McDonald v. Jacobsen
2021 MT 287
Mont.2021Background
- Plaintiffs (McDonald et al.) sued Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen in her official capacity seeking to enjoin certification of HB 325 as a ballot measure, alleging it violated the Montana Constitution.
- Plaintiffs served the Secretary with complaint and summons on May 13, 2021, and on the same day sent the Attorney General only a Rule 5.1 notice (a copy of the complaint) rather than formal Rule 4 service.
- The Secretary did not answer; plaintiffs moved for summary judgment July 1. The Attorney General later contacted plaintiffs about formal service; the parties agreed to continue the hearing and executed an acknowledgment of service with the Attorney General on July 7.
- The Secretary filed a motion to substitute the judge on July 16 under § 3-1-804(1)(a) (30-day deadline measured from completion of service under M. R. Civ. P. 4). The District Court denied the motion as untimely, treating the May 13 service on the Secretary as controlling and the Attorney General as "not a party."
- The Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding that official-capacity suits require service on the State (via the Attorney General) and that service was not complete until the July 7 acknowledgment, making the July 16 substitution motion timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an official-capacity suit against the Secretary is a suit against the State requiring service on the Attorney General under M. R. Civ. P. 4(l) | McDonald: Suit is against the Secretary only; Rule 5.1 notice to the AG sufficed for notice and the AG was not a party requiring Rule 4 service | Secretary: An official-capacity suit is effectively a suit against the State, so Rule 4(l) requires service on the Attorney General | Court: Official-capacity claims are suits against the State; Rule 4(l) (read with Rule 12(a)(2) and informed by federal Rule 4(i)) requires service on the AG |
| Whether service was "completed" for purposes of the 30-day substitution deadline when plaintiffs served the Secretary (May 13) or when the AG signed the acknowledgment (July 7) | McDonald: May 13 service on the Secretary was sufficient; Rule 5.1 notice to AG effectuated the substantive purpose of service | Secretary: Because Rule 4 requires service on the State, service was not complete until the AG was validly served/acknowledged on July 7, so substitution was timely | Court: Service under Rule 4 was not complete until the July 7 acknowledgment under Rule 4(d)(3)(E); substitution motion filed July 16 was timely; District Court erred |
Key Cases Cited
- Germann v. Stephens, 332 Mont. 303 (Mont. 2006) (official-capacity claims generally represent actions against the entity the officer serves)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (official-capacity suits are suits against the governmental entity)
- Reichert v. State, 365 Mont. 92 (Mont. 2012) (treating a ballot-referral challenge as a matter of preventing State action via an officer)
- Mountain W. Bank v. Glacier Kitchens, 365 Mont. 276 (Mont. 2012) (actual notice is not a substitute for valid service)
- Yarborough v. Glacier County, 285 Mont. 494 (Mont. 1997) (courts may avoid strict formalism where injustice would result)