Davis v. George & Jesse's Les Schwab Tire Store, Inc.

541 P.3d 667

Adam DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.GEORGE AND JESSE'S LES SCHWAB TIRE STORE, INC., Bruce Byram, Richard Byram, George Byram, and Jesse Byram, Defendants-Respondents.

Docket No. 49535-2022

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, September 2023 Term.

Opinion Filed: December 19, 2023

Rehearing Denied: January 25, 2024

Browning Law, Idaho Falls, for Appellant. Allen Browning argued.

Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP, Boise, for Respondents. Tracy Wright argued.

ZAHN, Justice.

This case arises from a dispute between Appellant Adam Davis, his former employer, George and Jesse's Les Schwab Tire Store, Inc. ("Les Schwab"), and two of its owners, Bruce Byram and Richard Byram (collectively "Respondents").¹ In late 2018, Richard emailed Davis to advise of an increased salary and performance expectations for the following year. In March 2019, Bruce noticed a shortage between the cash invoices and cash deposit from the previous day's business operations. Surveillance footage showed Davis bending down out of camera view in the area where the cash deposits were kept while he was alone in the store. Richard contacted law enforcement to report the details of his and Bruce's personal investigation, and the State later arrested and charged Davis with grand theft. Respondents then terminated Davis's employment. The State later dropped the charges against Davis.

Davis sued Respondents and asserted four causes of action: (1) breach of Davis's purported employment contract, (2) false arrest by making false statements to law enforcement that led to Davis's arrest, (3) defamation per se for making false statements accusing Davis of theft, and (4) knowingly giving a false report to the police in violation of Idaho Code section 18-705. Respondents moved for summary judgment on all of Davis's claims, which the district court granted. Davis then attempted to appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment, but this Court dismissed his appeal because a final judgment had not been issued. Months later, the district court entered an appealable final judgment and this appeal followed.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Davis worked for Les Schwab as an assistant manager from April 2016 until June 2019. In late 2018, Richard emailed Davis and discussed an increased salary for 2019 along with a list of performance expectations for the coming year. Davis claims that the terms outlined in that email are substantially the same as those in a written contract that he signed on January 1, 2019, which Davis indicated could not be found.

On March 28, 2019, Bruce noticed a $500 discrepancy between the cash invoices from the previous day's business and the cash that was ultimately deposited with the bank. Bruce spoke with his cousin and co-owner, Richard, about the discrepancy and they determined that neither of them had taken the money. They then spoke with Davis about the discrepancy and asked him to investigate. Davis looked through surveillance footage from inside the store and reported back to Bruce and Richard that he had not seen anything suspicious.

Bruce then reviewed the same surveillance footage. Cash deposits were kept in an area slightly outside of the surveillance camera's view. Footage from this camera showed Davis sitting in a chair before he stooped down outside of the camera's view in the area where the cash deposits were kept. Davis can then be seen reappearing thirty-four seconds later. Davis was alone in the store at this time.

Richard contacted the police and reported that the cash deposit for March 27 was approximately $500 short. Chief Sam Tower of the Rigby City Police Department began an investigation, which included interviewing two Les Schwab employees and reviewing the camera footage himself. Tower then interviewed Davis at the police station, where Davis denied any wrongdoing. Tower returned to Les Schwab to speak with Bruce and Richard, and, while they were talking, Davis contacted Bruce and Richard about the situation.

Bruce and Richard met with Davis and claim that, during their conversation, Davis denied any wrongdoing but stated that he would pay Bruce and Richard $500 to drop the criminal investigation and provide him with a letter of recommendation for new employment. Following this conversation, Tower told Bruce and Richard that they should review more surveillance footage and deposit history to see if there was any additional unaccounted-for money. After reviewing more footage, Bruce and Richard reported to Tower that Davis had bent down near the area where the deposits are kept on several other dates. Bruce and Richard randomly selected four of these dates, checked the invoices and the cash deposits, and discovered a shortage on each date. The total cash shortage across these four dates was $2,058.52.

