STATE EX REL DEPT HEALTH v LIVIN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13125 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1976 OTN STATE OF M N A A ex r e l . Department o f H e a l t h and Environmental S c i e n c e s , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , CITY OF LIVINGSTON, County o f Park, S t a t e of Montana, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable J a c k D. Shans trom, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For Appellant : Richard D. K l i n g e r a r g u e d , Helena, Montana A. Michael S a l v a g n i a p p e a r e d , Helena, Montana F o r Respondent : R o b e r t L. J o v i c k a r g u e d , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana Submitted : F e b r u a r y 2 , 1976 Decided : Filed: ij.'t -: *LJ?~ 4p)i. 1 1976 - Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . The S t a t e o f Montana f i l e d a c i v i l a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e C i t y o f L i v i n g s t o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , P a r k County, s e e k i n g r e c o v e r y of a monetary p e n a l t y and a compliance o r d e r from t h e c o u r t f o r a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s o f Montana's Water P o l l u t i o n A c t , T i t l e 69, C h a p t e r 48, R.C.M. 1947. The C i t y moved t o d i s m i s s t h e complaint f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d summary judgment i n f a v o r of t h e C i t y . The S t a t e a p p e a l s . According t o t h e c o m p l a i n t , t h e S t a t e Department o f H e a l t h and Environmental S c i e n c e s (Department) i s s u e d t h e C i t y a p e r m i t on November 21, 1973, which a u t h o r i z e d a l i m i t e d d i s c h a r g e of l i q u i d wastes from t h e C i t y ' s sewage t r e a t m e n t p l a n t i n t o t h e Yellowstone R i v e r . "Special conditions" of t h e permit r e q u i r e d t h e C i t y t o immediately n o t i f y t h e Department and t h e f e d e r a l Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency (EPA) o f any a c c i d e n t a l o r unplanned d i s c h a r g e o r d i v e r s i o n o f wastes which would t e n d t o v i o l a t e t h e c o n d i t i o n s of t h e p e r m i t . The c o m p l a i n t f u r t h e r a l l e g e s t h a t on o r a b o u t September 6 , 1974, r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e Department and t h e EPA o b s e r v e d a b y p a s s o f raw sewage from t h e C i t y ' s sewage t r e a t m e n t p l a n t i n t o t h e Yellowstone R i v e r . The C i t y d i d n o t n o t i f y t h e Department o r t h e EPA a s r e q u i r e d by i t s p e r m i t . The c o m p l a i n t s t a t e s t h e Department i s s u e d a compliance o r d e r which it s e r v e d on t h e c i t y c l e r k o f L i v i n g s t o n . The com- p l i a n c e o r d e r was i s s u e d p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 6 9 - 4 8 2 0 . 1 ( 2 ) , R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , and o r d e r e d t h e C i t y t o submit t o t h e Department w i t h i n f i f t e e n days an eight-point r e p o r t r e l a t i n g t o t h e cause of t h e bypass and t h e c o r r e c t i v e and p r e v e n t i v e measures t a k e n by t h e City. The C i t y f a i l e d t o respond t o t h e compliance o r d e r . The c o m p l a i n t a s s e r t e d two v i o l a t i o n s o f Montana's Water P o l l u t i o n A c t by t h e C i t y : (1) f a i l u r e t o immediately n o t i f y t h e Department and t h e EPA o f t h e sewage b y p a s s i n v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 6 9 - 4 8 0 6 ( 3 ) , R.C.M. 1947, and ( 2 ) f a i l u r e t o r e p l y t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s compliance o r d e r i n v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 694 8 2 0 . 1 ( 2 ) , R.C.M. 1947. The c o m p l a i n t s e e k s a c i v i l p e n a l t y of $3,000 and a c o u r t o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h e C i t y t o m a i n t a i n f u l l compliance w i t h a l l t e r m s and c o n d i t i o n s of i t s p e r m i t . The C i t y f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m on which r e l i e f c a n be g r a n t e d . motion was s u b m i t t e d f o r d e c i s i o n on b r i e f s . The The d i s t r i c t c o u r t entered an order s t a t i n g i n pertinent p a r t : " * * * it a p p e a r i n g t o t h e C o u r t t h a t t h e Complaint f a i l s t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon which r e l i e f c a n b e g r a n t e d and t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e