Court Opinion

ID: 9795855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:40:09.033709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:38:08.965002
License: Public Domain

Justice EISMANN,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in Parts I., II., and III.A. of the majority opinion. I dissent as to part III.B.
At the time FIE moved to amend its complaint to allege a claim for declaratory judgment against Tucker and Hoctor, they already had an action pending in Montana against FIE to recover damages. The proposed declaratory judgment action would simply duplicate the pending Montana action. The only issues that would be litigated in the declaratory judgment were the same issues to be litigated in the Montana action — the factual issues regarding the amount of damages suffered by Tucker and by Hoctor as a result of the death of their daughter. The sole purpose for FIE amending its complaint to allege a claim for declaratory judgment was an attempt to change venue from Montana to Idaho.
The district court refused to countenance FIE’s maneuvering. Not only is a declaratory judgment action an improper vehicle to litigate the factual issue of the amount of damages suffered by someone, but using it simply to seek a change of venue is an improper purpose. To prevail on appeal, FIE would have to show that the district judge abused his discretion. Its claim that he did is frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation. I would therefore award Tucker and Hoctor attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code § 12-121.
Justice BURDICK concurs.