Court Opinion

ID: 9393382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 23:04:56.285087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:52.970989
License: Public Domain

05/09/2023

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                              Case Number: DA 23-0235

                                         DA 23-0235

 NATHAN HARMON,
                                                                         FILED
                                                                         MAY 0 9 2023
               Plaintiff and Appellee,                                 Bowen Greenwood
                                                                     Glen< of Supreme Court
                                                                        State of Montana
         v.
                                                                       ORDER
 DAVID E. GEE, DAVID A. GEE, NUVIEW IRA,
 INC., f/b/o DAVID E. GEE IRA and NUVIEW
 IRA, INC., f/b/o DAVID A. GEE IRA,

               Defendants and Appellants.

         Defendants and Appellants David E. Gee, David A. Gee, Nuview IRA, Inc., f/b/o
David E. Gee IRA and Nuview IRA, Inc., f/b/o David A. Gee IRA (Gee) filed a notice of
appeal from the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Roosevelt County, Cause No.
DV 20-0038. We have amended the caption to reflect the proper parties in this appeal.
         Gee assert that this appeal is not taken from a final judgment as he is appealing only
a specific order in the case entered February 22, 2023, and not appealing the final order in
the case which was issued against a different defendant, who has not appealed, on
March 28, 2023. Thus, Gee asserts that this matter is on appeal pursuant to M. R. Civ. P.
54(b).
         Gee misunderstands the applicability of Rule 54(b). Under Rule 54(b)(1), when an
action presents more than one claim for relief or when multiple parties are involved the
court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all claims or
parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. In the
present case, Gee did not seek Rule 54(b) certification from the District Court. However,
certification is unnecessary as he appealed after final judgment was entered in the District

Court. This matter is appealable pursuant to M. R. App. P. 6(1).

       IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this appeal may proceed.

       The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record.

       DATED this         —day of May, 2023.

                                                                     "                   \f
                                                                Chief Justice

                                                                           kt,

                                                                Justices

                                             2