322 P.3d 1029
Mont.2014Background
- Chapman sued Maxwell for defamation based on Maxwell’s notes in Chapman’s medical record alleging drug seeking or malingering.
- Maxwell moved for summary judgment on April 1, 2013; Chapman did not file a response and did not request oral argument.
- District Court granted summary judgment May 17, 2013, noting Chapman’s familiarity with court rules and her history as a litigant.
- Court advised Chapman of the vexatious litigant statute and Rule 11 in prior proceedings.
- Chapman moved for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) asserting excusable neglect; the court denied.
- On appeal, Chapman argues summary judgment was improper and Rule 60(b) relief should have been granted; Maxwell requests sanctions, including vexatious litigant designation, which the court declines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment? | Chapman | Maxwell | Yes, no, or unclear here? The Montana court reviews de novo and held there were no genuine issues of material fact; Maxwell entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moody v. Northland Royalty Co., 286 Mont. 89, 951 P.2d 18 (1997) (trial court may deny or grant on unsupported motions; Rule 56 analysis still required)
- Cole v. Flathead Co., 236 Mont. 412, 771 P.2d 97 (1989) (Rule 56 duty to deny when factual questions exist; not merely timeliness of brief)
- Wurl v. Polson Sch. Dist. No. 23, 2006 MT 8, 330 Mont. 282, 127 P.3d 436 (2006) (de novo review permits independent assessment of material facts)
- Skinner v. Pistoria, 194 Mont. 257, 633 P.2d 672 (1981) (privilege and consent affect defamation analysis)
- McConkey v. Flathead Elec. Coop., 2005 MT 334, 330 Mont. 48, 125 P.3d 1121 (2005) (opinion generally not defamatory; statements based on personal observations not actionable)
- McLeod v. State, 2009 MT 130, 350 Mont. 285, 206 P.3d 956 (2009) (defamation threshold: unprivileged publication must bear defamatory meaning)