Marquez v. USRB

----ooOoo----

Teri Marquez,
Petitioner,

v.

Utah State Retirement Board,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20020263-CA

F I L E D
June 6, 2002 2002 UT App 200 -----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys:
Fred Silvester and Spencer Siebers, Salt Lake City, for Petitioner
David B. Hansen, Salt Lake City, for Respondent

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner has filed a petition for extraordinary relief because she incorrectly filed her petition for review of the Retirement Board's decision with the agency, rather then with this court. See Utah R. App. P. 14.

Petitioner acknowledges that Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16(a)(Supp. 2001), which outlines the procedure for seeking judicial review of an agency decision, provides that the petition for review is to be filed with the appropriate appellate court in the form required by the rules of that appellate court. However, counsel for Petitioner looked to rules 3 and 4 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure rather than rule 14, which governs the procedure for review of agency decisions.

Petitioner now requests that this court order the Retirement Board to transfer the petition for review to this court, pursuant to rule 44 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 44 does not allow for the transfer requested. Rule 44 allows for transfer of cases timely filed in an incorrect appellate court to be transferred to the correct appellate court. It also allows for transfer of cases to the district court that were improperly filed when it is determined that the matter is a review of an informal agency decision. This court's authority to review agency decisions has been delineated by the legislature. This court is not at liberty to expand that jurisdiction.

Petitioner also requests that this court extend the time for filing the petition for review based on excusable neglect, pursuant to rule 4(e) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. However, rule 4(e) applies to notices of appeal, not petitions for agency review. Moreover, neither this court, nor the Retirement Board may extend the time for filing petitions for review of agency decisions. See Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-1(9) (Supp. 2001).

For the reasons stated above, this court denies the petition for extraordinary relief.
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
 
 

______________________________
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge