06/13/2017
DA 16-0520
Case Number: DA 16-0520
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2017 MT 146N
DEAN WARD,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
ENERGY WEST, INC., and DOES 1-4,
Defendants and Appellees.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. DDV 13-200(c)
Honorable John A. Kutzman, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
John E. Seidlitz, Jr., Seidlitz Law Office, Great Falls, Montana
For Appellees:
Oliver H. Goe, Kimberly A. Beatty, Christy S. McCann, Browning,
Kalecyzc, Berry & Hoven, P.C., Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 26, 2017
Decided: June 13, 2017
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Beth Baker 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 Dean Ward asserted several employment-related claims against Energy West Inc.
Following our remand in Ward v. Energy West, Inc., 2015 MT 234N, No. DA 14-0463,
2015 Mont. LEXIS 428, the District Court denied Ward’s motion to amend his complaint
and granted Energy West’s motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non
conveniens. Ward contends that the District Court abused its discretion in denying him
leave to amend his complaint and that it incorrectly dismissed the case under forum non
conveniens.
¶3 This appeal concerns substantially similar facts and issues as Harrington v. Energy
West, Inc., 2017 MT 141, ___ Mont. ___, 356 P.3d ___. As in that case, we conclude here
that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ward’s motion to amend his
complaint nor in granting Energy West’s motion to dismiss based on forum non
conveniens.
¶4 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
2
Court, Harrington resolves the issues on appeal. The District Court’s order denying
Ward’s motion to amend and granting Energy West’s motion to dismiss based is affirmed.
/S/ BETH BAKER
We Concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
3
Ward v. Energy West
Combined Opinion