review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa
District Court for Polk County, Jeanie K. Vaudt, Judge.
appeals from an order by the district court dismissing a
petition for judicial review. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS
VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Anthony J. Bribriesco and Andrew W. Bribriesco of Bribriesco
Law Firm, PLLC, Bettendorf, for appellant.
Stephen W. Spencer and Christopher S. Spencer of Peddicord
Wharton, LLP, West Des Moines, for appellees.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and David M. Ranscht and Alan W.
Nagel, Assistant Attorneys General, for amicus curiae State
question presented in this appeal is whether Iowa Code
section 17A.19(2) (2017), which imposes a jurisdictional
requirement for the petitioner in an action for judicial
review to timely mail a copy of the petition to
attorneys for all the parties in the case, is satisfied when
the attorney representing the petitioner timely
emails a copy of the petition to opposing counsel.
The district court held that a copy sent by email failed to
comply with the statute and dismissed the petition for
judicial review on jurisdictional grounds. On our review, we
vacate the court of appeals decision, reverse the decision of
the district court, and remand the case to the district court
for further proceedings. We hold that emailing between
attorneys in Iowa satisfies the jurisdictional requirement of
Background Facts and Proceedings.
Ortiz filed a petition for judicial review with the district
court on September 19, 2017, after the Iowa Workers'
Compensation Commissioner issued a decision in a contested
case proceeding filed against Loyd Roling Construction. The
following day, September 20, the attorney representing Ortiz,
Andrew Bribriesco, emailed a file-stamped copy of the
petition to Stephen Spencer, the attorney representing Loyd
September 28, Spencer emailed Bribriesco to inquire if he
intended to send him a copy of the petition by "regular
mail." Bribriesco used the USPS Mail Services to send
Spencer a copy of the petition but not until after September
29, the expiration of ten day since its filing.
Roling filed a motion to dismiss the petition for judicial
review. It claimed the district court lacked jurisdiction
over the action because Ortiz's attorney did not mail the
copy of the petition through the postal system until more
than ten days after the petition was filed, as required by
Iowa Code section 17A.19(2).
district court dismissed the petition. It held the language
of the statute only provided for mail through the postal
system or personal service and that electronic mailing did
not constitute substantial compliance with the statute.
appealed, and we transferred the case to the court of
appeals. He argued his attorney substantially complied with
the statutory requirement by timely emailing a copy of the
petition to opposing counsel. The court of appeals did not
agree and affirmed the district court's ruling. We
granted Oritz's application for further review.