The Utah Legislature has been dismissed from a dispute over the legality of the proposed West Hills township.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs chose to remove the state Legislature from their lawsuit after the governing body filed a motion to dismiss last month. However, the plaintiffs seemingly intend to move forward with the lawsuit naming Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson and the town’s sponsor Derek Anderson as the remaining defendants.
The plaintiffs, a mixed group of longtime residents in unincorporated Summit County and second-home owners frustrated with the state’s incorporation process, in May filed legal proceedings against the state Legislature, Henderson and Anderson.
West Hills is a proposed 3,600-acre township along S.R. 248 near Kamas. The matter of incorporation will appear on the Election Day ballot, but dozens of property owners, including the 10 plaintiffs, have opposed the idea, citing concerns over property rights, economic viability and the sponsor’s motives.
Only 47 registered voters within the boundaries of the proposed township can vote on its incorporation. The election excludes second-home owners living there who are registered to vote elsewhere. Nearby residents who live outside of the boundaries have also expressed frustration with their inability to decide whether West Hills becomes a town, saying the projected population growth, increased traffic and economic impacts of the township would affect everyone in the surrounding area.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit specifically claimed their inability to challenge the incorporation and the results of its feasibility study violated their constitutional rights in three distinct ways: First, incorporation sponsors are allowed to modify proposed boundaries without granting exclusion requests after the first legally required public hearing. Second, sponsors can “gerrymander the proposed boundaries … to exclude properties opposing incorporation (even if the owner did not request exclusion) and include properties of owners opposing incorporation but who lack voting rights.” And third, the feasibility study relied on future development projections without taking into account “negative impacts on property owners.”
Attorneys representing the state Legislature last month filed a motion to dismiss, alleging the plaintiffs erred in naming the governing body because it is protected by legislative immunity and is not in charge of enforcing the laws it enacts. Furthermore, they argued the plaintiffs’ complaint fails to name a specific claim involving the Legislature.
“Because the only factual allegation plaintiffs make against the Legislature is that it ‘enacted the challenged municipal incorporation statutory provisions,’ the Legislature is entitled to absolute immunity from this suit,” the attorneys wrote. “There can be no question that the Legislature’s act of passing laws — again, the only thing plaintiffs [allege] the Legislature has done in this case — is the pinnacle of legislative activity.”
The plaintiffs’ attorneys responded on June 27 by filing a voluntary notice of dismissal removing the state Legislature from the lawsuit. The notice cited the state Legislature’s argument that in constitutional challenges, “state officers with statewide functions under the challenged statute” are the proper defendants.
“In reliance on that argument — which, in conjunction with Lieutenant Governor Henderson’s Answer, indicates that Lieutenant Governor Henderson is the proper governmental defendant in this action — Plaintiffs hereby stipulate to dismiss Defendant Utah State Legislature from this action,” the notice concluded.
Henderson’s attorneys filed a response in court the same day as the Legislature filed its motion for dismissal, similarly arguing Henderson was not an appropriate defendant to name in the lawsuit, no specific allegations involving the lieutenant governor are eligible for relief, and the statutory regulations regarding incorporation do not violate the Utah Constitution.
The plaintiffs’ legal counsel has not yet responded to Henderson’s court filings specifically, but the notice of dismissal for the state Legislature indicates a desire to continue the lawsuit with Henderson as a defendant.
They additionally submitted a request for a partial summary judgment three days after Henderson’s response and the state Legislature’s motion to dismiss, in which they asked for immediate relief regarding one of the plaintiffs’ six claims.
The particular claim mentioned in the request is an allegation that the West Hills township violated the Utah Constitution, which states, “All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.”
“Plaintiffs are members of the statutorily defined class that should have the right to seek exclusion. Yet because their properties were included after the deadline to exercise exclusion rights, they are deprived of property rights granted to other members of their class,” the filing said. “This discriminatory treatment does not substantially further the purposes of the municipal incorporation code. Thus, the statutory scheme violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights protected by uniform operation of law and that scheme threatens them with significant harm and a deprivation of their constitutional rights.”
Third District Court Judge Matthew Bates has not yet responded to the plaintiffs’ request for a summary judgment as of Monday afternoon. There are currently no hearing dates scheduled related to the case.