Ross v. Johnson ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                             06/27/2017
    DA 16-0704
    Case Number: DA 16-0704
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    
    2017 MT 159N
    CHERIE ROSS,
    Plaintiff and Appellant,
    v.
    THANE JOHNSON and JOHNSON, BERG,
    McEVOY & BOSTOCK, PLLP,
    Defendants and Appellees.
    APPEAL FROM:            District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV-12-380D
    Honorable David M. Ortley, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Mark D. Parker, Geoffrey T. Cunningham, Parker, Heitz
    & Cosgrove, PLLC, Billings, Montana
    For Appellees:
    Mikel L. Moore, Katie Matic, Moore, Cockrell, Goicoechea
    & Axelberg, PC, Kalispell, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: May 24, 2017
    Decided: June 27, 2017
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Chief Justice Mike McGrath 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     Cherie Ross appeals from the District Court’s Order dismissing her case based on
    Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Sanctions. We affirm.
    ¶3     In 2008 Ross defaulted on a purchase money mortgage covering a parcel of
    commercial property in Whitefish, Montana. The seller foreclosed in 2010 and recovered
    the property along with a deficiency judgment against Ross. She did not pay and the seller
    pursued collection actions against her in several states. In February 2012 Ross brought an
    action against her attorneys seeking to recover the amount of the deficiency judgment plus
    additional damages. In September 2012 the attorneys’ professional liability insurer paid
    $527,000 to the seller and settled the seller’s claims against Ross. Ross continues to seek
    recovery against her former attorneys for her personal damages.
    ¶4     The defendants sought discovery from Ross concerning her claim to damages. After
    extended efforts to obtain information from Ross, the defendants moved for an order
    compelling discovery and eventually sought sanctions against her. In December of 2015,
    the District Court entered an order compelling Ross to comply with discovery. The District
    Court specified a long list of basic information that Ross must produce, and specifically
    2
    warned her that sanctions including dismissal of the case could be imposed if she failed to
    comply with the order. After further inadequate discovery responses from Ross, the
    defendants renewed their motion for sanctions. The District Court held a hearing and on
    September 23, 2016, entered an order dismissing the complaint as a sanction based upon
    Ross’ failure to comply with discovery and with the Court’s order.
    ¶5     This Court reviews a district court order imposing sanctions to determine whether
    the district court abused its discretion, and we will defer to the district court decision unless
    it acted arbitrarily and without employing conscientious judgment, or exceeded the bounds
    of reason. Spotted Horse v. BNSF Ry. Co., 
    2015 MT 148
    , ¶ 15, 
    379 Mont. 314
    , 
    350 P.3d 52
    . Here the District Court warned Ross of the potential consequences of her failure to
    comply with discovery. The District Court held a hearing on the discovery issues and
    issued extensive findings of fact concerning discovery abuse by Ross, concluding that she
    acted willfully and in bad faith, and that her conduct was an attempt to conduct a “trial by
    ambush” to the detriment of the defendants.
    ¶6     The District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Ross’ complaint and
    imposing an award of attorney fees against her.
    ¶7     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, the District Court’s order was not an abuse of discretion.
    ¶8     Affirmed.
    /S/ MIKE McGRATH
    3
    We Concur:
    /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
    /S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
    /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
    /S/ JIM RICE
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-0704

Filed Date: 6/27/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/27/2017