Cabinet Resource Group v. Mt. Dept.

Opinion

No. 80-96

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN

CABINET RESOURCE GROUP, A Montana Non-profit Corporation, M N A A OTN

WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION, a Montana Non-profit Corporation,

P l a i n t i f f s and R e s p o n d e n t s ,

M N A A DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS, OTN M N A A DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, a n d OTN ASARCO , I N C ,.

D e f e n d a n t s and A p p e l l a n t s .

Appeal from: ~ i s t r i c Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,

t

I n and F o r t h e County o f Lewis a n d C l a r k .

H o n o r a b l e Gordon B e n n e t t , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .

C o u n s e l o f Record:

For Appellants:

Murphy, Robinson, H e c k a t h o r n & P h i l l i p s , K a l i s p e l l , Montana

J o h n L. N e f f , Spokane, Washington Hughes, B e n n e t t , K e l l n e r & S u l l i v a n , H e l e n a , Montana J o h n F. N o r t h , Dept. o f S t a t e L a n d s , H e l e n a , Montana Mona J a m i s o n , Dept. o f H e a l t h , H e l e n a , Montana

For Respondents :

M o r r i s o n Law O f f i c e s , M i s s o u l a , Montana Goetz and Madden, Bozeman, Montana

S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : J u l y 2 2 , 1980

Decided :AU G 2 5 11

99

1

Filed:

Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .

P l a i n t i f f s b r o u g h t t h i s amended a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Lewis and C l a r k County, s e e k i n g a w r i t of mandamus and d e c l a r a t o r y judgments a g a i n s t t h e Montana Department of S t a t e Lands (DSL) and t h e Montana Department of H e a l t h and Environmental S c i e n c e s (DHES). S e v e r a l motions were f i l e d by d e f e n d a n t s , i n c l u d i n g a motion f i l e d by d e f e n d a n t ASARCO, Inc., t o change venue from L e w i s and C l a r k County t o L i n c o l n County. On J a n u a r y 2 8 , 1980, t h e Honorable Gordon R. B e n n e t t

i s s u e d an o p i n i o n and o r d e r denying d e f e n d a n t ASARCO's motion f o r change of venue. ASARCO, I n c . , appeals.

ASARCO, I n c . , i s d e v e l o p i n g a major c o p p e r - s i l v e r mine and o r e p r o c e s s i n g complex a d j a c e n t t o Mount Vernon i n t h e C a b i n e t Mountains, a p p r o x i m a t e l y s e v e n t e e n m i l e s s o u t h of

Troy, Montana. DSL and t h e United S t a t e s F o r e s t S e r v i c e j o i n t l y p r e p a r e d b o t h d r a f t and f i n a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t

s t a t e m e n t s on t h e proposed development, and o n November 27,

1978, DSL i s s u e d a n o p e r a t i n g p e r m i t .

The p l a i n t i f f s i n t h i s a c t i o n a r e two Montana n o n p r o f i t

c o r p o r a t i o n s , t h e C a b i n e t Resources Group and t h e Montana W i l d e r n e s s A s s o c i a t i o n ; t h e former h a s i t s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s i n Libby, L i n c o l n County, Montana, and t h e l a t t e r i n Bozeman, G a l l a t i n County Montana. Defendants DSL and DHES are a g e n c i e s of t h e S t a t e of Montana w i t h t h e i r

o f f i c e s i n Helena, L e w i s and C l a r k County, Montana. ASARCO, Inc., i s a New J e r s e y c o r p o r a t i o n r e g i s t e r e d and d o i n g

b u s i n e s s i n Montana w i t h o f f i c e s and a n a u t h o r i z e d a g e n t f o r s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s i n Helena, L e w i s and C l a r k County, Montana.

DSL i s c h a r g e d w i t h t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of a d m i n i s t e r i n g

t h e Hard Rock ~ e c l a m a t i o nAct. Pursuant t o t h a t responsi- b i l i t y , DSL must r e v i e w , and s u b s e q u e n t l y g r a n t o r deny, a h a r d r o c k mining p e r m i t based upon t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s mining p l a n and t h a t p l a n ' s conformance w i t h w a t e r q u a l i t y , a i r q u a l i t y , mine w a s t e d i s p o s a l , and r e c l a m a t i o n s t a n d a r d s . ~ e f e n d a n tDHES i s c h a r g e d w i t h t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of ad- m i n i s t e r i n g Montana w a t e r q u a l i t y laws. Pursuant t o t h a t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , DHES must i s s u e o r deny p e r m i t s f o r d i s - c h a r g e of p o l l u t a n t s i n t o s t a t e w a t e r s .

P l a i n t i f f s c h a r g e t h a t when DSL approved t h e mining p e r m i t i t v i o l a t e d t h e Montana Environmental P o l i c y A c t , t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , and t h e Hard Rock Reclamation Act. The c o m p l a i n t a l s o a l l e g e s t h a t DHES v i o l a t e d s t a t e w a t e r q u a l i t y l a w s when i t r e f u s e d t o r e q u i r e t h a t ASARCO o b t a i n a p o l l u t i o n discharge permit. Claiming t h a t recre- a t i o n and a e s t h e t i c b e n e f i t s d e r i v e d from t h e g e o g r a p h i c r e g i o n of t h e ASARCO mine s i t e w i l l be a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d , p l a i n t i f f s s e e k a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment of l e g a l i n t e r p r e t a - t i o n of s t a t u t o r y d u t i e s made by DSL and DHES. They a l s o s e e k a w r i t of mandamus t o r e q u i r e t h e a g e n c i e s ' compliance with t h e i r duties.

N e i t h e r t h e m e r i t s of t h e d e c l a r a t o r y judgment nor t h e m e r i t s o f t h e p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of mandamus a r e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on a p p e a l . The s o l e i s s u e t o be d e c i d e d i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y d e n i e d t h e motion of d e f e n d a n t ASARCO, I n c . , f o r a change of venue from L e w i s and C l a r k County t o L i n c o l n County.

On August 2, 1979, d e f e n d a n t ASARCO, I n c . , filed a motion f o r a change o f venue f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : (1) p r o p e r venue i s i n t h e c o u n t y i n which t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y i n v o l v e d i s l o c a t e d , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 25-2-103, MCA; (2) f o r t h e convenience of w i t n e s s e s ; and ( 3 ) t h e ASARCO o p e r a - t i o n s i n i s s u e a r e i n L i n c o l n County.

S e c t i o n 25-2-103, MCA, d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o be i n t e n d e d f o r t h i s type of action. Cases b r o u g h t under t h a t s t a t u t e d e a l w i t h d e t e r m i n a t i o n and r e c o v e r y of p r o p r i e t a r y i n t e r - ests i n real property, n o t t h e environmental i n t e r e s t s c l a i m e d by p l a i n t i f f s . F r a s e r v . C l a r k ( 1 9 5 4 ) , 128 Mont. 1 6 0 , 273 P.2d 105; Beavers v . Rankin ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 142 Mont. 570,

In the present case p l a i n t i f f s a r e requesting declara-

t o r y judgments and mandamus r e l i e f . The g e n e r a l venue s t a t u t e s , therefore, apply. B i l l i n g s A s s o c i a t e d Plumbing v . Emerson ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 369, 563 P.2d 1123; Lunt v. D i v i - s i o n of Workmen's Comp., Dept. o f Lab. & I. ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 167 Mont. 251, 537 P.2d 1080. Because t h i s a c t i o n i s a g a i n s t s t a t e a g e n c i e s and d e f e n d a n t s a r e r e q u e s t i n g a change of venue, s e c t i o n s 25-2-105 and 25-2-201, MCA, are specifically applicable. They s t a t e :

" A c t i o n s a g a i n s t a p u b l i c o f f i c e r o r p e r s o n spec i f i c a l l y appointed t o execute h i s d u t i e s f o r an a c t done by him i n v i r t u e of h i s o f f i c e o r a g a i n s t a p e r s o n who, by h i s command o r i n h i s a i d , does anything touching t h e d u t i e s of such o f f i c e r must be t r i e d i n t h e c o u n t y where t h e c a u s e o r some p a r t t h e r e o f a r o s e , s u b j e c t t o t h e power of t h e c o u r t t o change t h e p l a c e o f trial." S e c t i o n 25-2-105, MCA.

