Opinion ID: 4196342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether federal law or state law provides the

Text: rule of decision on the merits. The fact that state law provides the rule of decision on the merits in a case may favor a stay, but “only when the state law questions are themselves complex and difficult issues better resolved by a state court; it is not enough that a state law case is complex because it involves numerous parties or claims.” Seneca Ins. Co., 862 F.3d at 844. MONTANORE MINERALS V. BAKIE 15 Montana eminent domain law provided the rule of decision on the merits in the federal action. The case presents “rare circumstances” where “the presence of statelaw issues . . . . weigh[s] in favor of [a stay]” because the legal issues involved go beyond what we have identified as routine state law issues (e.g., breach of contract, indemnification and subrogation, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty). R.R. St., 656 F.3d at 980 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Madonna, 914 F.2d at 1370. The condemnation action raises difficult questions regarding Defendants’ statutory right to appeal a compensation determination to a jury pursuant to MCA § 70-30-304(1), the elements of a taking for public use under MCA § 70-30-111(1), and the proper method to determine just compensation for interests in unpatented mining claims. The state court is in a better position to address these issues than is the federal court. See Seneca Ins. Co., 862 F.3d at 844.