Opinion ID: 4198423
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the timeliness of the provo undertaking

Text: ¶ 19 Because the Marziales’ payment also covered their undertaking, the City’s argument that the late filing deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction also raises the question of whether the dishonor of payment affected the validity of the undertaking. ¶ 20 We note upfront that failure to timely file an undertaking under the Governmental Immunity Act “is an affirmative defense” and not a jurisdictional issue. Hansen v. Salt Lake Cty., 794 P.2d 838, 840 (Utah 1990) (“In contrast to other procedural requirements of the Governmental Immunity Act, failure to comply with [the undertaking provision] does not bar a suit.”).3 And we hold that the principle in rule 3 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure—that dishonor of payment does not affect the validity of the filing—extends to the payment of an undertaking under the Governmental Immunity Act. ¶ 21 Utah Code section 63G-7-601 provides that (1) actions under the Governmental Immunity Act are “governed by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure to the extent that they are consistent” with the Act, UTAH CODE § 63G-7-601(1); and (2) an action must include an undertaking at the time of filing, id. § 63G-7-601(2). Nothing in rule 3 is inconsistent with the Governmental Immunity Act. We therefore must determine how that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to this issue. And the City has not carried its burden. 3 Hansen v. Salt Lake County, 794 P.2d 838 (Utah 1990), addressed a previous version of the Governmental Immunity Act, which stated, “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, conditioned upon payment by the plaintiff of taxable costs incurred by the governmental entity in the action if the plaintiff fails to prosecute the action or fails to recover judgment.” UTAH CODE § 63-30-19 (1989). This law was repealed and replaced in 2004, but the current version contains no substantive differences. See UTAH CODE § 63G-7-601 (2017). Thus, Hansen’s principle that the provision is not jurisdictional still applies. 794 P.2d at 840. 7 MARZIALE v. SPANISH FORK CITY Opinion of the Court rule 3, which governs commencement of actions, applies to filings under section 601. ¶ 22 Rule 3 explicitly applies only to complaints, which are a general requirement for civil actions. UTAH R. CIV. P. 3(a). But we believe that it is consistent with the Governmental Immunity Act to apply rule 3’s principle—that dishonor of payment does not affect the validity of a filing—to an undertaking as well. ¶ 23 Indeed, incorporation of rule 3 into the Governmental Immunity Act’s undertaking requirement is proper as a matter of constitutional avoidance. This canon encourages courts to “reject[] one of two plausible constructions of a statute on the ground that it would raise grave doubts as to its constitutionality,” since we presume that the legislature enacts laws “in the light of constitutional limitations.” Utah Dep’t of Transp. v. Carlson, 2014 UT 24, ¶ 23, 332 P.3d 900 (citation omitted). A holding that dishonor of payment affects the validity of the filing of an undertaking could have serious due process problems if—as is alleged here—the undertaking payment has been dishonored through no fault of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has received no notice of the dishonor of payment until after the statute of limitations has run. Timely notice of rejection is key because “[t]imely and adequate notice” is part of “the very heart of procedural fairness.” Nelson v. Jacobsen, 669 P.2d 1207, 1211 (Utah 1983); see also Dipoma v. McPhie, 2001 UT 61, ¶ 15, 29 P.3d 1225 (“[A] check may be returned for many reasons, some of which are beyond the ability of the payor to control—such as bank error— and a plaintiff should not have his or her action dismissed due to problems beyond their control.”). The City maintains that the court sent a notice of rejection after each of the Marziales’ submissions. But, as the moving party, the City bears the burden of establishing that there are no disputed facts on a material issue, and it has failed to establish undisputed facts showing that the Marziales received any such notice.4 Thus, to avoid possible 4 The City alleges that the notice of the credit card error was sent to the Marziales’ service provider on August 2, 2013, but the Marziales provided evidence, by affidavit, that they did not receive notification that their payment was rejected until September 10, 2013, when an employee of their law firm contacted (cont.) 8 Cite as: 2017 UT 51 Opinion of the Court constitutional problems stemming from a lack of notice, the better reading of section 63G-7-601 and rule 3 is that an undertaking is encompassed by the rule. ¶ 24 We emphasize that our determination today that rule 3 is not displaced by the provisions of the Governmental Immunity Act extends only to the filing of an undertaking, not to the other prerequisites to filing an action under the Governmental Immunity Act, such as a notice of claim. The Governmental Immunity Act does not generally displace all otherwise applicable law, but it is “comprehensive” and “all-encompassing” on the “matters that it regulates in comprehensive detail.” Craig v. Provo City, 2016 UT 40, ¶ 22, 389 P.3d 423 (emphasis omitted). Thus, where portions of the Act, such as the notice of claim portion, specifically regulate an area and contain no language to support the idea that they should be supplemented, we will not import other statutory language. Id. ¶¶ 26, 38–40 (holding that the Governmental Immunity Act already speaks “in elaborate detail on the precise timing of the initial notice of claim and of the subsequent action to be filed in district court” and therefore a separate statute that allowed for the extension of a statute of limitations did not apply (citing UTAH CODE §§ 63G-7-402, 403)). ¶ 25 But the Governmental Immunity Act does not regulate when an action is considered filed or how payment errors affect the filing, instead incorporating by reference—and thereby deferring to—the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See UTAH CODE § 63G-7-601(1). It is therefore appropriate to apply rule 3’s principle that “[d]ishonor of a check or other form of payment does not affect the validity of the filing” to the payment of an undertaking under the Governmental Immunity Act.