FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
February 1, 2012
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
ELLEN GARMAN, guardian and next
friend of Apryl Garman,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 11-8042
v. (D.C. No. 1:09-CV-00248-WFD)
(D. Wyo.)
CAMPBELL COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. 1, State of Wyoming,
and CHRIS MILLIRON,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Ellen Garman appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of her
complaint against Campbell County School District No. 1 and Chris Milliron
(collectively, the School District). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, we affirm.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
I. Background
Garman’s daughter, Apryl Garman, was injured while participating in a
physical education class at her middle school on November 1, 2004. On October
4, 2006, Garman served the School District with a notice of claim under
§ 1-39-113 of the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA), Wyo. Stat. Ann.
§§ 1-39-101 through 1-39-121, in which she contended that Apryl’s injuries
resulted from the School District’s negligence. As next friend and guardian of
Apryl, Garman filed a complaint in district court against the School District on
October 4, 2007 (Garman I). The district court dismissed Garman’s action for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction on November 12, 2008, based on her failure to
allege compliance with certain Wyoming constitutional and statutory
requirements for bringing a WGCA claim. Garman appealed the district court’s
judgment of dismissal.
On November 2, 2009, while her appeal in Garman I was pending, Garman
filed the complaint in this action (Garman II), reciting essentially the same
allegations as her complaint in Garman I. The parties agreed to stay this action
pending a ruling from this court on Garman’s appeal in Garman I. We affirmed
the dismissal of Garman’s complaint in Garman I on December 23, 2010. See
Garman v. Campbell Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 630 F.3d 977 (10th Cir. 2010), cert.
denied, 132 S. Ct. 95 (2011).
-2-
The School District moved to dismiss Garman’s complaint in Garman II on
January 21, 2011. Among other contentions, the School District asserted that the
district court did not have jurisdiction because the complaint was not filed within
one year of Garman’s notice of claim to the School District, as required by Wyo.
Stat. Ann. § 1-39-114. Garman opposed the motion, contending that her
complaint was timely under the Wyoming savings statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann.
§ 1-3-118. While the School District’s motion was pending, the Wyoming
Supreme Court overruled its prior cases in which it had held that a court lacked
jurisdiction over a WGCA claim if the complaint failed to plead compliance with
the statutory and constitutional requirements. See Brown v. City of Casper,
248 P.3d 1136, 1139 (Wyo. 2011). 1
The district court granted the School District’s motion to dismiss in
Garman II. Applying the Wyoming Supreme Court’s decision in Hall v. Park
County, 238 P.3d 580, 585 (Wyo. 2010), it held that the savings statute does not
apply to WGCA claims. The court further concluded that the ruling in Hall
applied retroactively to Garman’s complaint, which she had filed ten months
before Hall was decided. The court also rejected Garman’s contention that the
1
The Brown decision did not entirely overturn the precedent supporting
dismissal of Garman’s complaint in Garman I. Although the pleading defects
identified in Garman I would be curable by an amendment of the complaint under
Brown, Garman was precluded from doing so in Garman I because she failed to
seek leave to amend. See Garman, 630 F.3d at 986 & n.8.
-3-
Wyoming Supreme Court’s later holding in Brown undercut the reasoning in Hall.
The district court therefore dismissed Garman’s complaint in Garman II with
prejudice, and she filed a timely appeal. 2
II. Standard of Review
We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Butler v. Kempthorne, 532 F.3d 1108, 1110 (10th Cir. 2008).
Garman invoked the district court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a), and the events at issue occurred in Wyoming. Wyoming law therefore
applies to Garman’s claim. See Mtn. W. Mines, Inc. v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co.,
470 F.3d 947, 950-51 (10th Cir. 2006). Our review of the district court’s
interpretation of Wyoming law is also de novo. See Beardsley v. Farmland Co-
Op, Inc., 530 F.3d 1309, 1313 (10th Cir. 2008). “[W]e must apply the most
recent statement of state law by the state’s highest court.” Wood v. Eli Lilly &
Co., 38 F.3d 510, (10th Cir. 1994). 3
2
The order dismissing Garman’s complaint was entered on May 12, 2011,
and she filed her notice of appeal on June 10, 2011. Although the district court
did not enter judgment in a separate document, and the judgment therefore did not
become final until 150 days after entry of the dismissal order, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
58(c)(2)(B), Garman’s notice of appeal was nonetheless valid, see Constien v.
