Opinion ID: 2634813
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

Text: ¶5 Extraordinary relief under rule 65B is available only [w]here no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy is available. Utah R. Civ. P. 65B(a). At the time, the County Personnel Management Act, which establishes and governs county career service councils, guaranteed that following a council's final binding appeals decision, a right of appeal to the district court under the provisions of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure shall not be abridged. Utah Code Ann. § 17-33-4(1) (1995) (current version at Utah Code Ann. § 17-33-4(1)(a)-(d) (2001)). [1] In other words, upon receiving the Council's unfavorable ruling, Utah County could have appealed that decision to the district court. ¶6 The opportunity to appeal an administrative decision to the district court constitutes a plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Crist v. Mapleton City, 497 P.2d 633, 634 (Utah 1972). Likewise, [a]n extraordinary writ is not a proceeding for general review, and cannot be used as such. Anderson v. Baker, 296 P.2d 283, 285 (Utah 1956); see also Rammell v. Smith, 560 P.2d 1108, 1109 (Utah 1977). Because Utah County failed to pursue its available direct appeal, and because a petition for extraordinary relief cannot be considered an alternative to appeal, its petition is invalid and no court in this state has jurisdiction to provide the requested relief.