"The C o u r t o r judge must, on motion, change t h e p l a c e of t r i a l i n t h e f o l l o w i n g c a s e s :

" (1) when t h e c o u n t y d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e comp l a i n t i s n o t t h e proper county;

" ( 2 ) when t h e r e i s r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t a n i m p a r t i a l t r i a l c a n n o t be had t h e r e i n ;

" ( 3 ) when t h e convenience of w i t n e s s e s and t h e ends of j u s t i c e would be promoted by t h e change." S e c t i o n 25-2-201, MCA.

There i s no d i s p u t e t h a t a change of venue p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 25-2-201(1), MCA, i s n o t a m a t t e r of d i s c r e t i o n w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , b u t i s mandatory i f t h e c o u n t y i n which t h e a c t i o n was f i l e d " i s n o t t h e p r o p e r c o u n t y . " Guthrie v. Mont. Dept. of H. and E. S c i e n c e s ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 142, 561 P.2d 913; Lunt v. D i v i s i o n of Workmen's Comp., Dept. of Lab. & I., supra.

I n Guthrie w e established t h e general test r e l a t i n g t o p r o p e r venue:

"Thus t h e answer t o t h e q u e s t i o n of p r o p e r venue under s e c t i o n 93-2902 ( 2 ) , R.C.M. 1947 [now s e c t i o n 25-2-105, MCA], l i e s i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f two dependent v a r i a b l e s , t h e nat u r e of t h e c a u s e of a c t i o n and t h e t i m e and p l a c e where i t s p r i n g s i n t o e x i s t e n c e . " 561 P.2d a t 916.

ASARCO a r g u e s t h a t t h e p r o p e r c o u n t y i s t h e c o u n t y i n which t h e a l l e g e d harm i s t h r e a t e n e d , t h e harm b e i n g c a u s e d by t h e p h y s i c a l a l t e r a t i o n o f t h e l a n d , and n o t by a c t i o n s o r i n a c t i o n s of p u b l i c a g e n c i e s wherever t h e y may be s i t u - ate. P l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h a t when t h e a c t i o n i s one f o r mandamus r e l i e f , p r o p e r venue l i e s i n t h e c o u n t y where t h e p u b l i c o f f i c i a l o r agency r e s i d e s .

I n an attempt t o unravel t h e i n e x t r i c a b l y intertwined s t a n d a r d s of n a t u r e , t i m e and p l a c e of t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n

t o d e t e r m i n e p r o p e r venue, i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o look a t case law a s i t a p p l i e s t o t h e r e l e v a n t s t a t u t e s .

An a c t i o n t o e n j o i n e n f o r c e m e n t of a n o r d e r o f t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission r e d u c i n g u t i l i t y r a t e s from n a t u r a l g a s s e r v i c e i n two c o u n t i e s was b r o u g h t i n Montana Dakota

U t i l i t i e s Co. v . P u b l i c S e r v i c e Com'n ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 1 1 Mont. 78,

1

107 P . 2d 533. I n t h a t c a s e we h e l d t h a t where a c a u s e o f a c t i o n i s t h e t h r e a t e n e d enforcement o r o p e r a t i o n of a n o r d e r , " i t i s n o t t h e mere making of t h e o r d e r b u t t h e p l a c e where it i s p u t i n o p e r a t i o n t h a t d e t e r m i n e s where t h e c a u s e of a c t i o n arose. "

S i x months l a t e r , however, i n Bergin v. Temple ( 1 9 4 1 ) ,

1 1 Mont. 1 539, 1 1 P.2d 286, we a n a l y z e d t h e c l a u s e "where

1

t h e c a u s e o r some p a r t t h e r o f a r o s e " and a r r i v e d a t a more refined rule. D e f i n i n g " c a u s e o f a c t i o n " a s t h e r i g h t which a p a r t y h a s t o i n s t i t u t e a j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g , and c i t i n g Anglo American L.M.&A. Co. v . Lombard ( 8 t h C i r . 1 9 0 4 ) , 132 F. 721, w e saw " a r o s e " a s t h e key word and s t a t e d : "The p l a c e where a c a u s e of a c t i o n a r i s e s i s t o be d e t e r m i n e d by i n q u i r i n g where t h e a c t o r b r e a c h o c c u r s which g i v e s t h e c a u s e of c o m p l a i n t and c r e a t e s t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r b r i n g i n g a n

action." B e r g i n , 1 1 P.2d a t 289. I n making such a n i n q u i r y

1

i t i s e s s e n t i a l t o d e t e r m i n e t h e o b j e c t i v e of t h e c o m p l a i n t . The o b j e c t i v e o f t h e p r e s e n t c o m p l a i n t i s mandamus.

