Harrington v. Energy West, Inc.
2017 MT 141
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Harrington, employed as a corporate controller, entered into his employment agreement and performed the majority of his duties in Ohio; payroll and related employer actions were tied to Ohio entities.
- Harrington sued Energy West (a Montana corporation and Gas Natural subsidiary) in Montana for wrongful discharge, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and defamation after his October 2012 termination.
- The District Court initially dismissed; on appeal this Court (Harrington I) held Ohio law governed the contract claims, vacated dismissal, and remanded for consideration of forum non conveniens and related claims.
- On remand Harrington sought to amend his complaint to drop wrongful discharge/NIED and add claims (deceit, negligent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, unjust enrichment, negligent slander, punitive damages); Energy West opposed and moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.
- At the remand hearing Energy West consented to personal jurisdiction in Ohio; the District Court denied leave to amend (finding undue prejudice and deviation from remand scope) and dismissed the case under forum non conveniens, favoring adjudication in Ohio.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to amend should be allowed | Harrington: Rule 15(a) favors liberal amendment; new claims arose after remand and discovery was preliminary so no prejudice | Energy West: Amendment after 2.5 years and after prevailing on major motion would unfairly prejudice defendant and stray from remand scope | Denied — District Court did not abuse discretion; amendment would prejudice Energy West and conflict with remand instructions |
| Whether dismissal under forum non conveniens was appropriate | Harrington: District Court failed to analyze whether NIED and slander claims rely on Montana law, erred by relying on prior Ohio-law conclusion, and should have held an evidentiary hearing | Energy West: Ohio is the center of gravity (employment, witnesses, records); Energy West waived objections to Ohio jurisdiction | Granted — District Court did not abuse discretion; Ohio better serves convenience of witnesses and ends of justice |
| Whether Ohio courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over Energy West | Harrington: (argued potential obstacles; sought hearing on witness/record locations) | Energy West: Firmly committed to waive personal jurisdiction in Ohio; no identified Ohio-law obstacles | Court found no jurisdictional obstacle; Energy West’s consent and no identified barrier supported alternative forum in Ohio |
| Whether the remand limited the scope of additional claims | Harrington: Remand allowed consideration of related tort claims and did not bar new theories | Energy West: Remand was limited to forum non conveniens analysis, not to allow wholesale change of legal theories | Court held remand was limited; proposing entirely new claims months later was improper and prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Ninth Judicial Dist. Ct., 375 Mont. 517, 329 P.3d 1264 (Mont. 2014) (§ 25-2-201(3) reflects forum non conveniens principles)
- In re Marriage of Lockman, 266 Mont. 194, 879 P.2d 710 (Mont. 1994) (district court has wide discretion to transfer venue for convenience of witnesses and ends of justice)
- Farmers Coop. Ass’n v. Amsden, LLC, 339 Mont. 445, 171 P.3d 690 (Mont. 2007) (denial of amendment is proper where opposing party would suffer undue prejudice from new legal theory after substantial expense)
- Kershaw v. Mont. Dept. of Transp., 361 Mont. 215, 257 P.3d 358 (Mont. 2011) (Rule 15(a) does not compel amendment where court reasonably denies leave)
- Wagman v. Motl, 379 Mont. 439, 352 P.3d 609 (Mont. 2015) (court will not disturb venue-transfer decisions absent clear abuse of discretion)