Motta v. Philipsburg School Distric

No. 04-297
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2004 MT 386N
RICHARD MOTTA,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
PHILIPSBURG SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEES,
DISTRICT #1, CHARLIE GOFF, MARIE CONN,
ED DALLASERRA, TOM HOOD, WARREN ANDERS,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Third Judicial District,
In and For the County of Granite, Cause No. DV 2001-07,
Honorable Ted L. Mizner, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Richard A. Motta, Pro Se, Philipsburg, Montana
For Respondents:
Blaine C. Bradshaw, County Attorney, Philipsburg, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: October 14, 2004
Decided: December 28, 2004
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Richard A. Motta appeals from the District Court’s order denying his request to void
the 21st Century Community Learning Center grant (Grant) application.
¶2 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(i), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules (Memorandum Opinions), we determine that settled Montana law clearly
controls the legal issues raised in this appeal. Further, pursuant to Section I, Paragraph
3(d)(v), the following decision shall not be cited as precedent but shall be filed as a public
document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title, Supreme
Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to West Group
in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court.
BACKGROUND
¶3 Many of the facts of this case are the same as those in Motta v. Philipsburg Sch. Bd.
Trustees Dist. #1, 2004 MT 256, 323 Mont. 72, 98 P.3d 673. In addition to the facts recited
there, the Philipsburg School Board of Trustees specifically gave the district superintendent,
Dr. David Lee, authority to apply for the Grant.
¶4 Generally, Lee gave the teachers at the school the opportunity to write the grant
application that Lee, then, submits to the United States Department of Education, but the
controversy Motta created that surrounded the Goals 2000 Grant dissuaded teachers from
writing the grant application. Lacking an application, Lee could not and did not apply for
the Grant. The District Court concluded the lawsuit to void a grant for which Lee never
applied is frivolous and decided to sanction Motta. We affirm.
2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5 The decision to grant summary judgment is a matter of law that we review de novo.
If the non-moving party fails to provide substantial evidence raising a genuine issue of
material fact, the District Court must decide whether the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. This Court reviews that decision “to determine whether the District Court
erred.” Motta I, ¶ 11.
DISCUSSION
¶6 Motta appeals from the District Court’s refusal to void a grant for which Lee never
applied. We agree that this lawsuit is frivolous. We affirm the District Court’s dismissal and
affirm the District Court’s sanctions against Motta.
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
We concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ JIM RICE
3