MARILYN HOLLISTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOHN FORSYTHE, a public officer, and ROSEBUD COUNTY, a Montana Political Subdivision, Defendants and Respondents.
No. 95-537.
Supreme Court of Montana
Decided June 17, 1996.
Rehearing Denied July 11, 1996.
277 Mont. 23 | 918 P.2d 665 | 53 St. Rep. 524
Submitted on Briefs March 14, 1996.
For Respondents: K. Kent Koolen, Nancy Bennett; Moulton, Bellingham, Longo & Mather, Billings; Steven J. Lehman; Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole & Dietrich, Billings.
JUSTICE LEAPHART delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Marilyn Hollister (Hollister) appeals from the Rosebud County, Sixteenth Judicial District Court‘s dismissal of her
The sole issue before us is whether the District Court erred in dismissing Hollister‘s
BACKGROUND
The background facts of this case are presented in Hollister v. Forsythe (1995), 270 Mont. 91, 92-93, 889 P.2d 1205, 1206. Hollister initially filed a complaint for deprivation of rights in the United States District Court for Montana. The United States District Court granted Forsythe‘s motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed Hollister‘s federal claims with prejudice. She appealed the United States District Court‘s judgment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in Hollister v. Forsythe (9th Cir. 1994), 22 F.3d 950. She then filed a complaint for wrongful discharge and other torts in Montana state district court. Pursuant to Forsythe‘s motion to dismiss, the state district court dismissed her suit based on the statute of limitations. We reversed in Hollister, 889 P.2d 1205.
In Hollister, we held that Hollister‘s claims in state court were not barred by the statute of limitations because:
under Montana‘s renewal statute,
§ 27-2-407, MCA , use of the word “termination” refers to the ultimate termination which occurs after final appellate action. Accordingly, the one-year period begins to run from the date that the time for appeal expires or, in the event of an appeal, from the date of the remittitur or judgment of the appellate court.
On remand, Montana‘s Sixteenth Judicial District Court considered the remaining issues in Forsythe‘s motion to dismiss. Under
In the mean time, in federal court, Hollister filed a
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle her to relief. Lockwood v. W.R. Grace & Co. (1995), 272 Mont. 202, 207, 900 P.2d 314, 317.
A motion to dismiss under
DISCUSSION
Did the District Court err in dismissing Hollister‘s
The doctrine of res judicata prevents a party from re-litigating a matter that the party has already had an opportunity to litigate. Loney v. Milodragovich, Dale & Dye, P.C. (1995), 273 Mont. 506, 510, 905 P.2d 158, 161; Greenwood v. Steve Nelson Trucking, Inc. (1995), 270 Mont. 216, 219, 890 P.2d 765, 767. Res judicata is based on the public policy that there must be some end to litigation. Loney, 905 P.2d at 161; Wellman v. Wellman (1983), 205 Mont. 504, 508, 668 P.2d 1060, 1062. The doctrine of res judicata states that a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to causes of action or issues thereby litigated, as to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction. State ex rel. Harlem Irrigation Dist. v. Montana Seventeenth Judicial Dist. Court (1995), 271 Mont. 129, 132, 894 P.2d 943, 944-45; Meagher County Newlan Creek Water Dist. v. Walter (1976), 169 Mont. 358, 361, 547 P.2d 850, 852.
A claim is res judicata when four criteria are met: the parties or their privies are the same; the subject matter of the claim is the same; the issues are the same and relate to the same subject matter; and the capacities of the persons are the same in reference to the subject matter and the issues. Loney, 905 P.2d at 161; In re Marriage of Blair (1995), 271 Mont. 196, 203, 894 P.2d 958, 963. The most important of the four criteria for res judicata is the identity of issues. Marriage of Blair, 894 P.2d at 963; In re Marriage of Harris (1980), 189 Mont. 509, 513, 616 P.2d 1099, 1101. Additionally, the doctrine of res judicata bars not only issues which were previously litigated, but also issues which could have been litigated in the prior proceeding. Loney, 905 P.2d at 161; see Harlem, 894 P.2d at 946.
Hollister concedes that the first and fourth criteria of res judicata are met. However, she argues that the second and third criteria are not met. She alleges that the issue is not the same because the federal courts only addressed the threshold question of whether Hollister had a property interest in her county employment. She alleges that in light of our decision in Boreen, 884 P.2d 761, the federal courts erred in concluding that, under Montana law, Hollister did not
Forsythe counters that the issue in Hollister‘s state court action is identical to the issue previously raised and decided by the federal court. We agree. In federal court, Hollister alleged that Forsythe‘s termination of her employment violated her constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process. In state court, Hollister realleges the same claim and seeks the same remedy. Forsythe argues that Boreen, 884 P.2d at 762-63 does not alter the fundamental issue in Hollister‘s state court
Hollister argues that the subject matter presented to the courts differs because the instant case involves her civil rights, constitutional rights and tort claims, not whether she has a property interest in her employment. However, the subject matter in both actions is the termination of Hollister‘s employment as a secretary for Rosebud County. In Harlem, 894 P.2d at 945, we held that the same subject matter that gave rise to the initial complaint was also the basis for the subsequent causes of action. The same is true here, the underlying subject matter in both federal and state forums is Hollister‘s termination from employment.
