MERENESS v FRITO-LAY INC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 84-482 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 RICHARD MERENESS , Plaintiff and Respondent, -vsFRITO-LAY, INC., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Robert Holmstrom, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF IIECORD: For Appellant: Loble & Pauly, Helena, Montana For Respondent: howard and Grubbs, Billings, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Feb. 22, 1985 Decided: May 23, 1985 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f R i c h a r d M e r e n e s s b r o u g h t s u i t i n Y e 1 1o w s t o n e County District Frito-Lay summary Court against defendant Frito-Lay, Inc. f i l e d a c o n s o l i d a t e d motion t o d i s m i s s , motion f o r judgment, and motion for a change of venue. The D i s t r i c t Court denied t h e s e motions. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from the motion District Court's denial of the for change of venue. Richard salesman, retail Mereness selling short, to delivering He his the for and outlets. related worked was sales shortage Frito-Lay responsible and was Frito-Lay deducted all his If from route to snack-foods for deliveries. a as his accounting a c c o u n t was paycheck. In November o f 1 9 8 0 , M e r e n e s s l e f t h i s employment w i t h F r i t o - L a y a l l e g i n g w r o n g f u l d e d u c t i o n s from h i s p a y c h e c k . of 1981, he filed a claim against D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r and I n d u s t r y . instead of Frito-Lay addition under for to the Frito-Lay newly Frito-Lay owing newly-found the found not proceeding before in of May withheld. interpretation either his of owed in However, Montana law, previously-deducted offsets or counterclaims of Labor 1981, the account, Department the Therefore, as Mereness in assert shortages wages, previously shortages with responded t h a t , shortages then-prevailing could Frito-Lay Frito-Lay Mereness In January Frito-Lay filed and a or in the Industry. complaint in Lewis and C l a r k County D i s t r i c t C o u r t a g a i n s t b o t h Mereness and t h e Department. shortages Frito-Lay from Mereness p r o c e e d i n g on t h e wage and s o u g h t t o r e c o v e r newly-found to claim. enjoin the Department On 22, 1981, Mereness, May from a c t i n g p r o se, f i l e d a p l e a d i n g denominated motion t o d i s m i s s b u t w h i c h i n f a c t was a m o t i o n t o c h a n g e v e n u e t o Y e l l o w s t o n e County. A b o u t o n e month l a t e r M e r e n e s s r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l . h e a r i n g was h e l d on t h e m o t i o n on O c t o b e r 1, 1 9 8 1 . A An o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e v e n u e c h a n g e w a s i s s u e d on O c t o b e r 6 , 1 9 8 1 . Mereness changed together 1981, then with the attorneys Department of and in Labor November and Industry, a g a i n made a m o t i o n t o c h a n g e v e n u e t o Y e l l o w s t o n e Mereness a l s o joined A h ~ a r i n gw a s held i n t h e Department's and on 5, January of County. motion t o d i s m i s s . 1982, t h e L e w i s and C l a r k C o u n t y a c t i o n was d i s m i s s e d a n d t h e e n t i r e m a t t e r w a s s e n t back t o t h e Department w i t h o f f s e t s a l l e g e d by Frito-Lay. of Labor November and of Industry 1983, Yellowstone County. Proceedings i n t h e Department continued Mereness the direction t o consider without brought the conclusion. present action In in m o t i o n t o change v e n u e was Frito-Lay's d e n i e d on S e p t e m b e r 2 7 , 1 9 8 4 . The issue Court, District defendant by this Yellowstone Frito-Lay's Frito-Lay and presented appeal County, motion for is whether erred a in change in the denying venue? a r g u e s t h a t t h e a c t i o n s i n Lewis and C l a r k County Yellowstone doctrine of County are the same and therefore the l a w o f t h e c a s e makes t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e L e w i s and C l a r k C o u n t y D i s t r i c t C o u r t , d e n y i n g a m o t i o n f o r c h a n g e b i n d i n g on t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e C o u n t y D i s t r i c t C o u r t . of venue, As Carden authority, defendant ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. S t a t e f i l e d a motion 436, c i t e s t o S t a t e o f Montana v. 555 P . 