# WIGINtti

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 24-0061 

### MAY 

## 2 1 2024 SOUTHWEST DISTRIBUTING CO., d/b/a SWD URETHANE,

Petitioner,

v. MONTANA NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, LINCOLN COUNTY, HON. MATTHEW J. CUFFE, Presiding Judge,

Respondent. Bowen C3teenwood Ci.,,rfc of Supreme Court Stu- ta ot tv:ontorla

ORDER

Petitioner Southwest Distributing Co., d/b/a SWD Urethane (Southwest) seeks a writ of supervisory control over the Montana Nineteenth Judicial District Court in Cause No. DV-22-72 to reverse that court's November 21, 2023 Opinion and Order Re: Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction that denied Southwest's motion to dismiss. Southwest maintains the District Court erred in concluding it could exercise personal jurisdiction over Southwest pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 4(b)(1). On February 8, 2024, this Court requested responses to Southwest's petition. The Courtsubsequentlyrequestedthat Southwest fileareplybriefand Southwest didsoonMay 8, 2024. After this Court requested a reply brief, Southwest requested that this Court stay the underlying litigation, as provided for by M. R. App. P. 14(7)(c). Southwest alleges that ifthe District Court case is not stayed, it will be required to continue to defend while its petition for writ ofsupervisory control is considered by this Court. Southwest advises us that, since the District Court issued the order at issue, Southwest has responded to three sets of written discovery requests and that it anticipates more discovery requests on it are forthcoming. Deposition requests for current and former Southwest employees are pending, and various deadlines are approaching under the District Court's scheduling order, the soonest being 05/21/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0061Southwest's expert disclosure, which is due on July 31, 2024. Southwest argues that a stay is

warranted because it will be relieved ofits costly discovery efforts and pre-trial preparation ifthis Court reverses the District Court's order denying Southwest's motion to dismiss. North Idaho Insulation ("NII"),thethird-partyplaintiffinthe underlyingDistrictCourt case, objects to Southwest's motion to stay. NII argues that Southwest's discovery burdens will remain the same regardless ofthe outcome ofthis petition because Southwest is the sole

source ofhighly relevant information and the parties will seek that information via subpoenas ifSouthwest is ultimately dismissed from this case. NII further asserts that Donald Fleming, the plaintiffin the underlying case, has a rnotion to amend the scheduling deadline pending intheDistrict Courtwhich, ifgranted,will reset Southwest's expert deadlinetoNovember 29, 2024. Although Fleming's pending motion, if granted, will extend Southwest's expert deadline, we are cognizant that, ifa stay is not issued, Southwest will be forced to defend in the underlying lawsuit while the question of personal jurisdiction remains at issue. M. R. App. P. 14(7)(c) providesthat this Court may order a stay offurther proceedings in the other court pending our resolution ofa petition for supervisory control. We find it appropriate to do so here. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the proceedings in Cause No. DV-22-72 in the Nineteenth Judicial District Courtare STAYED pendingthisCourt's decision on the Petition. The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for Petitioner,all counsel ofrecordintheNineteenth Judicial DistrictCourtCauseNo.DV-22-72, and to the Honorable Matthew J. Cuffe, presiding District Judge. DATED this "LI, day ofMay, 2024. 

# izei);,#)9

ChiefJustice

2

# _ i ,_,/,...