Canfield v. Layton City

Canfield v. Layton City

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Machelle Canfield,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Layton City, a Utah municipality,

Defendant and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030212-CA
 

F I L E D
(July 9, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 228

 

-----

Second District, Farmington Department

The Honorable Michael G. Allphin

Attorneys: Brad C. Smith, Ogden, for Appellant

Camille N. Johnson, Stanley J. Preston, Judith D. Wolferts, and Maralyn M. Reger, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Orme.

ORME, Judge:

We have determined that "[t]he facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record[,] and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument." Utah R. App. P. 29(a)(3). Moreover, the issues presented are readily resolved under applicable law.

Under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act, a suit is barred against a political subdivision unless a written notice of claim is filed. See Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-11(2) (1997). Failure to comply with the notice requirement of the Act "deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction." Rushton v. Salt Lake County, 1999 UT 36,¶18, 977 P.2d 1201. Appellant correctly notes that the Act waives immunity for "[a]ctions arising out of contractual rights or obligations" and exempts compliance with the notice requirement for breach of contract suits against governmental entities. Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-5(1) (1997).

However, Appellant's complaint does not allege the existence of any express contract. Even a liberal reading does not permit us to view the complaint as alleging a claim based on implied contract, given the backdrop of case law suggesting that "public employees' employment rights generally spring not from contract, but from legislative policy." Knight v. Salt Lake County, 2002 UT App 100,¶8, 46 P.3d 247 (emphasis added), cert. denied, 59 P.3d 603 (Utah 2002).(1) Accord Hom v. Utah Dep't of Pub. Safety, 962 P.2d 95, 101 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). See Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-815 (1999) (granting the governing body of the municipality authority to "prescribe rules and regulations . . . as it deems best for the efficient administration, organization, operation, conduct and business of the municipality").

Affirmed.

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

1. In the posture of this case, while Knight appears to state a general rather than an inexorable rule, we have no occasion to consider whether a public employee could pursue a properly pleaded contract claim.