05/02/2017
DA 16-0502
Case Number: DA 16-0502
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2017 MT 104N
FRANK R. WALL,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Patent Lode Mining Claims HR-133 and HR-134,
the Johnstone Placer Claim and Old Judge Lode,
Ceader Lode, and Upper Cut Lode MINERAL PATENT
MINING CLAIMS in Lincoln and Sanders County,
MINES MANAGEMENT, INC., NEWHI, INC.,
MONTANORE MINERALS CORPORATION, and
All Other Persons, Unknown, Claiming or Who Might
Claim Any Right, Title, Estate or Interest in or Lien or
Encumbrance the Montanore Project and Patented Placer
and Lode Mining Claims Described Above or any Cloud
Upon Title Thereto, Whether Such Claim or Possible Claim
be Present or Contingent, Including “Siting Areas,”
Defendants and Appellees.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Lincoln, Cause No. DV 14-140
Honorable James B. Wheelis, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Frank R. Wall (Self-Represented), Athol, Idaho
For Appellees:
Mark L. Stermitz, Matthew A. Baldassin, Crowley Fleck PLLP,
Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 12, 2017
Decided: May 2, 2017
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
2
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 memorandum 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 Frank R. Wall appeals from the District Court’s order granting summary judgment
to the Defendants, dated August 12, 2016. We affirm.
¶3 The District Court reviewed the history of Wall’s litigation concerning mining
claims in Lincoln County, Montana, including litigation that concluded with this Court’s
decision in Mines Management, Inc. v. Fus, 2014 MT 256, 376 Mont. 375, 334 P.3d 929,
in which Wall was a defendant. The District Court determined that Wall’s complaint
should be dismissed under M. R. Civ. P. 13(a) because it “simply reiterates facts or theories
that are, or should have been, at issue in the Fus case.” The District Court also determined
that Wall’s complaint should be dismissed under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because if fails to
state a basis upon which relief can be granted, particularly the claims for malpractice,
ineffective representation of counsel, defamation, interference with prospective economic
advantage, and punitive damages. The District Court also determined that Wall’s
complaint should be dismissed under M. R. Civ. P. 11 because his claims are not well
grounded in fact and are not warranted by law. The District Court deferred consideration
of whether Wall should be declared a vexatious litigant based upon his “numerous
3
incoherent and frivolous” filings that have been found to be “duplicitous and harassing,”
and in which he persists, despite having been admonished as to his obligations as a litigant.
¶4 Based upon the District Court’s order, Wall’s materials and arguments, and the
arguments of the defendants, we find no legal reason to disturb the District Court’s order
granting summary judgment and awarding attorney fees.
¶5 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our
Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum 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.
¶6 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We Concur:
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
/S/ JIM RICE
4