Plouffe v. State

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Montana
• Citation: 314 Mont. 413,2003 MT 62,66 P.3d 316
• Docket Number: No. 01-829.,01-829.
• Parties: Douglas L. PLOUFFE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE of Montana, Department of Justice, Gambling Control Division, Department of Public Health and Human Services, Department of Environmental Quality and John Does, I Through XX, Defendants and Respondents.
• Decision Date: 28 March 2003

66 P.3d 316
2003 MT 62
314 Mont. 413

Douglas L. PLOUFFE, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
STATE of Montana, Department of Justice, Gambling Control Division, Department of Public Health and Human Services, Department of Environmental Quality and John Does, I Through XX, Defendants and Respondents

No. 01-829.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs October 17, 2002.

Decided March 28, 2003.

66 P.3d 317

Douglas L. Plouffe (pro se), Chinook, Montana, for Appellant

Roger T. Witt, Ugrin, Alexander, Zadick & Higgins, Great Falls, Montana, for Respondents.

Justice TERRY N. TRIEWEILER delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 The Plaintiff, Douglas Plouffe, brought this action in the District Court for the Seventeenth Judicial District in Blaine County, in which he alleged that Defendants, the State of Montana and several of its agencies, damaged him by tortious conduct, including malicious prosecution and defamation. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on principles of res judicata. The District Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, and Plouffe appeals that order. We reverse the order of the District Court.

¶ 2 The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred when it granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Douglas Plouffe is the sole shareholder of Sleeping Buffalo Management, Inc., which owned and operated Sleeping Buffalo Resort, a recreation facility near Malta, Montana, from 1988 through 1999. During the course of the operation of that resort, Plouffe was cited by the Defendants for violations related to the operation of gaming machines. These citations apparently caused Plouffe to eventually lose his license to operate gaming machines, and his business subsequently closed.

¶ 4 On May 18, 2001, Plouffe filed a pro se fifteen-page complaint in the District Court, naming as defendants the State of Montana, Department of Justice, Gambling Control Division,

66 P.3d 318

Department of Environmental Quality and John Does I through XX. Plouffe alleged that the Defendants "knowingly, purposely, and/or negligently committed these tortious acts against the Plaintiff," and as a result damaged him in his capacity as sole stockholder and owner of Sleeping Buffalo Management, Inc., and Sleeping Buffalo Resort. He alleged various specific violations of his rights, including his rights to due process of law and equal protection of the law. He also alleged several tort claims, including defamation, negligence and outrageous governmental conduct. For each claim Plouffe alleged specific facts in support. The Defendants did not file a motion pursuant to Rule 12(e), M.R.Civ.P., for a more definite statement

¶ 5 On July 16, 2001, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plouffe's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), M.R.Civ.P. Defendants submitted a brief in support of their motion to dismiss, in which they contended that the current suit was barred by principles of res judicata. To support their motion, Defendants cited to several prior causes of action brought by Plouffe and adjudicated in Defendants' favor. Plouffe filed a response on August 6, 2001, in which he distinguished the current case from the prior cases. On August 23, 2001, Defendants filed a reply brief, and attached with it 151 pages of exhibits, which included pleadings and orders from the cases referred to in their initial brief in support of their motion to dismiss.

¶ 6 On August 30, 2001, Plouffe filed a reply to Defendants' reply brief, which stated in part: "[t]he defendants has [sic] attached several exhibits to their reply brief, as their motion was not a motion for Summary Judgment, their exhibits are outside of the pleadings and should not be considered." The reply further responded to Defendants' arguments raised in their reply brief.

¶ 7 On September 18, 2001, the District Court issued its Order on Motion to Dismiss, and granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plouffe's complaint.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 8 We review de novo a district court's ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), M.R.Civ.P. Powell v. Salvation Army (1997), 287 Mont. 99, 102, 951 P.2d 1352, 1354. "A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), M.R.Civ.P., has the effect of admitting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint. In considering the motion, the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all allegations of fact contained therein are taken as true." Willson v. Taylor, 194 Mont. 123, 126-27, 634 P.2d 1180, 1182 (citations omitted). We will affirm the District Court's dismissal when we conclude that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief based on any set of facts that could be proven to support the claim. Grove v. Montana Army Nat. Guard (1994), 264 Mont. 498, 501, 872 P.2d 791, 793. The determination whether a complaint states a claim is a conclusion of law, and the District Court's conclusions of law are reviewed for correctness. Boreen v. Christensen (1994), 267 Mont. 405, 408, 884 P.2d 761, 762.

DISCUSSION

¶ 9 Did the District Court err when it granted Defendants' motion to dismiss?

¶ 10 The District Court found that it was appropriate to dismiss Plouffe's complaint because principles of res judicata applied and stated that "[t]hese causes of action, claims for damages, and prayers for relief are verbatim those set forth in [Plouffe's] original Complaint of February 25, 1998. Complaint and Demand For Jury Trial, Cause No. DV-98-055, pages 15-16." The District Court acknowledged Rule 12(b)(6), M.R.Civ.P., but cited to our decision in Glickman v. Whitefish Credit Union Ass'n, 1998 MT 8, 287 Mont. 161, 951 P.2d 1388, to support its conclusion that "[a] Motion to Dismiss under this Rule is particularly appropriate when the issue of res judicata is presented to the Court." From the District Court's order, it is apparent that the District Court considered the exhibits attached to Defendants' reply brief particularly the exhibits related to Cause No. DV-98-055.

¶ 11 Plouffe contends that the District Court erred when it granted Defendants' motion to dismiss in reliance on materials other than his complaint. Plouffe acknowledges that the District Court could have

66 P.3d 319

considered those exhibits by converting Defendants' motion to a motion for summary judgment; however, Plouffe contends that in that event, he would have been entitled to proper notice of the court's intention to do so as required by Rule 12(b), M.R.Civ.P

¶ 12 Defendants contend that the District Court did not err because it was entitled to take judicial notice of the previous judgment pursuant to Rule 201, M.R.Evid., without...