 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stanko v. Rowton10/30/2000
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Fergus, The Honorable John R. Christensen, Judge presiding.
Submitted on Briefs: March 9, 2000
1 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 noncitable cases issued by this Court.
2 Rudolph Stanko (Stanko) was convicted at jury trial of two counts of reckless driving in the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Fergus County, and sentenced to 120 days confinement in the Fergus County Detention Center (FCDC) after appealing a justice court conviction for the same offense. We denied his petition for habeas corpus on April 20, 1999. Stanko filed what purported to be a class action against Fergus County Sheriff Ron Rowton and Fergus County Attorney Tom Meissner, individually and in their respective capacities as Fergus County officials. Stanko asserted several claims, alleging that various state and federal legal, administrative and constitutional rights were being violated due to conditions of his incarceration. A series of letters was exchanged between Stanko and County Attorney Meissner outlining Stanko's concerns over these conditions. Numerous accommodations were made to ameliorate Stanko's concerns as reflected in the record of these communications. The record shows the District Court found that the requisite elements for a class action were not present and that it dismissed Stanko's claims for monetary damages for failure to comply with the provisions of the Montana Tort Claims Act. The District Court dismissed Stanko's administrative, constitutional and statutory claims as well. We affirm the District Court's rulings.
3 Stanko's eight pages of issues on appeal are consolidated into the following legally cognizable issues:
4 . Whether the District Court erred in denying Stanko's request that his case be treated as a class action.
5 . Whether the District Court erred in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss Stanko's claims for monetary damages under the Montana Tort Claims Act.
6 . Whether the District Court erred in dismissing all of Stanko's constitutional, statutory and administrative claims.
Issue 1
7 Whether the District Court erred in denying Stanko's request that his case be treated as a class action.
8 The mandatory elements for certification of a class are found in Rule 23, M.R.Civ.P. Stanko's brief in support of class certification, received by the District Court March 22, 1999, merely reiterated the required elements from the rule, with no discussion of how the elements apply to this case. His attempt in his reply brief to apply these elements to his case is simply not persuasive. Rules 23 (a) and (b) are clear that all prerequisites must be satisfied before a suit is maintainable as a class action. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that Stanko's unsupported assertion that he will fairly and adequately protect the interests of an indeterminate class for an indeterminate time is unpersuasive, and the test fails on this element alone. The District Court did not err in its determination that the elements of class certification were not met. We affirm the District Court's denial of class certification to Stanko's complaint.
Issue 2
9 Whether the District Court erred in granting the defendants' motions
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|