Stewart Harman, from the municipal litigation division of Plant, Christensen and Kanell recently briefed and argued a case involving the application of the judicial doctrine of comity to the Utah Supreme Court. A Utah resident was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Utah by an Arizona municipal employee. The Utah resident filed a claim against the City of Flagstaff within the time for filing a claim against a municipality in Utah under Utah law but the claim was filed after the expiration of the time for filing a claim against a municipality under Arizona state law. The Utah district court dismissed the claim for failure to meet the jurisdictional prerequisite of timely filing a notice of claim. The Utah resident appealed.
Applying principles of comity, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal in the case of Galindo v. Flagstaff, 2019 UT 67 (November 1, 2019). Acknowledging the initial presumption that comity should be extended to the governmental immunity acts of other states, the Court reasoned that “the party seeking to rebut [that] presumption must show that the extension of comity ‘contravene[s]’ or ‘undermines’ Utah’s public policy.
The plaintiff first argued that Arizona’s time bar on filing a notice of claim violated Utah’s public policy because it is six months shorter than Utah’s limitation. However, the Court found this argument unpersuasive because both Utah and Arizona have conditioned suits against the state and its political subdivisions by requiring timely filing of a notice of claim within a relatively short period. As a result, the Court found that the small difference in the notice of claim periods does not violate Utah’s public policy
Plaintiff also argued that the application of comity to bar a Utah plaintiff from recovery in Utah violated Utah’s public policy. However, the Court distinguished the cases relied on by the Plaintiff, reasoning that the Plaintiff here was not completely barred from suit, but rather barred because she failed to file a notice of claim within the allotted time period. Further, failure to extend comity in this instance could lead to forum-shopping and potentially eviscerate the doctrine of comity almost entirely.
For those reasons, the Court found that Galindo failed to comply with the Statute’s notice of claim requirement and Galindo’s action was untimely and subject to dismissal. As such, Comity was rightfully extended, and the district court correctly applied the Arizona Statute.