Title: Bridge v. State Dept. of Employment, Unemployment Ins. Com'n

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Bridge v. State Dept. of Employment, Unemployment Ins. Com'n1995 WY 81896 P.2d 759Case Number: 94-217Decided: 06/06/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming

Joseph BRIDGE,

 Appellant 
(Petitioner),

v.

STATE of Wyoming, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION,

 Appellee 
(Respondent).

 

Appeal 
from District Court, Uinta County, John D. Troughton, 
J.

Richard H. Honaker, Honaker, 
Hampton & Newman, Rock Springs, for 
appellant.

Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., 
Cheyenne, and William L. Weaver, Asst. Atty. Gen., Casper, for appellee.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and 
LEHMAN, JJ.

TAYLOR, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant failed 
to name, join or serve his employer, Questar Pipeline Company, with a petition 
for judicial review of an administrative action. As a result, the district court 
dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. We 
reverse.

I. 
ISSUES

[¶2]      Appellant sets 
forth these issues for our review:

1. 
        
Is the failure to name and timely serve a party with a petition for 
judicial review of administrative action a jurisdictional defect requiring 
dismissal of the petition?

2. 
        
Even if dismissal were not required, did the district court abuse its 
discretion in dismissing the petition for review?

3. 
        
Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion 
to amend his petition for review?

[¶3]      Appellee restates 
the issues:

1. 
        
Is the employer an indispensable party to a petition for review in an 
employee/employer contested case of a decision rendered by the Unemployment 
Insurance Commission?

2. 
        
Is the failure by an employee/appellant to timely join and serve his 
employer in a petition for review of a decision rendered in a contested case by 
the Unemployment Insurance Commission jurisdictional?

3. 
        
Did the appellate court err by not allowing the appellant to amend his 
petition for review after the time for filing the petition had expired pursuant 
to W.R.A.P. 12.04?

4. 
        
Did the appellate court abuse its discretion when it dismissed 
appellant's petition for review for failure to comply with W.R.A.P. 
12?

II. 
FACTS

[¶4]      Appellant, Joseph 
Bridge (Bridge), was employed by Questar Pipeline Company (Questar) from August 
9, 1979 to February 3, 1994. Working as a Senior Field Operator, Bridge 
experienced a series of accidents during his employment with Questar. In 
December 1993, Bridge had two accidents and was placed on six months probation. 
He was warned that another accident could be grounds for dismissal. During the 
six month probationary period, Bridge left a valve open that resulted in a 
methanol spill. Bridge's supervisors informed him that he would be 
terminated.

[¶5]      In February 1994, 
Bridge filed for unemployment benefits and his initial claim for benefits was 
allowed. Questar appealed the determination and the Chief Appeals Examiner of 
the Department of Employment, Employment Resources Division reversed the prior 
decision and disqualified Bridge from receiving unemployment benefits. Bridge 
then appealed the examiner's decision to appellee, the Department of Employment, 
Unemployment Insurance Commission (Commission).

[¶6]      The Commission 
affirmed the examiner's decision disqualifying Bridge from receiving 
unemployment benefits. Bridge then filed a petition for review to the district 
court. Bridge, as petitioner, named the Commission as respondent, but did not 
name Questar. The Commission filed a motion to dismiss the petition for review 
for failure "to timely join and serve a necessary and indispensable party * * 
*."

[¶7]      Questar, after 
receiving a copy of the petition for review, joined the Commission in its motion 
to dismiss. Bridge moved for leave to file and serve an amended petition for 
review which included Questar. The district court, on August 30, 1994, entered 
an order dismissing the petition for review based upon Bridge's failure to 
comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure. The district court also 
denied Bridge's motion for leave to amend the petition for review. Bridge 
appeals.

III. 
DISCUSSION

[¶8]      Judicial review 
of an administrative decision is controlled by W.R.A.P. 12. The review process 
is instituted by filing a petition for review with the district court. W.R.A.P. 
12.03. W.R.A.P. 12.06 states, in pertinent part:

            
The petition for review shall include:

(a)       A concise 
statement showing jurisdiction and venue;

(b)       The specific 
issues of law addressed to the district court for review;

(c)        A brief 
statement of the facts relevant to the legal issues raised before the agency, 
showing the nature of the controversy in which the legal issues arose; 
and

(d)       A copy of the 
agency decision shall be attached as an appendix.

[¶9]      Bridge's petition 
for review satisfied these requirements and was timely. See W.R.A.P. 12.04 
(requiring the petition be filed within thirty days). Bridge, of course, failed 
to name, join or serve Questar in the initial petition for review. Due to this 
failure, the district court dismissed the petition for review for lack of 
jurisdiction. This decision was in error because Bridge's timely submission of a 
proper petition for review was sufficient to invoke the district court's 
jurisdiction. The fact that Bridge failed to name, join or serve Questar was not 
a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the petition for review. Further, 
any procedural defect in the petition for review was remedied when Bridge, 
without unnecessary delay, served Questar with a copy of the petition for 
review. See W.R.A.P. 12.03.

IV. 
CONCLUSION

[¶10]   The petition for review Bridge 
submitted was sufficient to invoke the district court's appellate jurisdiction 
under W.R.A.P. 12. Any procedural defect arising from Bridge's failure to name, 
join or serve Questar in the initial petition for review was remedied when 
Bridge served a copy of the petition for review upon Questar without unnecessary 
delay. The district court's order dismissing the petition for review is hereby 
reversed.