1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 48657
CINDY A. CHAMBERS,

Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.

IDAHO BOARD OF PHARMACY AND AGENCY , Respondent

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: October 18, 2021
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Samuel A. Hoagland , District Judge.
Appeal from j udgment dismissing petition for judicial review, dismissed

. Bernadette C. Buentgen, Eagle
, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Alexandra A. Breshears , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Alexandra A. Breshears argued.

____________________________________________ ____ LORELLO, Judge Cindy A. Chambers appeals from the judgment dismissing her petition for judicial review.
Because Chambers ’ petition for judicial review was not timely filed with the district court, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction

. I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In an agency action involving Chambers ’ pharmaceutical license, the Idaho State Board of Pharmacy dismissed an administrative complaint filed against Chambers

. The Board ’ s findings of fact, conclusions of law and f ina l o rder notified Chambers that she was “ entitled to recover her reasonable attorney ’ s fees ” by filing a memorandum “ in accordance with ” Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) Rule 04.11.01.741. Under that rule, Chambers had fourteen days from2

service of the Board ’ s f

inal o rder to file a memorandum of attorney fees. The Board served its
f inal o rder on May 7, 2019

. More than seven months later, o n December 13, 2019, Chambers filed a declaration detailing the attorney fees she incurred in the agency a ction

. Chambers ’ attorney also submitted evidence detailing her health problems and argued that “ good cause exists to extend the time due to [her] health

. ” The Board opposed the request for attorney fees on the basis that it was untimely because the requ est was not filed within fourteen days of the final o rder. The parties filed additional documents related to Chambers’ request for attorney fees
, after which the Board held a hearing on the matter. The Board denied the request, finding there was not good cause under IDAPA 04.11.01.741.02(d) for Chambers ’ untimely request for attorney fees . Chambers filed a petition for judicial review with the district court. The district court affirmed the Board’s determination and dismissed Chambers’ petition for judicial review. Chambers again appeals.
I I

. ANALYSIS Chambers advances multiple arguments asserting that the district court erred in dismissing her petition for judicial review. Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, w e decline to
address Cham bers’ arguments

. An appellate court has a duty to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal , which includes raising the issue sua sponte

. City of Eagle v. Idaho Dep ’ t of Water Res. , 150 Idaho 449, 454, 247 P.3d 1037, 1042 (2011) . A d istrict court lacks jurisdiction over a petition for judicial review if the petitioner fails to file the petition within the applicable deadline

. I.R.C.P. 84 (n)

. If a dis trict court lacks jurisdiction
, so too does the reviewing appellate court

. Erickson v. I daho Bd. of Registration of Prof ’ l Eng ’ rs & Prof ’ l Land Surveyors
, 146 Idaho 852, 854, 203 P.3d 1251, 1253 (2009) superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by City of Eagle , 150 Idaho 449, 247 P.3d 1037

. To seek judicial review of a final order issued by the Board , a petitioner must file a petition

“ within twenty

- eight (28) days of the service date of the final order

. ” I.C. § 67

- 5273 (cited by
IDAPA 04.11.01.791 .02 ) ; see also I.R.C.P. 84(b)(1)(A) (providing twenty

- eight

- day deadline for

a petition for judicial review “unless a different time . . . is prescribed by statute ” ). By
administrative rule
, service “ is complete when a copy, properly addressed and stamped, is deposited in the United States mail or the Statehouse mail, if the party is a State employee or State3

agency, or when there is an electronic verification that a facsimile transmission or an e

- mail has
been sent. ” IDAPA 04.11.01.055 .03. A mailing date listed on a certificate of service is generally
determinative of when a document was mailed. S ee S helton v. Shelton , 148 Idaho 560, 564, 225 P.3d 693, 697 (2009 ) . However, contrary evidence regarding the date of mailing may call into question the da te listed on a certificate of service

. C f. Moore v. Melaleuca, Inc. , 137 Idaho 23,
27

- 28, 43 P.3d 782, 786

- 87 (2002) (affirming agency’s determination that a notice of protest was timely filed, despite being postmarked with an untimely date, based on appe llant ’ s evidence that she delivered the notice to the post office within appeal deadline)

. T he certificate of service attached to the Board ’ s order denying Chambers’ request for attorney fees indicates that the Board’s investigations support c oordinator served a copy of the
order on Chambers by mail and email on April 28, 2020

. T his date of service is presumptively correct. Any dispute regarding the accuracy of this date of service was required to be raised and
resolved in the district court and cannot be addressed for the first time on appeal. See Sanchez v.
Arave , 120 Idaho 321, 322, 815 P.2d 1061, 1062 (1991) (noting that issues not raised below generally will not be considered for the first time on appeal). Thus, Chambers had until May 26, 2020, to file her petition for judicial review. See I DAPA 04.11.01.056 ( administrative rule governing computation of time)

. Chambers filed her petition for judicial review on May 27, 2020
, one day late. Consequently, the district court lacked subject ma tter jurisdiction over Chambers ’ petition for judicial review. This Court , therefore, lacks jurisdiction over Chambers ’ appeal

. III.
CONCLUSION Chambers failed to file a timely petition for judicial review. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction . Costs, but not attorney fees, on appeal to this Court are awarded to
the Board as the prevailing party

. Chief Judge HUSKEY and Judge BRAILSFORD, CONCUR

.