IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DAVID M. YEAROUS,

Petitioner,

v.

OP 21-0155

MONTANA FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT, MADISON COUNTY, HON.

LUKE M. BERGER, Presiding Judge,

Respondent.

ORDER

1-1 6

APR 13 2021

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Suprerne Cour.

State of IVIontana

Petitioner David M. Yearous seeks a writ of supervisory control directing the

Fifth Judicial District Court, Madison County, to grant partial summary judgment in

Yearous's favor in its Cause No. DV-29-2019-4. Yearous alleges the District Court should

have granted him partial summary judgrnent on liability and causation by ruling that the

defendant in the underlying matter was negligent per se. However, the District Court

denied partial summary judgment because it found that a question of fact precluded it.

Yearous then attempted to have the court reconsider its ruling, but the court concluded that

the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure did not provide for a renewed motion for partial

summary judgment.

Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when

urgency or emergency factors exist making the normal appeal process inadequate, when

the case involves purely legal questions, and when the other court is proceeding under a

mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice, constitutional issues of state-wide

importance are involved, or, in a criminal case, the other court has granted or denied a

motion to substitute a judge. M. R. App. P. 14(3). Whether supervisory control is

appropriate is a case-by-case decision. Stokes v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court,

2011 MT 182, 11 5, 361 Mont. 279, 259 P.3d 754 (citations omitted). Consistent with

04/13/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0155
Rule 14(3), it is the Court's practice to refrain from exercising supervisory control when

the petitioner has an adequate remedy of appeal. E.g., Buckles v. Seventh Judicial Dist.

Court, No. OP 16-0517, 386 Mont. 393, 386 P.3d 545 (table) (()ct. 18, 2016);

Lichte v. Mont. Eighteenth Judicial Dist. Court, No. OP 16-0482, 385 Mont. 540,

382 P.3d 868 (table) (Aug. 24, 2016).

Here, Yearous asserts that the issue presented is purely one of law and that the

District Court's ruling is causing a gross injustice. However, Rule 14(3) also requires that

urgency or emergency factors exist that make the normal appeal process inadequate.

Yearous does not assert urgency or emergency, nor does he allege that appeal is an

inadequate rernedy. Rather, he asserts, "Supervisory control will result in judicial economy

and eliminate inevitable procedural entanglements certain to occur if the Court does not

issue a writ of supervisory control."

As set forth above, supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy and its issuance

requires urgency or emergency factors that make the normal appeal process inadequate; an

assertion that a writ promotes "judicial economy" does not meet this requirement. This

Court has held that conserving resources, without rnore, is insufficient grounds to justify

supervisory control where a party can seek review of the lower court's ruling on appeal

and there is no evidence that relief on appeal would be inadequate. Yellowstone Elec. Co.

v. Mont. Seventh Judicial Dist. Court, No. OP-19-0348, 397 Mont. 552, 449 P.3d 787

(table) (Aug. 6, 2019). In this instance, Yearous has not demonstrated that his remedy on

appeal would be inadequate.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for writ of supervisory control is

DENIED and DISMISSED.

The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for

Petitioner, all counsel of record in the Fi Judicial District Court, Madison County, Cause

No. DV-29-2019-4, anc3tz Honorable Luke M. Berger, presiding Judge.

DATED this (3 --day of April, 2021.

Chief Justice

2
)/ L.-.--,,

Justices

3