Pierce v. DHS

Annotate this Case
Pierce v. DHS

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Stacy Pierce,

Petitioner,

v.

Utah Department of Human Services and Career Service Review Board,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040147-CA
 

F I L E D
(April 1, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 86

 

-----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys: Justin D. Heideman and Justin R. Elswick, Provo, for Petitioner

Mark L. Shurtleff and Nancy L. Kemp, Salt Lake City, for Respondents

-----

Before Judges Billings, Jackson, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Pierce petitions for judicial review of an order of the Career Service Review Board (Board) denying her agency appeal of her termination pursuant to a reduction in force. This case is before the court on Respondents' motion for summary disposition based on lack of jurisdiction.

The Board issued its decision on January 20, 2004. Pierce filed her petition for review on February 20, 2004. Under Utah Code section 63-46b-14(3)(a) (1997) 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. Pierce's petition for review, filed thirty-one 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

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.