On May 10, 2019, Tower signed a probable cause affidavit detailing the results of his investigation and recommending that there was probable cause to believe that Davis had committed grand theft. In June 2019, the Jefferson County Prosecutor's Office charged Davis with grand theft. Bruce and Richard fired Davis after he was formally charged. The State dismissed the charges against Davis in January 2020. Bruce and Richard claim that they decided to drop the charges because the time and effort required to continue the prosecution would not be worth it.

Shortly thereafter, Davis sued Respondents asserting four causes of action: (1) breach of Davis's alleged employment contract, (2) false arrest for making allegedly false statements to law enforcement that led to Davis's arrest, (3) defamation per se for making allegedly false statements accusing Davis of theft, and (4) knowingly giving a false police report in violation of Idaho Code section 18-705. Respondents moved the district court for summary judgment on all of Davis's claims.

The district court granted Respondents’ motion. On July 26, 2021, the district court entered an "Order for Dismissal with Prejudice," in which the district court purported to dismiss all of Davis's claims ("July 26 Order"). The July 26 Order included an Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) certification stating that it was a final judgment from which an appeal could be taken. Davis timely appealed the July 26 Order.

On August 25, 2021, this Court issued an order conditionally dismissing Davis's appeal because it appeared that no final judgment had been entered in the case. The order suspended Davis's appeal for twenty-one days to provide Davis with an opportunity to file a response showing why his appeal should not be dismissed. Davis never responded to the order, and, on September 21, 2021, this Court issued an order dismissing Davis's appeal, without prejudice.

On January 13, 2022, Davis moved the district court to amend the July 26 Order. In an affidavit submitted with his motion, Davis's counsel explained that Respondents’ counsel had refused to redraft and stipulate to a corrected order. The district court granted Davis's motion to amend and entered an "Amended Final Judgment" on February 1, 2022 ("February 1 Judgment"). On February 18, 2022, Davis appealed the February 1 Judgment.

On February 28, 2022, Respondents filed a motion for relief from the February 1 Judgment under Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure 54 and 60(b). Respondents argued that they never received notice of the February 1 Judgment, that the district court was without jurisdiction to enter it, and, if the district court denied Respondents’ request for relief from the judgment, that Respondents should be afforded additional time to file a motion for fees and costs since they had not received notice of the February 1 Judgment until after the deadline to submit their motion.

On March 28, 2022, the district court entered a new "Final Judgment" that dismissed all of Davis's claims with prejudice ("March 28 Judgment"). Two days later, the district court rescinded the February 1 Judgment because it had been improperly captioned and was entered without notice to Respondents. On March 30, 2022, Davis appealed the March 28 Judgment.

Respondents moved for relief from the March 28 Judgment, again arguing that the district court was without jurisdiction to enter the judgment. The district court denied Respondents’ motion, holding that the district court had authority to enter the March 28 Judgment because it was an attempt to remedy the clerical errors in the February 1 Judgment and provide proper notice to the parties. Respondents requested costs and attorney fees under Idaho Code sections 12-120(3) and 12-121. It appears that the district court granted Respondents’ request, but the district court's order is not in the record.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear Davis's appeal.

2. Whether the district court erred in granting Respondents’ motion for summary judgment.

3. Whether Respondents’ request for costs and attorney fees was timely filed with the district court.

4. Whether Respondents are entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"When reviewing an order for summary judgment, the standard of review for this Court is the same standard used by the district court in ruling on the motion." Mendenhall v. Aldous , 146 Idaho 434, 436, 196 P.3d 352, 354 (2008). "The court must grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(a). "The burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact rests at all times with the party moving for summary judgment." Van v. Portneuf Med. Ctr. , 147 Idaho 552, 556, 212 P.3d 982, 986 (2009). "When deciding a motion for summary judgment, ‘[a]ll disputed facts are to be construed liberally in favor of the non-moving party, and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the record are to be drawn in favor of the non-moving party.’ " Hilliard v. Murphy Land Co. , 158 Idaho 737, 743, 351 P.3d 1195, 1201 (2015) (alteration in...