2 d 738. I n Carden t h e f o r l e a v ~t o f i l e a d i r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n i n D i s t r i c t Court c h a r g i n g d e f e n d a n t Carden w i t h 118 c o u n t s of criminal offenses. months later counts and a the second This judge S t a t e was motion was dismissed granted granted. seventy-five leave t o Several of the f i l e a n amended information covering t h e remaining f o r t y - t h r e e information was filed dismissed thirty-eight conceded the but subsequently of the forty-three dismissal of ten counts counts. third a This judge counts. but The S t a t e appealed the dismissal of t h e remaining twenty-eight. W e provided a s follows: "Under t h e ' l a w o f t h e c a s e ' p r i n c i p l e , judges of coordinate jurisdictions s i t t i n g i n t h e same c o u r t a n d i n t h e same c a s p may n o t o r d i n a r i l y o v e r r u l e t h e It i s simply a decisions o f each other. rule of practice that articulates the s o u n d p o l i c y t h a t when a n i s s u e i s o n e j u d i c i a l l y d e t e r m i n e d , t h a t s h o u l d be t h e e n d o f t h e m a t t e r a s f a r a s j u d g e s and courts of coordinate jurisdiction are concerned. The ' l a w o f t h e c a s e ' i s n o t a n i m p e r a t i v e ; d o e s n o t g o t o t h e power o f t h e c o u r t ; a n d d o e s n o t mean t h a t a court does not have discretion to r e c o n s i d e r a r u l i n g made b y a n o t h e r j u d g e (Citations omitted.) i n t h e same c a s e . " C a r d e n , 1 7 0 Mont. a t 4 4 0 , 555 P.2d a t ?40. S i n c e t h e r e was n o d i s c e r n a b l e r e a s o n why t h e t h i r d j u d g e , his discretion, the two finding decided previous probable t o reconsider t h e determinations of judges, cause in we for held that filing the the prior twenty-eight rulings counts w e r e t h e l a w o f t h e c a s e a n d b i n d i n g on t h e t h i r d j u d g e in t h e same a c t i o n . The q u e s t i o n b e f o r e u s now, r e a s o n f o r J u d g e Holmstrom, p r o p e r venue in i s w h e t h e r t h e r e was good in his discretion, to rule that t h i s action i s i n Y e l l o w s t o n e C o u n t y , when J u d g e Meloy had p r e v i o u s l y r u l e d p r o p e r v e n u e t o h e i n L e w i s and C l a r k County? The parties on appeal have argued at length the q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e c a s e f i l e d i n Lewis and C l a r k C o u n t y i s t h e same a s t h e c a s e f i l e d i n Y e l l o w s t o n e C o u n t y . We agree with appellant t h a t , f o r p u r p o s e s of res j u d i c a t a , i f a j u d g m e n t h a d b e e n r e a c h e d on t h e merits i n t h e L e w i s a n d C l a r k C o u n t y a c t i o n , t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e C o u n t y a c t i o n would h a v e T h i s i s b e c a u s e t h e two c a s e s a r o s e n u t o f t h e been b a r r e d . same a c t , However, t h e m e r i t s o f occurrence o r transaction. t h e c a s e w e r e n o t r e a c h e d i n Lewis and C l a r k County a n d , t h e m e r e f a c t t h a t t h e c a s e s a r e t h e same d o e s noted above, not automatically ruling of preclude one C l a r k County F r i t o - L a y from reconsidering of Labor it given, a I n Lewis and f i l e d a s u i t a g a i n s t Mereness and t h e and Industry. c h a n g e o f v e n u e was d e n i e d . was court a court of coordinate jurisdiction. Department as Mereness's motion for Though n o r e a s o n f o r t h e d e n i a l i s r e a s o n a b l e t o assume, as Judge Holmstrom d i d , t h a t J u d g e Meloy f e l t bound b y s e c t i o n 25-2-105, MCA, t o hold t h a t t h e c a u s e a g a i n s t t h e Department must b e t r i e d i n the County However, not a in it which arose, or Lewis and Clark County. i n t h e Y e l l o w s to n e County a c t i o n , t h e Department i s party and therefore there was no reason Holmstrom t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t s e c t i o n 25-2-105, for Judge MCA, or to c o n s i d e r h i m s e l f bound b y t h e p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n o f t h e L e w i s and C l a r k County D i s t r i c t C o u r t . The p r o b a b l e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e o r i g i n a l v e n u e d e c i s i o n b y J u d g e Meloy d i d n o t e x i s t in the Yellowstone Holmstrom p o i n t s County out, there action. Moreover, as Judge i s a m p l e r e a s o n why t h i s c a s e s h o u l d b e t r i e d i n Y e l l o w s t o n e County. The c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e s a b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t t h a t was t o b e p e r f o r m e d i n Y e l l o w s t o n e County and a County. 25-2-102, t o r t t h a t a l l e g e d l y took place Therefore, MCA, pursuant Yellowstone to County sections is the i n Yellowstone 25-2-101 proper and venue for exercised his t h i s action. We hold that Judge Holmstrom properly d i s c r e t i o n by r e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e venue r u l i n g o f t h e Lewis and C l a r k County D i s t r i c t C o u r t . H i s d e c i s i o n denying a motion f o r a change o f venue i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: u

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.