Title: FREMONT COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE v. RAECHEAL STROM ; FREMONT COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE v. REBECCA STROM

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

FREMONT COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE v. RAECHEAL STROM ; FREMONT COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE v. REBECCA STROM2011 WY 64Case Number: No. S-09-0244, S-09-0245Decided: 04/13/2011NOTICE: 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.
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2011

 
 

FREMONT 
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and RIVERTON POLICE 
DEPARTMENT,Petitioners,v.RAECHEAL 
STROM,Respondent.FREMONT COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and RIVERTON 
POLICE DEPARTMENT,Petitioners,v.REBECCA 
STROM,Respondent.

 
 
 
 
Original 
Proceeding

Petition 
for Writ of Review 

District 
Court of Fremont County

 
 
 
 

Representing 
Petitioners:

Richard 
Rideout of Law Offices of Richard Rideout, P.C., Cheyenne, 
Wyoming

 
 

Representing 
Respondent Rebecca Strom:

John 
H. Robinson and Richard R. Jamieson of Jamieson & Robinson, LLC, Casper, 
Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. 
Robinson.

 
 

Representing 
Respondent Raecheal A. Strom:

Laurence 
W. Stinson and Dawn R. Scott of Bonner Stinson, P.C., Cody, Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. 
Stinson.

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
GOLDEN, 
J., delivers the opinion of the Court; VOIGT, J., files a specially concurring 
opinion.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE:  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 that correction may be made before 
final publication in the permanent volume.

 
 
  

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      The two appeals 
consolidated for decision in this opinion arise out of two negligence cases 
arising under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-39-101 
through 121 (LexisNexis 2009), in which the petitioner governmental entities 
seek interlocutory review of the district court's order denying their motions to 
dismiss the respondents' amended complaints for alleged jurisdictional pleading 
deficiencies.  Our recent decision in Brown v. City of Casper, et al., 2011 WY 35, __ P.3d __ (Wyo. 2011), 
which was followed by Madsen v. Bd. of 
Trustees of Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater County, Wyoming, 2011 WY 36, __ P.3d __ (Wyo. 2011); 
and Gess v. Flores, 2011 WY 48, __ P.3d __ (Wyo. 2011), 
is controlling authority to affirm the district court's order denying the 
motions to dismiss and permitting the respondents to amend their complaints to 
allege the dates on which they presented their notices of claims and to allege 
that their claims were signed under penalty of perjury in compliance with the 
signature and certification requirements of Article 16, Section 7, of the 
Wyoming Constitution, such amendments to relate back to the date of filing of 
the original complaints in accordance with W.R.C.P. 15(c).

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      The petitioner 
governmental entities state this issue:

 
 
Whether 
a complaint which was filed within one year of presenting a notice of claim as 
required by the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act, but which failed to allege 
compliance with the Act and the constitutional requirements, can be amended 
after the one year deadline to allege such compliance and whether that amendment 
"relates back" to the date of the filing of the original complaint, when as a 
matter of law the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction at the 
time the action was filed.

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      Sisters Raecheal 
and Rebecca Strom were injured on November 7, 2004, when the vehicle in which 
they were riding was struck inside the city limits of Riverton, Wyoming, by a 
vehicle driven by Amber Groves, who was fleeing at an excessive rate of speed 
from pursuing law enforcement officers of the Fremont County Sheriff's 
Department and the Riverton Police Department.  Between October 19 and 24, 
2006, Raecheal and Rebecca each timely presented their individual written notice 
of claim signed under penalty of perjury to the petitioner governmental entities 
as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-113(a) and Article 16, Section 7, of the 
Wyoming Constitution.  Each sister timely filed suit, Raecheal filing hers 
on October 5, 2007, and Rebecca filing hers on October 17, 2007, as required by 
the one-year statute of limitations in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-114.  
Although each sister's original complaint alleged that a notice of claim had 
been presented, as required by Board of 
Trustees of the University of Wyoming v. Bell, 662 P.2d 410, 415 (Wyo. 1983), overruled by Brown v. City of Casper, et 
al., 2011 WY 35, __ P.3d __ 
(Wyo. 2011), each original complaint did not meet the requirement of alleging 
the date of filing of the notice of claim.  Amrein v. Wyoming Livestock Bd., 851 P.2d 769 (Wyo. 1993), overruled by Brown v. City of Casper, et al., 2011 
WY 35, __ P.3d __ (Wyo. 2011).  In this regard, Raecheal's original 
complaint did not allege any date, and Rebecca's original complaint alleged an 
incorrect date of November 22, 2006, instead of the correct date of October 19, 
2006.  Although each original complaint alleged that the notice of claim 
was "under the penalty of perjury," each did not specifically allege compliance 
with Article 16, Section 7, of the Wyoming Constitution, as that provision was 
not recited in either original complaint.  Beaulieu v. Florquist, 2004 WY 31, ¶ 15, 86 P.3d 863, 868-69 (Wyo. 2004), overruled by Brown v. City of Casper, et 
al., 2011 WY 35, __ P.3d __ 
(Wyo. 2011).

