Opinion ID: 1163314
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The dispositive issue is whether Allen's failure to comply with the notice provision of the claims act deprived the district court of jurisdiction over this action. Wyoming adheres to the doctrine of sovereign immunity which immunizes a sovereign from suit without its express consent. Ruppenthal v. State, 849 P.2d 1316, 1320 (Wyo.1993). We have long held that WYO. CONST. art. 1, § 8 requires explicit legislative authorization before a suit can be maintained against the state. Vigil v. Ruettgers, 887 P.2d 521, 524 (Wyo.1994). The claims act upholds sovereign immunity except in certain enumerated instances. WYO.STAT. § 1-39-104 (1988). A prerequisite in pursuing a claim against the state or its officers is compliance with the notice requirement of the claims act. Ruppenthal, 849 P.2d at 1320. The claims act's provisions apply to contract or tort claims brought against a sheriff and a board of county commissioners. Weston County Hosp. v. Westates Const. Co., 841 P.2d 841, 848 (Wyo.1992); Vigil, 887 P.2d at 524; Veile v. Bd. of County Commissioners of Washakie Cty., 860 P.2d 1174, 1177 (Wyo.1993). Although Allen seeks tort and contract damages, he contends they arise from violations of WYO.STAT. § 18-3-611 and that that statute gives rise to an independent right of action. Asserting that WYO.STAT. § 1-39-119 of the claims act excludes employment-related disputes from the reach of the claims act, he concludes that he is not required to comply with the notice provisions set out in WYO.STAT. § 1-39-113. Section 119 states: The provisions of this act shall not affect any provision of law, regulation or agreement governing employer-employee relationships. WYO.STAT. § 1-39-119 (1988). In his view, this section permits actions against the state which do not activate the claims act and, therefore, do not trigger the claims act's notice provisions. In Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Wyoming v. Bell, 662 P.2d 410 (Wyo.1983), this Court held that WYO.STAT. § 1-39-119 does not serve to except claims which have their genesis in tort even though they arise out of an employment relationship. Bell, 662 P.2d at 414. If the tort action is brought, and it does arise out of the employment relationship, we conclude that the claims procedure of this statute must be followed. Bell, 662 P.2d at 415. When Bell was decided, the language of the act referred only to tort, and Bell did not extend this rule to contract claims. Bell, 662 P.2d at 414. Since then, the legislature changed the claims act's language by adding the sentence, The claims procedures of W.S. 1-39-113 apply to contractual claims against governmental entities. 1988 Wyo.Sess.Laws Ch. 45 § 1. Accordingly, we augment Bell's rule to also include contract actions brought that arise out of the employment relationship and hold that a claim for damages based either in contract or tort against the state must proceed, if at all, in accordance with Wyoming's Governmental Claims Act. Allen's amended complaint requested a declaratory judgment that WYO.STAT. § 18-3-611 provided for a private cause of action sounding in either contract or tort and requested money damages for five claims sounding in either tort or contract. Under our rule just announced, the action required compliance with the notice provision of the claims act. Allen did not comply with the claims act's notice requirements. [T]he failure to file a claim under [the claims act] results in a district court having no jurisdiction over an action which is brought if the complaint fails to allege the filing of the claim pursuant to statute. Bell, 662 P.2d at 415. In Amrein v. Wyoming Livestock Bd., 851 P.2d 769 (Wyo.1993), this Court expanded upon the Bell rule and held that, in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the district court, the complaint must contain an allegation stating the date the claim was filed to demonstrate the filing of the claim within two years of the date of the alleged act, error or omission or, alternatively, the statutory ground for the late discovery of the alleged act, error or omission. Amrein, 851 P.2d at 771. The plaintiff's failure to state the jurisdiction of the court with specificity will result in dismissal without prejudice. Amrein, 851 P.2d at 771. Allen was discharged in 1991 and cannot possibly present a claim within the requisite two-year statute of limitations. We, therefore, affirm the order granting summary judgment on this basis as to all appellees on all claims. Boyd v. Nation, 909 P.2d 323, 326 (Wyo.1996). Affirmed.