# 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 13 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'sFebruary 14, 2024 FindingsofFact, ConclusionsofLaw,andOrder directing the Town of Stevensville to abate a nuisance on Berta's Farm's property. The District Court deniedAppellant's first motion for stay ofexecution on April 16, 2024. After a second motion, the court again declined to stay execution of the judgment but granted Berta'sFarm'srequest for waiver ofthebond requirement should this Court approve a stay. Plaintiffs and Appellees and Intervenor Town of Stevensville have filed a joint response, opposing a stay ofexecution. Under the Montana Rules ofAppellate 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 ofa motion for stay, this Court is guided by Rule 22(2)(a), which requires that a party seeking relieffrom the order 06/18/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0126demonstrate good cause for the reliefrequested. 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 addressedthese issuessixyearsago,whenthey all sought dismissal oftheTown from this lawsuit. Finally, Berta's Farm represents that the issues involving the Town are moot because "in the interim, the Town and representatives ofBerta'sFarm met and have agreed upon a resolution to the issues ofconcern 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 ofStevensville 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 nowhas intervened as a party by leave ofthisCourt, assertsthat it is actively abatingthe nuisance, has not agreedwith Berta'sFarm about the scope ofanything, and intends to continue its abatement work until it has fully complied with the District Court's order. Upon review ofthe parties' submissions, we agreethatBerta'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 relieffrom 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 ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord.

41, DATED this I lay ofJune, 2024.

ChiefJustice

2Justices

3