Summary 2012 WY 48
Summary of Decision March 28,
2012
[SPECIAL NOTE: This
opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an
"official" citation when it was issued. You should use this
citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation.
You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are
numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the
universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The
pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page
number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any
future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming
State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]
Summaries are prepared by Law
Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court
Case Name: WORLD FAMILY CORPORATION, A Wyoming Corporation,
dba MORROW GLOBAL v. WINDJAMMER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company Domesticated in Wyoming and UINTA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.
1, STATE OF WYOMING, Evanston, Wyoming, and WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF WYOMING
Docket Number: S-11-0165
Appeal from the District Court
of Laramie County, Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge
Representing Appellant: Tara B. Nethercott, Woodhouse Roden, LLC, Cheyenne,
Wyoming.
Representing Appellees Windjammer
Communications, LLC and Uinta County School District No. 1: Mark W. Harris,
Harris Law Firm, P.C., Evanston, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee State of
Wyoming, Department of Transportation: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney
General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. Moench,
Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Moench.
Date of Decision: March 28, 2012
Facts: World Family Corporation,
dba Morrow Global (Morrow), sought judgment against Uinta County School
District No. 1 (the District) and Windjammer Communications, LLC (Windjammer)
declaring that Morrow is a co-owner with the District of a conduit located
under Interstate 80 in Evanston, Wyoming. Morrow also sought an order
permanently enjoining the District from interfering with, excluding or converting
Morrow’s use of the conduit. Finally, by way of a quantum meruit claim,
Morrow asserted that Windjammer had been unjustly enriched by using the conduit
without paying for it.
The District and Windjammer
moved to dismiss the complaint. They argued that the district court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against the District, Morrow
had failed to join the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) as an
indispensable party and World Family Corporation, the party designated as
plaintiff in the complaint, did not exist at the time of the events giving rise
to the action. Morrow moved to join WYDOT as a defendant and the district
court granted the motion. Because both parties submitted matters outside
the pleadings in presenting argument on the motion to dismiss, the district
court treated the motion as one for summary judgment. After a hearing,
the court granted the motion, finding that Morrow had failed to present any
facts showing that it was an owner of the conduit and entitled to the relief
sought. Morrow appealed.
Issues: Morrow presented two
issues, which were rephrased as follows: Whether the district court erred in sua
sponte deciding an issue that was not presented, thereby improperly
shifting the burden to Morrow. Whether the district court erred in granting
summary judgment for Windjammer, the District and WYDOT on the ownership issue
when that issue was not raised in the motion and the parties had no notice the
district court intended to address it. Windjammer, the District and WYDOT
contended the district court properly granted summary judgment in their
favor.
Holdings: The Court
concluded the district court improperly granted summary judgment when the
parties had no opportunity to present evidence and argument on the issue of
Morrow’s ownership. The Court reversed the summary judgment order.
Chief Justice Kite delivered the
opinion for the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment