Kaltschmidt v. Shannon

04/28/2020
DA 19-0306
Case Number: DA 19-0306
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2020 MT 105N
DONALD W. KALTSCHMIDT, JR.,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
LARON D. SHANNON,
Defendant and Appellant,
LARON D. SHANNON,
Counter-Claimant,
v.
DONALD W. KALTSCHMIDT, JR; OILFIELD WARRIORS, LLC;
and JOHN DOES 2-10,
Counter-Defendants and Appellees.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV 14-742(B)
Honorable Robert B. Allison, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Laron D. Shannon, Self-represented, Lynchburg, Virginia
For Appellees:
Cory R. Laird, Seamus M. Molloy, Reep, Bell, Laird & Jasper, P.C.,
Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 1, 2020
Decided: April 28, 2020
Filed:
cir-641.—if
__________________________________________
Clerk
2
Justice Jim Rice 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 Laron D. Shannon (Shannon) appeals from the judgment entered against him upon
a jury verdict that found him liable to Donald W. Kaltschmidt, Jr., (Kaltschmidt) for fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty, in the
Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. Shannon challenges evidentiary rulings
by the District Court and procedural rulings that led ultimately to the completion of the
trial after Shannon’s departure from the courtroom.
¶3 Kaltschmidt is a former U.S. Marine and the owner of a car dealership in Whitefish.
He is active in the support of veterans’ causes. Initially, Shannon, dressed in Marine Corps
clothing, contacted Kaltschmidt at his dealership, represented to Kaltschmidt that he was a
former Marine Corps officer and active in Marine Corps-related organizations, and
solicited financial support from Kaltschmidt for Toys for Tots, a charity sponsored by the
Marine Corps. In subsequent visits, Shannon, again clad in Marine clothing, sought
Kaltschmidt’s investment in a startup business venture designed to help veterans by hiring
them to clean oil rigs in the Bakken Oilfields. Shannon provided a written business plan
to Kaltschmidt. Relying on Shannon’s representations, including that Shannon was a
3
former Marine, Kaltschmidt invested $250,000 in the enterprise, to be named Oilfield
Warriors, LLC (the Company) in exchange for a 25% share in the Company.
Unfortunately, within months, Kaltschmidt’s investment was largely dissipated, no
revenue had been generated by the Company, employees had filed complaints against the
Company, and, disconcerting to Kaltschmidt, he had received reports that Shannon was not
a former Marine. After obtaining confirmation that Shannon had not served in the U.S.
Marine Corps, Kaltschmidt initiated this proceeding in 2014.
¶4 During the course of the litigation, five scheduling orders were issued by the District
Court. Shannon requested and received multiple continuances, often for purported medical
problems he and his family were experiencing, and for substitution of the three separate
attorneys who represented Shannon during the proceeding. Trial was set for November
2015, January 2016, April 2016, September 2017, April 2018, and September 2018. After
the District Court cautioned Shannon that no further delays would be tolerated and trial
would commence on Monday, September 10, 2018, Shannon filed a bankruptcy petition in
Virginia the Friday before trial was to begin, resulting in another postponement by virtue
of the statutory bankruptcy stay. Kaltschmidt then sought and obtained relief from the
automatic stay in the Virginia bankruptcy court, and trial in the District Court was
rescheduled for April 2019.
¶5 Shortly before trial was to begin, Shannon produced over 300 pages of documents
in support of his claim that he had served in the U.S. Marine Corps. Kaltschmidt had
requested production of Shannon’s military records in September 2014, almost five years
4
earlier, but Shannon had theretofore failed to produce the records. Kaltschmidt moved in
limine for exclusion of the documents as untimely produced, and the District Court granted
the motion.
