 (standard that appellate court accepts well-pled facts and reasonable inferences on review of dismissal)
deNourie & Yost Homes v. Frost, 289 Neb. 136 (explains Nebraska's notice pleading and liberal pleading standards)
State v. Robertson, 294 Neb. 29 (cites pleading rules and notice-pleading principles)
Ashby v. State, 279 Neb. 509 (pleading sufficiency and allowing claims not labeled by statute)