May 10 2016
DA 15-0728
Case Number: DA 15-0728
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2016 MT 107N
MONTANA OPTICOM, LLC,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
HOLSINGER P.C., JOHN HOLT,
and WILLIAM R. COLLIER,
Defendants and Appellees.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DV-15-507A
Honorable Holly Brown, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
John H. Tarlow, Matt J. Pugh, Tarlow & Stonecipher, PLLC,
Bozeman, Montana
For Appellees:
David M. Wagner, Matthew M. Hibbs, Crowley Fleck, PLLP,
Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 13, 2016
Decided: May 10, 2016
Filed:
__________________________________________
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 Montana Opticom appeals from the District Court’s order filed October 23, 2015,
dismissing the case. We affirm.
¶3 On July 1, 2015, Opticom filed a complaint in the Montana Eighteenth Judicial
District Court in Gallatin County. Opticom asserted claims against Holsinger, Holt and
Collier (collectively, Holsinger) arising from two contracts between the parties.
Holsinger moved to dismiss because of a June 23, 2015 action brought by Holsinger
against Opticom and others in the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. The District Court dismissed the Montana action as a matter of comity, in
favor of the previously-filed action in Pennsylvania. A district court may decline to
exercise jurisdiction over an action, as a matter of comity, in favor of a previously-filed
action in another jurisdiction. The “first-to-file” rule is a matter of judicial administration
designed to promote efficiency and avoid conflicting judgments that a district court
applies as a matter of sound judicial discretion. Wamsley v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co.,
.
2
¶4 The District Court examined the two actions, finding that the broader action in
Pennsylvania included claims involving the same contracts between Opticom and
Holsinger. While Holt and Collier are not named individually in the Pennsylvania action,
they are officers of Holsinger P.C. and Opticom could bring claims against them
individually in that action. The District Court concluded that there was identity of parties
and issues between the two cases sufficient to permit application of the first-to-file rule.
¶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, the issue in this case presents a question of judicial discretion and there
clearly was not an abuse of discretion.
¶6 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We Concur:
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
3
