Gordon v. Nostrom and Herriman
Gordon v. Nostrom and Herriman, 2024 UT App 18 (Hagen, J.)
Standing/Jurisdiction
Gordon emailed Herriman’s city attorney with a request to inspect various records. Herriman treated Gordon’s request as a GRAMA request and the city recorder emailed Gordon that it would compile the information, but Utah law allowed Herriman to charge Gordon for the administrative and staff costs of the search and allowed Gordon to appeal that decision. Instead, Gordon sued Herriman in district court, and Herriman moved to dismiss. The district court dismissed Gordon’s claim on the grounds that Gordon was not entitled to judicial review because he either failed to file a formal GRAMA request, or alternatively, failed to exhaust the administrative remedies associated with the request. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding:
- Gordon does not fall within the class of persons authorized by the legislature to file suit to enforce the GRAMA statute, and as such, Gordon lacks statutory standing and the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate his GRAMA claim.
- Practice tip: An email does not count as a GRAMA request.