Opinion ID: 2569582
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defenses Under Utah Administrative Procedures Act

Text: ¶ 21 Ms. Jensen also contends that the grant of summary judgment improperly denied her the opportunity to assert defenses outlined in the Utah Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA) found in Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-19(3). [3] However, before the provisions of the UAPA are activated, the proceedings and orders of the administrative agency in question must have been validly challenged. Section 63-46b-1(2)(k) states that [t]his chapter does not govern . . . the issuance of any notice of violation or order under . . . Title 19, Chapter 2, Air Conservation Act . . . except that this chapter governs any agency action commenced by any person authorized by law to contest the validity or correctness of the notice or order. In other words, the protections of the UAPA, including those afforded in section 63-46b-19(3), do not become operative until the person contest[s] the validity or correctness of the notice or order by requesting a hearing on the matter. ¶ 22 Ms. Jensen did not request a hearing or in any way contest the validity of the Notice and Order within the appropriate time period. The warnings on the Notice and Order stated that she had thirty days to respond or it would become final, and she did not respond. Thus, the Notice and Order became final and Ms. Jensen never acquired the right to raise any defenses under section 63-46b-19(3). See Career Serv. Review Bd. v. Utah Dep't of Corrections, 942 P.2d 933, 938-39 (Utah 1997) (holding that when administrative agency's order has become final, defendant cannot assert section 63-46b-19(3) defenses or argue that issues surrounding finalized order are still in dispute). ¶ 23 Therefore, the trial court's grant of summary judgment did not deny Ms. Jensen the right to assert valid defenses under the UAPA.