Beaton v. First National Bank of Montana, Inc.

Filing 66

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 56 GRANTING 20 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by First National Bank of Montana, Inc. Signed by Judge Richard F. Cebull on 9/15/2009. (EMA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA M I S S O U L A DIVISION J I M BEATON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) F I R S T NATIONAL BANK OF, ) M O N T A N A , INC., ) ) D e f e nd a n t . ) ______________________________ ) C a us e No. CV-08-25-M-RFC-JCL

O R D E R ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

O n June 8, 2009, United States Magistrate Jeremiah C. Lynch entered Find ings and Recommendation (Doc. 56) with respect Defendant First National B a nk of Montana's ("FNB") motion for summary judgment (Doc. 20). Magistrate J ud ge Lynch recommends the motion be granted. Upon service of a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, a party ha s 10 days to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In this matter, Beaton file d objections on June 26, 2009. Doc. 59. At FNB's request, the Court granted it le a ve to respond to Beaton's objections with the benefit of the transcript of the oral a rgume nt held on the motion. Doc. 62. The transcript was subsequently filed and FN B addressed Beaton's objections on August 26, 2009. Doc. 64. Beaton filed a
1

reply brief on August 31, 2009. Doc. 65. Although this Court does not normally c o ns id e r reply briefs filed with respect to Findings and Recommendations, an e xc e p tio n is in order because Beaton's reply brief withdraws one of its three prior o b je c tio ns and because Beaton should be afforded an opportunity to respond with the benefit of the oral argument transcript. Beaton' objections require this Court to make a de novo determination of tho s e portions of the Findings and Recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the following reasons, Beaton's objections are o ve rrule d . Beaton's retaliation causes of action allege he was fired because of s ta te me nts he made to the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (" O C C " ) concerning the business relationship between FNB and Montana Business C a p ita l ("MBC"). Beaton believed this relationship was improper and had made this belief known since the commencement of his employment with FNB. Magistrate Judge Lynch concluded that while Beaton a had sufficiently stated prima fa c ie case of 12 U.S.C. § 1831j retaliation, the claim was precluded because he d e lib e ra te ly participated in the alleged illegal activity by processing loans brokered b y MBC. See 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(d)(1) (section 1831j whistleblower protection d o e s not apply to anyone who "deliberately causes or participates in the alleged
2

violation of law or regulation"). Beaton's first objection is as follows: The magistrate judge erred as a matter of law when he adopted a legal inte rp re ta tio n of 12 U.S.C. §1831j(d)(1) that would deny that statute's p ro te c tio n to each and every one of Defendant's employees, and the ma gis tra te compounded that legal error when he improperly resolved d is p ute d issues of material fact concerning Mr. Beaton's alleged " p a rtic ip a tio n" in Defendant's favor. B e a to n continues to argue that he objected to FNB's relationship with MBC from the beginning of his employment with FNB and that he only worked on the MBC lo a ns because his superiors directed him to do so. In any event, there are no genuine issues of material fact concerning the § 1 8 3 1 j claim, nor would Magistrate Judge Lynch's interpretation of § 1831j(d)(1) d e ny whistleblower protection to each and every one of FNB's employees. The la ngua ge of the statute is plain­those who deliberately participate in the alleged vio la tio n of the law are not protected. The undisputed evidence is that Beaton b e lie ve d MBC's relationship with FNB was improper, but never refused work on lo a ns brokered by MBC. As such, he deliberately participated in the allegedly unla w ful loans and § 1831j relief is unavailable to him. Beaton's first objection is o ve rrule d .

3

Beaton's second objection is that: The magistrate judge erred as a matter of law when he interpreted the M o nta na Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act as impliedly c o nta ining the same "participation" defense Congress expressly p ro vid e d for 12 U.S.C. § 1831j.

In granting FNB's motion for summary judgment on the Montana WDEA re ta lia tio n claim, Magistrate Judge Lynch relied on what he believed was a c o nc e s s io n made by Beaton at oral argument. Doc. 56, p. 30. Specifically, M a gis tra te Judge Lynch noted that both parties agreed at oral argument that if B e a to n' s § 1831j claim failed as a matter of law, his WDEA retaliation claim would lik e w is e fail. T he parties now dispute whether Beaton actually conceded that the Montana la w whistleblower claim would fail if the federal whistleblower claim failed, but as the Court reads the exchange, it is clear that Beaton conceded as much: "I do not b e lie ve he continue ­can continue with his Montana state law whistleblower claim­ ... if he has not prevailed on his federal 1831(j) claim." Doc. 63, Transcr. 29:6 1 2 . Further, near the end of the oral argument, counsel for FNB reiterated that B e a to n had conceded that the state law whistleblower claim would fail if the federal o ne did. Doc. 63, Transcr. 61:3 - 7. At the conclusion of the oral argument, M a gis tra te Judge Lynch expressly afforded Beaton an opportunity to respond, but
4

he declined. Doc. 63, Transcr. 63:18 - 22. Finally, Beaton appears to have abandoned his Montana law whistleblower c la im during the briefing on FNB's motion. FNB devoted six pages to arguing why, p urs ua nt to Montana law, it should be granted summary judgment on the WDEA w his tle b lo w e r claim, Doc. 21, pp. 22 - 28, yet Beaton failed to address these a rgume nts in his response brief (Doc. 38). The transcript of the oral argument is s imila rly lacking any response from Beaton as to these arguments. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendations (D o c . 56), being well-grounded in law and fact, are adopted in their entirety. IT IS H E R E B Y ORDERED that FNB's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) is GRANTED. T he Clerk of Court shall notify the parties of the entry of this Order and enter jud gme nt, by separate document, in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. DATED this 15th day of September 2009. _ /s / Richard F. Cebull______________ R IC H A R D F. CEBULL U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5