Boston v. Bitterroot International Systems8/23/2005
Submitted on Briefs: July 14, 2004
Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. It 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 non-citable cases issued by this Court.
Bitterroot International Systems, Inc., a Montana corporation, and Bitterroot International Systems, Ltd., and Sea Trucking, Inc., Canadian and Wyoming corporate subsidiaries, respectively, of Bitterroot International Systems, Inc. (collectively, BIS or the Appellants), appeal from the deemed denial of their motion, filed following a jury trial in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, to re-determine the damages which the District Court awarded to the Plaintiff. Terry Boston (Boston) cross-appeals, challenging the District Court's denial of his motion for summary judgment on his claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). We affirm.
We address the following issues on appeal:
1. Did the District Court err in allowing BIS's post-trial motion for re-determination of damages to be deemed denied pursuant to Rule 59(d), M.R.Civ.P.?
2. Did the District Court err in denying Boston's motion for partial summary judgment?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
BIS is a trucking company; it generates revenue by moving freight. BIS hired Boston as a weekend dispatcher in 1998. On November 1, 1999, it promoted Boston to the position of load planner.
In the fall of 2000, Boston suffered a shoulder injury which required in-patient surgical repair. He was absent from work for several weeks longer than his physicians had originally anticipated, and during this period was unable to perform his job. On January 26, 2001, Boston informed BIS that he would be returning to work on January 29, 2001. When he reported to work that day, he was notified that his position had been eliminated and that he was being laid off.
Boston sued BIS for violations of FLSA and of several other statutes, including the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq., and Montana's Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (WDEA), §§ 39-2-901 et seq., MCA. Prior to trial, Boston sought summary judgment on his FLSA claim, arguing that his employment as a load planner qualified for neither the executive nor administrative exemption from the overtime-pay requirements of the Act, as BIS had asserted. The District Court denied his motion by order entered September 11, 2002.
A jury trial was conducted from April 4 to April 8, 2003, and the jury returned a verdict awarding Boston $225,000 on his FMLA claim and $98,700 on his WDEA claim.
The jury held in BIS's favor on Boston's FLSA claim. The District Court entered judgment on the verdict on April 13, 2003.
On May 9, 2003, BIS filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, for new trial and for redetermination of damages with the District Court. The motion sought entry of judgment as a matter of law on three different bases, a new trial on four bases, or, alternatively, for the District Court to "exercis its equitable powers to re-determine the front-pay award[.]" BIS filed the supporting brief for all these motions on May 19, 2003.
The District Court did not rule on this motion. Accordingly, the motion was deemed denied pursuant to Rule 59(d) of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rule 50(b), M.R.Civ.P. (" otions provided by this
Page 1 2 3 Montana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|