Court Opinion

ID: 9785928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 22:48:22.028257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:36.109892
License: Public Domain

WILKINS, Associate Chief Justice,
dissenting:
¶ 26 I dissent. I believe that the court of appeals correctly affirmed the ruling of the trial court dismissing Ms. Canfield’s complaint against Layton City for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
¶ 27 A careful reading of the refiled complaint upon which Ms. Canfield relies to raise a cause of action .for breach of contract fails to disclose any hint of such a claim. Notice pleading, as practiced here, requires a short and plain statement of the claim. Ms. Can-field’s complaint provides neither element of notice to Layton City. It is impossible, in my view, to parse the language of the complaint and conclude in any rational way that Layton City was given the required “fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds of the claim and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.” Williams v. State Farm Ins. Co., 656 P.2d 966, 971 (Utah 1982).
¶28 The lead opinion, in a Herculean effort to find a hint of notice, works mightily to uncover the necessary plain statement of a contract claim, while at the same time noting that the complaint is “sufficiently vague” to warrant an order to amend. I concur that the complaint is sufficiently vague to warrant rewriting and re-submission. However, in addition to being vague, it also totally fails to make out any claim sounding in contract. The complaint is more than inartful. It is insufficient, even under our liberal interpretation of the requirements of pleading.
¶ 29 The trial court was correct to dismiss the complaint as it did, and the court of *628appeals was also correct to affirm the action of the trial court. I would do the same.