Title: STATE EX REL OB-GYN GROUP v DIST
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12168
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 28, 1972

N o . 12168 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1972 T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A ex rel. OB-GYN G R O U P O F BILLINGS, M O N T A N A , and ST. VINCENT'S HOSPITAL, Relators, T H E DISTRICT C O U R T O F T H E THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A i n and f o r t h e County of Yellowstone and t h e Honorable N a t Allen, Presiding Judge, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel of Record For Relators: Sandall, Moses and Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Charles F. Moses argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Crowley, Kilbourne, Haughey, Hanson and Gallagher, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Bruce R. Toole argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. For Respondents: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. Michael G. A l t e r o w i t z , B i l l i n g s , Montana. Submitted: December 6 , 1971 Decided: FEB 8 8 4972 a . 2 - $GFT F i l e d t t , M r . John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This is an o r i g i n a l proceeding seeking a w r i t of super- visory c o n t r o l , o r o t h e r appropriate w r i t . Relators, The S t a t e of Montana, e x rel. Ob-Gyn Group of B i l l i n g s , Montana, and S t . Vincent's Hospital, a l l e g e t h a t Hon. Nat Allenf presiding judge i n the d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e t h i r t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Yellowstone, i n t h e case e n t i t l e d Michael J. Crowley and Michele M. Crowley, Husband and Wife, Husband-Coached Lamaze Childbirth Association and Bob E. H u l i t , M.D. v. S t . Vincent's Hospital and Ob-Gyn Group of B i l l i n g s , Montana, refused t o d i s - q u a l i f y himself upon t h e f i l i n g of an a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i c a - t i o n more than f i f t e e n days p r i o r t o t h e t i m e s e t f o r t r i a l . Re- l a t o r s contend t h a t Judge Allen's order of d e n i a l was i n c o r r e c t and t h e r e is no appeal from such order, except by an o r i g i n a l proceeding i n t h i s Court where t h e l e g a l i t y of t h e order could be reviewed. This Court heard counsel f o r t h e r e l a t o r s ex p a r t e and on November 11, 1971, issued an a l t e r n a t i v e order t o show cause, returnable December 6 , 1971. Judge N a t Allen f i l e d a b r i e f b u t on t h e r e t u r n d a t e d i d not appear o r have counsel appear t o argue t h e matter. Counsel f o r r e l a t o r s appeared on t h e r e t u r n d a t e and argued. The f a c t s set f o r t h i n Judge Allen's r e t u r n b r i e f are of import f o r they set f o r t h h i s reasons f o r denying t h e d i s q u a l i f i - cation. W e set them f o r t h i n some d e t a i l f o r they p o i n t up a procedural problem of which t h i s Court has long been aware, and one we f e e l must be worked o u t under t h e powers given t h i s Court by Chapter 1 6 of t h e Laws of Montana, 1963. Judge Allen a l l e g e s he w a s c a l l e d i n t o t h e t h i r t e e n t h j u d i c i a l district t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e Hon. Robert H. Wilson on October 8, 1971; t h a t t h e matter w a s set f o r nonjury t r i a l on November 2 2 , 1971; t h a t a t t h e request of a l l counsel he set a l l motions and t h e case f o r a p r e t r i a l hearing on Octo- b e r 27, 1971; and, t h a t a l l p a r t i e s appeared. The c o u r t heard and ruled on a l l motions made by p l a i n t i f f s , a s w e l l as a motion to dismiss and a motion to quash t h e temporary r e s t r a i n i n g order f i l e d by t h e intervening defendants. A t t h e c l o s e of t h e p r e t r i a l hearing, he denied t h e motions t o dismiss and t o quash t h e tempo- r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g order. Thereafter on November 5 , 1971, Charles F. Moses, Esq., on behalf of t h e intervening defendants f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t t o d i s q u a l i f y him. Judge Allen f u r t h e r states he issued an order d i r e c t i n g t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t be s t r i c k e n from t h e f i l e and on November 10, 1971, he amended h i s order by stat- i n g i n more p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h e basis for t h e order s t r i k i n g t h e a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n . Judge Allen s t a t e s t h e i s s u e before t h i s Court t o be: Whether d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n is v a l i d a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s consent to a determination of t h e major issues. Counsel f o r r e l a t o r s states t h e i s s u e t o be: When does t h e t r i a l begin, a t t h e p r e t r i a l stage o r can a d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n b e - f i l e d within t h e t i m e allowed by s t a t u t e -- f i f t e e n days? W e think t h e latter i s s u e is controlling. W e are n o t unaware of t h e m e r i t i n t h e t r i a l judge's argument t h a t t h e pur- pose of s t a t u t o r y d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n is to insure a f a i r t r i a l ; and t o use it t o " f e e l out" a judge a t a p r e t r i a l hearing is an abuse of t h e r i g h t by counsel. Here, w e a r e not c a l l e d upon to decide t h a t i s s u e f o r t h e f i l i n g was within t h e s t a t u t o r y period. Heretofore t h i s Court has followed t h e s t a t u t e , Section 93-901(4), R.C.M. 1947, which reads as follows: "Cases i n which judge may be d i s q u a l i f i e d -- c a l l i n g i n another judge. Any j u s t i c e , judge, o r j u s t i c e of t h e peace must n o t sit o r act a s such i n any a c t i o n o r proceeding: "4. When e i t h e r p a r t y makes and f i l e s an a f f i d a v i t as h e r e i n a f t e r provided, t h a t he has reason t o believe, and does believe, he cannot have a fair and i m p a r t i a l hearing o r t r i a l before a district judge. Such a f f i d a v i t may be made by any p a r t y t o an a c t i o n , motion, o r proceeding, personally, or by h i s attorney o r agent, and s h a l l be f i l e d with t h e clerk of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n which t h e same may be pending. " * * * I n a l l o t h e r cases t h e a f f i d a v i t must be f i l e d a t least f i f t e e n (15) days before t h e day appointed or fixed f o r t h e hearing or trial of any such a c t i o n , motion, o r proceeding (provided such p a r t y s h a l l have had n o t i c e of t h e hearing of such a c t i o n , motion, o r proceeding f o r a t least t h e period of f i f t e e n (15) days and i n case he s h a l l n o t have had n o t i c e f o r such length of time, he s h a l l f i l e such a f f i d a v i t immediately upon receiving such n o t i c e ) . * * *" The case l a w i n Montana has long recognized t h e r i g h t of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n . The reasons underlying t h e enactment of sec- t i o n 93-901, R.C.M. 1947, are f u l l y set f o r t h i n I n re Woodside- Florence Irr. D i s t . , 1 2 1 Mont. 346, 194 P.2d 2 4 1 and S t a t e ex rel. Peery v. D i s t . C t . , 145 Mont. 287, 400 P.2d 648. See also Annotation, 73 ALR2d 1238. A s w e have noted heretofore, Chapter 16 of t h e Laws of Montana, 1963 (Section 93-2801-1 - 2801-8, R.C.M. 1947) gave t h i s Court t h e power t o make r u l e s governing c i v i l procedure; and, by processes set forth by our rules we intend to reexamine this procedural problem. The writ of supervisory control is therefore issued directing the trial court to reinstate the affidavit of dis- qualification, and that a new judge be selected to proceed with the trial of the cause. / \ Associate Justice We concur: i I Mr. Chief Justice James T . Harrison, deeming himself disqualified, took no part in this Opinion.