 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hanson v. Dix9/21/2004
Submitted on Briefs: March 9, 2004
Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. The decision 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.
Plaintiff, Loren Hansen, appeals from the order of the District Court granting defendant Carl Dix's motion for summary judgment and awarding Dix his attorney's fees. We affirm.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P. The standard of review of a district court's grant of summary judgment is de novo . Stuart v. First Security Bank , 2000 MT 309, 16, 302 Mont. 431, 16, 15 P.3d 1198, 16. The moving party has the burden of proving absence of issues of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Stuart , 16. Once that burden is met, the opposing party must present substantive evidence, beyond conclusory or speculative statements, in order to raise genuine issues of material fact. Stuart , 16.
Hanson alleged that Defendant Dix grabbed his genitals and made a lewd comment to him while he was on duty at the Roosevelt Hotel on February 24, 1999. Dix had owned the hotel until January 12, 1998, when he sold the hotel to John Maag under a contract for deed. At the time of the incident, John Maag was owner and manager of the Roosevelt Hotel and Hanson was Maag's employee. The day after the incident, Hanson's domestic partner phoned Maag to discuss what had happened. Later that day, Maag phoned Hanson and fired him.
Hanson filed a complaint for wrongful discharge against Maag and the Roosevelt Hotel with the Department of Labor and Industry in March 1999. Maag died in July 2000. Ownership of the hotel reverted back to Dix when Maag's heirs, his parents, surrendered the property to Dix under the default provisions of the contract for deed. The Department granted Hanson leave to amend the wrongful discharge complaint to substitute Dix and the Estate of John Maag as defendants. The Department then dismissed the complaint because the substitution came more than twelve months after the complaint was filed.
Hanson subsequently filed a complaint against Dix in the Seventh Judicial District Court, Valley County, alleging wrongful discharge pursuant to § 39-2-904, MCA, and discrimination in employment pursuant to § 49-2-301, MCA. Dix moved for summary judgment on grounds that Dix was never Hanson's employer and therefore could not have discharged Hanson, wrongfully or otherwise. The District Court granted the motion and dismissed both counts of the complaint because Hanson failed to establish an employment relationship between himself and Dix.
On appeal, Hanson makes three arguments. First, he argues that "as a continuing equitable owner and then as the successor in interest of the Roosevelt Hotel, Carl Dix is liable for damages stemming from violations of the Montana Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act and of the Montana Human Rights Act." As a part of this claim, Hanson argues that Dix is liable because he was the real party in interest. Second, Hanson argues that Dix' summary judgment motion only addressed the wrongful discharge claim and not the discrimina
Page 1 2 3 Montana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|