United States, 628 F.3d 1207, 1211 (10th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2884
(2011).
3
The School District asserts that, where the Wyoming Supreme Court has
not ruled on a question, this court must defer to the district court’s interpretation
of Wyoming law unless it is clearly erroneous. The United States Supreme court
rejected that deferential standard of review over twenty years ago in Salve Regina
(continued...)
-4-
III. Discussion
A. Section 1-39-114
The WGCA defines the limitations period for bringing a claim against a
governmental entity as follows, in relevant part:
Except as otherwise provided, actions against a governmental entity
or a public employee acting within the scope of his duties for torts
occurring after June 30, 1979 which are subject to this act shall be
forever barred unless commenced within one (1) year after the date
the claim is filed pursuant to W.S. 1-39-113.
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-114 (emphasis added). Garman filed her notice of claim
on October 4, 2006. She filed her complaint in Garman II on November 2, 2009,
more than one year after filing her claim. Therefore, under § 1-39-114 her action
was untimely and “forever barred.” She contended, however, that because her
complaint in Garman I was timely filed, and it was dismissed other than on the
merits, her complaint in Garman II was also timely filed under the Wyoming
“savings statute,” which provides, again in relevant part:
If in an action commenced in due time a judgment for the plaintiff is
reversed, or if the plaintiff fails otherwise than upon the merits and
the time limited for the commencement of the action has expired at
the date of the reversal or failure, the plaintiff, or his representatives
if he dies and if the cause of action survives, may commence a new
action within one (1) year after the date of the failure or reversal.
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-118.
3
(...continued)
College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 1221-22 (1991).
-5-
But after Garman filed her complaint in Garman II, the Wyoming Supreme
Court decided in Hall that the savings statute does not apply to claims under the
WGCA. See 238 P.3d at 585. In Hall, the court began its analysis with the
uncontroverted proposition that, “under the WGCA, immunity is the rule, and
liability the exception.” Id. at 583. The court noted that “other courts have held
that, absent specific statutory provision to the contrary, the doctrine of immunity
precludes application of the savings statute in cases involving governmental
claims.” Id. at 584. The court then concluded:
The language of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1–39–114 could not be
more clear: actions against governmental entities are “forever
barred” unless commenced within one year after presentment of the
claim. . . . Under the specific language of the statute, and in the
particular circumstance of sovereign immunity being the WGCA’s
“default position,” the [appellant’s] second suit was time barred. The
“closed ended” WGCA does not provide for liability beyond its
specific provisions, and there is no provision within the WGCA for
application of the savings statute, which is not part of the Act, to
causes of action thereunder. The provisions of the more specific
WGCA take precedence over the provisions of the more general
savings statute.
Id. The court added that
[h]ad the legislature intended that the period for filing an action
under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1–39–114 be tolled in the circumstances
covered by the savings statute, it would have said so in the statute, as
it did for actions involving children seven years of age or younger,
and actions involving untimely responses by governmental entities to
presented claims.
-6-
Id. 4
B. Retroactive Application of Hall
Garman argues that the holding in Hall should not be applied retroactively
to her action, which she filed before the decision in Hall. The School District
argues that this is a “non-issue” because Garman’s case was pending at the time
Hall was decided, and it is therefore subject to the holding in that case. The
School District cites no case to support this proposition. If the retroactivity
question in this case involved a decision of the United States Supreme Court on a
rule of federal law, the School District would undoubtedly be correct. That court
has said:
When this Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it,
that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be
given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review
4
Regarding these exceptions to the one-year limitations period included in
§ 1-39-114, that section provides:
In the case of a minor seven (7) years of age or younger, actions
against a governmental entity or public employee acting within the
scope of his duties for torts occurring after June 30, 1979 which are
subject to this act are forever barred unless commenced within two
(2) years after occurrence or until his eighth birthday, whichever
period is greater. In no case shall the statute of limitations provided
in this section be longer than any other applicable statute of
limitations. In the absence of applicable insurance coverage, if the
claim was properly filed, the statute shall be tolled forty-five (45)
days after a decision by the entity, if the decision was not made and
mailed to the claimant within the statutory time limitation otherwise
provided herein.
