June 2 2015
DA 14-0581
Case Number: DA 14-0581
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2015 MT 154N
DANIEL R. SWEENEY,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
HEATHER ERIN WYLIE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District,
In and For the County of Silver Bow, Cause No. DV-10-121
Honorable Kurt Krueger, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Heather Erin Wylie (Self-Represented), Billings, Montana
For Appellee:
Frank Joseph, Attorney at Law, Butte, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 22, 2015
Decided: June 2, 2015
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by unpublished opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 Heather Wylie appeals the District Court’s Order Dismissing Case Without
Prejudice, dated June 4, 2014. We affirm.
¶3 Sweeney brought this action in 2010 to establish the amount of restitution that
Wylie owed him as a result of her thefts from his law office while she worked as his
secretary. On April 24, 2014, Wylie filed a motion to dismiss Sweeney’s action for lack
of prosecution. In May 2014 District Court Judge Brad Newman entered an order in the
criminal case against Wylie specifying the amount of restitution owed to Sweeney.
Sweeney then filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action. On June 4, 2014, the
District Court entered an order dismissing the case. Wylie requested reconsideration of
the dismissal, which the District Court denied on August 18, 2014, noting that Wylie
herself had previously moved that the action be dismissed. On September 14, 2014,
Wylie filed her notice of appeal.
¶4 Rule 41(a)(2), M. R. Civ. P. provides that the district court, upon motion of the
plaintiff, may dismiss an action “on terms that the court considers proper.” Cantrell v.
Henderson, 221 Mont. 201, 204, 718 P.2d 318, 319-320 (1986). Wylie’s arguments
2
opposing dismissal of the action against her are difficult to understand, but appear to arise
from her desire to re-litigate issues from the concluded criminal prosecution against her.
The District Court had the discretionary authority under M. R. Civ. P. 41 to dismiss
Sweeney’s complaint.
¶5 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for unpublished opinions. In the opinion of
the Court, this case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear
application of applicable standards of review. The District Court’s ruling was not an
abuse of discretion.
¶6 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
3