No. 05-678
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2007 MT 7
PATRICIA BOE, on behalf of herself
and other similarly situated,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
COURT ADMINISTATOR FOR THE
MONTANA JUDICIAL BRANCH OF
PERSONNEL PLAN AND POLICIES,
an administrative subdivision of the
State of Montana,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DV 2005-0546,
Honorable Ingrid G. Gustafson, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Robert L. Stephens, Jr., Southside Law Center, Billings, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General, John C. Melcher,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: June 14, 2006
Decided: January 10, 2007
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Patricia Boe (Boe), a longtime judicial assistant for the District Court in Billings,
appeals the District Court’s dismissal of her Complaint challenging various provisions
of the Montana Judicial Branch Personnel Plan. The court dismissed Boe’s Complaint
on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
ISSUE
¶2 The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the District Court correctly decided it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶3 In 2001, the Montana Legislature asked the Montana Supreme Court to adopt a
plan of personnel administration for employees of the judicial branch. The Judicial
Branch Personnel Plan (Plan) had to include provisions addressing classification and
pay, recruitment and selection, performance appraisal, training, and promotion. Upon
adoption and implementation of the Plan, county judicial employees were transferred to
the Montana Judicial Branch thereby becoming State employees. See Senate Bill 176
(2001)(now codified at § 3-1-130, MCA). This transfer was to occur in a manner that
preserved all the existing rights and amenities the employees enjoyed as county
employees. The Legislature established a deadline for transfer of July 1, 2003.
¶4 In May 2005, Boe, a judicial assistant since July 1985 for the District Court of
the Thirteenth Judicial District in Billings, Yellowstone County, filed a Complaint
contesting the validity of the Plan. In particular, she claimed the Plan contained pay
inequities and disparities, was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to State policy, and
2
violated her equal protection and due process rights. The State moved to dismiss the
Complaint, arguing that the Supreme Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the Plan,
and therefore the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court
agreed. Boe appeals the court’s dismissal of her Complaint.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5 Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. We review
a district court’s conclusions of law to determine whether they are correct. CBM
Collections, Inc. v. Ferreira, 2005 MT 170, ¶ 4, 327 Mont. 479, ¶ 4, 115 P.3d 211, ¶ 4.
DISCUSSION
¶6 Boe argues that the creation of the position of Court Administrator and a Plan
through legislative enactment does not invest an exclusive jurisdictional prerogative in
the Supreme Court, but rather creates a separate administrative or executive function,
and that the delegation of administrative or executive authority to a political subdivision
is not a judicial function; therefore, she argues there is no reservation of exclusive
jurisdiction for purposes of challenging the application and administration of that Plan.
¶7 The State counters that this issue was resolved by this Court when it previously
exercised original jurisdiction to entertain petitions on personnel issues arising from
operation of the Plan in In re Petition for Revisions and Adoption of the Montana
Judicial Branch Personnel Plan and Policies, No. 03-374 (Mont. 2003) and In re
Petition for Revision and Adoption of the Montana Judicial Branch Personnel Plan and
Policies, No. 04-186 (Mont. 2004). Additionally, the State points out that Goetz v.
3
Harrison, 153 Mont. 403, 457 P.2d 911 (1969), supports the proposition that a district
court cannot declare an order of this Court invalid.
¶8 Relying on the language of S.B. 176, the District Court concluded that Boe was
not “merely seek[ing] remedial and equitable relief” from the implementation of the
Plan but was seeking invalidation of the Plan and replacement of the Plan with a plan
drafted by the District Court. The court ultimately held:
The plain language of the legislation assigns the task of adopting (and
implicitly amending) the Plan exclusively to the Montana Supreme Court.
The District Court has no authority to revoke and modify the Judicial
Branch Personnel Plan. [Boe] would need to petition the Montana Supreme
Court directly to possibly obtain the relief she seeks. Thus, [Boe’s]
Complaint is dismissed, without prejudice.