¶6 Shannon represented himself at trial. Mid-way through the first day of trial, and
after cross-examining Kaltschmidt, Shannon advised the District Court that he believed he
was experiencing a medical emergency, and asked for an ambulance to be called. After
initial evaluation by paramedics outside the presence of the jury, Shannon requested that
he be taken to the hospital for further evaluation. Although the District Court advised
Shannon the trial would continue in his absence, Shannon elected to be taken to the hospital
and did not return for the remaining trial proceeding.1 The trial continued for two days,
and the jury found Shannon liable to Kaltschmidt for fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
constructive fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty, awarding $224,000 in compensatory
damages and determining that punitive damages should be awarded. After further
proceedings and deliberations, the jury returned a punitive damage award of $1.5 million.
¶7 On appeal, Shannon argues the District Court erred by excluding the documents he
produced in support of his claim of military service, stating he outlined “the myriad of
reasons why I was only then submitting [the] Marine & Veteran service records” shortly
before trial. Although Shannon argues this is an issue of law reviewed de novo, “the
authority to grant or deny a motion in limine ‘rests in the inherent power of the district
1
A court minute entry for April 30, 2019, indicates, “[t]he Court states the defendant has
established a history in delaying the proceedings due to health reasons and the Court has well
informed the defendant that the case will proceed with or without him.”
5
court to admit or exclude evidence so as to ensure a fair trial. Where a decision on a motion
in limine involves the exercise of discretion, this Court will not overturn the district court
absent an abuse of discretion.’” State v. Hudon, 2019 MT 31, ¶ 16, 394 Mont. 226, 434
P.3d 273 (citing Folsom v. City of Livingston, 2016 MT 238, ¶ 11, 385 Mont. 20, 381 P.3d
539) (internal citation omitted). We conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion
in granting the motion in limine and excluding Shannon’s documents.2
¶8 Shannon sought dismissal of the proceeding in the District Court on the ground that
the District Court’s February 17, 2015 Scheduling Order violated Uniform District Court
Rule 10. Shannon argues that, because 21 days had not yet elapsed following issuance of
notice by Kaltschmidt’s counsel that Shannon must either obtain new counsel or appear in
person, the Scheduling Order was invalidly entered and the case should be dismissed. The
District Court denied the motion, reasoning that Shannon had received actual notice, had
appeared personally at the scheduling conference and represented himself without
objection, and, in any event, the issue was moot because the Scheduling Order was
subsequently superseded by four amended scheduling orders. We conclude the District
Court committed no error in denying Shannon’s motion.
¶9 Shannon challenges the District Court’s handling of the trial, including completing
the trial in his absence instead of granting a continuance, as violations of the ADA and due
2
Shannon’s briefing also challenges the District Court’s sidebar admonishments during the trial
that Shannon remove his pill bottles from counsel table and that he refrain from telling the jury
that he suffered from Parkinson’s Disease. Shannon styles these as violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and cites them in his judicial bias argument, but they are trial rulings
for which we conclude there was no abuse of discretion.
6
process. However, after review of the record, we conclude the District Court exercised
considerable patience with Shannon, accommodating multiple requests for extensions of
time and granting leeway in light of his pro se status. After the passage of years, and upon
commencement of the long-awaited trial, there was little more the District Court could do,
in light of Kaltschmidt’s right to a trial, but finish the matter after providing clear notice to
Shannon it would do so. We conclude there was no abuse of discretion or violation of law
in doing so.
¶10 Lastly, Shannon makes an unsupported claim titled “Unbiased tribunal,” arguing
“[i]t is not clear if I had an unbiased tribunal as Judge Allison’s words and actions can be
viewed as affinity for [Kaltschmidt] and disdain for myself.” However, Shannon made no
objection or effort to disqualify the District Court for cause, and the unsupported, unsworn
assertions made here are insufficient to do so. See § 3-1-805, MCA. The record
indisputably demonstrates the District Court’s unbiased handling of the entire matter, and
Shannon’s claim is rejected as frivolous.
¶11 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our
Internal Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions. The
issues in this case are legal and are controlled by settled Montana law, which the District
Court correctly interpreted, and by clear application of applicable standards of review. The
District Court did not abuse its discretion by entering the rulings challenged on appeal.
¶12 Affirmed.
/S/ JIM RICE
7
We concur:
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
8