No. 05-219 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

 

 2005 MT 335N 

MELVIN JEWART, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

v. 

ROGER HOUGEN, d/b/a LUCKY CUSS CASINO, 

 Defendant and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, 

In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DV 2000-351, 

Honorable Mark Guenther and Honorable Loren Tucker, Presiding Judges 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

 Geoffrey C. Angel, Angel Law Firm, Bozeman, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Barry G. O’Connell, Moore, O’Connell & Refling, Bozeman, Montana 

 

 Submitted on Briefs: November 2, 2005 

 Decided: December 22, 2005 

Filed: 

__________________________________________ 

Clerk 
 2

Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal 

Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be 

cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme 

Court and shall be reported by case title, Supreme Court cause number and result to the 

State Reporter Publishing Company and West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable 

cases issued by this Court. 

¶2 Melvin Jewart (Appellant) appeals the order imposing sanctions on his counsel 

and the judgment in favor of the Defendant entered in the Eighteenth Judicial District 

Court, Gallatin County. We affirm. 

¶3 Appellant raises several issues on appeal, though he primarily focuses on the 

propriety of sanctions imposed on his counsel for inappropriate discovery tactics. At the 

time of discovery, two cases arising out of the same incident, a physical altercation, were 

consolidated in the District Court. In an escalation of already contentious litigation, 

Appellant’s counsel made no less than four motions for sanctions in the consolidated 

cases. Opposing counsel in each of the cases ultimately made cross-motions for 

sanctions against Appellant’s counsel. The District Court granted the cross-motions in 

part, noting that it was limiting the grant of sanctions, based, in part, on what it perceived 

to be the relative inexperience of counsel. Ultimately, the case was tried to a jury, 

resulting in a verdict in favor of Defendant/Respondent. 
 3

¶4 After review of the District Court’s order and the parties’ arguments, we cannot 

conclude that the District Court abused its discretion by imposing sanctions. Further, 

Appellant’s argument that the imposition of sanctions had the effect of denying him due 

process of law was not raised in the District Court, and therefore was not properly 

preserved for appeal. 

¶5 It is appropriate to decide this case pursuant to our Order of February 11, 2003, 

amending Section 1.3 of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules and providing for 

memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us 

that the appeal is without merit because the findings of fact are supported by substantial 

evidence, the legal issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law which the District 

Court correctly interpreted, and there was clearly no abuse of discretion by the District 

Court. 

¶6 Affirmed. 

 /S/ JIM RICE 

We concur: 

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY 

/S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER 

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON 

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS