# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0358
CHRISTINA SCHMID and JENNIFERPOWERS,

Plaintiffs andAppellants,

v. JAE NOTTI, SUSIE NOTTI and ETCATTLE COMPANY, LLC,

Defendants andAppellees. 

# FILED MAR 1 52022 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana 

### ORDER

PlaintiffsandAppellantsChristina Schmid andJenniferPowers, viacounsel,appeal from the June 7, 2021 Order Re: Motions for Summary Judgment (Order) from the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Powder River County, entered in the District Court's CauseNo.DV-38-2019-2587. AppellantsarecurrentlybeforethisCourtwith amotion for extension oftime to file their Opening Brief. The basis for the extension they seek is that they have determined that the Order is not a final order for purposes ofappeal under M. R. App. P. 6, and they therefore intend to seek certification of the Order from the District Court under M. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Without proper certification, we are without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Kohler v. Croonenberghs, 2003 MT 260, 317 Mont. 413, 77 P.3d 531. M. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1) provides that a court may enter finaljudgment as to one or more, but few than all, claims or partieswhen an action presents more than one claim for reliefand the court expressly determines there is nojust reason for delay. M. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(2) requires that any order granted pursuant to this Rule must comply with the certification ofjudgment requirements found in M. R. App. P. 6(6). 03/15/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0358M. R. App. P. 6(5)(a) provides that an order orjudgment that adjudicates few than

all claims as to all parties, and which leaves matters in the litigation undetermined are not appealable, subject to M. R. App. P. 6(6). M. R. App. P. 6(6) holds that a district court may direct the entry of final judgment to an otherwise interlocutory order only upon an express determinationthatthere is nojust reason for delay, pursuant toM. R.Civ. P. 54(b). M. R.App. P.4(4)(b)providesthat ifan appeal is taken after a district court certifies an order orjudgrnent under M. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the appellant must state this in the Notice ofAppeal and attach a copy ofthe certification order to the Notice. The appeal shall not proceed further until this Court reviews the certification order, determines that it complies with M. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and M. R. App. P. 6(6), and enters an order allowing the appeal to proceed. Inthis case, Appellants concedethat they have filed an appeal from an interlocutory order that was not certified by the District Court pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 54(b). M. R.App. P. 4(4)(b) specifies that a party seeking appeal of such order may file it only after certification. Therefore, this appeal is premature. This Court may sua sponte raise the issue of whether an appeal has come to this Court prematurely and should therefore be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction. Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Horton, 2003 MT 79, ¶ 19, 315 Mont. 43, 67 P.3d 285 (Gray, CJ, concurring)(citing Litigation Relating to Riot, 283 Mont. 277, 281, 939 P.2d 1013, 1016 (1997)). We conclude it is appropriate to do so in this case as this appeal fails to comply with M. R. Civ. P. 54(b), M. R. App. P. 6(5)-(6), and M. R. App. P. 4(4)(b). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dated this 5

-

day ofMarch, 2022.

ChiefJustice

2

### ?•4 fi l AL. 

# P ed...L.---. leC.0---___,. Justices

3