This case involved a claim by plaintiff Doug Dugger for relocation assistance benefits under the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Act after he vacated his rented business premises following a notice from his landlord, which was prompted by the City of Missoula's development project using federal block grant funds on nearby property. The court reviewed the Montana Department of Commerce's denial of benefits, along with claims of equal protection violations and an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation. The court affirmed the agency's denial, reasoning that Dugger was not a displaced person under the Act because the city did not acquire his leased property and he moved due to the landlord's independent decision to terminate the tenancy. It also dismissed the other claims, finding no taking occurred and no equal protection violation from the city's compensation offers, which Dugger had refused.
The case was a debt collection action in which Direct Mail Specialist, Inc. sought to recover $10,997.85 for services provided to Peaceful Bay Resort and Club from defendants who claimed limited-partner status. The court held that the defendants other than Murr L. Brown were liable as general partners because the certificate of limited partnership contained multiple defects, was not recorded with the Secretary of State, and did not provide actual or constructive notice to the plaintiff that it was dealing with a limited partnership. The court further held that the 15% interest rate in the underlying oral agreement was not usurious because Utah law governed the contract as the place of performance. The court therefore denied the defendants' summary-judgment motion and entered judgment against all defendants jointly and severally.
The case involved a long-term employee of Group W Cable who was demoted without notice and reassigned, leading her to sue for wrongful demotion under Montana tort law, age discrimination under the state Human Rights Act, and interference with future pension benefits. The court granted summary judgment to the employer on all three counts. It reasoned that Montana does not recognize a tort claim for wrongful demotion beyond existing termination precedents, the age discrimination filing was untimely and lacked the required right-to-sue letter from the Human Rights Commission, and the pension claim was speculative absent evidence of actual harm or discrimination. The court allowed amendment of the complaint to assert a federal age discrimination claim under 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
This diversity jurisdiction case involved the First National Bank of Saint Paul seeking to collect on two promissory notes totaling $4,900,000 issued to Intermountain Bancorporation and James Edmiston, which were governed by Minnesota law and contained demand or acceleration provisions upon default or insecurity. The borrowers admitted nonpayment but raised affirmative defenses and counterclaims alleging fraud, breach of oral commitments for long-term financing and forbearance during hard times, and improper acceleration. The court granted summary judgment to the bank on the notes, dismissing the contract-based defenses and counterclaims because no written agreements supported the alleged promises and a breach of contract does not independently support tort liability under Minnesota precedent. The fraud claims were dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead the circumstances with particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), with leave to amend by a set deadline.
This antitrust case involved nurse anesthetist T.E. Oltz, who had a contract to provide services at St. Peter's Community Hospital until the hospital terminated it in 1980 upon granting an exclusive contract to a group of anesthesiologists. Oltz sued the hospital and doctors, alleging a conspiracy to exclude him as a competitor; the jury found the hospital liable and awarded damages for lost income, but the hospital moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The court denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding direct evidence of a conspiracy among the doctors that led the hospital to grant the exclusive contract. However, it granted a new trial on damages only, reasoning that the jury should have considered the joint income and earning potential of Oltz and his wife (also a nurse anesthetist) as joint venturers when calculating lost future income.
In this case, plaintiffs Ronald and Jolene Jacobson sued Western Montana Production Credit Association (PCA) and several individuals for losses from a failed commodities hedging program financed by a PCA loan, alleging claims including RICO violations, fraud, negligence, and bad faith. The court denied PCA's motion to dismiss, ruling that the association's receivership under federal farm credit laws did not abate pending lawsuits, as neither the statute nor the liquidation plan provided for such abatement and normal dispute resolution channels remained available. It granted summary judgment to defendants on multiple counts (including fraud and negligence) because the claims were barred by Montana's statutes of limitations, as plaintiffs had knowledge of their losses years earlier. The court also dismissed the bad faith/punitive damages count due to the dismissal of underlying claims and dismissed the third-party complaint against Pioneer Commodities and Dennis Richardson for indemnity or contribution on RICO claims, following precedent that no such right exists in RICO actions.