Archive | Motion for judgment on the pleadings

RSS feed for this section

Asarco, LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

Asarco, LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 2016 MT 90 (April 12, 216) (Baker, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: Whether the district court correctly held that claim preclusion bars Asarco’s claims.

Short Answer: Yes.

Affirmed

Facts: Atlantic Richfield (AR) sold a zinc fuming plant and related property in East Helena to Asarco in 1972. In the sales agreement, AR agreed to indemnify Asarco for liabilities arising out of AR’s operations at the site, and to deliver all relevant documents to Asarco. It also represented and warranted that it had delivered all information required by the disclosure clause.

In 1984, the property and surrounding area were designated a Superfund site under CERCLA. The EPA identified both AR and Asarco as potentially responsible parties, ultimately determining that Asarco was obligated to pay for the cleanup.…

Montana Interventional & Diagnostic Radiology Specialists, PLLC v. St. Peter’s Hospital

Montana Interventional & Diagnostic Radiology Specialists, PLLC v. St. Peter’s Hospital, 2015 MT 258 (Sept. 1, 2015) (Cotter, J.) (5-0, rev’d)

Issue: Whether the district court erred in granting the hospital’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the primary complaint being barred by the statute of limitations.

Short Answer: Yes.

Reversed and remanded

Facts: MIDRS and St. Peter’s worked together for many years, with MIDRS physicians providing radiological services through the hospital. Before 2006, St. Peter’s had an “open” radiology department, meaning the hospital medical staff granted privileges to qualified non-employee radiologists to interpret images taken at the hospital.

In 2005, MIDRS announced its intent to open a separate imagining facility in Helena, which would compete with St.…