ORMIIAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

OP 20-0177

NANCY JENSEN and JACOB JENSEN,

Petitioners,

v.

MONTANA FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT, MISSOULA COUNTY, HONORABLE

ROBERT L. DESCHAMPS, III, Presiding Judge

Respondent.

FILED

MAY 1 2 2020 

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

State of Montana

ORDER

Petitioners Nancy Jensen and Jacob Jensen seek a writ of supervisory control

directing the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, to reverse its Order granting

summary judgment in its Cause No. DV-18-819. In that Order, the District Court granted

summary judgment in favor of Defendants Farmers Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century

Insurance Company, and John Does 1-5 which dismissed Jensens' Unfair Trade Practice

Act claims against them. Farmers Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance

Company (Insurers), defendants in the underlying matter, have responded and objected to

Jensens' petition for writ.

Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that may be invoked when the case

involves purely legal questions and urgent or emergency factors make the normal appeal

process inadequate. M. R. App. P. 14(3). The case must meet one of three additional

criteria: (a) the other court is proceeding under a mistake of law and is causing a gross

injustice; (b) constitutional issues of state-wide importance are involved; or (c) the other

court has granted or denied a motion for substitution of a judge in a criminal case.

M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a)-(c). Whether supervisory control is appropriate is a case-by-case

decision. Stokes v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court, 2011 MT 182, ¶ 5, 361 Mont.

279, 259 P.3 d 754 (citations omitted). Consistent with Rule 14(3), it is the Court's practice

05/12/2020

Case Number: OP 20-0177
to refrain from exercising supervisory control when the petitioner has an adequate remedy

of appeal. E.g., Buckles v. Seventh Jud. Dist. Ct., No. OP 16-0517, 386 Mont. 393, 386

P.3d 545 (table) (Oct. 18, 2016); Lichte v. Mont. Eighteenth Judicial Dist. Ct., No. OP 16-

0482, 385 Mont. 540, 382 P.3d 868 (table) (Aug. 24, 2016).

Jensens allege supervisory control is necessary in this case because allowing the

matter to move forward on only the remaining counts would require piecemeal and

duplicative discovery, and the possibility of having to conduct two trials and two appeals

for the same controversy. Insurers disagree, arguing that Jensens' petition is effectively an

interlocutory appeal of an order granting partial summary judgment, and that taking

supervisory control would not serve judicial economy but would instead create a piecemeal

appeal.

This Court has held that conserving resources, without more, is insufficient grounds

to justify supervisory control where a party can seek review of the lower court's ruling on

appeal and there is no evidence that relief on appeal would be inadequate. Yellowstone

Elec. Co. v. Mont. Seventh Judicial Dist. Ct. No. OP-19-0348, 397 Mont. 552, 449 P.3d

787 (table) (Aug. 6, 2019). In this case, Jensens have not demonstrated that the normal

appeal process is inadequate and have offered no compelling argument as to why this Court

should assume supervisory control in this matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Jensens' Petition for a Writ of Supervisory

Control is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to provide irnmediate notice of this Order to counsel

for Petitioner, all counsel of record in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County,

Cause No. DV-18-819, and the Honorable Robert L. Deschamps, III, presiding.

DATED this 1z day of May, 2020.

Chief Justice

2
3