No. 13385 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1976 

TONY SOFTICH, ADMINISTRATOR LABOR 

STANDARDS DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT 

OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

GERALD & BERNICE BAKER, d/b/a 

JERRY'S VILLAGE INN, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant : 

Mayo Ash ley argued, He lena , Montana 

For Respondent: 

Mahan and Strope, Helena, Montana 

Philip We Strope argued, Helena, Montana 

Submitted: October 27, 1976 

Decided : NOV 2 4 1978 
Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

The question in this case is whether the Administrator 

of the Labor Standards Division of the Department of Labor and 

Industry of the state of Montana can sue in his own name to 

enforce the bonding requirements of Montana's Restaurant, Bar 

and Tavern Wage Protection Act. The district court held he could 

not. We affirm. 

On February 9, 1976 a complaint was filed in the district 

court, Missoula County, to enjoin defendant from engaging in the 

restaurant and bar business at Bud Lake Village in Missoula County 

until defendant posted a bond to guarantee payment of employee 

wages, pursuant to section 41-2005, R.C.M. 1947. The named plaintiff was "Tony Softich, Administrator Labor Standards Division 

Department of Labor and Industry". Softich signed the complaint. 

Subsequently, the district court dismissed the action 

"for the reason that plaintiff is not a party authorized to bring 

the action in his own namei1. Plaintiff appeals. 

The controlling statute is section 41-2008, R.C.M. 1947, 

which provides : 

"41-2008. Lessee's business enjoined until bond filed. 

If any person engages in the restaurant, bar or tavern 

business, as lessee, without having first filed a bond 

as required by section 5 [41-20051 of this act, the 

attorney general of the state of Montana, the commissioner 

of labor and industry of the state of Montana, or any 

citizen, group of citizens or any association in the-county 

where the violator conducts his business may institute 

an action to enjoin such person from engagi*g in the 

business until compliance with this act has been met." 

In determining the meaning of a statute, the intent of the 

legislature is controlling. Section 93-401-16, R.C.M. 1947. 
Such intent shall first be determined from the plain meaning of 

the words used, if possible, and if the intent can be so determined, 

the courts may not go further and apply any other mans of interpretation. Keller v. Smith, Mon t . , 553 P.2d 1002, 33 

St.Rep. 828; Dunphy v. Anaconda Co., 151 Mont. 76, 438 P.2d 660, 

and cases cited therein. 

The plain meaning of the words used in the statute grant 

the right to institute this action to (1) the attorney general, 

(2) the Commissioner of Labor and Industry, and (3) any citizen, 

group, or association in the county where the violator conducts his 

business. The administrator of the Labor Standards Division of the 

Department of Labor and Industry is none of these. In construing a 

statute, courts cannot insert what has been omitted. Section 93-401- 

15, R.C.M. 1947. 

We have examined the other arguments and authorities cited 

by plaintiff and find that none would change the result here. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

- 

Justice 

sitting for justice Wesley @:::;'ls.