Dyer v. DWS

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Daniel L. Dyer,
Petitioner,

v.

Department of Workforce Services,
Workforce Appeals Board; and
Sunstone Hotel Properties, Inc.,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20021079-CA
 

F I L E D
(May 8, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 132

-----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys: Daniel L. Dyer, Park City, Petitioner Pro Se

Michael R. Medley, Salt Lake City, for Respondent

Workforce Services

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Billings, and Bench.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition because the question presented is so insubstantial as to not merit further consideration by the court. However, review of the agency record reveals that the petition for review of the decision of the Workforce Appeals Board was untimely filed.

A petition for review of the decision of an agency's final determination must be filed within thirty days of issuance of the agency decision. See Utah Code Ann. § 5A-4-508(8)(2001); Utah R. App. P. 14.(1) The Workforce Appeals Board issued its decision on October 25, 2002. A petition for review was filed in this court on January 2, 2003, beyond thirty days. Because the petition for review was untimely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction of the appeal and must dismiss. See Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) ("When a matter is outside the court's jurisdiction it retains only the authority to dismiss the action."). Because we lack jurisdiction, we cannot address the issue of whether the question presented is so insubstantial as to not merit further review.

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to an untimely petition for review.

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Russell W. Bench, Judge

1. The final agency decision informs litigants of this time deadline, as did the decision in this case.