Title: KENNETH GESS V. GERROD L. FLORES, AN INDIVIDUAL, MEIFRONDEE WATERS, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND THE CITY OF CHEYENNE, WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

KENNETH GESS  V.  GERROD L. FLORES, AN INDIVIDUAL, MEIFRONDEE WATERS, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND THE CITY OF CHEYENNE, WYOMING2011 WY 48Case Number: S-10-0040Decided: 03/18/2011NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2010

                                                                                                

KENNETH 
GESS,Appellant(Plaintiff),V.GERROD L. FLORES, AN 
INDIVIDUAL, MEIFRONDEE WATERS, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND THE CITY OF CHEYENNE, 
WYOMING,Appellees(Defendants).

          

W.R.A.P. 
11 Certification from the District Court of Laramie 
County

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

T. 
Thomas Metier and Patrick J. DiBenedetto of Metier Law Firm, LLC, Fort Collins, 
Colorado

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Kate 
M. Fox and Amanda Ferguson of Davis & Cannon, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming 

 
 
*GOLDEN, 
J., delivers the opinion of the Court; VOIGT, J., files a dissenting 
opinion.

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      In this 
negligence case brought against the City of Cheyenne and two of its employees 
pursuant to the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§  1-39-101 through 121 (LexisNexis 2009), 
we accepted the following two certified questions from the district 
court:

 
 
1.         
Whether, in a cause of action arising under the Wyoming Governmental 
Claims Act (WGCA), Wyoming Statute §§ 1-39-101 et seq. and the Wyoming Constitution 
Article 16, § 7, the district courts have the discretion to permit plaintiffs to 
amend their complaints, after the expiration of the statute of limitations, 
pursuant to Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure (W.R.C.P.) 15(a), to cure 
jurisdictional pleading deficiencies and to permit said amendment to relate back 
to the date the original complaint was filed pursuant to W.R.C.P 
15(c)(2).

 
 
2.         
Whether Wyoming's "savings statute," Wyoming Statute § 1-3-118, permits 
plaintiffs whose complaints filed under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act 
(WGCA), Wyoming Statute §§ 1-39-101 et 
seg. are dismissed by the district court for failing to adequately plead 
compliance with the WGCA, after the expiration of the statute of limitations, to 
re-file the action within one year of dismissal.

 
 
[¶2]      The facts 
relevant to these questions are:

 
 
1.         
On June 18, 2007, Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident 
which he alleges was due to the fault of City of Cheyenne employees acting 
within the scope of their duties as governmental 
employees.

 
 
2.         
On October 2, 2008, Plaintiff filed a governmental claim with the City of 
Cheyenne.  Defendants concede the 
claim was timely and sufficient under the Wyoming Governmental Claims 
Act.

 
 
3.         
On August 5, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the First Judicial 
District.  The Complaint did not 
allege the date of the filing of the claim as required under the WGCA, and did 
not allege compliance with the constitutional signature and certification 
requirements of the WGCA, as required by Beaulieu v. Florquist (Beaulieu II), 2004 WY 31, 86 P.3d 863 (Wyo. 2004); McCann v. City of Cody, 2009 WY 86, 210 P.3d 1078 [(Wyo. 
2009)], and Motley v. Platte County, 
2009 WY 147[, 220 P.3d 518 (Wyo. 
2009)].

 
 
4.         
On November 13, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 
Subject Matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 
(12)(b)(1).

 
 
5.         
The one-year period to file a complaint under the WGCA expired October 2, 
2009.

 
 
6.         
In response, on November 20, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the 
Complaint Pursuant to Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 
15(a).

 
 
7.         
The Court would allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint if it had the 
jurisdiction to do so.

 
 
8.         
If the Complaint is dismissed, it would be dismissed without 
prejudice.  Gose v. City of Douglas, 2008 WY 126, ¶ 21, 193 P.3d 11[5]9 
[(Wyo. 2008)].

 
 
[¶3]      Our recent 
decisions in Brown v. City of Casper, et 
al., 2011 WY 35, __ P.3d __ 
(Wyo. 2011), and Madsen v. Board of 
Trustees of Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater County, Wyoming, 2011 WY 36, __ P.3d __ (Wyo. 2011), 
are controlling authority to answer the first certified question in the 
affirmative and, consequently, we need not answer the second certified question 
in this case.  We remand this case 
to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

 
 

VOIGT, 
Justice, 
dissenting.

 
 
[¶4]      I respectfully 
dissent because I believe this Court's decision in Brown v. City of Casper, 2011 WY 35, __ P.3d. __ (Wyo. 2011) 
is wrong and should not, therefore, form the basis for an opinion in this 
case.  See Brown, ¶¶ 57-59, at ___ (Voigt, J., 
dissenting).  Furthermore, I believe 
that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-114 (LexisNexis 2009) is a jurisdictional statute of 
limitations that is part of the right created by the Wyoming Governmental Claims 
Act.  See Bell v. Schell, 2004 WY 153, ¶¶ 27-29, 101 P.3d 465, 472-74 (Wyo. 
2004).  Finally, the savings statute 
should not and does not apply to actions filed under the Wyoming Governmental 
Claims Act.  Hall v. Park County, 2010 WY 124, ¶ 14, 238 P.3d 580, 585 (Wyo. 2010).  I would answer "no" to both certified 
questions.