Title: UPTOWN CAFE, INC., a WYoming Coproration, d/b/a Uptown Cafe v. TOWN OF GREYBULL

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

UPTOWN CAFE, INC., a WYoming Coproration, d/b/a Uptown Cafe v. TOWN OF GREYBULL2010 WY 58231 P.3d 257Case Number: No. S-09-0032Decided: 05/07/2010
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2010

 
 
UPTOWN 
CAFÉ, INC., a Wyoming Corporation, d/b/a Uptown 
Caf©,Appellant(Plaintiff),v.TOWN OF 
GREYBULL,Appellee(Defendant).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Big Horn County

The 
Honorable Steven Cranfill, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

G. 
Mark Garrison of Garrison & Krisjansons, P.C., Cody, Wyoming 

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Larry 
B. Jones and William L. Simpson of Simpson, Kepler & Edwards, LLC, The Cody, 
Wyoming division of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh and Jardine, P.C.  Argument by Mr. Jones. 

 
 
 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, BURKE, JJ.

 
 
GOLDEN, 
J., delivers the opinion of the Court; KITE, J., files a dissenting opinion, in 
which BURKE, J., joins.

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      In May 2007, 
Appellant, Uptown Caf©, Inc. (Uptown Caf©), filed a complaint, pursuant to the 
Wyoming Governmental Claims Act, seeking to recover damages allegedly caused by 
a leaking sewer line owned and operated by Appellee, Town of Greybull.  The district court determined that the 
complaint was not timely filed within the one-year statute of limitations period 
prescribed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-114 (LexisNexis 2009), and granted summary 
judgment in favor of the Town of Greybull.  
Uptown Caf© seeks review of the district court's 
order.

 
 
[¶2]      Our disposition 
of this appeal is controlled by Beaulieu 
v. Florquist, 2004 WY 31, 86 P.3d 863 (Wyo. 2004) (Beaulieu II).  In that case, we held that the failure 
of a complaint in a governmental claims action to allege compliance with both 
the constitutional signature and certification requirements of Wyo. Const. Art. 
16, § 7 and the statutory filing requirements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-113 
prevents the district court from acquiring subject matter jurisdiction over the 
claim.  Id., ¶¶ 10-15, 86 P.3d  at 866-69.  We have consistently adhered to the Beaulieu II rule over the intervening 
years.  See Motley v. Platte County, 2009 WY 
147, ¶¶ 2-3, 220 P.3d 518, 519-20 (Wyo. 2009); McCann v. City of Cody, 2009 WY 86, ¶¶ 
7-8, 210 P.3d 1078, 1081-82 (Wyo. 2009); Gose v. City of Douglas, 2008 WY 126, ¶¶ 
17-19, 193 P.3d 1159, 1163-64 (Wyo. 2008).  
That rule leads to the problem in this case.

 
 
[¶3]      In its complaint, 
Uptown Caf© alleged:

 
 
3.         
This complaint is brought pursuant to the Wyoming Governmental Claims 
Act, Wyoming Statute 1-39-101 et seq.[,] and a claim was filed and sent by 
certified mail on May 16, 2006, and was also hand delivered on June 1, 2006, to 
the Town of Greybull, P.O. Box 271, Greybull, Wyoming 82426 and an amended claim 
was sent by certified mail on February 5, 2007, to the same address, both of 
which are marked as exhibits A and B, respectively, which are hereby 
incorporated by this reference;

 
 
4.         
Claims includes [sic] the statutory requirements of Wyoming Statute 
1-39-113(b) which was verified on the 12th day 
of May, 2006, by the Claimant/Plaintiff and included itemized statements of 
damage therein[.] 

 
 
Although 
these provisions signify compliance with statutory requirements, the complaint 
does not allege that Uptown Caf© complied with the signature and certification 
requirements of Wyo. Const. Art. 16, § 7.1  Because Uptown Caf©'s complaint fails to 
allege the requisite constitutional compliance, under Beaulieu II the district court never 
acquired subject matter jurisdiction over the action.  Motley, ¶ 3, 220 P.3d  at 520; McCann, ¶ 8, 210 P.3d  at 1082; Gose, ¶¶ 18-19, 193 P.3d  at 1164.  Accordingly, the district court's 
summary judgment order, which is the subject of this appeal, is null and 
void.  Since there is no order 
invoking this Court's jurisdiction, this appeal is 
dismissed.

 
 

KITE, 
Justice, dissenting, 
in which BURKE, Justice, 
joins.

 
 
[¶4]  I dissent for the same reasons 
articulated in Justice Burke's dissenting opinion in McCann v. City of Cody, 2009 WY 86, ¶ 9, 
210 P.3d 1078, 1082 (Wyo. 2009).  
That is, the allegations of the complaint, when viewed in the light most 
favorable to Uptown Cafe, sufficiently allege the conditions precedent for 
filing a claim against the Town of Greybull to invoke the district court's 
subject matter jurisdiction.  
Additionally, if the complaint is insufficient, Uptown Cafe should be 
allowed to amend it.  Finally, if 
the rules created by a majority of this Court for pleading a governmental claim 
lead to the conclusion that this complaint is legally insufficient and Uptown 
Cafe is not permitted to amend it, those rules should be abolished because they 
"serve no useful purpose, and create unwarranted obstacles to the determination 
of governmental claims on their merits."  
Id.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1The Wyoming Legislature has amended § 1-39-113 to codify the requirement 
that "the complaint shall state . . . the claim was in compliance with the 
signature and certification requirements of article 16, section 7 of the Wyoming 
Constitution."  § 1-39-113(d)(iii) 
(HEA0016 effective July 1, 2010).