Opinion
DA 24-0136
08-27-2024
AUSTIN LAKE, Petitioner and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Respondent and Appellee.
For Appellant: Austin Lake, Self-Represented, Condon, Montana For Appellee: Quinlan L. O'Connor, Chief Legal Counsel, Aleea K. Sharp, Agency Counsel, Montana Department of Labor & Industry, Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 17, 2024
Appeal from: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, In and For the County of Sanders, Cause No. DV-2023-77 Honorable Deborah Kim Christopher, Presiding Judge
For Appellant: Austin Lake, Self-Represented, Condon, Montana
For Appellee: Quinlan L. O'Connor, Chief Legal Counsel, Aleea K. Sharp, Agency Counsel, Montana Department of Labor & Industry, Helena, Montana
OPINION
MIKE MCGRATH, CHIEF JUSTICE
¶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 Austin Lake appeals from the February 28, 2024 dismissal of his petition for judicial review of the Department of Labor and Industry, Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board's (Board) affirmation of his disqualification for unemployment insurance benefits. We affirm.
¶3 Lake timely appealed a determination that he was not qualified to receive unemployment insurance benefits to the Board. The Board affirmed and mailed its decision to Lake on August 8, 2023. At the bottom of the decision, printed in bold, was a notice that it was the Board's final decision and that Lake had 30 days from the date of mailing to appeal the decision to the district court. See also § 39-51-2410(1)(a), MCA ("A decision of the board, in the absence of an appeal filed within 30 days . . ., becomes final 30 days after the decision was sent to the parties at their respective addresses of record."). Lake filed his Petition for Judicial Review (Petition) on September 20, 43 days after the Board mailed its decision to him. The District Court dismissed Lake's appeal with prejudice due to his untimely filing. Lake appeals.
¶4 In his appeal, Lake primarily argues the merits of his case rather than addressing the timeliness issue that the District Court dismissed on. Lake merely states that he timely filed his appeal on September 8 in the District Court together with his affidavit of indigence and motion for briefing schedule. Although Lake signed the Petition on September 8, the filing date shows it was filed in the District Court on September 20. Section 39-51-2410(1)(a), MCA, pertains to the date the petitioner files his appeal, not the date it is signed. Lake argues-without support-that the clerk delayed in filing his Petition to bar his appeal. We need not entertain this argument, as even if he had filed on September 8, his Petition would have been past the 30-day deadline. Additionally, Lake concedes that he filed the Petition with his Motion for Briefing Schedule, which is dated September 10. The Board's decision became final when Lake did not file a petition for judicial review within 30 days of the date of mailing of the Board's decision. Barnicoat v. Comm'r of Dep't of Lab. & Indus., 201 Mont. 221, 224, 653 P.2d 498, 499-500 (1982). The District Court did not err in dismissing Lake's untimely Petition.
¶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 case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable standards of review.
¶6 Affirmed.
We Concur: JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA, INGRID GUSTAFSON, BETH BAKER, JIM RICE