¶9 We agree with the District Court and the State’s analysis and authority. In Cause
No. 03-374, referenced above, the Clerk of the Supreme Court petitioned the Court,
directly, on behalf of himself and four district court judges, to exempt his staff and the
confidential staff of the four judges from the provisions of the Plan. We accepted
original jurisdiction over the petition, granted it with respect to the Supreme Court
Clerk’s staff, and denied it without prejudice with respect to the confidential staff of the
district court judges because the Clerk did not have standing to petition on behalf of the
judges. Notably, while all justices did not agree on whether the Clerk’s personnel
should be exempt from the Plan (Justices Rice and Warner concurring and dissenting
and Chief Justice Gray dissenting), they all agreed that the Court was responsible for
the creation and any subsequent modification of the Plan.
4
¶10 Similarly, in Cause No. 04-186, six district court judges asked the Court to
revise the Plan “to reiterate, affirm, and recognize” the authority of the judges to hire
and retain personal staff. The Petition requested that these confidential staff members
be exempt from the Plan. We accepted jurisdiction but denied the Petition on the
ground that it was vague and did not recognize the various staffing arrangements in all
of the judicial districts. As a result, we appointed a five-member committee with
Justice Rice as Chairman, to review and consider possible amendments to the Plan and
report its recommendations to the Court. These Orders recognize and establish that this
Court is singularly responsible for the creation, implementation and modification of the
Plan. As such, we have exclusive jurisdiction over it and a district court cannot
invalidate, modify, or replace any or all of it.
¶11 We also agree that Goetz provides support for this conclusion. While not
involving the State’s Plan, Goetz holds that Montana district courts cannot sit in
judgment of the Montana Supreme Court. Plaintiff Goetz, a Yale graduate, brought an
action against this Court seeking invalidation of a statute and a Supreme Court rule
allowing graduates of the University of Montana law school to be admitted
automatically to the Montana Bar but requiring graduates of other law schools to take
the written bar examination. Goetz claimed that the statute and rule denied him equal
protection under the United States Constitution. He demanded that the district court
issue a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against the Supreme
Court prohibiting the continuation of this practice. The District Court declined to do so,
citing lack of jurisdiction. This Court agreed, and unequivocally held that “no Montana
5
district judge has jurisdiction to sit in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana”
in a case over which the Court has exclusive and original jurisdiction. We further
proclaimed “[t]his Court has supervisory control over the [district courts]. The
converse is not true.” Goetz v. Harrison, 153 Mont. at 405, 457 P.2d at 912.
¶12 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the District Court correctly determined it
was without subject matter jurisdiction over Boe’s Complaint. Therefore, we affirm the
District Court’s dismissal of Boe’s Complaint, without prejudice. If Boe wishes to
pursue this claim, the proper procedure is to file a Petition with this Court.
¶13 Finally, Boe raises two additional issues on appeal: judicial immunity and
violation of separation of powers. In Boe’s response to the State’s motion to dismiss,
she argued to the District Court that the doctrine of judicial immunity did not protect
the Court Administrator from this claim. This defense was not raised by the State nor
was it the basis for the District Court’s dismissal of Boe’s Complaint. As a result, this
issue is not properly before us and we decline to address it. Additionally, Boe argues
on appeal that should we affirm the District Court’s dismissal of her Complaint for lack
of jurisdiction, the issue of a violation of separation of powers arises. She asks that we
apply middle tier scrutiny to resolve the issue in her favor. This issue could have been
raised in the District Court but was not. As we have held on numerous occasions, we
do not address arguments raised for the first time on appeal. T.L.S. v. Montana
Advocacy Program, 2006 MT 262, ¶ 31, 334 Mont. 146, ¶ 31, 144 P.3d 818, ¶ 31
(citations omitted).
6
¶14 Affirmed.
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
We Concur:
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ JOHN WARNER
7