IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 21-0460

KIRKB. REISBECK,

Petitioner,

v. MONTANAFIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY and HON. MIKEMENEHAN,DISTRICT COURT JUDGE,

Respondent. 

# FILED SEP 15 2021
Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

This case involves claims by Kirk B. Reisbeck (Reisbeck) against Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers) in which Reisbeck asserts Famers contractually owes him UIM benefits and that Farmers has and continues to violate its continuing duty to act in good faithundertheUTPAto conduct areasonable investigation ofhis claims and attempt ingood faithto effectuateprompt, fair, and equitablesettlement ofclaims inwhich liability has become reasonably clear. See § 33-18-201(4), (6), MCA. Trial is currently set for September 27, 2021. Reisbeck brings a writ 

### Ofsupervisory control seeking an order to stay the trial date and further proceedings in the District Court and further seeking a ruling that the District Courtisproceedingunder arnistake oflawbyrefusingto followthe mandate ofLorangv. FortisInsurance Company, 2008 MT 252, 345 Mont. 12, 192 P.3d 186. 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 09/15/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0460appropriate is a case-by-case decision. Stokes v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court,

2011 MT 182, ¶ 5, 361 Mont. 279, 259 P.3d 754. Consistent with Rule 14(3), it is the Court's practice to refrain from exercising supervisory control when the petitioner has an adequate remedy of appeal. See e.g., Buckles v. Mont. Seventh Judicial Dist. Court, No. OP 16-0517, 386Mont.393, 386 P.3d 545 (Oct. 18,2016);Lichte v. Mont. Eighteenth JudicialDist. Court, No. OP 16-0482, 385 Mont. 540, 382 P.3d 868 (Aug. 24, 2016). Here, Reisbeck asserts he is reluctant to request a stay ofhis long-awaited trial but asserts the District Court is proceeding under a mistake of law which prejudices the proceedings andplaceshim at significant disadvantage inmakinghis case. He assertstrial is anticipated to last 5 days with 36 witnesses identified, including 14 medical providers and expert witnesses, which will result in "substantial expense to both parties, the taxpayers, and a significanttime commitment forthe District Court." M. R. App. P. 14(3), requires that to support issuance of a writ of supervisory control, urgency or, emergency factors exist that make the normal appeal process inadequate. Reisbeck does not assert urgency or emergency, nor does he allege appeal is
an inadequate remedy. Rather, Reisbeck asserts judicial economy type allegations in support ofissuance ofthewrit to "avoid undue cost and delay to theparties." As set forth above, supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy and its issuance requiresurgency or emergency factorsthatmakethenormal appealprocess inadequate;an assertion ofdesire to avoid cost and delay attendant in the normal appeal process does not meet this requirement. This Court has held that conserving resources, without more, is insufficient grounds to justify supervisory control where a party can seek review ofthe lower court's ruling on appeal and there is no evidence that relief on appeal would be inadequate. YellowstoneElec. Co. v. Mont. SeventhJudicialDist. Court,No. OP-19-0348, 397 Mont. 552, 449 P.3d 787 (Aug. 6, 2019). In this instance, Reisbeck has not demonstrated that remedy on appealwould be inadequate. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for writ ofsupervisory control is DENIED and DISMISSED.

2The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for

Petitioners, all counsel of record in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, Cause No. ADV 2017-696, and the Honorable Mike Menehan, presiding Judge. V1 , % DATED this IS

---

clay ofSepternber, 2021.

Justices

3