Case Title: MERENESS v FRITO-LAY INC

Citation: 

Docket Number: 84-482

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-05-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 84-482 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 RICHARD MERENESS , Plaintiff and Respondent, -vs- FRITO-LAY, INC., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Robert Holmstrom, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF IIECORD: For Appellant: Loble & Pauly, Helena, Montana For Respondent: howard and Grubbs, Billings, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Feb. 22, 1985 Decided: May 23, 1985 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f Richard Mereness b r o u g h t s u i t i n Y e 1 1 owstone County D i s t r i c t Court a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t Frito-Lay, I n c . Frito-Lay f i l e d a c o n s o l i d a t e d motion t o d i s m i s s , motion f o r summary judgment, and motion f o r a change o f venue. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t denied t h e s e motions. T h i s i s an a p p e a l from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f t h e motion f o r change o f venue. Richard Mereness worked f o r Frito-Lay a s a r o u t e salesman, s e l l i n g and d e l i v e r i n g Frito-Lay snack-foods t o r e t a i l o u t l e t s . H e was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l a c c o u n t i n g r e l a t e d t o h i s s a l e s and d e l i v e r i e s . I f h i s a c c o u n t was s h o r t , t h e s h o r t a g e was deducted from h i s paycheck. I n November o f 1980, Mereness l e f t h i s employment w i t h Frito-Lay a l l e g i n g wrongful d e d u c t i o n s from h i s paycheck. I n J a n u a r y o f 1981, he f i l e d a c l a i m a g a i n s t Frito-Lay w i t h t h e Department o f Labor and I n d u s t r y . Frito-Lay responded t h a t , i n s t e a d o f Frito-Lay owing Mereness wages, Mereness owed Frito-Lay f o r newly-found s h o r t a g e s i n h i s a c c o u n t , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s h o r t a g e s p r e v i o u s l y w i t h h e l d . However, under t h e t h e n - p r e v a i l i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Montana law, Frito-Lay could n o t a s s e r t e i t h e r previously-deducted o r newly found s h o r t a g e s a s o f f s e t s o r c o u n t e r c l a i m s i n t h e proceeding b e f o r e t h e Department o f Labor and I n d u s t r y . T h e r e f o r e , i n May o f 1981, Frito-Lay f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n Lewis and C l a r k County D i s t r i c t C o u r t a g a i n s t b o t h Mereness and t h e Department. Frito-Lay sought t o r e c o v e r newly-found s h o r t a g e s from Mereness and t o e n j o i n t h e Department from p r o c e e d i n g on t h e wage claim. O n May 2 2 , 1981, Mereness, a c t i n g p r o se, f i l e d a p l e a d i n g denominated motion t o d i s m i s s b u t which i n f a c t was a motion t o change venue t o Yellowstone County. About one month l a t e r Mereness r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l . A h e a r i n g was h e l d on t h e motion on October 1, 1981. A n o r d e r denying t h e venue change was i s s u e d on October 6 , 1981. Mereness t h e n changed a t t o r n e y s and i n November o f 1981, t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e Department o f Labor and I n d u s t r y , a g a i n made a motion t o change venue t o Yellowstone County. Mereness a l s o joined i n t h e Department's motion t o d i s m i s s . A h ~ a r i n g was h e l d and on J a n u a r y 5 , 1982, t h e Lewis and C l a r k County a c t i o n was d i s m i s s e d and t h e e n t i r e m a t t e r was s e n t back t o t h e Department w i t h t h e d i r e c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r o f f s e t s a l l e g e d by Frito-Lay. Proceedings i n t h e Department of Labor and I n d u s t r y continued w i t h o u t c o n c l u s i o n . I n November o f 1983, Mereness brought t h e p r e s e n t a c t i o n i n Yellowstone County. F r i t o - L a y ' s motion t o change venue was denied on September 27, 1984. The i s s u e p r e s e n t e d by t h i s a p p e a l i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Yellowstone County, e r r e d i n denying d e f e n d a n t F r i t o - L a y ' s motion f o r a change i n venue? Frito-Lay a r g u e s t h a t t h e a c t i o n s i n Lewis and C l a r k County and Yellowstone County a r e t h e same and t h e r e f o r e t h e d o c t r i n e o f law o f t h e c a s e makes t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e Lewis and C l a r k County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , denying a motion f o r change o f venue, b i n d i n g on t h e Yellowstone County District Court. A s a u t h o r i t y , d e f e n d a n t cites t o S t a t e o f Montana v. Carden ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 436, 555 P.2d 738. I n Carden t h e S t a t e f i l e d a motion f o r l e a v ~ t o f i l e a d i r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n i n D i s t r i c t Court c h a r g i n g d e f e n d a n t Carden w i t h 118 c o u n t s o f c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s . T h i s motion was g r a n t e d . S e v e r a l months l a t e r a second judge d i s m i s s e d s e v e n t y - f i v e o f t h e c o u n t s and t h e S t a t e was g r a n t e d l e a v e t o f i l e a n amended i n f o r m a t i o n c o v e r i n g t h e remaining f o r t y - t h r e e c o u n t s . