Petitioners,

v.

MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY,

HONORABLE KATHY SEELEY, Presiding

Judge,

Respondent.

Bowen 

Therk Greenwood of 

State Supreme Coun of rviontarl,,

ORDER

Robert Maffit (Maffit) and the Montana Independent Living Project (MILP) seek a

writ of supervisory control over the First Judicial District Court in Lewis and Clark County

Cause No. CDV-2016-484. They ask this Court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction to

reverse the District Court's November 2019 order denying the Petitioners' rnotion for partial

surnmary judgment on MILP's clairn against the City of Helena and disrnissing MILP as a

party to the action.

Maffit and MILP initially filed a discrirnination claim with the Montana Human

Rights Bureau alleging that the City had discriminated against them when it reorganized the

City bus system. Although they withdrew their initial complaint, Maffit and MILP filed

another HRB complaint alleging that the City retaliated against thern in violation of the

Montana Hurnan Rights Act (Title 49, Chapter 2, MCA), and the Governmental Code of Fair

Practices (Title 49, Chapter 3, MCA), when it changed the priorities for funding for capital

transportation projects, allegedly disfavoring MILP in response to their prior action. The

District Court agreed with the Human Rights Bureau that MILP did not have legal standing

to file a retaliation complaint against the City and disrnissed MILP as a plaintiff. Maffit's
prejudicing the Petitioners by having to go forward with trial on Maffit's claims alone,

without "a necessary party," when appeal of the court's ruling dismissing MILP is inevitable.

Because a final order in this case will not be reached until Maffit's claim is adjudicated, the

Petitioners argue that the Court should accept jurisdiction to review MILP' s claim now.

Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when

urgency or emergency factors make the normal appeal process inadequate, the case involves

purely legal questions, and one or rnore of the three following circumstances exist: 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 the other court has granted or denied a

motion for substitution of a judge in a criminal case. M. R. App. P. 14(3). When appeal

provides an adequate remedy to review a trial court's alleged rnistake of law, supervisory

control is not appropriate. And "[i]n the absence of extraordinary and compelling

circumstances beyond simply requiring a party to proceed to trial," we generally decline to

review by supervisory control an order denying summary judgment. State ex rel. Kosena v.

District Court, 172 Mont. 21, 22-23, 560 P.2d 522, 523 (1977).

As MILP observes, the District Court's dismissal of one of the two plaintiffs means

that there is no final judgment for purposes of direct appeal. That does not necessarily mean,

though, that MILP has no adequate remedy. If the Petitioners have appropriate grounds, they

may proceed with a motion under M. R. Civ. P. 54(b) before the District Court. That Rule

contemplates that, where an order adjudicates fewer than all claims involving all parties, the

trial court should review the case first and certify its interlocutory order as final for purposes

of appeal only if "the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay."

M. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Petitioners do not indicate that they have requested such relief. Nor

2
deadlines.

In surn, having reviewed the petition and exhibits, we conclude that Maffit and MILP

have not satisfied the M. R. App. 14(3) criteria for invoking this Court's extraordinary

jurisdiction to review the District Court's interlocutory ruling.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for a Writ of Supervisory Control is

DENIED and DISMISSED.

The Clerk is directed to provide notice of this Order to all counsel of record in the

First Judicial District Court's Cause No. CDV-2016-484 and to the Honorable Kathy Seeley,

presiding District Court Judge.

DATED this day of April, 2020. -4<

C ief Justice

4-6

3

Justices