Denturist Ass'n v. State, Department of Labor & Industry, 383 Mont. 391

Background

Denturist Association, on behalf of denturist Carl Brisendine, sued the Montana Board of Dentistry challenging Admin. R. M. 24.138.2302(1)(j) ("Rule J") and claiming discrimination and restraint of trade under § 37-1-131(1)(a)(ii), plus statutory conflict claims.
Brisendine asserted three counts: Count I (discriminatory enforcement / restraint of trade under § 37-1-131(1)(a)(ii)); Counts II–III (Rule J conflicts with statute).
The Board moved for summary judgment on all counts; Brisendine moved on Count II. The district court granted summary judgment to the Board, concluding claims were barred by res judicata based on prior litigation (Wiser I and Wiser II).
Wiser I involved every Montana denturist suing the Board on behalf of the profession and losing on the Board’s rulemaking authority; Wiser II involved a smaller group and was barred by res judicata for repeating the same challenge.
The Supreme Court of Montana analyzed claim preclusion and issue preclusion, focusing on privity between Brisendine and the Wiser litigants and whether Count I presented a new cause of action.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brisendine is in privity with Wiser I/II plaintiffs so res judicata applies	Brisendine: no privity; he is not bound by Wiser I/II	Board: privity exists because interests are closely aligned and prior plaintiffs effectively represented subsequent denturists	Held: Privity exists — Wiser plaintiffs were virtual representatives of the profession, so nonparty preclusion applies
Whether Counts II and III (statutory conflict) are barred by claim preclusion	Brisendine: lacks privity (only argument for these counts)	Board: claim preclusion applies because same cause and issues could have been litigated earlier	Held: Counts II–III barred by claim preclusion; summary judgment affirmed on these counts
Whether Count I (discriminatory enforcement / restraint of trade under § 37-1-131(1)(a)(ii)) is barred by res judicata / collateral estoppel	Brisendine: Count I raises new factual and statutory claim (statute enacted after Wiser) and thus is not precluded	Board: Claim preclusion/issue preclusion should bar any repeated challenge related to Rule J	Held: Count I is a different cause/issue (new statute and specific factual allegations), so not precluded; summary judgment on Count I reversed and remanded
Whether the Denturist Association has associational standing to sue on Brisendine’s behalf	Brisendine: Association can litigate on his behalf if his claims survive res judicata	Board: standing not meaningfully disputed	Held: Association has associational standing; standing distinct from res judicata defense (Counts II–III may be subject to res judicata despite standing)

Key Cases Cited

Board of Dentistry v. Kandarian, 248 Mont. 444, 813 P.2d 409 (Mont. 1991) (prior litigation involving Board rulemaking authority)
Brisendine v. Dept. of Commerce, 253 Mont. 361, 833 P.2d 1019 (Mont. 1992) (prior Montana case involving same parties/subject area)
Wiser v. State (Wiser I), 2006 MT 20, 331 Mont. 28, 129 P.3d 133 (Mont. 2006) (challenge by denturists to Board’s authority; MUTPA inapplicable to state agencies)
Wiser v. Board of Dentistry (Wiser II), 2011 MT 56, 360 Mont. 1, 251 P.3d 675 (Mont. 2011) (res judicata applied to subsequent denturist challenges)
Baltrusch v. Baltrusch, 2006 MT 51, 331 Mont. 281, 130 P.3d 1267 (Mont. 2006) (discussion of claim preclusion and issue preclusion principles)
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (limits on nonparty preclusion and explanation of privity/adequate representation exception)
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) (distinction between claim preclusion and issue preclusion)
Holtman v. 4-G’s Plumbing & Heating, 264 Mont. 432, 872 P.2d 318 (Mont. 1994) (privity as legal representation at trial)
Nordhorn v. Ladish Co., 9 F.3d 1402 (9th Cir. 1993) (privity where parties are virtual representatives of each other)