f-r" 

34 

1.

, 4

IN THE SUP mrcouk OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0594

DIANA'S GREAT IDEA, LLC, a Montana limited liability

company; ENGWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY, LTD., a

Montana limited partnership; R.F. BUILDING COMPANY, LP,

a Montana limited partnership; ROCK CREEK RANCH I LTD.,

a Texas limited partnership; and WILD EAGLE MOUNTAIN

RANCH,

Plaintiffs, Counter-Defendants, and Appellees,

v.

RICHARD "RICK" JARRETT, general partner of CRAZY

MOUNTAIN CATTLE CO.; and ALFRED ANDERSON,

Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs, and Appellants.

FILED

SEP 1 5 2020

Bowen Greenw000

Clerk of Supreme Cour,

tatF! rvIontar.

ORDER

Appellees seek rehearing of our August 11, 2020 decision in this appeal to the extent

it reversed the District Court's dismissal with prejudice of Appellants Richard Jarrett and

Alfred Anderson's counterclaims. Diana's Great Idea, LLC v. Jarrett and Anderson,

2020 MT 199, ¶¶ 23-30, 401 Mont. 1. Jarrett and Anderson oppose the petition.

Appellees argue that this Court: (1) disregarded the requirements of M. R. App. P. 8

when it relied on Jarrett and Anderson's representation about the basis for their

counterclaims without a transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing; (2) disregarded the

requirements of M. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6) when it accepted Jarrett and Anderson's assertions

instead of the District Court's factual findings regarding improper delay and their knowledge

of Appellees' purposes in bringing the case; (3) overlooked the District Court's material

factual findings that Appellants knew the basis for their causes of action well before bringing

their counterclaims; and (4) overlooked controlling case law on compulsory counterclaims

and abuse of process. Appellees urge the Court to reconsider this aspect of its Opinion.

Under M. R. App. P. 20, this Court will consider a petition for rehearing only if the

opinion "overlooked some fact material to the decision," if the opinion missed a question

09/15/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0594
provided by a party or counsel that would have decided the case, or if our decision

"conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed" by the Court.

M. R. App. P. 20.

Having fully considered Appellees' petition, the Court concludes that rehearing is not

warranted under Rule 20. The Court did not overlook material facts or issues raised by the

parties or fail to address a controlling statute or decision that conflicts with the Opinion.

Many of Appellees' arguments relate to the viability of Jarrett and Anderson's claims—in

particular, the abuse of process claim. We did not consider or address the legitimacy or

merit of any of those claims. Opinion, ¶ 31. Having a transcript from the preliminary

injunction hearing was not material to our decision, because we did not rely on the truth or

credibility of statements allegedly made or overheard at that hearing. Opinion, ¶ 6 n.3. We

concluded only that Jarrett and Anderson's counterclaims were not compulsory because the

parties' claims did not arise from a singular transaction. Opinion, ¶ 25. Reasonable minds

may differ on that point, but the Appellees' disagreement with the Court's conclusion is not

ground for rehearing.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record.

Dated this 5 day of September, 2020.

Ch ief Justice

"Ct.,

Justices