Ward v. Energy West , 2015 MT 234N ( 2015 )

August 11 2015
DA 14-0463
Case Number: DA 14-0463
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2015 MT 234N
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
Honorable Dirk M. Sandefur, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
John E. Seidlitz, Jr., Seidlitz Law Office, Great Falls, Montana
For Appellee:
Oliver H. Goe, Kimberly A. Beatty, Christy S. McCann, Browning,
Kaleczyc, Berry & Hoven, P.C., Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: June 10, 2015
Decided: August 11, 2015
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), 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 Between January and October 2012, Dean Ward was employed as a chief
information officer. The parties dispute whether Ward was employed by Energy West,
Inc., or by Energy West’s parent company, Gas Natural, Inc. Ward worked primarily in
Ohio and, after his employment was terminated, he applied for and received
unemployment benefits from that state. Ward then filed suit against Energy West in
Montana’s Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, alleging wrongful discharge
in violation of § 39-2-901, MCA, of the Montana Wrongful Discharge from Employment
Act (WDEA), and negligent infliction of emotional distress. On Energy West’s motion,
the District Court, after determining that Ohio law governs Ward’s claims, dismissed
Ward’s action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Ward appeals the dismissal.
¶3 This appeal concerns substantially similar facts and issues as Harrington v. Energy
West, Inc., 2015 MT 233, ___ Mont. ___, ___ P.3d ___. As in that case, we conclude
here that, under § 28-3-102, MCA, Ohio law governs Ward’s WDEA claim. However,
this conclusion does not deprive the District Court of subject-matter jurisdiction. We thus
2
vacate the District Court’s dismissal and remand for further proceedings to determine
whether dismissal is appropriate under the doctrine of 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 Court, Harrington resolves the issues on appeal. The District Court’s order of
dismissal is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
/S/ BETH BAKER
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ JIM RICE
3