State Ex Rel. Kesterson v. District Court

No. 80-221 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA THE STATE OF MONTANA ex rel. COLLEEN KESTERSON, VIRGINIA POLSEN, MELODY NEBEL, BARBARA WOOD, SHERI BARDO, and ANNE KOBYLENSKI, on behalf of them- selves and all other persons similarly situated, Relators, DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MISSOULA, and the HONORABLE JOHN S. HENSON, Judge thereof, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Relators: McClelland Law Offices, Missoula, Montana Arden C.McClelland argued, Missoula, Montana For Respondents: Gough,, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman, Helena, Montana Ronald Waterman argued, Helena, Montana Boone, Karlberg & Haddon, Missoula, Montana Sam Haddon argued, Missoula, Montana Richard P. Heinz, County Attorney, Polson, Montana Kurt W. Kroschel, Billings, Montana Hughes, Bennett, Kellner and Sullivan, Helena, Montana Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana Submitted: July 17, 1980 Decided : JuL "E W80 Clerk M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court. R e l a t o r s have a p p l i e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r a w r i t o f super- v i s o r y control, directed t o the D i s t r i c t Court o f the Fourth Judicial District, i n and f o r t h e C o u n t y o f M i s s o u l a , and t h e Honorable Judge John S . Henson. Relators are p l a i n t i f f s i n the D i s t r i c t Court action, and s e e k t o h a v e t h e p r o c e e d i n g s o n a motion f o r a temporary i n j u n c t i o n continued i n the D i s t r i c t Court, d e s p i t e an a p p e a l t a k e n t o t h i s C o u r t b y d e f e n d a n t s . This C o u r t o r d e r e d an e x p e d i t e d h e a r i n g o n J u l y 1 7 , 1980. On F e b r u a r y 1 5 , 1 9 8 0 , t w o women r e s i d i n g i n L a k e C o u n t y a n d f o u r women r e s i d i n g i n M i s s o u l a C o u n t y f i l e d a s u i t i n M i s s o u l a County, denominating i t a class action. The d e f e n d a n t s f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s a p p e a l a r e Dow C h e m i c a l Company, Lake County, t h e L a k e C o u n t y Weed B o a r d , M i s s o u l a C o u n t y , and t h e M i s s o u l a C o u n t y Weed B o a r d . A1 1 p l a i n t i f f s a1 l e g e m i s c a r r i a g e s , p r o p e r t y damage, and o t h e r m e n t a l a n d p h y s i c a l i n j u r i e s as a r e s u l t o f h e r b i c i d e s p r a y i n g i n t h e i r home e n v i r o n m e n t s . Prior t o t h e h e a r i n g on p l a i n t i f f s ' m o t i o n f o r an i n j u n c t i o n t o s t o p t h e spraying, d e f e n d a n t Dow C h e m i c a l Company moved f o r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e t o L a k e C o u n t y as t o t h e c l a i m s f i l e d b y t h e t w o L a k e County p l a i n t i f f s . L a k e C o u n t y and t h e L a k e C o u n t y Weed B o a r d m o v e d t o c h a n g e v e n u e t o L a k e C o u n t y as t o a l l c l a i m s f i l e d a g a i n s t them. Because o f u n c e r t a i n t y as t o w h e t h e r t h i s a c t i o n c o u l d b e m a i n t a i n e d as a c l a s s a c t i o n , a m a t t e r y e t t o be h e a r d , t h e d i s t r i c t judge denied t h e motions for change o f venue, with " l e a v e t o r e f i l e t h e m o t i o n s i f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s l a t e r on i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s s h o u l d be s u c h t h a t i t w o u l d be a p p r o p r i a t e . " D e f e n d a n t s p r o m p t l y f i l e d an appeal t o t h i s C o u r t f r o m t h e o r d e r d e n y i n g change o f venue and t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e stopped a l l f u r t h e r proceedings i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Plaintiffs, arguing t h a t the judge's o r d e r was a n o n - appealable order, applied t o t h i s Court f o r a w r i t , requesting _1 , . LOyL t f/)-. .( ,c - / ( <.-4-;- L, -- t h i s C o u r t t o d i s m i s s t h e , a p p e a l and t o o r d e r t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t o / -. A /.;<~:,t<+t {L4;,4J!, ,-,(L,( {:!4'1?