ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 24-0126 

MEL COOK, LOEY KNAPP, 

JAMES WALTERS, DAVID MCKINLEY, 

SUSAN EVANS, PAT GRONINGER, and 

TERRI GRONINGER, 

Plaintiffs and Appellees, 

and 

TOWN OF STEVENSVILLE, 

Intervenor and Appellee, 

v. 

BERTA'S FARM, LLC, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER 

att. awl 

JUN 1 3 2024 

Bowen CirE::enwood 

Cleric of Supreme Court State clf Mcmtane 

Appellant Berta's Farm, LLC, moves for stay of execution of the Twenty-First 

Judicial District Court's February 14, 2024 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order 

directing the Town of Stevensville to abate a nuisance on Berta's Farm's property. The 

District Court denied Appellant's first motion for stay of execution on April 16, 2024. After 

a second motion, the court again declined to stay execution of the judgment but granted 

Berta's Farm's request for waiver of the bond requirement should this Court approve a stay. 

Plaintiffs and Appellees and Intervenor Town of Stevensville have filed a joint response, 

opposing a stay of execution. 

Under the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure, a person first must seek a stay in 

district court. M. R. App. P. 22(1)(a)(i). Berta's Farm sought a stay in the District Court, 

which denied its request. When reviewing a district court's denial of a motion for stay, this 

Court is guided by Rule 22(2)(a), which requires that a party seeking relief from the order 

06/18/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0126
demonstrate good cause for the relief requested. Berta's Farm argues that a stay should be 

granted because the abatement activities the District Court ordered "are actions that the 

Plaintiffs and the Town agreed were resolved back in 2018." Berta's Farm asserts that the 

parties addressed these issues six years ago, when they all sought dismissal of the Town from 

this lawsuit. Finally, Berta's Farm represents that the issues involving the Town are moot 

because "in the interim, the Town and representatives of Berta's Farm met and have agreed 

upon a resolution to the issues of concern to the Town." 

The Appellees' joint response takes issue with these representations, asserting that 

although Town officials have met with counsel for Berta's Farm, the Town of Stevensville 

has not "agreed upon a resolution to the issues of concern to the Town," and the issues 

involving the Town are not moot. The Appellees point out that the Town responded to 

identical arguments Berta's Farm made before the District Court, and the court denied the 

stay. The Town, which now has intervened as a party by leave of this Court, asserts that it is 

actively abating the nuisance, has not agreed with Berta's Farm about the scope of anything, 

and intends to continue its abatement work until it has fully complied with the District 

Court's order. 

Upon review of the parties' submissions, we agree that Berta's Farm's motion to this 

Court appears to make assertions substantively identical to those made before the District 

Court—representations of fact that the Appellees vigorously dispute. We conclude that 

Berta's Farm has not demonstrated good cause for relief from the District Court's order. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Appellant's Motion for Stay is DENIED. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. 

41, 

DATED this I lay of June, 2024. 

Chief Justice 

2 
Justices 

3