Court Opinion

ID: 9962902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 23:06:15.325379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:18.339184
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL                                        04/23/2024

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                           Case Number: DA 24-0136

                                         DA 24-0136

 AUSTIN LAKE,                                                         FILED
              Plaintiff and Appellant,                                 APR 2 3 2024
                                                                    Bowen Greenwood
                                                                  Clerk of Supreme Court
       v.                                                            State of Montana

                                                                        ORDER
 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY,
 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS
 BOARD,

              Defendant and Appellee.

       Self-represented Appellant Austin Lake has filed a motion for "stay of execution of
judgment or order during appeal." He states that he moves this Court for relief "in
accordance with Rules 22 and 23." Lake provides no other information. Counsel for the
Department of Labor and Industry has not filed a response.
       Lake appeals a February 28, 2024 Sanders County District Court Order dismissing
his petition for judicial review. Lake filed his notice of appeal on March 6, 2024. Our
review of the District Court's register of actions on file here reveals that Lake filed a similar
motion for stay in the District Court on March 18, 2024. Lake filed his opening brief with
this Court on March 28, 2024.
       We conclude that Lake's motion is improper. The Montana Rules of Appellate
Procedure allow a District Court to rule on a motion for stay during the pendency of an
appeal. M. R. App. P. 22(1)(c). We note the District Court has not ruled on Lake's pending
motion there. More importantly, Lake has not demonstrated good cause, supported by an
affidavit, for his request for a stay under this Rule. M. R. App. P. 22(2)(a). This Court has
the authority to deny suminarily any motion for a stay that does not comply with M. R.
App. P. 22(1) and (2)(a). Accordingly,
      IT IS ORDERED that Lake's Motion for stay of execution of judgment or order
during appeal is DENIED.
      The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
Austin Lake personally.
      DATED this Ca day of April, 2024.

                                          2