Opinion ID: 882490
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of Sourdough's motion for a stay of proceedings.

Text: Sourdough asserts that the District Court erred in not granting its motion for a stay of proceedings. A review of the record indicates that Sourdough failed to cite authority for this position. The transcript of the May 13, 1991 hearing on motions to dismiss and for a stay further indicates Sourdough's lack of authority for the stay. The testimony, in part, was as follows: THE COURT: ... So, what do you think about his position that this really isn't a stay motion. It's a motion for an injunction. MR. SCHAPLOW [counsel for Sourdough]: Well, your Honor, we feel like it is a motion for a stay. THE COURT: What's your authority for that? MR. SCHAPLOW: We feel that a motion for stay is appropriate here as we've mentioned in our brief. We're simply asking that the Court stay the action of the County Commissioners until such time as the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan has been updated as will be testified by Mayor Hawks. A motion for stay is a typical motion that's brought in these kinds of proceedings to hold in obeyance any actions taken by the governing body until such time as the Court decides on the merits, or, as we've indicated here, until such time as the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan is updated. THE COURT: You're asking that the County Commissioners' actions be stayed at this point. MR. SCHAPLOW: That's true. THE COURT: Haven't they already acted by approving the subdivision? MR. SCHAPLOW: Well, they've approved it conditionally, by allowing the developer, High Ridge Estates, to go through a lot of procedural applications and so forth, which would ultimately end up in the construction of roads and various other improvements that have been contemplated .... We agree with the District Court that Sourdough's motion for a stay is without statutory basis or other authority. In the event that the stay motion is interpreted as a preliminary injunction it must also fail as it does not meet the statutory criteria for such a motion as set forth by § 27-19-104, MCA. Finding no abuse of discretion, we hold that the District Court ruled correctly in dismissing Sourdough's appeal and in denying the motion for a stay of proceedings. Affirmed. TURNAGE, C.J., and GRAY, HUNT, McDONOUGH and WEBER concur.