 
 
[¶4]      Each sister filed 
an amended complaint, Raecheal filing hers on November 26, 2007, and Rebecca 
filing hers on December 12, 2007.  Both amended complaints were filed after 
expiration of the one-year statute of limitations of § 1-39-114.  Each 
amended complaint alleged the correct date of presentation of the notice of 
claim, but each did not specifically allege compliance with the constitutional 
provision.  The petitioner governmental entities filed motions to dismiss 
the amended complaints.  On August 31, 2009, the district court denied 
those motions and, pursuant to W.R.C.P. 15(c)(2), permitted the sisters to file 
second amended complaints to cure the pleading deficiencies with the amendments 
to relate back to the date of filing of the original 
complaints.

 
 
[¶5]      Each sister filed 
second amended complaints which met all three of the allegation 
requirements.  The petitioner governmental entities again filed motions to 
dismiss those amended complaints.  On November 16, 2009, the district court 
again denied those motions.  The petitioner governmental entities timely 
filed their petition for writ of review which this Court granted, and this Court 
consolidated the two cases for purposes of briefing, oral argument, and 
decision.

 
 

DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶6]      Our recent 
decision in Brown v. City of Casper, et 
al., 2011 WY 35, __ P.3d __ 
(Wyo. 2011), which was followed by Madsen 
v. Board of Trustees of Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater County, Wyoming, 2011 WY 36, __ P.3d __ (Wyo. 2011); 
and Gess v. Flores, 2011 WY 48, __ P.3d __ (Wyo. 2011), 
is controlling authority to affirm the district court's order denying the 
petitioner governmental entities' motions to dismiss and permitting the 
respondent sisters to amend their complaints to allege the dates of presentation 
of their notices of claims and to allege that their notices of claims were 
signed under penalty of perjury in compliance with the signature and 
certification requirements of Article 16, Section 7, of the Wyoming 
Constitution.  In Brown we 
recognized that, pursuant to the pertinent constitutional and statutory 
provisions governing claims and actions against the governmental entities, the 
district courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide actions 
brought against such entities, whether or not compliance with those provisions 
is alleged, if a notice of claim complying with the requirements of those 
provisions has been presented to the appropriate governmental entity.  
District courts also have jurisdiction to permit the amendment of a complaint to 
allege presentation of a notice of claim complying with the statute and 
constitution when such a notice was in fact timely presented.  Brown, ¶ 44, __ P.3d at __.  We 
held that, in accordance with W.R.C.P. 15(c), the amendment of a complaint to 
allege compliance with the constitutional and statutory requirements relates 
back to the date of the filing of the original complaint.

 
 
[¶7]      The district 
court's rulings in the instant litigation correctly follow our decision in Brown.  Consequently, we 
affirm.

  

VOIGT, 
Justice, 
specially concurring.

 
 
[¶8]      I concur in the 
result of the majority opinion out of respect for the doctrine of stare decisis, but I believe the result 
is wrong.  See Gess v. Flores, 2011 WY 48, ¶ 4, ___ P.3d ___, ___ 
(Wyo. 2011) (Voigt, J., dissenting); 
Madsen v. Bd. of Trustees of Mem'l Hosp. of Sweetwater County, 2011 WY 36, ¶ 22, ___ P.3d ___, ___ 
(Wyo. 2011) (Voigt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); and Brown v. City of Casper, 2011 WY 35, ¶¶ 57-59, ___ P.3d 
___, ___ (Wyo. 2011) (Voigt, J., dissenting).