Beyond the criteria of res judicata, Hollister argues that she has a right to have the merits of her case heard and that in granting summary judgment to Forsythe, the United States District Court did not decide the merits of her civil rights, constitutional rights and tort claims. In federal court, Hollister alleged federal question jurisdiction pursuant to
In Smith v. Schweigert (1990), 241 Mont. 54, 59, 785 P.2d 195, 198, we held that summary judgment is a decision on the merits because it is a conclusive determination of a legal issue presented by the facts of a case. See Harlem, 894 P.2d at 945. In Mills, we reaffirmed this proposition that summary judgment is, indeed, a final judgment on the merits and that the res judicata bar is, therefore, applicable. 864 P.2d at 1267.
In Mills, the United States District Court granted Lincoln County‘s motion for summary judgment based on immunity under
The point to be noted is that, right or wrong, the federal court entered summary judgment against Mills; that judgment became final by Mills’ failure to pursue the available remedy in federal court; and she is now bound by that judgment.
Mills, 864 P.2d at 1267 (emphasis added).
Throughout her appeal, Hollister argues that the federal court‘s holding that she has no property interest in employment is wrong. She bases her contention on our decision in Boreen, 884 P.2d 761. In Boreen, we discussed Hollister, 22 F.3d 950, in which the Ninth Circuit concluded that Montana‘s Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act does not create, in at-will employees, a property interest in their jobs. Hollister, 22 F.3d at 953. We stated “we simply do not agree with the court‘s application of our prior case law to the facts in Hollister.” Boreen, 884 P.2d at 769. Despite our disagreement with the Ninth Circuit‘s conclusion regarding Hollister‘s potential property interest in her employment, we are in no position to change the Ninth Circuit‘s decision. As previously stated in Mills, Hollister is bound by the judgment, right or wrong, of the federal court in which
Hollister, in federal district court, litigated the question of whether she had a property interest sufficient to sustain a
In the instant case, as in Mills, we hold that the federal court summary judgment was a final judgment on the merits and that res judicata bars Hollister‘s state court action under
Affirmed.
JUSTICES ERDMANN, GRAY and NELSON concur.
JUSTICE TRIEWEILER dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion based on my conclusion that the interests of fundamental fairness preclude the application of the judicially-created doctrine of res judicata under the circumstances in this case.
This case is distinguishable from Mills v. Lincoln County (1993), 262 Mont. 283, 864 P.2d 1265, which is the principle authority relied on by the majority. In Mills, the Federal District Court dismissed the plaintiff‘s complaint by summary judgment based on this Court‘s decisions regarding the liability of local governments. After that dismissal, the Legislature clarified its intent and in effect changed the law. We held that a subsequent change in the law did not preclude the application of res judicata to a later action filed in state district court. Mills, 262 Mont. at 286, 864 P.2d at 1267.
In this case, there was no change in the law subsequent to the Federal District Court‘s dismissal of Marilyn Hollister‘s claim made pursuant to
Under these circumstances, absent reconsideration of its decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Hollister will never have an opportunity to present the true merits of her civil rights claim. To avoid such a substantial injustice by blind adherence to technical principles, I would follow the rationale of the Federal District Court in Boucher v. Dramstad (D. Mont. 1981), 522 F. Supp. 604. In that case, that court held that:
[R]es judicata is a principle of public policy to be applied so as to render rather than deny justice. The rule is intended to serve the aims of fairness and efficient judicial administration and need not be applied mechanically where those ends would not be served. Therefore, application of the rule must be rejected when the application would result in manifest unfairness. This Circuit has acknowledged that the doctrine must give way to the overriding concern of simple justice.
****
... The decision by the Montana Supreme Court regarding the unique question of law with which it was presented resulted in the plaintiff not having an opportunity to present at trial the merits of his action. To deny the plaintiff the opportunity to present his constitutional claims in the present
§ 1983 action would result in the plaintiff never having had the opportunity to have the events which transpired at the time of his injury evaluated by a court of law. This court concludes that the interests of justice mandate that the plaintiff be given that opportunity. ... In the interests of fundamental fairness and simple justice this court concludes that the judicially created doctrine of res judicata should not be mechanically applied to the present situation but must be prudently applied so as not to defeat those same principles upon which the doctrine is founded.
Boucher, 522 F. Supp. at 607, 608 (footnotes omitted).
In State ex rel. Harlem Irrigation District v. District Court (1995), 271 Mont. 129, 133, 894 P.2d 943, 945, we declined to apply the manifest unfairness principle from Boucher to the facts in that case. However, we did not reject the concept under all circumstances.
I conclude that the circumstances in this case call for application of the “manifest unfairness” principle and on that basis decline to apply judicially-created principles of res judicata to bar Hollister‘s claim.
In this case, Hollister is out of court, through no fault of her own, based on a misapplication of the law in federal court. To deny her the opportunity to present her claim would mean that the facts she alleged would never be examined by a court of law in the context of her constitutional claims. Under these circumstances, the majority decision does not “serve the aims of fairness and efficient judicial administration” but instead “mechanically” applies an inappropriate judicial formula. Boucher, 522 F. Supp. at 607.
For these reasons I dissent from the majority opinion.