# ORIGINAI.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23-0186
DANIEL COYLE,

Plaintiffand Appellee,
v. DHANLAXML LLC, d/b/a BUDGET INN OF DEERLODGE; ROHIT PATEL; PRAKASH GANDHI, and JOHN DOES 1-5,

Defendants, POOJA HOSPITALITY, LLC;LAXMI GROUP, LLC, Intervenors and Appellants. 

# FIFO JUN 2 0 2023
Bo Cif ,...:anwood of —opreme Court Clerk State of Montana
ORDER

Appellee Daniel Coyle moves to dismiss this appeal, filed by Intervenors Pooja Hospitality,LLC,andLaxmiGroup,LLC,onMarch22,2023. IntervenorsopposeCoyle's motion to dismiss. Intervenors seek to appeal from the December 9, 2022 Order Denying Motion to Dissolve Temporary RestrainingOrder ofthe ThirdJudicial District Court,Powell County, in its Cause No. DV-19-26. On January 6, 2023, after intervening in the case, Intervenors moved to amend the order under M. R. Civ. P. 59(e); that motion was deemed denied by operation oflaw 60 days later and this appeal followed. Coyle argues this Court lacksjurisdiction to hear this appeal because the order at issue is not a final order and, as a temporary restraining order, is not immediately appealable. Intervenors respond that the order is immediately appealable under M. R. App. P. 6(3)(e)because in substance it is an order refusing to dissolve an injunction. We look to the District Court record to determine whether the order at issue created a preliminary injunction, which would be immediately appealable under Rule 6(3)(e). On 06/20/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0186July 31, 2020, Coylemoved for a temporary restraining order and injunction. At thattime,

Intervenors had not yet intervened. That same day, the District Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause, setting the hearing for August 11, 2020. However, on August 11, 2020, the parties did not attend the show cause hearing, instead filing a Stipulation to Continue Show CauseHearing, inwhich they agreed that the temporary restraining order ofJuly 31, 2020, would "remain in effect until a hearing can be scheduled on Plaintiffs Request for a Preliminary Injunction." On October 6, 2020, Defendant Dhanlaxmi, LLC, d/b/a Budget Inn ofDeer Lodge, moved to dissolve the temporary restraining order against Intervenors. On October 9, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation to Amend Temporary Restraining Order. In that stipulation, the parties assert, in relevant part, "Following a zoom hearing on October 6, 2020, the parties stipulated to amending the current Preliminary Injunction
. . . . During the hearing the parties agreed to an amended Temporary Restraining Order[.]" However, briefing continued on the motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order, and after the District Court deniedthemotion onDecember 6, 2022, Intervenorsmovedto intervene and subsequently requestedtheDistrict Court alter or amendtheDecember 6, 2022 orderunder M. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Having examined the December 9, 2022 Order Denying Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order, we find that although the court referred to the action as a "temporaryrestrainingorder,"itrelied onthestatutesapplicabletopreliminary injunctions, including § 27-19-201, MCA, and case law applicable to injunctions that enjoin nonparties. Moreover, § 27-19-314, MCA, provides, "Where an application for an injunction is made
. . . the court . . . may enjoin the adverse party, until the hearing and decision of the application, by an order which is called a temporary restraining order." The court held such hearing on October 6, 2020, and decided to further enjoin Intervenors. After hearing and decision, the subsequent enjoinment was no longer a temporary restraining order. We therefore conclude that the order at issue is immediately appealable under M. R. App. P. 6(3)(e).
2ITISHEREBY ORDERED that thatthe motion to dismiss this appeal isDENIED.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord. Dated this Z.6 day ofJune, 2023.

aP. a.

Justices

3