Harley Davidson v. DWS

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Harley Davidson of Northern Utah,

Petitioner,

v.

Workforce Appeals Board, Department of Workforce Services, and Brandi L. Mason,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040106-CA
 

F I L E D
(April 15, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 117

-----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys: Denver C. Snuffer Jr. and Daniel B. Garriott, Sandy, for Petitioner

Tiffany Vincent, Salt Lake City, for Respondents

-----

Before Judges Billings, Orme, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Harley Davidson of Northern Utah (Harley Davidson) petitions for judicial review of a decision of the Workforce Appeals Board (Board) affirming the grant of benefits to Brandi Mason, a former Harley Davidson employee. This case is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on lack of jurisdiction.

The Board issued its decision on January 7, 2004. As confirmed in its docketing statement, Harley Davidson filed its petition for review on February 9, 2004.(1) Under Utah Code section 35A-4-508(8)(a) (2001) and Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 14, a petition for review from a final agency action must be filed within thirty days after the issuance of the order constituting the final agency action. Harley Davidson's petition for review, filed thirty-three days after the order, is untimely, and therefore this court has no jurisdiction to hear the petition. See Silva v. Department of Employment Sec., 786 P.2d 246, 247 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (holding timely filing of petition required to confer jurisdiction).

Once a court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction, it "retains only the authority to dismiss the action." Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). Accordingly, we dismiss this petition for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

1. Harley Davidson's "notice of appeal," even if filed on February 6, was ineffective as a petition for review.