Title: SOFTICH v BAKER
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13385
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 24, 1976

No. 13385 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1976 T O N Y SOFTICH, ADMINISTRATOR L A B O R S T A N D A R D S DIVISION O F T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F LABOR AND INDUSTRY, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, G E R A L D & BERNICE BAKER, d/b/a JERRY'S VILLAGE INN, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l 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 W e Strope argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: October 27, 1976 Decided : NOV 2 4 1978 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court. The question i n t h i s case i s whether the Administrator of the Labor Standards Division of the Department of Labor and Industry of the s t a t e of Montana can sue i n h i s own name t o enforce the bonding requirements of Montana's Restaurant, Bar and Tavern Wage Protection Act. The d i s t r i c t court held he could not. W e affirm. O n February 9, 1976 a complaint was f i l e d in the d i s t r i c t court, Missoula County, t o enjoin defendant from engaging i n the restaurant and bar business a t Bud Lake Village i n Missoula County u n t i l defendant posted a bond t o guarantee payment of employee wages, pursuant t o section 41-2005, R.C.M. 1947. The named plain- t i f f w a s "Tony Softich, Administrator Labor Standards Division Department of Labor and Industry". Softich signed the complaint. Subsequently, t h e d i s t r i c t court dismissed the action "for the reason t h a t p l a i n t i f f i s not a party authorized t o bring the action i n h i s own namei1. P l a i n t i f f appeals. The controlling s t a t u t e i s section 41-2008, R.C.M. 1947, which provides : "41-2008. Lessee's business enjoined u n t i l bond f i l e d . I f any person engages i n the restaurant, bar o r tavern business, a s lessee, without having f i r s t f i l e d a bond a s required by section 5 [41-20051 of t h i s a c t , the attorney general of the s t a t e of Montana, the commissioner of labor and industry of the s t a t e of Montana, o r any c i t i z e n , group of c i t i z e n s o r any association i n the-county where the v i o l a t o r conducts h i s business may i n s t i t u t e an action t o enjoin such person from engagi*g i n the business u n t i l compliance with t h i s a c t has been met." I n determining the meaning of a s t a t u t e , the i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e is controlling. Section 93-401-16, R.C.M. 1947. Such i n t e n t s h a l l f i r s t be determined from the plain meaning of the words used, i f possible, and i f the i n t e n t can be so determined, the courts may not go further and apply any other mans of i n t e r - pretation. Keller v. Smith, M o n t . , 553 P.2d 1002, 33 St.Rep. 828; Dunphy v. Anaconda Co., 151 Mont. 76, 438 P.2d 660, and cases c i t e d therein. The plain meaning of the words used i n the s t a t u t e grant the r i g h t t o i n s t i t u t e t h i s action t o (1) the attorney general, (2) the Commissioner of Labor and Industry, and (3) any c i t i z e n , group, o r association i n the county where t h e v i o l a t o r conducts h i s business. The administrator of t h e Labor Standards Division of the Department of Labor and Industry is none of these. I n construing a s t a t u t e , courts cannot i n s e r t what has been omitted. Section 93-401- 15, R.C.M. 1947. W e have examined the other arguments and a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d by p l a i n t i f f and find t h a t none would change the r e s u l t here. The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court is affirmed. - J u s t i c e s i t t i n g f o r j u s t i c e Wesley @ : : : ; ' l s .