SOFTICH v BAKER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13385 I N THE SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O MONTANA OR F H F 1976 T N SOFTICH, ADMINISTRATOR L B R OY AO STANDARDS DIVISION O T E DEPARTMENT F H O LABOR AND INDUSTRY, F P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, GERALD & BERNICE BAKER, d / b / a JERRY'S VILLAGE I N N , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l District, Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Mayo Ash l e y argued, He lena , Montana For Respondent: Mahan and S t r o p e , Helena, Montana P h i l i p W e S t r o p e argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: October 27, 1976 Decided : NOV 2 4 1978 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The q u e s t i o n i n t h i s c a s e i s whether t h e Administrator of t h e Labor Standards D i v i s i o n of t h e Department of Labor and I n d u s t r y of t h e s t a t e of Montana can sue i n h i s own name t o e n f o r c e t h e bonding requirements of Montana's R e s t a u r a n t , Bar and Tavern Wage P r o t e c t i o n Act. not. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d he could W affirm. e On February 9 , 1976 a complaint was f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Missoula County, t o e n j o i n defendant from engaging i n t h e r e s t a u r a n t and b a r b u s i n e s s a t Bud Lake V i l l a g e i n Missoula County u n t i l defendant posted a bond t o g u a r a n t e e payment of employee wages, pursuant t o s e c t i o n 41-2005, R.C.M. 1947. The named p l a i n - t i f f w a s "Tony S o f t i c h , Administrator Labor Standards D i v i s i o n Department of Labor and Industry". S o f t i c h signed t h e complaint. Subsequently, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t dismissed t h e a c t i o n " f o r t h e reason t h a t p l a i n t i f f i s n o t a p a r t y a u t h o r i z e d t o b r i n g t h e a c t i o n i n h i s own namei1. P l a i n t i f f appeals. The c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e i s s e c t i o n 41-2008, R.C.M. 1947, which provides : L e s s e e ' s b u s i n e s s e n j o i n e d u n t i l bond f i l e d . "41-2008. I f any person engages i n t h e r e s t a u r a n t , b a r o r t a v e r n b u s i n e s s , a s l e s s e e , without having f i r s t f i l e d a bond a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 5 [41-20051 of t h i s a c t , t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l of t h e s t a t e of Montana, t h e commissioner of l a b o r and i n d u s t r y of t h e s t a t e of Montana, o r any c i t i z e n , group of c i t i z e n s o r any a s s o c i a t i o n i n t h e - c o u n t y where t h e v i o l a t o r conducts h i s b u s i n e s s may i n s t i t u t e a n a c t i o n t o e n j o i n such person from engagi*g i n t h e b u s i n e s s u n t i l compliance w i t h t h i s a c t has been met." I n determining t h e meaning of a s t a t u t e , t h e i n t e n t of t h e legislature is controlling. S e c t i o n 93-401-16, R.C.M. 1947. Such i n t e n t s h a l l f i r s t be determined from t h e p l a i n meaning of t h e words used, i f p o s s i b l e , and i f t h e i n t e n t can be s o determined, t h e c o u r t s may n o t go f u r t h e r and apply any o t h e r m a n s of i n t e r pretation. K e l l e r v. Smith, Mon t . , 553 P.2d 1002, 33 St.Rep. 828; Dunphy v . Anaconda Co., 151 Mont. 76, 438 P.2d 660, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . The p l a i n meaning of t h e words used i n t h e s t a t u t e g r a n t t h e r i g h t t o i n s t i t u t e t h i s a c t i o n t o (1) t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l , (2) t h e Commissioner of Labor and I n d u s t r y , and (3) any c i t i z e n , group, o r a s s o c i a t i o n i n t h e county where t h e v i o l a t o r conducts h i s business. The a d m i n i s t r a t o r of t h e Labor Standards D i v i s i o n of t h e Department of Labor and I n d u s t r y i s none of t h e s e . I n construing a s t a t u t e , c o u r t s cannot i n s e r t what has been omitted. 15, R.C.M. S e c t i o n 93-401- 1947. W have examined t h e o t h e r arguments and a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d e by p l a i n t i f f and f i n d t h a t none would change t h e r e s u l t h e r e . The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . Justice @::;'ls. s i t t i n g f o r j u s t i c e Wesley -

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.