\lee) NAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STA Ih OF MONTANA OP 20-0063

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE STATE OF MONTANA,

Petitioner,

v. LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY,

Respondent. 

# FILED APR 2 1 2020
Bowen Greenwood Clertc of Supreme Court State of Montano ORDER

Petitioner Public Employees'Retirement Board ofthe State ofMontana (MPERB) seeks declaratory judgment on original jurisdiction under M.R.App. P. 14(4). MPERB alleges it is entitled to declaratory judgment because the decision ofthe Commission of RespondentLewis & Clark County to privatize the PureView Health Center and terminate its employees from County employmentwillendanger the actuarial soundness ofthePublic Employees' Retirement System and place the burden for unfunded actuarial liability attributable to PureView upon its members unless the County is required to pay the unfunded pension liabilities that have been accrued by these employees. After reviewing MPERB's Petition, we granted Lewis and Clark County time to respond. We later granted Montana Association ofCounties and Cascade County the right to intervene,and we granted leave to participate as amici curiae to Montana Federation of Public Employees, the Teachers' Retirement System of the State of Montana, the Association ofMontanaRetired PublicEmployees,and the MontanaBoard ofInvestments. Pursuant to M.R.App.P. 14(4),an original proceeding in the form ofa declaratory judgment action may be commenced in this Court when urgency or emergency factors make litigation in the trial courts and the normal appeal process inadequate and the case involves purely .legal questions of statutory or constitutional interpretation that are of statewide importance. 04/21/2020

Case Number: OP 20-0063In its response to MPERB's Petition,Lewis and Clark County argues this matter is

notappropriate for an originalproceeding in this Court. While the County agrees the matter is ofstatewide importance, it disagrees that it involves purely legal questions. It further argues the Petition fails to provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that an emergency exists that makes the normal appeal process inadequate. In its Petition,MPERB alleges the County's actions place the solvency and actuarial soundness ofthe pension funds "atimmediate risk,"and warns that lengthy litigation could affect its solvency and affect its ability to pay benefits. Elsewhere in the Petition, MPERB alleges the amount at issue is estimated at between $4.5 million and $5.165 million. While not an insignificant amount ofmoney,given the value ofthe pension funds as a whole,this Court fails to see how this shortfall could lead to such catastrophic results in the time it would take the parties to litigate these matters through the normal procedure. Moreover, should MPERB ultimately prevail,there is no suggestion that the County would be unable to pay the judgmentat thattime. MPERB has notdemonstrated that urgency or emergency factors make litigation in the trial courts and the normal appeal process inadequate. Further, while this may involve a predominantly legal issue, development of a factual record and clarification ofthe nature and depth ofreliefsought at the district court level appears necessary. Thus, we conclude this matter is not appropriate for an original proceeding in the form ofa declaratory judgment action. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for Declaratory judgment on Original Jurisdiction is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide notice ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord. DATED this Z-1

—

day ofApril,2020.

ChiefJustice3