Softich v. Baker ( 1976 )


Menu:
  •                               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.           The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d he could
    not.     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 :
    "41-2008.          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 .
    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.                   S e c t i o n 93-401-
    15, R.C.M.        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
    s i t t i n g f o r j u s t i c e Wesley
    @::;'ls.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13385

Filed Date: 11/24/1976

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016