City Pays

The endless discussion of fees and when to recover them - new case.  In mid-February, the Utah Supreme Court handed down Olson v. Eagle Mountain City.  The issue was whether the plaintiff had properly filed his request for reimbursement of costs and fees in defense of a criminal case against him arising from his conduct as a city employee (Mayor I believe).  The key to the case is the interpretation of two statutes, one of which references th e other.  The first (56-2-202) provides:

“[a] request for reimbursement of attorney fees and court costs shall be filed in the manner provided in Sections 63G-7-902 and 63G-7-903.”

The relevant portion of 63G-7-903 reads:

(a) Before a governmental entity may defend its employee against a claim, the employee shall make a written request to the governmental entity to defend the employee:
(i) within ten days after service of process upon the employee; or
(ii) within a longer period that would not prejudice the governmental entity in maintaining a defense on the employee’s behalf; or
(iii) within a period that would not conflict with notice requirements imposed on the entity in connection with insurance carried by the entity relating to the risk involved.

Stop and decide whether the deadline for notice by Olson (defending a criminal action) was (1) in writing within 10 days of being charged, or (2) in writing within the statute of limitations for the claim following acquittal (three years).  Think it a hard question?  You shouldn't, because the Supreme Court, standing by its commitment to the plain meaning of statutes says the latter. 

Here is why -- the phrase "the same manner" in 202 cannot refer to 903(a)(1) because service of process does not happen in a criminal context, and "manner" must mean method -- i.e., in writing.  As it means method, and nothign really otherwise says when time runs wiht respect to a defense of criminal case,it must be the limitation on such claims against the governmental agency.

I don't find the "plain text" argument particularly persuasive, because I don't really see that the text whether dressed or plain, is clear.  Service of process does encompass civil proceedings, but is the phrase really meaningless in the context of a criminal prosecution?  Not saying the Court is wrong in its conclusion, just that the argument is weak -- the text is not plain and unambiguous. 

Another interesting aspect is the remarkable difference in time periods permitted the different defendants -- all of ten days after service fothe complaint to file the written request, and three years following acquittal.  The notice has to go out before an answer, which is a might oppressive. 

In the case, it means the city pays.

Comments

[vibram five fingers]

As it means method, and nothign really otherwise says when time runs wiht respect to a defense of criminal case