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was f i l e d b u t s u b s e q u e n t l y a t h i r d judge d i s m i s s e d t h i r t y - e i g h t o f t h e f o r t y - t h r e e c o u n t s . The S t a t e conceded t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t e n c o u n t s b u t appealed t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e remaining twenty-eight. W e provided a s f o l l o w s : "Under t h e ' l a w o f t h e c a s e ' p r i n c i p l e , judges o f c o o r d i n a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n s s i t t i n g i n t h e same c o u r t and i n t h e same c a s p may n o t o r d i n a r i l y o v e r r u l e t h e d e c i s i o n s o f e a c h o t h e r . It i s simply a r u l e o f p r a c t i c e t h a t a r t i c u l a t e s t h e sound p o l i c y t h a t when a n i s s u e i s one j u d i c i a l l y determined, t h a t should be t h e end o f t h e m a t t e r a s f a r a s judges and c o u r t s o f c o o r d i n a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n a r e concerned. The ' l a w o f t h e c a s e ' i s n o t an i m p e r a t i v e ; d o e s n o t g o t o t h e power o f t h e c o u r t ; and does n o t mean t h a t a c o u r t d o e s n o t have d i s c r e t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r a r u l i n g made by a n o t h e r judge i n t h e same c a s e . " ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) Carden, 170 Mont. a t 440, 555 P.2d a t ?40. S i n c e t h e r e was no d i s c e r n a b l e reason why t h e t h i r d judge, i n h i s d i s c r e t i o n , decided t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s o f t h e two p r e v i o u s judges, w e h e l d t h a t t h e p r i o r r u l i n g s f i n d i n g p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r f i l i n g t h e twenty-eight c o u n t s w e r e t h e law o f t h e c a s e and b i n d i n g on t h e t h i r d judge i n t h e same a c t i o n . The q u e s t i o n b e f o r e u s now, i s whether t h e r e was good r e a s o n f o r Judge Holmstrom, i n h i s d i s c r e t i o n , t o r u l e t h a t p r o p e r venue i n t h i s a c t i o n i s i n Yellowstone County, when Judge Meloy had p r e v i o u s l y r u l e d p r o p e r venue t o h e i n Lewis and C l a r k County? The p a r t i e s on a p p e a l have argued a t l e n g t h t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether o r n o t t h e c a s e f i l e d i n Lewis and C l a r k County i s t h e same a s t h e c a s e f i l e d i n Yellowstone County. W e a g r e e w i t h a p p e l l a n t t h a t , f o r purposes of res j u d i c a t a , i f a judgment had been reached on t h e merits i n t h e Lewis and C l a r k County a c t i o n , t h e Yellowstone County a c t i o n would have been b a r r e d . T h i s i s because t h e two c a s e s a r o s e n u t o f t h e same a c t , o c c u r r e n c e o r t r a n s a c t i o n . However, t h e merits o f t h e c a s e w e r e n o t reached i n Lewis and C l a r k County and, a s noted above, t h e m e r e f a c t t h a t t h e c a s e s a r e t h e same d o e s n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y p r e c l u d e one c o u r t from r e c o n s i d e r i n g a r u l i n g o f a c o u r t o f c o o r d i n a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n . In Lewis and C l a r k County Frito-Lay f i l e d a s u i t a g a i n s t Mereness and t h e Department o f Labor and I n d u s t r y . Mereness's motion f o r change o f venue was denied. Though no r e a s o n f o r t h e d e n i a l was g i v e n , it i s r e a s o n a b l e t o assume, a s Judge Holmstrom d i d , t h a t Judge Meloy f e l t bound by s e c t i o n 25-2-105, MCA, t o hold t h a t t h e c a u s e a g a i n s t t h e Department must b e t r i e d i n t h e County i n which it a r o s e , o r Lewis and C l a r k County. However, i n t h e Yellowstone County a c t i o n , t h e Department i s n o t a p a r t y and t h e r e f o r e t h e r e was no r e a s o n f o r Judge Holmstrom t o t a k e i n t o account s e c t i o n 25-2-105, MCA, o r t o c o n s i d e r h i m s e l f bound by t h e p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n o f t h e Lewis and C l a r k County D i s t r i c t Court. The p r o b a b l e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e o r i g i n a l venue d e c i s i o n by Judge Meloy d i d n o t e x i s t i n t h e Yellowstone County a c t i o n . Moreover, a s Judge Holmstrom p o i n t s o u t , t h e r e i s ample reason why t h i s c a s e should b e t r i e d i n Yellowstone County. The complaint a l l e g e s a b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t t h a t was t o b e performed i n Yellowstone County and a t o r t t h a t a l l e g e d l y took p l a c e i n Yellowstone County. T h e r e f o r e , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n s 25-2-101 and 25-2-102, MCA, Yellowstone County i s t h e p r o p e r venue f o r t h i s a c t i o n . W e hold t h a t Judge Holmstrom p r o p e r l y e x e r c i s e d h i s d i s c r e t i o n by r e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e venue r u l i n g o f t h e Lewis and C l a r k County D i s t r i c t Court. H i s d e c i s i o n denying a motion f o r a change o f venue i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: u