District Court, D. Montana — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
Blixseth v. Brown
District Court, D. Montana · 2012-03-05 · cited 15×
Timothy Blixseth sued his former attorney Steven Brown, Brown's law firm, and other defendants alleging misconduct by Brown as chair of the Unsecured Creditors Committee in Blixseth's bankruptcy proceedings, including claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and related tort and contract theories. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that the Barton Doctrine required Blixseth to obtain leave from the bankruptcy court before suing bankruptcy-appointed or approved officers for acts taken in their official capacity. The court reasoned that the doctrine centralizes bankruptcy-related litigation in the forum most familiar with the proceedings to avoid inconsistent rulings and collateral attacks on the bankruptcy court's decisions.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall
District Court, D. Montana · 2011-08-03 · cited 4×
The case involved environmental groups challenging a 2008 Fish and Wildlife Service rule that revised management of nonessential experimental gray wolves in the northern Rockies under the Endangered Species Act, easing the standard for states and tribes to remove wolves that impact ungulate populations. After Congress enacted Section 1713 of the 2011 Appropriations Act directing reissuance of a delisting rule, the court dismissed the ESA claims for lack of jurisdiction because they were moot as to wolf populations in Montana and Idaho. On the NEPA claims, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the Service's environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact adequately explained why the rule change would not have significant environmental effects and was not arbitrary or capricious.
environment
ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES v. Salazar
District Court, D. Montana · 2011-08-03 · cited 2×
The case concerned a challenge to Section 1713 of the Department of Defense and Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011, which directed the Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue a 2009 rule delisting the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf population (except in Wyoming) under the Endangered Species Act, despite a prior court order vacating that rule for violating the ESA's requirement to protect species throughout their range. Plaintiffs argued the provision was unconstitutional on separation-of-powers and other grounds. The court upheld the provision, holding that Congress validly exercised its legislative authority to change policy through the rider and that courts are bound to apply enacted statutes regardless of the legislative process used. It further concluded that the provision did not unconstitutionally bar judicial review of constitutional claims.
environmentfederal power
Jackson v. Johnson
District Court, D. Montana · 2011-07-18 · cited 3×
In Jackson v. Johnson, plaintiff Adam Jackson sued Missoula County Deputy Sheriff Jason Johnson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Johnson violated his Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully seizing him and using excessive force when Johnson tasered him during an encounter on a residential street following a car accident in June 2009; Jackson also brought pendent state-law claims. The court granted Deputy Johnson's motion for summary judgment on the unlawful seizure claim, finding that Johnson had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop and was entitled to qualified immunity. The court denied summary judgment on the excessive force claim, however, because disputed issues of material fact existed regarding whether Jackson was compliant, whether Johnson provided adequate warnings, and whether the use of the taser was reasonable under the circumstances. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims after resolving the federal claims.
civil rightscriminal lawprocedure
Great American Assurance Co. v. Discover Property & Casualty Insurance
District Court, D. Montana · 2011-04-26 · cited 9×
This case involves a dispute between two insurance companies, Great American Assurance Company and Discover Property and Casualty Insurance Company, over which policy provides primary coverage for liability arising from a fatal truck accident in Texas involving a driver for Sammons Trucking. Great American sought a declaratory judgment that its non-trucking policy did not apply or was excess to Discover's policies, along with indemnity for settlement payments, while Discover counterclaimed that Great American's policy was primary and sought reimbursement for defense costs. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act and abstained from hearing the case. The core reasoning was that a parallel state case was pending, Montana law on the issues was unsettled, and abstention was appropriate to discourage forum shopping in this state-law governed coverage dispute.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Swan View Coalition v. United States Forest Service
District Court, D. Montana · 2011-03-01 · cited 3×
The case involves plaintiffs challenging the U.S. Forest Service's Amended Record of Decision approving the Moose Post-Fire Project in the Flathead National Forest, alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, and National Environmental Policy Act under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and reconsidered its prior order on a motion to dismiss, concluding that the Forest Service had not amended the Forest Plan as part of the project approval and that the Ninth Circuit's remand required only clarification of the agency's reasoning rather than a plan amendment. The court vacated the part of its earlier order that had interpreted the action as creating a forest-wide standard and found that the plaintiffs' arguments relying on that interpretation were no longer viable. It allowed the plaintiffs seven days to notify the court if they wished to file new summary judgment motions based on the clarified ruling.
environment