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.