Case Title: PHILLIPS v MONT EDUCATION ASSN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1977-06-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13685 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 LARRY L . PHILLIPS, Plaint iff and Appellant, THE MONTANA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, a non-profit corporation, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: McKittrick & Duffy, Great Falls, Montana Carroll Blend argued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondents: Jardine, Stevenson, Blewett & Weaver, Great Falls, Montana Hilley & Loring, Great Falls, Montana Alexander Blewett 111, argued, Great Falls, Montana Submitted: June 8, 1977 Decided: JUN 2 2 l g n Filed: JU( 2 2 1 9 7 7 Clerk. M r . Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. Plaintiff Larry L. Phillips brought t h i s action i n the d i s t r i c t court against defendant Montana Education Association, a non-profit corporation, e t al., t o recover damages f o r termina- tion of h i s contract of employment a s executive secretary of defendant association. The d i s t r i c t court granted a motion t o strike a portion of Count V of the complaint relating t o attorney fees, and also t o s t r i k e Paragraph 8 of Count 11, seeking exemplary damages. Plaintiff appealed t h i s order of the d i s t r i c t court. Defendant association (MEA) f i l e d a motion with t h i s Court t o dismiss p l a i n t i f f ' s appeal a s the order appealed from is not an appealable order under Rule No. 1, MoR0App.Ci~.P. Briefs were f i l e d and o r a l arguments had on Wednesday, June 8, 1977. The Court took the matter under advisement. Rule No. 1, M.R.App.CSv.P., provides i n pertinent part: "Rule 1. Scope of rules--From what judgment o r order an appeal may be taken. "These rules govern procedure i n appeals i n c i v i l cases t o the supreme court of Montana from Montana d i s t r i c t courts and original proceedings i n the supreme court of Montana. The party applying for original relief is known as the petitioner and the adverse party a s the defendant. The party appealing is known a s the appellant, and the adverse party a s the respondent. "A party aggrieved may appeal from a judgment or order, except when expressly made f i n a l by law, i n the following cases: "(a) From a f i n a l judgment entered i n an action or special proceeding commenced i n a d i s t r i c t court, o r brought into a d i s t r i c t court from another court o r administrative body.'' (Emphasis added.) I n light of t h i s rule, the question becomes whether or not an order granting a motion to strike certain portions of a p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint is a "final judgment" and hence appealable. This question was answered i n the negative by this Court i n two separate decisions. 1 ) ' I n State ex rel. Great Falls National Bank v. District Court, 154 Mont. 336, 340, 463 P.2d 326, t h i s Court i n reference to an order of the d i s t r i c t court striking material from the pleadings, stated: "The f i r s t issue involves procedural matters * * *. (1) the order striking two defenses from i t s answer, viz. plaintiff's own acts and omissions were the sole proximate cause of the accident, and (2) the order granting plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability. These orders are not directly appealable, neither being denominated an appealable order i n Rule 1, M.R.App.Civ.P., presumably because each is interlocutory i n character and reviewable on appeal from final iudg- ment .'I (Emphasis added. ) 2) In Campanella v. Bouma, 164 Mont. 214, 227, 229, 520 P.2d 1073, t h i s Court, i n determining the Assue of appealability of an order granting a motion to strike, said: "* * * Essentially a single issue is determina- tive of the appeal. That i s whether an order such a s t h i s striking portions of a pleading a s being frivolous, impertinent and immaterial is appealable. " W e hold that it i s not. "* * * A n order striking such matters i s not appealable prior to final judgment .I' The motion of defendant MEA to dismiss t h i s appeal is granted and the cause ordered remanded to the d i s t r i c t court for further 9 proceedings. W e Concur: Mr. Chief Justice Paul G . Hatfield deeming himself dis- qualified, did not participate in this Opinion