f-r" 3 4 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 ofCRAZY 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 ofour August 11,2020 decision in this appeal to the extent it reversed the District Court's dismissal with prejudice ofAppellants 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 ofM.R.App.P. 8 when it relied on Jarrett and Anderson's representation about the basis for their counterclaims without a transcript ofthe preliminary injunction hearing;(2) disregarded the requirements ofM.R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6) when it accepted Jarrett and Anderson's assertions instead ofthe 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 ofaction well before bringing their counterclaims; and (4)overlooked controlling case law on compulsory counterclaims and abuse ofprocess. Appellees urge the Court to reconsider this aspect ofits Opinion. Under M.R. App. P. 20, this Court will consider a petition for rehearing only ifthe 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 ofAppellees' arguments relate to the viability ofJarrett 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 ofstatements 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 ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord. Dated this 

# 5 day ofSeptember, 2020.

ChiefJustice

"Ct., Justices