I n G i l d r o y v . Anderson ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 325, 497 P.2d 688, an a c t i o n t o e n j o i n t h e governor from implementing a n e x e c u t i v e o r d e r , t h i s C o u r t d i s c u s s e d Montana Dakota U t i l i t i e s and h e l d t h a t b e c a u s e t h e p l a i n t i f f was a t t a c k i n g t h e o f f i - c i a l a c t s of t h e g o v e r n o r e x c e e d i n g h i s l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i - t y , venue was p r o p e r i n Lewis and C l a r k County. Further- more, when t h e n a t u r e of t h e a c t i o n i s mandamus, w e e s t a b - l i s h e d i n Lunt, s u p r a , venue i s p r o p e r i n t h e c o u n t y where t h e p u b l i c o f f i c i a l , whose a c t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s e e k s t o compel, r e s i d e s .

The p l a i n t i f f i n G u t h r i e s o u g h t t o permanently enjoin t h e d e f e n d a n t s from p h y s i c a l l y a l t e r i n g l a n d i n a s u b d i v i - s i o n u n t i l s a n i t a r y r e s t r i c t i o n s were p r o p e r l y l i f t e d and t h e p l a t approval properly secured. I n holding t h a t t h e n a t u r e of t h e c a u s e of a c t i o n was t o p r e v e n t i r r e p a r a b l e harm i n Teton County, and t h e r e f o r e t h a t i s where p r o p e r venue s h o u l d b e , w e a t t e m p t e d t o a l l e v i a t e t h e a p p a r e n t c o n f l i c t between Montana Dakota U t i l i t i e s and Lunt by stating:

". . . [ I n Lunt] t h e a c t i o n was f o r mandamus.

I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o imagine mandamus, based a s i t i s on n e g l e c t o r r e f u s a l by a p u b l i c o f f i -

c i a l t o p e r f o r m a m i n i s t e r i a l d u t y , which d i d n o t a r i s e as t h e C o u r t s a i d i n Lunt ' . .. in t h e c o u n t y where t h e p u b l i c o f f i c i a l o f f i c i -

a l l y refuses t o a c t o r neglects t o act.'" 561 P.2d a t 916.

R e c e n t l y w e d e c i d e d a c a s e i n which t h e n a t u r e of t h e c a u s e of a c t i o n was i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t i n t h e c a s e a t b a r . I n McGrath v . Dore ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 179, 580 P.2d 1385, 35 S t - R e p . 957, t h e S i l v e r Bow County A s s e s s o r b r o u g h t a c l a i m f o r r e l i e f i n t h e form of d e c l a r a t o r y judgment and a mandamus

a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e Department of Revenue. W ruled t h a t the

e

a l l e g e d wrongful a c t s o f t h e Department of Revenue, i . e . , t h e n e g l e c t f u l o r i n t e n t i o n a l f a i l u r e t o pay f u l l amount of wages a l l e g e d l y due p e t i t i o n e r , o c c u r r e d i n Lewis and C l a r k County, hence g i v i n g r i s e t o p e t i t i o n e r ' s c a u s e of a c t i o n i n mandamus i n t h a t c o u n t y .

H e r e we c o n c l u d e t h e a l l e g e d wrongful a c t s , i . e . , DSL's i s s u a n c e of an o p e r a t i n g p e r m i t and DHES's r e f u s a l t o re- q u i r e p o l l u t i o n d i s c h a r g e p e r m i t s , o c c u r r e d i n L e w i s and C l a r k County, t h u s a l l o w i n g p l a i n t i f f s ' c a u s e of a c t i o n f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment and mandamus. The i s s u e of i n c o n v e n i e n c e o f w i t n e s s e s w a s n o t r a i s e d on a p p e a l a n d , t h e r e f o r e , i t need n o t be d e a l t w i t h a t t h i s time.

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r denying d e f e n d a n t ASARCO's motion f o r a change of venue i s a f f i r m e d .

r

Justice 1 W e concur:

3 & 4 d%4 Chief J u s t i c e

participate.