Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04083/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04083-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CYNTHIA RIPPSTEIN; JAMES H. ) 

WEAVER; BRENDA WEAVER; and JAIME ) 

WEAVER, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals T~nth Ci .. :nit 

APR ~ 1991 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 90-4083 

) 

THE CITY OF PROVO, a Municipal ) 

corporation; PROVO POLICE DEPART- ) 

MENT; and PHILLIP A. WEBBER, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

JAIME R. MEISSNER, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH 

(D.C. No. 89-C-784-S) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Richard L. Hill of Olsen, Hintze, Nielson & Hill, Provo, Utah, for 

Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

Gary L. Gregerson, David c. Dixon, and Vernon F. (Rick) Romney, 

Provo City Attorneys' Office, Provo, Utah, for DefendantsAppellees. 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

McKAY, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 90-4083 Document: 01019298307 Date Filed: 04/03/1991 Page: 1 
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

The appellants filed a wrongful death action against the City 

of Provo, the Provo Police Department, and Officer Phillip A. 

Webber. The appellants were required by Utah law to file an 

undertaking in order to proceed against any of the three 

defendants. The undertaking requirement applicable to an action 

against Officer Webber is contained in Utah Code Ann. § 78-11-10 

(1987), which states in pertinent part, 

Before any action may be filed against any sheriff, 

constable, peace officer, state road officer, or any 

other person charged with the duty of enforcement of the 

criminal laws of this state, • • • the proposed plaintiff, as a condition precedent thereto, shall prepare 

and file with, and at the time of filing the complaint 

in any such action, a written undertaking with at least 

two sufficient sureties in an amount to be fixed by the 

court • • • . 

(emphasis added). The action against the City of Provo and the 

Provo Police Department is governed by the Governmental Immunity 

Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 63-30-1 to -18 (1989), which also contains 

an undertaking requirement: 

At the time of filing the action the plaintiff 

shall file an undertaking in a sum fixed by the court, 

but in no case less than the sum of $300 . • . . 

Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-19 (1989) (emphasis added). 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 90-4083 Document: 01019298307 Date Filed: 04/03/1991 Page: 2 
The appellants failed to file the required undertaking at the 

time of filing the complaint. Based on that failure, the 

appellees filed a motion to dismiss, and the district court 

referred the matter to a magistrate. The magistrate recommended 

that the appellants be given ten days within which to file the 

undertaking. The appellants filed the undertaking within the tenday period. However, the district court rejected the magistrate's 

recommendation and determined that, under Utah law, the undertaking statutes are to be strictly construed. The court, therefore, 

dismissed the action against the City of Provo, the Provo Police 

Department, and Officer Webber; and this appeal followed. 

The provision governing the action against Officer Webber, 

section 78-11-10, has been interpreted strictly by the Utah 

? 

Supreme Court in Kiesel v. District Court of Sixth Judicial 

District, 84 P.2d 782 (Utah 1938). Kiesel states unequivocally: 

[W]e hold in this case that the legislature meant what 

it said and there was no discretion in the court to permit filing of the undertaking after the motion to dismiss the complaint. The undertaking must be filed, or 

handed to the clerk for filing, before the complaint is 

filed. 

. [W]e think the legislature intended to make 

the requirement so positive and unequivocal as to 

require the court to dismiss the suit if the bond was 

not filed at least contemporaneously with the complaint 

if motion to dismiss was timely made. 

Id. at 784 (emphasis in original).* The Utah court further held 

* The pertinent language reviewed in Kiesel remains virtually 

identical in today's version of section 78-11-10. 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 90-4083 Document: 01019298307 Date Filed: 04/03/1991 Page: 3 
that failure to dismiss upon a proper motion was reversible error. 

Id. at 785. In more recent cases, section 78-11-10 has been 

upheld as constitutional. See Snyder v. Cook, 688 P.2d 496 (Utah 

1984); Zamora v. Draper, 635 P.2d 78 (Utah 1981). Thus it is 

clear that dismissal was proper as to Officer Webber. 

The appellants argue that, because the language of section 

63-30-19 differs from section 78-11-19, Kiesel does not apply to 

their action against Provo City and the Provo Police Department. 

They further argue that they should be allowed to cure their error 

by filing an undertaking at some time after the filing of the complaint. 

We find the appellants' argument unpersuasive. Sections 63-

30-19 and 78-11-19 are parallel provisions applying to different 

potential defendants. It is likely that frequently, as here, parties covered under the two sections will be defendants in the same 

lawsuit. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the Utah courts 

would construe the two provisions similarly. 

The Utah Supreme Court has not decided this precise issue, 

but the reasoning of Kiesel supports our conclusion. The court in 

Kiesel noted that section 78-11-10 is somewhat ambiguous as to the 

exact time when the undertaking must be filed: 

Here the wording is to the effect that the undertaking 

must be filed "before any such action is filed, and as a 

condition precedent thereto" which is immediately qualified by what follows in that the undertaking need be 

filed only contemporaneously with the filing of the 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 90-4083 Document: 01019298307 Date Filed: 04/03/1991 Page: 4 
complaint--the language continuing, "the proposed plaintiff shall prepare and file with, and at the time of 

filing, the complaint in any such action, a written 

undertaking." 

84 P.2d at 783 (emphasis in original). The court concluded that 

this required filing of the bond "at least contemporaneously with 

the complaint." Id. at 784 (emphasis added). While section 63-

30-19 does not contain the words that created the ambiguity in 

section 78-10-11 -- "before any such action is filed" or "as a 

condition precedent to" -- it still contains the unambiguous language, "at the time of filing the action." We think this language 

is sufficiently positive to indicate that an undertaking must be 

filed contemporaneously with the complaint in order to be timely 

under section 63-30-19. 

Having decided the issue of tim~liness, we turn to the proper 

remedy for failure to timely file the undertaking. A recent Utah 

case, Hansen v. Salt Lake County, 794 P.2d 838, 840 (Utah 1990), 

states that the appropriate remedy for failure to make a timely 

filing of an undertaking under section 63-30-19 is dismissal without prejudice. 

Finally, this case is unusual because the appellants previously filed the same suit in state court, failed to timely file an 

undertaking in the state court, and had the precise question which 

we address here decided against them by the state trial judge. 

While we are not bound by the state trial court's opinion, at the 

very least it provides evidence of what the state courts would do 

in this circumstance. See Rippstein v. City of Provo, No. cv 88 

- 5 -

Appellate Case: 90-4083 Document: 01019298307 Date Filed: 04/03/1991 Page: 5 
1459 (Utah Dist. Ct. Nov. 2, 1988); Jackson v. Johns-Manville 

Sales Corp., 781 F.2d 394, 397 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 u.s. 

1022 (1986) (when predicting state law, in absence of specific 

guidance from highest state court, federal court looks, inter 

alia, to lower state court decisions). Therefore, we hold that 

the district court properly dismissed the action against 

defendants City of Provo and Provo Police Department. 

The order of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

- 6 -

Appellate Case: 90-4083 Document: 01019298307 Date Filed: 04/03/1991 Page: 6