Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 37563-2010 HABIB SADID, an individual, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY, ROBERT ) WHARTON, JACK KUNZE, MICHAEL ) JAY LINEBERRY, MANOOCHEHR ) AOGHI, RICHARD JACOBSEN, GARY ) OLSON, AUTHUR VAILAS, and JOHN ) AND JANE DOES I through X., whose true ) identities are presently unknown, ) ) Defendants-Respondents-Cross ) Appellants. ) )

Twin Falls, November 2011 Term 2011 Opinion No. 125 Filed: November 30, 2011 Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for Bannock County. The Hon. David C. Nye, District Judge. The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and vacated in part. Ronaldo A. Coulter; Camacho Mendoza Coulter Law Group, PLLC; Eagle; argued for appellant. John A. Bailey, Jr.; Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey Chtd.; Pocatello; argued for respondents.

EISMANN, Justice. This is an appeal from a summary judgment dismissing a complaint by an engineering professor who alleged that Idaho State University had retaliated against him because of his comments criticizing the administration that had been published in a local newspaper over several years and that the University had breached his employment contract. We affirm the summary judgment, but remand for determination of reasonable attorney fees on the breach of contract claim.

I. Factual Background Habib Sadid ("Plaintiff") was a tenured professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at Idaho State University. He began working for the University in 1991, was given full tenure in 1993, and became a full professor in 1999. During the period from 2001 through 2008, Plaintiff publically criticized successive University administrations in guest columns, printed comments, a letter to the editor, and a paid advertisement, all of which were published in a local newspaper. On September 29, 2008, Plaintiff filed this action against the University and a University administrator alleging that they retaliated against him for exercising his free speech rights, that the University breached his employment contract, and that the administrator defamed him. He later amended his complaint to add as defendants the former and current Provosts, the former and current Deans of the College of Engineering, the current Chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and the current University President. The Defendants moved for summary judgment on various grounds, and the district court granted their motion. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied. The court awarded the Defendants court costs as a matter of right, but denied their request for an award of attorney fees. Plaintiff appealed the granting of summary judgment, and the

Defendants cross-appealed the denial of their request for attorney fees.

II. Applicable Standards When reviewing on appeal the granting of a motion for summary judgment, we apply the same standard used by the trial court in ruling on the motion. Infanger v. City of Salmon, 137 Idaho 45, 46

Download 37563-2010.pdf

Idaho Law