-7-
and as to all events, regardless of whether such events predate or
postdate our announcement of the rule.
Harper v. Va. Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 97 (1993). But the Wyoming
Supreme Court has not applied this blanket rule to its decisions on state-law
issues. See Farbotnik v. Wyoming, 850 P.2d 594, 601-02 (Wyo. 1993) (refusing
to apply new rule announced by Wyoming Supreme Court in case still open on
direct review at the time of the decision).
The Wyoming Supreme Court has “acknowledged [its] authority to
determine the manner in which decisions will be given retroactive application.”
Id. at 602. Nonetheless, it remains the general rule in Wyoming
that the ruling of a court is deemed to state the true nature of the law
both retrospectively and prospectively. In civil cases, at least,
constitutional law neither requires nor prohibits retroactive operation
of an overruling decision, but in the vast majority of cases a decision
is effective both prospectively and retrospectively, even an
overruling decision. Whether the general rule should be departed
from depends on whether a substantial injustice would otherwise
occur.
Goshen Irrigation Dist. v. Wyo. State Bd. of Control, 926 P.2d 943, 949 (Wyo.
1996) (quotation omitted); see also Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Laramie Cnty. Sch.
Dist. No. 1, 884 P.2d 946, 957 (Wyo. 1994) (“We must consider equitable and
other principles with regard to whether our decision will be prospective or
otherwise.”). The Wyoming Supreme Court has not opined on whether its
decision in Hall is, or should be, limited to prospective application. Our task,
-8-
then, is to determine whether that court would apply its decision in Hall to
Garman’s WGCA claim.
The Wyoming Supreme Court has, on occasion, stated explicitly that a
decision will be applied prospectively. See, e.g., Clarke v. Beckwith, 858 P.2d
293, 296 (Wyo. 1993). Certain language in a decision can also be indicative of an
intent to apply a decision only prospectively. See Adkins v. Sky Blue, Inc.,
701 P.2d 549, 553-54 (Wyo. 1985) (noting terms such as “hereafter,” “thereafter,”
“shall be,” and “henceforth” used in a decision “speak to prospective operation”);
see also Harvey v. Gen. Mtrs. Corp., 739 P.2d 763, 765 (Wyo. 1987) (finding that
if court had intended only prospective application it would have stated its intent
in clear terms).
The decision in Hall contains no language indicating that the court intended
it to be applied only prospectively. But that does not end the analysis. The
Wyoming Supreme Court considers the following three factors in determining the
retroactivity question: (1) “the decision to be applied nonretroactively must
establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on
which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose
resolution was not clearly foreshadowed”; (2) the court must “weigh the merits
and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question,
its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard
its operation”; and (3) the court will “weigh[] the inequity imposed by retroactive
-9-
application, for where a decision of this Court could produce substantial
inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for
avoiding the ‘injustice or hardship’ by a holding of nonretroactivity.” Wyo. State
Tax Comm’n v. BHP Petroleum Co., 856 P.2d 428, 438 (Wyo. 1993) (quotations
and brackets omitted). 5
Regarding the first element of the retroactivity analysis, Garman argues
that Hall decided an issue of first impression that was not clearly foreshadowed.
She points to Haney v. Cribbs, 148 P.3d 1118 (Wyo. 2006), as the Wyoming
Supreme Court’s most recent interpretation of the savings statute. In Haney the
court ruled that the savings statute was applicable, but Haney is inapposite
because it did not involve a claim under the WGCA against a governmental
entity. See id. at 1119-20, 1125. Garman next argues that the holding in Hall
was not clearly foreshadowed, based upon other courts’ conflicting decisions on
the same issue and the Wyoming Supreme Court’s statement in Hall that the
dissent’s interpretation of the statute was plausible. We disagree. The court in
5
This test is derived from Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07
(1971), a case which the United States Supreme Court overruled in Harper with
respect to the Court’s federal-law decisions that it has applied to the parties
before the Court, see 509 U.S. at 97-98 (“[T]he legal imperative to apply a rule of
federal law retroactively after the case announcing the rule has already done so
must prevail over any claim based on a Chevron Oil analysis.” (quotations and
brackets omitted)). But as explained above, the Wyoming Supreme Court
continues to consider equitable principles in determining whether a decision on
state law will be applied only prospectively.
