zin PI V

Pe • '

"- t

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

MELANIE HOKE,

Petitioner,

v.

OP 21-0034

FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,

MISSOULA COUNTY, HON. SHANE A.

VANNATTA, Presiding,

Respondent.

FLED

JAN 2 6 2021

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

critttirterl°

Petitioner Melanie Hoke, via counsel, seeks a writ of supervisory control directing

the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, to reverse its Order denying her

motion to dismiss in the District Court's Cause No. DR-20-175. In that Order, the

District Court denied Hoke's motion to dismiss pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),

concluding that Petitioner Gregory Nardi's petition in that matter had stated a claim for

which relief could be granted under § 41-9-102(4), MCA. In her petition for writ, Hoke

argues that the District Court erred as a matter oflaw in denying her motion. Hoke further

seeks to stay the proceedings in the District Court pending the disposition of this petition.

Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when

urgency or emergency factors exist making the normal appeal process inadequate, when

the case involves purely legal questions, and when the other court is proceeding under a

rnistake of law and is causing a gross injustice, constitutional issues of state-wide

importance are involved, or, in a criminal case, the other court has granted or denied a

motion to substitute a judge. M. R. App. P. 14(3). Consistent with Rule 14(3), it is the

Court's practice to refrain from exercising supervisory control when the petitioner has an

adequate remedy of appeal. E.g., Buckles v. Seventh Judicial Dist. Court, No. OP 16-0517,

01/26/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0034
386 Mont. 393, 386 P.3d 545 (table) (Oct. 18, 2016); Lichte v. Mont. Eighteenth Judicial

Dist. Court, No. OP 16-0482, 385 Mont. 540, 382 P.3d 868 (table) (Aug. 24, 2016).

Hoke has failed to establish that urgency or emergency factors rnake appeal an

inadequate remedy in this case. Although she asserts that she will bear the burden and

expense of discovery and hearing if this rnatter is not dismissed, 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. Court, No. OP-1 9-0348. 397 Mont. 552, 449 P.3d 787 (table) (Aug. 6, 2019). In this

instance, Hoke has not dernonstrated that her remedy on appeal would be inadequate.

Because we are denying Hoke's petition for writ of supervisory control, it is

unnecessary to stay proceedings in the District Court.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for writ of supervisory control is

DENIED and DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for stay of proceedings is DENIED as

MOOT.

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. DR-20-175, and the Honorable Shane A. Vannatta, presiding Judge.

DATED this ?--s-L day of January, 2021.

Chief Justice
3