Ward v. Energy West
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
06/13/2017 DA 16-0520 Case Number: DA 16-0520 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2017 MT 146N DEAN WARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ENERGY WEST, INC., and DOES 1-4, Defendants and Appellees. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. DDV 13-200(c) Honorable John A. Kutzman, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: John E. Seidlitz, Jr., Seidlitz Law Office, Great Falls, Montana For Appellees: Oliver H. Goe, Kimberly A. Beatty, Christy S. McCann, Browning, Kalecyzc, Berry & Hoven, P.C., Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: April 26, 2017 Decided: June 13, 2017 Filed: __________________________________________ Clerk Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 Dean Ward asserted several employment-related claims against Energy West Inc. Following our remand in Ward v. Energy West, Inc., 2015 MT 234N, No. DA 14-0463, 2015 Mont. LEXIS 428, the District Court denied Ward’s motion to amend his complaint and granted Energy West’s motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Ward contends that the District Court abused its discretion in denying him leave to amend his complaint and that it incorrectly dismissed the case under forum non conveniens. ¶3 This appeal concerns substantially similar facts and issues as Harrington v. Energy West, Inc., 2017 MT 141, ___ Mont. ___, 356 P.3d ___. As in that case, we conclude here that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ward’s motion to amend his complaint nor in granting Energy West’s motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. ¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the 2 Court, Harrington resolves the issues on appeal. The District Court’s order denying Ward’s motion to amend and granting Energy West’s motion to dismiss based is affirmed. /S/ BETH BAKER We Concur: /S/ MIKE McGRATH /S/ LAURIE McKINNON /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA 3
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.
