ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 21-0358 

CHRISTINA SCHMID and JENNIFER POWERS, 

Plaintiffs and Appellants, 

v. 

JAE NOTTI, SUSIE NOTTI and ET CATTLE 

COMPANY, LLC, 

Defendants and Appellees. 

FILED 

MAR 1 5 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Plaintiffs and Appellants Christina Schmid and Jennifer Powers, via counsel, 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 

Cause No. DV-38-2019-2587. 

Appellants are currently before this Court with a motion for extension of time 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 of appeal 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 final judgment as to one or 

more, but few than all, claims or parties when an action presents more than one claim for 

relief and the court expressly determines there is no just reason for delay. M. R. Civ. P. 

54(b)(2) requires that any order granted pursuant to this Rule must comply with the 

certification of judgment requirements found in M. R. App. P. 6(6). 

03/15/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0358
M. R. App. P. 6(5)(a) provides that an order or judgment 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 determination that there is no just reason for delay, pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 

M. R. App. P. 4(4)(b) provides that if an appeal is taken after a district court certifies 

an order or judgrnent under M. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the appellant must state this in the Notice 

of Appeal and attach a copy of the 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. 

In this case, Appellants concede that 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 of jurisdiction. 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 of March, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

2 
?•4 fil AL. 

Ped...L.---. leC.0---___,. 

J ustices 

3