-10-
Hall acknowledged that courts in other states had reached a contrary conclusion,
but distinguished those cases from the law in Wyoming because their reasoning
was applicable “[w]here sovereign immunity is not the rule, or where a statute
allows application of the savings statute to governmental claims.” 238 P.3d at
584. And while the court did not dismiss the dissent’s interpretation as
implausible, it explained why the majority’s construction of § 1-39-114 followed
from prior precedent:
This Court has for years construed the WGCA as “closed-ended,”
with governmental liability specifically delimited by the mandates of
the Act. One of those mandates is the “forever barred” language of
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1–39–114. In the instant case, the majority
opinion conforms to that precedent by concluding that, had the
legislature intended for the savings statute to apply to WGCA
actions, it would have added that exception to those set forth in Wyo.
Stat. Ann. § 1–39–114.
Id. at 585 n.4.
The second step of the retroactivity analysis requires an examination of the
purposes of the rule established in Hall and whether they would be furthered by
retroactive application. See BHP Petroleum Co., 856 P.2d at 438; Hanesworth v.
Johnke, 783 P.2d 173, 177 (Wyo. 1989). Garman misconstrues the focus of this
analysis when she asserts that the question is instead the purpose of the savings
statute, its prior history, and whether retroactive operation of Hall will retard its
operation. The intent of the rule announced in Hall—that the savings statute does
not apply to WGCA claims—was to preserve the limited extent to which
-11-
sovereign immunity had been abrogated in Wyoming, as strictly outlined by the
legislature in the WGCA. See 238 P.3d at 584-85. That purpose is furthered by
application of the rule to Garman’s claim in Garman II, which was “forever
barred” under § 1-39-114 when she failed to file her complaint within one year of
her notice of claim.
Regarding the third factor, Garman argues that, because she relied on the
savings statute in filing her complaint in Garman II, it would be inequitable to
apply the subsequent ruling in Hall to bar her claim. She maintains that, due to a
jurisdictional pleading requirement that resulted in dismissal of her complaint in
Garman I—a requirement that has since been overruled by the Wyoming Supreme
Court—she would be denied all relief.
We are not persuaded that application of Hall in this case will result in
substantial injustice. The Wyoming Supreme Court has, for example, found that
the equities balanced in favor of prospective application of a decision in
circumstances where retroactive application would result in accounting and
auditing problems, and a multitude of claims and litigation, see Laramie Cnty.
Sch. Dist. No. 1, 884 P.2d at 960; where retroactive application would disturb
established property rights that “were defined according to law unexpectedly
declared invalid,” Hanesworth, 783 P.2d at 177; and where a decision creating a
new cause of action would subject a party to liability who would not have been
liable under the previously existing law, see Adkins, 701 P.2d at 553; see also
-12-
Clarke, 858 P.2d at 296 (stating that new rule redefining landowner liability
would be applied prospectively except as to the parties in the current action).
None of these or any similar consequences would occur as a result of
retroactive application of Hall to Garman’s claim. The Wyoming Supreme Court
did not withhold application of its decision in Hall to the appellant’s claim in that
case, which involved a procedural history similar to Garman’s claim. See
238 P.3d at 585 (affirming dismissal of complaint as time barred). Moreover, any
hardship to Garman is outweighed by the purpose of the ruling in Hall: to
preserve the rule of sovereign immunity except as strictly defined in the WGCA.
See BHP Petroleum Co., 856 P.2d at 439 (rejecting appellants’ plea for
prospective application of a decision, where hardship to appellants was
outweighed by benefit of the rule established in that decision, which provided for
equal and uniform taxation).