as t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t ; "IT I S HEREBY ORDERED t h a t Judgment be e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f Defendant, C i t y of L i v i n g s t o n * * *." The S t a t e a p p e a l s . The u l t i m a t e i s s u e on a p p e a l i s whether summary judgment was p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d . T h i s t u r n s on two u n d e r l y i n g q u e s t i o n s : (1) Does t h e c o m p l a i n t s t a t e a c l a i m on which r e l i e f c a n be granted? ( 2 ) Can summary judgment be g r a n t e d on a motion t o d i s - m i s s t h e complaint f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a claim? I n i t s f i r s t claim f o r r e l i e f , t h e S t a t e a l l e g e s t h a t a g e n t s o f t h e Department and t h e EPA o b s e r v e d t h e b y p a s s of r a w sewage from t h e C i t y ' s sewage t r e a t m e n t p l a n t i n t o t h e Yellowstone R i v e r and t h a t t h e C i t y d i d n o t " i m m e d i a t e l y n o t i f y " t h e Department and t h e EPA o f such b y p a s s a s r e q u i r e d by i t s p e r m i t . Assum- ing t h a t these allegations a r e true, is the State e n t i t l e d t o relief? W t h i n k n o t , and s o h o l d . e n o t i c e o f t h e bypass. The Department had a c t u a l Telephone o r w r i t t e n n o t i c e by t h e C i t y under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s would have been a u s e l e s s g e s t u r e . S e c t i o n 49-124, R.C.M. 1947, s t a t e s : "The law n e i t h e r d o e s nor r e q u i r e s i d l e a c t s . " N c l a i m f o r r e l i e f on t h i s b a s i s i s s t a t e d . o I n i t s second c l a i m f o r r e l i e f , t h e S t a t e a l l e g e s i s s u a n c e of a n a p p r o p r i a t e compliance o r d e r i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n 6 9 - 4 8 2 0 . 1 ( 2 ) , R.C.M. 1947; p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e t h e r e o f on t h e c i t y c l e r k of L i v i n g s t o n p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 6 9 - 4 8 2 0 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. 1947; and f a i l u r e of t h e C i t y t o r e p l y t h e r e t o w i t h i n f i f t e e n d a y s a s r e q u i r e d by t h e compliance o r d e r . The C i t y c o n t e n d s t h e s e r v i c e o f t h e compliance o r d e r was d e f e c t i v e i n t h a t p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e on t h e C i t y c o u l d o n l y be accomplished by p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e on t h e Mayor under p r i n c i p l e s of common l a w and Rule 4 , M.R.Civ.P. I n o u r view, t h e c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e d o e s n o t r e q u i r e s e r v i c e on t h e mayor. S e r v i c e may be made on any a g e n t o f t h e C i t y , e i t h e r p e r s o n a l l y o r by m a i l a s s t a t e d i n s e c t i o n 6 9 - 4 8 2 0 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. 1947: "When t h e d e p a r t m e n t h a s r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t a v i o l a t i o n of t h i s c h a p t e r o r a r u l e made under it h a s o c c u r r e d , it may have w r i t t e n n o t i c e s e r v e d p e r s o n a l l y o r by m a i l on t h e a l l e g e d v i o l a t o r o r h i s aqent. The n o t i c e s h a l l s t a t e t h e p r o v i s i o n a l l e g e d t o be v i o l a t e d , t h e f a c t s a l l e g e d t o cons t i t u t e t h e v i o l a t i o n , t h e n a t u r e of c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n which t h e d e p a r t m e n t r e q u i r e s , and t h e t i m e w i t h i n which t h e a c t i o n i s t o be t a k e n . For t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s c h a p t e r , s e r v i c e by m a i l i s comp l e t e on t h e d a t e o f m a i l i n g . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) The e x p r e s s p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s s p e c i a l s t a t u t e r e l a t i n g t o s e r v i c e under t h e Montana Water P o l l u t i o n A c t c o n t r o l o v e r g e n e r a l s t a t u t e s r e l a t i n g t o s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s i n a c i v i l a c t i o n upon a m u n i c i p a l i t y under Rule 4 , M.R.Civ.P., t o t h e e x t e n t o f any i n c o n s i s t e n c y . Teamsters e t a l . v . Montana Liquor C o n t r o l Board, 155 Mont. 300, 421 P.2d 541; I n r e S t e v e n s o n ' s E s t a t e , 87 Mont. 486, 289 P. 566. The same c a n be s a i d o f s t a t u t o r y e n a c t m e n t s v i s - a - v i s inconsistent common law p r i n c i p l e s . W e t h e r e f o r e h o l d t h a t s e r v i c e of t h e compliance o r d e r on t h e C i t y was l e g a l l y made, and a c l a i m f o r r e l i e f a g a i n s t t h e C i t y f o r v i o l a t i o n t h e r e o f was s t a t e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t . The second i s s u e c o n c e r n s whether e n t r y of summary judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e C i t y was c o r r e c t . Here summary judgment was based on t h e c o m p l a i n t a l o n e . Nothing o u t s i d e t h e b a r e a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e c o m p l a i n t was b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t court. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t t r e a t e d t h e C i t y ' s motion t o d i s m i s s under Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , M.R.Civ.P., a s a motion f o r summary judg- ment under Rule 5 6 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P., the State. without n o t i c e thereof t o T h i s was e r r o r . The t r e a t m e n t of a motion t o d i s m i s s a s a motion f o r summary judgment i s governed by Rule 1 2 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., which provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " * * * I f , on a motion a s s e r t i n g t h e d e f e n s e numbered ( 6 ) t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e of t h e p l e a d i n g t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon which r e l i e f c a n be g r a n t e d , m a t t e r s o u t s i d e t h e p l e a d i n g s a r e p r e s e n t e d t o and n o t excluded by t h e c o u r t , t h e motion s h a l l be t r e a t e d a s o n e f o r summary judgment and d i s p o s e d of a s p r o v i d e d i n Rule 56, and a l l p a r t i e s s h a l l be q i v e n r e a s o n a b l e opport u n i t y t o p r e s e n t a l l m a t e r i a l made p e r t i n e n t t o s u c h motion by Rule 56. " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) Here, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t r e a t e d t h e C i t y ' s motion t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m a s a motion f o r summary judgment w i t h o u t n o t i c e and w i t h o u t a f f o r d i n g t h e S t a t e a r e a s o n a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o oppose it. The S t a t e was n o t " g i v e n r e a s o n - a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t a l l m a t e r i a l p e r t i n e n t t o s u c h motion by Rule 56" a s r e q u i r e d by Rule 1 2 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. The r a t i o n a l e s u p p o r t i n g t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t h a s been s t a t e d i n t h i s l a n g u a g e : " A s soon a s a motion t o d i s m i s s under Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) i s c o n v e r t e d i n t o a motion f o r summary judgment, t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f Rule 56 become o p e r a b l e . It is i m p o r t a n t t h a t t h e c o u r t g i v e t h e p a r t i e s n o t i c e of t h e changed s t a t u s o f t h e motion and a ' r e a s o n a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t a l l m a t e r i a l made p e r t i n e n t t o s u c h motion by Rule 5 6 . ' I n t h i s way no one w i l l be t a k e n by s u r p r i s e by t h e c o n v e r s i o n . Once t h e p r o c e e d i n g becomes one f o r summary judgment, t h e moving p a r t y ' s burden changes and he i s o b l i g e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s no g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t he i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a m a t t e r o f l a w . " 5 Wright & Miller, F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e & P r o c e d u r e : C i v i l § 1366, p. 683. T h i s i d e n t i c a l r a t i o n a l e i s e x p r e s s e d i n t h e a d v i s o r y committee n o t e s t o t h e 1 9 4 8 amendment t o F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 1 2 ( b ) , from which Montana ' s r u l e i s modeled. Thus it was e r r o r f o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o g r a n t summary judgment t o t h e C i t y w i t h o u t a f f o r d i n g t h e S t a t e n o t i c e and a r e a s o n a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o be heard. W e v a c a t e t h e summary judgment h e r e i n and remand t h i s c a s e t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. Justice ' Justices

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.