By Utah Standard News

Washington County, Utah

Two current and former town officials have filed a civil lawsuit against the Town of Leeds and its mayor, alleging defamation, retaliation, and abuse of public office during a contested municipal election.

The complaint, filed in Utah’s Fifth Judicial District Court, names Mayor William Hoster both individually and in his official capacity. Plaintiffs Doris McNally, a town council candidate and volunteer cemetery sexton, and Danielle Stirling, an outgoing town councilmember, allege the mayor used municipal authority and resources to damage their reputations and interfere with protected political speech.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief, damages, attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages.

Allegations Center on Cemetery Project and Public Accusations

According to the complaint, the dispute arose from a municipal cemetery renovation project in early 2025. McNally and Stirling worked with a contractor, LandWorks Inc., which later acknowledged a billing discrepancy caused by an internal clerical error.

The contractor stated that neither plaintiff authorized additional spending beyond what had been approved by the town council and that no fraud occurred. Despite this, the lawsuit alleges Mayor Hoster portrayed the billing issue publicly as unauthorized contracting by the plaintiffs.

The complaint asserts the mayor commissioned an outside law firm to draft a legal memo based on incomplete or inaccurate information, then allowed the memo to be read aloud at an October 8, 2025 town council meeting and later posted publicly near the town post office. Plaintiffs contend the memo was presented as a legal conclusion despite being an internal draft and that its publication occurred during a critical phase of the municipal election.

Pattern of Retaliation Alleged

The filing alleges a broader pattern of conduct extending beyond the cemetery issue. Allegations include:

. Use of municipal social media accounts for campaign style messaging and political attacks

. Selective promotion of the mayor’s spouse, a town council candidate, using official town platforms

. Threats or involvement of law enforcement against political critics

. Exclusion of candidates from public forums and debates

. Retaliatory actions following requests for financial transparency and audits

The plaintiffs argue these actions were designed to intimidate political opponents and chill speech protected by the First Amendment.

Claims Filed

The lawsuit brings six causes of action:

1 Retaliation for protected speech under the U.S. and Utah constitutions

2 Equal protection and uniform operation of law violations

3 Abuse of process under Utah common law

4 Defamation

5 False light

6 Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages of no less than $860,000 each, along with punitive damages against the mayor individually.

Legal Analysis: How the Case May Unfold

Immunity Issues

Utah’s Governmental Immunity Act generally shields municipalities and officials, but immunity may be waived for fraud or willful misconduct. The plaintiffs explicitly allege intentional misconduct, a necessary threshold to survive early dismissal.

If the court finds the mayor acted outside legitimate governmental functions, particularly for personal political purposes, immunity defenses may weaken.

Defamation and False Light

Defamation claims involving public officials and candidates typically face a high bar. Plaintiffs must show false statements of fact, not opinion, published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

The complaint relies heavily on the contractor’s written admissions and alleged continued publication after notice and a cease and desist letter. If proven, those facts strengthen claims of actual malice.

First Amendment Retaliation

Courts evaluate whether a government actor used official authority to punish protected speech in a way that would deter an ordinary person. Allegations involving public accusations, use of town resources, and election timing may receive close judicial scrutiny.

Municipal Liability

The town itself is named under theories of respondeat superior. Liability depends on whether the mayor’s actions are deemed within the scope of employment or ratified by the municipality.

Likely Procedural Path

The case will likely face motions to dismiss focused on immunity, sufficiency of pleadings, and constitutional standards. If those motions fail, discovery could become extensive, including emails, social media records, and communications with law enforcement and legal counsel.

Settlement is possible if exposure appears significant, though political cases often proceed longer due to reputational stakes.

Current Status

At this stage, the lawsuit reflects allegations, not findings. No court has ruled on the merits. The defendants have not yet filed a response.

Addendum: Case Status Update and Clarification (February 2, 2026. 

Editor’s Note / Case Update

After publication of this article, additional developments occurred in the underlying court case that warrant clarification.

On February 2, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice in the case against the Town of Leeds and former Mayor William Hoster. The motion states that plaintiffs sought dismissal in order to comply with the mandatory 60-day waiting period required under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (UGIA) following service of a Notice of Claim. The filing makes clear that the case was still at an early stage, with no discovery conducted and no rulings issued on the merits.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the case without prejudice, meaning the claims were not adjudicated and may be refiled after statutory requirements are satisfied. Each party was ordered to bear its own fees and costs.

This dismissal occurred after the January 20, 2026 filing discussed below and after the court docket was last checked for the original article. Any implication that the motion to dismiss remained pending at the time of publication was unintentional and reflects the rapid timing of filings, not a substantive misstatement of the record.

What the Dismissal Does, and Does Not Mean

The dismissal does not constitute:

. A ruling in favor of the defendants on the merits

. A judicial finding that the allegations were false

. A determination that the conduct alleged was lawful

Instead, the dismissal reflects a procedural reset, preserving the plaintiffs’ ability to refile claims after satisfying the Utah Governmental Immunity Act’s notice and waiting-period requirements.

Reporting Integrity Note

This article accurately reflected the case status as of the time of publication, based on court records reviewed 2 days earlier. Because the voluntary dismissal occurred shortly thereafter, readers are advised to treat earlier references to pending motions as historical context, now superseded by subsequent filings.

Utah Standard News will continue to report any refiled action or further court proceedings.

The following addendum reflects the procedural status of the case as it stood prior to the dismissal described above.

Addendum: January 20, 2026 Court Filing

On January 20, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a new document in the case titled “Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant William Hoster’s Motion to Dismiss.”

1.20.26 motion to dismiss

In that filing, plaintiffs ask the court to deny Mayor Hoster’s motion to dismiss and allow the lawsuit to proceed beyond the early pleading stage. They argue that, at this stage, the court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true and that the motion improperly asks the judge to resolve disputed facts and intent before evidence is gathered.

The opposition filing states that the complaint plausibly alleges Mayor Hoster acted under color of law, meaning he allegedly used town-related authority and town-controlled mechanisms, including official communications and public meeting processes, to retaliate against plaintiffs and influence local political activity. The filing also asserts that the alleged conduct includes retaliation for protected political speech and activity, and it argues that qualified immunity should not result in dismissal at this stage.

The filing further argues that questions about whether the mayor’s conduct was official or personal in nature, and whether governmental immunity defenses apply, are fact-intensive issues that should not be decided on a motion to dismiss.

As of this update, no ruling has been issued on the motion.

Utah Standard News will continue to report any refiled action or further court proceedings.