Sharon R. Hammer v. Nils Ribi
2017 Ida. LEXIS 254, 401 P.3d 148, 162 Idaho 570 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's complaint is not required to anticipate and negate potential affirmative defenses to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Immunity is an affirmative defense that the defendant bears the burden of pleading and proving.
Facts:
- Sharon Hammer was employed as the City Administrator for Sun Valley, and Nils Ribi was a member of the city council.
- During a city council meeting on September 15, 2011, Hammer left the council chambers to copy some documents.
- Ribi followed Hammer and demanded that she make certain changes to budget documents.
- Hammer refused to make the changes, stating that she needed to speak with the Mayor first.
- Ribi then raised his arms and yelled at Hammer, “No! You will not talk to the Mayor!”
- Hammer became afraid that Ribi was going to hit her, causing her to step back and exclaim, “Whoa!”
Procedural Posture:
- Sharon Hammer initially brought a civil assault action against Nils Ribi in federal court.
- The federal court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.
- Hammer then filed the action in an Idaho state district court (the trial court).
- The district court granted Ribi's motion to dismiss Hammer's original complaint for failure to state a claim but granted Hammer leave to amend.
- The district court denied Hammer's motion to compel Ribi to undergo a mental examination.
- Hammer filed an amended complaint.
- Ribi filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing both failure to state a claim and immunity under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA).
- The district court granted the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, holding that Hammer failed to plead sufficient facts to show that Ribi was not immune from suit.
- Hammer, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Idaho.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if it does not plead facts to negate an anticipated affirmative defense, such as governmental immunity?
Opinions:
Majority - Horton, J.
No. A complaint is not subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim simply because it does not anticipate and negate a potential affirmative defense. The court reasoned that immunity under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) is an affirmative defense, and the burden is on the defendant to plead and prove it. A court reviewing a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss must only consider the facts alleged in the complaint and determine whether a valid claim has been asserted, taking those facts as true. Plaintiffs are not required to 'plead around' affirmative defenses. Therefore, the district court erred by dismissing Hammer's complaint for failing to plead facts that would show Ribi was not immune. The court also held that Idaho Civil Jury Instruction 4.30 correctly states the elements of civil assault, which requires only an intent to cause fear of imminent contact and the resulting fear, not necessarily a violent overt act. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of the motion for a mental examination, stating that a defendant's mental state is not automatically 'in controversy' in an assault case, and the moving party must make an affirmative showing of good cause and that the condition is genuinely in controversy.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a fundamental principle of notice pleading, clarifying the distinct roles of the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's answer. By holding that plaintiffs do not need to preemptively defeat affirmative defenses, the court prevents an unmanageable burden from being placed on plaintiffs at the initial pleading stage. This preserves the procedural framework where the complaint states a claim and the answer raises defenses. The opinion also formally adopts a modern definition of civil assault for Idaho, focusing on the victim's reasonable apprehension of contact rather than an archaic requirement of a physical 'overt act.'