~',,,,/:'~- . ( The o r d e r i s s u e d b y t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e d e n y i n g t h e change o f v e n u e was an a p p e a l a b l e o r d e r . An i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r i s normally not appealable, unless there i s a special provision m a k i n g i t so. S c h u l t z v. Adams ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 1 Mont. 463, 465, 507 P.2d 530, 532. By t h e t e r m s o f R u l e l ( b ) , M.R.App.Civ.P., an o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e change o f venue i s s p e c i f i c a l l y a p p e a l a b l e : "A p a r t y a g g r i e v e d may a p p e a l f r o m a j u d g m e n t o r order ... i n t h e f o l l o w i n g cases: (b) ... f r o m an o r d e r c h a n g i n g o r r e f u s i n g t o c h a n g e t h e p l a c e o f t r i a l when t h e c o u n t y designated i n the complaint i s not the proper county. . ." The s t a t u t o r y l a n g u a g e o f R u l e l ( b ) does n o t r e q u i r e t h e d e f e n d a n t s t o w a i t and see i f t h e y g e t a n o t h e r o p p o r t u n i t y t o r a i s e t h e venue i s s u e . I t a l l o w s t h e m t o t a k e an i m m e d i a t e a p p e a l on t h e d e n i a l o f t h e v e n u e m o t i o n , so as t o n o t j e o p a r d i z e t h e i r r i g h t t o an a p p e a l . See S e a l e y v. Majerus (1967), 149 Mont. 268, 2 6 9 , 4 2 5 P.2d 70. Because t h e venue o r d e r i n t h i s case i s a p p e a l a b l e , and an a p p e a l was t i m e l y f i l e d , t h e d i s t r i c t judge acted p r o p e r l y i n s t a y i n g f u r t h e r proceedings i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. It i s w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t once a n o t i c e o f appeal i s f i l e d , the D i s t r i c t Court loses j u r i s d i c t i o n t o proceed. M c C o r m i c k v. McCormick (1975), 168 Mont. 1 3 6 , 1 3 8 , 5 4 1 P.2d 765, 766. Since t h e a p p e a l was p r o p e r l y t a k e n , we n e x t p r o c e e d t o t h e m e r i t s o f t h a t appeal. T h e i s s u e s r a i s e d b y d e f e n d a n t s on a p p e a l a l l i n v o l v e q u e s t i o n s o f venue: 1 ) D o e s t h e f i l i n g o f a s u i t as a c l a s s a c t i o n a f f e c t t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f venue? 2 ) I s v e n u e p r o p e r i n M i s s o u l a C o u n t y as t o t h e c l a i m s f i l e d a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s L a k e C o u n t y and t h e L a k e C o u n t y Weed Board? 3 ) I s v e n u e p r o p e r i n M i s s o u l a C o u n t y as t o t h e c l a i m s f i l e d a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t Dow C h e m i c a l Company b y t h e t w o L a k e C o u n t y plaintiffs? B e c a u s e t h i s s u i t was f i l e d as a c l a s s a c t i o n , respondents s u g g e s t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r venue as t o a n y one p l a i n t i f f i n t h e c l a s s i s p r o p e r i n M i s s o u l a C o u n t y , i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e a c t i o n c a n be m a i n t a i n e d i n M i s s o u l a County. T h i s a p p r o a c h d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o be c o n s i s t e n t with the traditional n o t i o n s o f venue w h i c h a i m t o w a r d p l a c i n g a trial i n a county favorable t o defendant. Although t h i s Court h a s n o t had o c c a s i o n t o a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r t h e f i l i n g o f a s u i t as a c l a s s a c t i o n a f f e c t s v e n u e , several federal courts have looked a t t h i s question. The d e c i s i o n s u n i f o r m l y h o l d t h a t venue f o r a c l a s s a c t i o n u n d e r R u l e 23, F.R.Civ.P. i s determined j u s t as i t i s f o r a c o m p a r a b l e n o n c l a s s a c t i o n . Thus, venue must b e s a t i s f i e d as t o a l l named c l a s s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , j u s t as i t m u s t be as t o a l l p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s i n a n o n c l a s s a c t i o n . C a r o l i n a C a s u a l t y I n s u r a n c e Co. v. L o c a l No. 612, etc. (N.D.Ala. 1 9 5 6 ) , 1 3 6 F.Supp. 941, 943; 3 B M o o r e ' s F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e 923.96 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ; Research Corp. v. P f i s t e r Associated Growers, Inc. (N.D.111. 