No. 05-219
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2005 MT 335N
MELVIN JEWART,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
ROGER HOUGEN, d/b/a LUCKY CUSS CASINO,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DV 2000-351,
Honorable Mark Guenther and Honorable Loren Tucker, Presiding Judges
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Geoffrey C. Angel, Angel Law Firm, Bozeman, Montana
For Respondent:
Barry G. O’Connell, Moore, O’Connell & Refling, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: November 2, 2005
Decided: December 22, 2005
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court and shall be reported by case title, Supreme Court cause number and result to the
State Reporter Publishing Company and West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable
cases issued by this Court.
¶2 Melvin Jewart (Appellant) appeals the order imposing sanctions on his counsel
and the judgment in favor of the Defendant entered in the Eighteenth Judicial District
Court, Gallatin County. We affirm.
¶3 Appellant raises several issues on appeal, though he primarily focuses on the
propriety of sanctions imposed on his counsel for inappropriate discovery tactics. At the
time of discovery, two cases arising out of the same incident, a physical altercation, were
consolidated in the District Court. In an escalation of already contentious litigation,
Appellant’s counsel made no less than four motions for sanctions in the consolidated
cases. Opposing counsel in each of the cases ultimately made cross-motions for
sanctions against Appellant’s counsel. The District Court granted the cross-motions in
part, noting that it was limiting the grant of sanctions, based, in part, on what it perceived
to be the relative inexperience of counsel. Ultimately, the case was tried to a jury,
resulting in a verdict in favor of Defendant/Respondent.
2
¶4 After review of the District Court’s order and the parties’ arguments, we cannot
conclude that the District Court abused its discretion by imposing sanctions. Further,
Appellant’s argument that the imposition of sanctions had the effect of denying him due
process of law was not raised in the District Court, and therefore was not properly
preserved for appeal.
¶5 It is appropriate to decide this case pursuant to our Order of February 11, 2003,
amending Section 1.3 of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules and providing for
memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us
that the appeal is without merit because the findings of fact are supported by substantial
evidence, the legal issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law which the District
Court correctly interpreted, and there was clearly no abuse of discretion by the District
Court.
¶6 Affirmed.
/S/ JIM RICE
We concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
3