Opinion
DA 16-0502
05-02-2017
FRANK R. WALL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Patent Lode Mining Claims HR-133 and HR-134, the Johnstone Placer Claim and Old Judge Lode, Ceader Lode, and Upper Cut Lode MINERAL PATENT MINING CLAIMS in Lincoln and Sanders County, MINES MANAGEMENT, INC., NEWHI, INC., MONTANORE MINERALS CORPORATION, and All Other Persons, Unknown, Claiming or Who Might Claim Any Right, Title, Estate or Interest in or Lien or Encumbrance the Montanore Project and Patented Placer and Lode Mining Claims Described Above or any Cloud Upon Title Thereto, Whether Such Claim or Possible Claim be Present or Contingent, Including "Siting Areas," Defendants and Appellees.
COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Frank R. Wall (Self-Represented), Athol, Idaho For Appellees: Mark L. Stermitz, Matthew A. Baldassin, Crowley Fleck PLLP, Missoula, Montana
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Lincoln, Cause No. DV 14-140 Honorable James B. Wheelis, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Frank R. Wall (Self-Represented), Athol, Idaho For Appellees: Mark L. Stermitz, Matthew A. Baldassin, Crowley Fleck PLLP, Missoula, Montana Filed: /s/_________
Clerk Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 Frank R. Wall appeals from the District Court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendants, dated August 12, 2016. We affirm. ¶3 The District Court reviewed the history of Wall's litigation concerning mining claims in Lincoln County, Montana, including litigation that concluded with this Court's decision in Mines Management, Inc. v. Fus, 2014 MT 256, 376 Mont. 375, 334 P.3d 929, in which Wall was a defendant. The District Court determined that Wall's complaint should be dismissed under M. R. Civ. P. 13(a) because it "simply reiterates facts or theories that are, or should have been, at issue in the Fus case." The District Court also determined that Wall's complaint should be dismissed under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because if fails to state a basis upon which relief can be granted, particularly the claims for malpractice, ineffective representation of counsel, defamation, interference with prospective economic advantage, and punitive damages. The District Court also determined that Wall's complaint should be dismissed under M. R. Civ. P. 11 because his claims are not well grounded in fact and are not warranted by law. The District Court deferred consideration of whether Wall should be declared a vexatious litigant based upon his "numerous incoherent and frivolous" filings that have been found to be "duplicitous and harassing," and in which he persists, despite having been admonished as to his obligations as a litigant. ¶4 Based upon the District Court's order, Wall's materials and arguments, and the arguments of the defendants, we find no legal reason to disturb the District Court's order granting summary judgment and awarding attorney fees. ¶5 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the Court, this case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable standards of review. ¶6 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH We Concur: /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
/S/ JIM RICE