1 9 6 9 ) , 3 0 1 F.Supp. 497, 501. I n so h o l d i n g t h e c o u r t s have r e l i e d on t h e l a n g u a g e o f R u l e 82, F.R.Civ.P., which has a c o u n t e r p a r t i n R u l e 82, M.R.Civ.P.: " E x c e p t as p r o v i d e d i n R u l e 4 t h e s e r u l e s s h a l l n o t be c o n s t r u e d t o e x t e n d o r l i m i t t h e j u r i s - d i c t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s o f Montana o r t h e venue o f a c t i o n s t h e r e i n . " See U n i t e d S t a t e s and EEOC v . Trucking Employers, Inc. (D. D.C. 1976), 7 2 F.R.D. 98, 100. We r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s t h e p o w e r t o d e t e r - m i n e w h e r e a c t i o n s s h a l l o r may be t r i e d , F r a s e r v. Clark (1954), 128 Mont. 1 6 0 , 1 7 6 , 2 7 3 P.2d 105, 114, and we n o t e t h a t t h e M o n t a n a s t a t u t e s c o n t a i n no s p e c i f i c v e n u e p r o v i s i o n s f o r c l a s s actions. I n t h e absence o f a d i r e c t i v e o t h e r w i s e by t h e l e g i s l a - t u r e we h o l d i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s and f i n d t h a t v e n u e i n a c l a s s a c t i o n s h o u l d be d e t e r m i n e d as i t i s i n a nonclass action. See a l s o , W a l k e r v. C i t y o f H o u s t o n (S.D. Tex. 1 9 7 2 ) , 3 4 1 F.Supp. 1124. I f l a t e r c e r t i f i c a t i o n proceedings result, we h a v e f o u n d n o a u t h o r i t y , state or federal, concerning t h e status o f claimed class representatives i n the period o f time b e t w e e n t h e f i l i n g o f t h e s u i t and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s c e r - t i f i c a t i o n o f proper class representatives. Accordingly, we h a v e assumed t h a t t h e named p l a i n t i f f s a r e proper representatives o f the class i n the event t h a t the D i s t r i c t Court determines t h i s i s a proper class action. A p p e l l a n t s L a k e C o u n t y and t h e L a k e C o u n t y Weed B o a r d m o v e d f o r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e as t o a l l c l a i m s f i l e d a g a i n s t t h e m i n M i s s o u l a County. T h e b a s i s f o r t h e i r m o t i o n was s e c t i o n 25-2-106, MCA, which provides i n p a r t t h a t "[aln action against a c o u n t y may be commenced and t r i e d i n s u c h c o u n t y . . ." This C o u r t h e l d i n Good R o a d s M a c h i n e r y Co. v. Broadwater County (1933), 94 Mont. 68, 70-71, 2 0 P.2d 834, 835, t h a t t h e "may" in t h e s t a t u t e r e f e r r e d t o a g r a n t o f p e r m i s s i o n t o sue a c o u n t y , b u t i n s o d o i n g a p l a i n t i f f was l i m i t e d t o b r i n g i n g t h e s u i t i n t h e defendant county. R e s p o n d e n t s a t t e m p t t o r e l y o n S t a t e ex rel. M o n t a n a D e a c o n e s s Hosp. v. Park County (1963), 1 4 2 Mont. 26, 3 8 1 P.2d 297, b u t we f i n d t h a t c a s e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e o n t h e f a c t s . I n Deaconess H o s p i t a l , t w o c o u n t i e s d i s c l a i m e d l i a b i l i t y f o r one h o s p i t a l payment f o r a w e l f a r e p a t i e n t . B e c a u s e i t was n e c e s s a r y t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h o f t h e c o u n t i e s was t h e r e s i d e n c e o f t h e patient, a n d t h u s l i a b l e , b o t h c o u n t i e s h a d t o be j o i n e d as p a r t y defendants. T h i s C o u r t f o u n d t h a t e i t h e r c o u n t y w o u l d be a p r o p e r one i n w h i c h t o p r o s e c u t e t h e a c t i o n . Deaconess H o s p i t a l , supra, 142 Mont. a t 27-28, 3 8 1 P.2d a t 298. I n t h i s case, t h e c o m p l a i n t does n o t a l l e g e t h a t e i t h e r M i s s o u l a C o u n t y o r L a k e C o u n t y was t h e e x c l u s i v e c a u s e o f o n e injury. Rather, the pleadings indicate t h a t the p l a i n t i f f s could h a v e b e e n damaged b y t h e a c t i o n s o f e i t h e r o r b o t h c o u n t i e s a c t i n g separately. I n such a s i t u a t i o n b o t h c o u n t i e s a r e n o t n e c e s s a r y p a r t i e s t o one a c t i o n , and t h e c o u n t i e s s h o u l d be s u e d where t h e y are located. D e s p i t e r e s p o n d e n t s ' a r g u m e n t t h a t c o n v e n i e n c e a n d j u d i c i a1 e c o n o m y d i c t a t e t h a t t h e s u i t be b r o u g h t i n M i s s o u l a C o u n t y , it i s a p p a r e n t f r o m t h e s t a t u t e s and c a s e s c i t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s L a k e C o u n t y a n d t h e L a k e C o u n t y Weed B o a r d a r e e n t i t l e d t o h a v e venue changed t o Lake County. S e c t i o n 2 5 - 2 - 2 0 1 ( I ) , MCA, requi res that "[tlhe c o u r t o r judge must, on m o t i o n , change t h e p l a c e o f trial i n t h e f o l l o w i n g cases: ( 1 ) when t h e c o u n t y d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e complaint i s not t h e proper county." This