C. Application of Hall after Brown
Garman’s final contention is that the Wyoming Supreme Court’s later
decision in Brown v. City of Casper calls into question that court’s reasoning in
Hall. In Brown, the court overruled its prior decisions holding that a trial court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a WGCA claim if the complaint fails to
allege compliance with applicable statutory and constitutional requirements. See
248 P.3d at 1139. Under the holding in Brown, a complaint against a
governmental entity must still allege compliance with statutory and constitutional
-13-
requirements, but a failure to do so is no longer a jurisdictional defect and can be
cured by amendment, so long as a notice of claim was properly presented. See id.
Garman maintains that Brown “undercuts the basic jurisdictional premise”
relied upon in Hall “when it held that ‘[t]he appellant’s second complaint was not
filed within the specified period of limitations set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann.
§ 1-39-114, and therefore, the district court never obtained jurisdiction over the
action.’” Aplt. Br. at 12-13 (quoting Hall, 238 P.3d at 585). She claims that “[i]t
is therefore highly unlikely that the Wyoming Supreme Court would have decided
Hall in the same way if Brown had preceded it.” Id. at 13. Garman does not
further develop this argument.
We disagree with Garman’s contention. The court held in Brown:
[A] litigant’s failure to allege compliance with the constitutional and
statutory requirements does not and cannot affect a court’s subject
matter jurisdiction to act. Pursuant to the constitution and the
statute, the district courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide actions
brought against governmental entities, whether or not compliance is
alleged, if a notice of claim complying with the constitutional and
statutory requirements has been presented. District courts also have
jurisdiction to allow the amendment of a complaint to allege
presentation of a notice of claim complying with the statute and
constitution when such a notice was in fact timely presented.
248 P.3d at 1146-47 (citation omitted and second emphasis added). Thus, Brown
made clear that a complaint’s failure to satisfy the special, judicially created
pleading requirements does not deprive a court of jurisdiction to hear a WGCA
claim. But the decision also reaffirmed that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-113, which
-14-
defines the manner for filing a notice of claim under the WGCA and sets a
two-year deadline for doing so, is a jurisdictional non-claim statute. See 248 P.3d
at 1146 (citing Bell v. Schell, 101 P.3d 465 (Wyo. 2004), which held that “the
timely presentment of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suit, is
jurisdictional, and cannot be waived,” id. at 475).
In its conclusion in Hall that the savings statute was not intended to extend
the time period for filing a claim under the WGCA, the court focused on the
legislature’s clear statement in § 1-39-114 that a claim not filed within one year
of the notice of claim is “forever barred.” Hall, 238 P.3d at 584 (quotation
omitted). The court determined that, “[u]nder the specific language of the statute,
and in the particular circumstances of sovereign immunity being the WGCA’s
‘default position,’ the [appellant’s] second suit was time barred.” Id. The court
then stated its holding in jurisdictional terms:
[W]e have noted many times that sovereign immunity was abrogated
by the Wyoming legislature only as strictly outlined in the WGCA.
The courts of Wyoming do not have jurisdiction over governmental
claims that do not meet the conditions of the Act. The appellant’s
second complaint was not filed within the specified period of
limitations set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-114, and therefore, the
district court never obtained jurisdiction over the action.
Id. at 584-85 (footnote omitted). In so holding, the court appears to have
implicitly decided the question left open in Bell v. Schell—whether § 1-39-114 is
a special substantive statute of limitations, see 101 P.3d at 474 n.9—by according
that section a “jurisdictional effect,” id. at 472 (quotation omitted). We see no
-15-
conflict between the holdings in Brown and Hall. As the district court aptly
stated,
[T]he two cases are consistent. Under Brown, the WGCA’s grant of
jurisdiction cannot be undone by a judicially-created pleading rule.
Under Hall, the WGCA’s limit on jurisdiction cannot be undone by
application of the savings statute. Together they stand for the
unremarkable proposition that the plain language of the WGCA
strictly defines the State of Wyoming’s limited abrogation of
sovereign immunity.
Aplt. App. at 179.
IV. Conclusion
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Garman’s Motion for
Certification of Questions of State Law is DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-16-