U.S. District Court Chief Justice Dana Christensen dismissed the federal lawsuit filed on June 16 by former Ravalli County Treasurer Valerie Stamey accusing over a dozen county officials and employees as well as Michael Howell, publisher of the Bitterroot Star, of conspiring to remove her from office based on false claims.
County defendants in the case included current and former county commissioners Greg Chilcott, J.R. Iman, Jeff Burrows, Suzy Foss, and Chris Hoffman; County Attorney Bill Fulbright; County Clerk and Recorder Regina Plettenberg; CFO Klarryse Murphy; and accounting and tax department employees Jana Exner, Linda Isaacs, Mary Borden, Bonnie Dugan, and Charlene Groves.
Bitterroot Star publisher Michael Howell was also named in his capacity as an individual in this case. (Howell has also been named in a separate, previously filed case that is still pending before Judge Christensen. In that case, Howell and his wife, Victoria, were named as defendants individually and in their capacity as publishers of the Bitterroot Star for allegedly slandering Stamey and conspiring with several John Does who have yet to be named in a conspiracy to cause her harm with malice. Stamey has asked for a jury trial in that case.)
Stamey is being represented in both cases by Hamilton attorney Robert Myers, who was recently recommended for disbarment following proceedings before an adjudicatory panel of the Commission on Practice. That recommendation is currently under consideration by the Montana Supreme Court. In that case, the Commission found Myers’ conduct, “was outrageous, continuous, and displays a disturbing lack of judgment and disrespect for the judiciary, opposing counsel, opposing parties, and the rule of law as a whole. His actions go far beyond zealous advocacy.”
Stamey claimed in the lawsuit against the county defendants that the county commissioners acted with “evil intent and malice” to deprive her of her property and her position as treasurer and that the other county employees “conspired” with them. She claimed Howell “was the press lynch pin in this false effort” and “coordinated with the other defendants to make a news story of the false claims.” She was seeking $240,000 in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages.
In the recent order dismissing the case, Judge Christensen outlined his rationale for the decision. He notes that “failure to follow a district court’s local rules provides adequate grounds for dismissal.” One rule requires that a response to a motion to dismiss must be filed within 21 days after the motion was filed. Stamey did not respond to either of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, despite having an extended period of time to do so.
The Court examined the five factors to be considered before dismissing a case, which includes the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; the court’s need to manage its docket; the risk of prejudice to the defendants; the public policy favoring disposition of cases [on] their merits; and the availability of less drastic charges, and determined that they favored dismissal.
The Court found that the first three factors “weigh heavily in favor of dismissal.” The judge states that these factors are especially important in this case owing to “Myers’ insistent filing of bizarre motions and briefs which fail to comply with Local Rules, are frequently filed after the deadline has passed, and are incoherent.”
Although Christensen notes that he could order another extension of time for Stamey to respond, he found it “not justifiable.” He found that Stamey has already been given one extension that gave her more than adequate time to file responses.
“Instead, Stamey filed a ‘notice’ which nonsensically described the legal research being done by Myers (just as was previously done in Stamey’s Request for Extension of Time to File Response to County Represented Defendants Motion to Dismiss) and proffered excuses for her failure to file a response.
“The ‘notice’ did not apprise the Court of what Stamey intended to file or when it would be filed and no arguments were made addressing the defendants motions or whether she even intended to respond. Lastly, although Stamey made it clear that she was aware of the deadline, she did not request any further extension of time.
“The Court will not undertake counsel’s tasks for him sua sponte issuing another order to extend the deadline for response because the Court is convinced that allowing this case to languish while Myers conducts research that is not clearly relevant to the Motions to Dismiss is not warranted in the case,” wrote Christensen.
Christensen went on to state, “Independent of the above, the claims asserted by the Plaintiff are fatally defective as a matter of law. The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss and finds that they are both thoroughly argued, based on well-established legal principles, and meritorious.”
Case dismissed.