Opinion ID: 2508301
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure To Exhaust Administrative Remedies Deprives Trial Courts of Jurisdiction

Text: The motion to dismiss filed by the Commission referenced four different subsections of I.R.C.P. 12(b): 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction; 12(b)(3) for improper venue; and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. During the hearing on the Commission's motion, the district court stated that this was a 12(b)(6) motion filed by the Industrial Commission.... And since it is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, I'm going to construe the facts, as alleged in the complaint, in the favor of the plaintiff. In spite of this statement, when issuing its order the district court did not specify under what specific subsection of Rule 12(b) it was acting. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies has been viewed by courts as properly coming under 12(b)(1) as going to subject matter jurisdiction, or as coming under 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, or even as being a `non-enumerated' Rule 12(b) motion. 5B Wright & Miller, supra, § 1350 (quotation contained in footnote 6). This Court has held that generally the exhaustion doctrine implicates subject matter jurisdiction because a district court does not acquire subject matter jurisdiction until all the administrative remedies have been exhausted. Fairway Development v. Bannock County, 119 Idaho 121, 125, 804 P.2d 294, 298 (1990). Because here the district court ruled on two grounds that it did not have jurisdiction, but did not decide whether the amended complaint contained a cause of action, this Court treats the dismissal as coming under I.R.C.P. 12(b)(1).