By Michael Howell
District Court Judge Jeffrey Langton, on February 8, issued an order vacating his earlier dismissal of a lawsuit against the county over a decision to make road repairs on Upper Woodchuck Road. The case brought against the county by the Bitterroot Star, Ravalli County Watchdog and Bill LaCroix, was dismissed on January 3 of this year but, following a request for reconsideration, Langton has vacated his initial findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of dismissal. He also converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and gave the county 14 days to respond to the petitioners’ filings in the case.
The judge noted in his ruling that the petitioners’ original submission in response to the county’s motion to dismiss did not meet the deadline for answering a motion to dismiss. However, the court also noted that the motion to dismiss should have been converted to a motion for summary judgment and that the petitioners’ response did meet the deadline for responding to such a motion. The petitioners’ brief was filed on December 30, 2011 but did not reach the Court’s docket prior to Judge Langton ruling on the motion to dismiss on January 3, 2012.
“The Court’s failure to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment was an error that should be remedied,” wrote Langton. In order to remedy it Langton accepted the petitioners’ brief on the issues and gave the county 14 days to reply.
The petitioners have accused the county of violating the law by not providing sufficient public notice for an August 29 meeting at which the commission decided to spend $46,780 on road repairs on Upper Woodchuck Road.
In its brief supporting the motion to dismiss, the County argued that the issue was moot because the money had already been spent, the road repairs made and the repairs could not be undone. They argued that the public notice of the meeting was sufficient and submitted an affidavit from Administrator Glenda Wiles to that effect, showing a meeting scheduled for August 29 as the “continuation” of an on site meeting at Upper Woodchuck Road held on August 26. It is the court’s acceptance of these supporting documents that should have triggered a conversion of the motion to dismiss into one of summary judgment.
The petitioners, in their December 30 filing, argue that the minutes of the August 26 on site meeting do not indicate that the meeting was to be continued. They argue that the issue was not placed on the August 29 agenda until three hours prior to the meeting and specified the wrong location of the meeting. They also argue that that the notice did not adequately convey that a decision of significant public interest was being considered involving the expenditure of funds.
The county has 14 days to reply to these claims. Following that, the parties will have another 14 days to request a hearing on the matter or the judge will rule based on the submissions.