section i s not discretionary. L u n t v. D i v i s i o n o f Workmen's Compensation ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 167 Mont. 251, 253, 5 3 7 P.2d 1080, 1081. The j u d g e m u s t g r a n t t h e change, b e f o r e a m o t i o n r e l a t i n g t o c o n v e n i e n c e c a n be h e a r d under s e c t i o n 25-2-201(3), MCA. M a i o v. Greene (1943), 114 Mont. 481, 487, 1 3 7 P.2d 670, 671. A p p e l l a n t Dow C h e m i c a l moved f o r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e a s t o t h e claims o f t h e two Lake County p l a i n t i f f s pursuant t o s e c t i o n 25-2-102, MCA, w h i c h p r o v i d e s i n p a r t t h a t " [ a l c t i o n s for torts may be t r i e d i n t h e c o u n t y w h e r e t h e t o r t was c o m m i t t e d . . ." T h i s C o u r t h a s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h i s s e c t i o n s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d t o allow t r i a l i n the county o f defendant's residence, or i n the c o u n t y w h e r e t h e t o r t was c o m m i t t e d . S e c t i o n 25-2-108, MCA; S e i f e r t v. Gehle (1958), 133 Mont. 320, 3 2 2 , 3 2 3 P.2d 269, 270. T h e r e c o r d i s s i l e n t i n t h i s c a s e as t o t h e p l a c e o f r e s i d e n c e o f t h e defendant. T h u s t h e s u i t w o u l d be p r o p e r l y f i l e d i n L a k e County, t h e s i t u s o f the t o r t a l l e g e d l y committed against t h e Lake County p l a i n t i f f s . A p p e l l a n t Dow C h e m i c a l Company i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e c h a n g e o f v e n u e as t o t h e c l a i m s f i l e d b y t h e Lake County p l a i n t i f f s . D e f e n d a n t Dow C h e m i c a l Company r a i s e s an a l t e r n a t i v e b a s i s on w h i c h t o f i n d venue i n L a k e County. I n t h e i r complaint, all p l a i n t i f f s a1 l e g e r e a l p r o p e r t y damage. Sect i o n 25-2-103(1) (b), MCA, s e t s venue f o r a c t i o n s f o r i n j u r y t o r e a l p r o p e r t y " i n t h e county i n which the subject o f the a c t i o n . . . is situated. . ." T h e " s u b j e c t o f t h e a c t i o n " i n t h i s c a s e w o u l d a p p e a r t o be l o c a t e d i n L a k e C o u n t y as t o t h e L a k e C o u n t y p l a i n t i f f s , and p r o - perly t r i a b l e there. See F r a s e r v. Clark (1954), 128 Mont. 160, 1 7 8 , 2 7 3 P.2d 105, 115. T h i s Court has d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i f a c o m p l a i n t c o n t a i n s more t h a n one cause o f a c t i o n , and a d e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o a change o f venue i n one o f t h o s e a c t i o n s , then t h e m o t i o n f o r c h a n g e o f v e n u e m u s t be g r a n t e d . T h i s i s so d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e o t h e r causes o f a c t i o n a r e p r o p e r l y t r i a b l e w h e r e t h e a c t i o n was commenced. B e a v e r s v. Rankin (1963), 142 Mont. 570, 572, 3 8 5 P.2d 6 4 0 , 641. Thus, where venue a s t o t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y damage c l a i m a g a i n s t Dow C h e m i c a l Company i s p r o p e r l y i n Lake County, v e n u e as t o a l l c l a i m s a g a i n s t Dow C h e m i c a l Company s h o u l d be moved t o L a k e C o u n t y . F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g reasons, we f i n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s ' a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t was p r o p e r l y t a k e n , and t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e acted c o r r e c t l y i n refusing t o continue f u r t h e r proceedings i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Thus, t h e r e i s no s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s f o r r e l a - t o r s t o invoke t h e supervisory c o n t r o l o f t h i s Court. Relators' petition i s Chief Justice We c o n c u r : Hon. G o r d o n R. B e n n e t t , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e o f Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y . ................................ Hon. W. W. L e s s l e y , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e o f Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C. Sheehy. T h e H o n o r a b l e W . W. L e s s l e y , D i s t r i c t J u d g e , s i t t i n g i n p l a c e o f M r . J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy, c o n c u r s and w i l l s i g n t h i s o p i n i o n t h e n e x t t i m e he i s i n Helena.