356 P.3d 441
Mont.2015Background
- Harrington, hired in 2011 to work as a corporate controller for Gas Natural (an Ohio corporation) but paid and administered through its Montana subsidiary Energy West, worked primarily from Ohio and made a few trips to Montana.
- Harrington was terminated in October 2012, received Ohio unemployment benefits, and sued Energy West in Montana alleging wrongful discharge under Montana’s WDEA, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and defamation.
- Energy West moved to dismiss under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the district court permitted limited jurisdictional discovery and held a non‑evidentiary hearing.
- The district court concluded Ohio law governs the employment dispute (based on place of hiring and performance) and dismissed, reasoning that Montana lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction or that Ohio was the appropriate forum.
- Harrington appealed; the Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the choice‑of‑law factual findings (Ohio law governs) but vacated the dismissal and remanded to allow the district court to consider forum non conveniens and related jurisdictional questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly considered evidence outside pleadings on 12(b)(1) | Harrington: court improperly resolved factual disputes without evidentiary hearing | Energy West: court may consider affidavits/documents and limited discovery is proper | Court: district court may consider extra‑pleading evidence on 12(b)(1); no abuse of discretion in declining an evidentiary hearing because no disputed material facts required credibility assessments |
| Choice of law governing contract/WDEA claim | Harrington: Montana WDEA applies | Energy West: Ohio law governs because Harrington worked and was paid in Ohio | Court: Ohio law governs (contractual‑nature analysis under §28‑3‑102 and place of performance/making) |
| Whether applying Ohio law deprives Montana courts of subject‑matter jurisdiction over WDEA claim | Harrington: Montana courts should retain jurisdiction; WDEA applies | Energy West: Montana should dismiss because Ohio law governs and provides the rules/remedies | Court: Application of foreign law does not defeat Montana district court subject‑matter jurisdiction; dismissal for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction was erroneous |
| Whether dismissal on forum non conveniens was appropriate | Harrington: Montana is appropriate forum; no showing that an alternative forum is adequate | Energy West: Ohio is the more appropriate forum | Held: Court remanded—insufficient record to determine if forum non conveniens dismissal is proper (must examine availability of Ohio forum, personal jurisdiction issues, and other claims) |
Key Cases Cited
- Burchett v. Mastec N. Am., Inc., 93 P.3d 1247 (Mont. 2004) (conflict‑of‑laws analysis in employment/WDEA context and discussion of subject‑matter jurisdiction issue)
- In re Marriage of Sampley, 347 P.3d 1281 (Mont. 2015) (district court may receive evidence beyond pleadings on 12(b)(1) and discretion re: evidentiary hearings)
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Ninth Judicial Dist. Court, 329 P.3d 1264 (Mont. 2014) (forum non conveniens dismissal warranted to avoid duplicate trials and conflicting results)