Court Opinion

ID: 9388887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 23:04:57.62567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:23.634493
License: Public Domain

I) ORIGINAL                                                                                 04/21/2023

             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                               Case Number: DA 23-0125

                                           DA 23-0125
                                                                              FILED
  JADA KU,                                                                     APR 21 2023
                                                                             Bowen Greenwood
                                                                           Clerk of Supreme Coun
                Plaintiff and Appellant,                                      State of Montana

        v.
                                                                       ORDER
  GREAT FALLS COLLEGE
  MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY,

                Defendant and Appellee.

        Self-represented Appellant Jada Ku (Ku) has filed a "Motion Requesting Interpreter,
 Advocator/Attorney" in her appeal of a decision from the Cascade County District Court,
 dismissing the amended complaint. Ku provides that she does not know the legal process,
 that she has a language barrier, and that she has a mental health disability. She includes
 attachments.
        Under Montana law, no statutory authority exists to appoint counsel for a party in a
 civil matter. There is no statutory authority to appoint an advocate either in her pending
 appeal. We recognize that Ku appears pro se in this appeal. "While we are predisposed to
 give pro se litigants considerable latitude in proceedings, that latitude cannot be so wide as
 to prejudice the other party[.]" First Bank (NA.)-Billings v. Heidema, 219 Mont. 373, 376,
 711 P.2d 1384, 1386 (1986). We observe that Ku represented herself in the District Court's
 underlying case concerning discrimination and other claims. We conclude that Ku is not
 entitled to representation of counsel in this appeal.
        This Court received the District Court record on March 29, 2023. Ku would have
 received a notice about its filing. We point out that her opening brief is due on or before
 Friday, April 28, 2023, unless she files a motion for extension of time. See M. R. App. P.
 13(1) and M. R. App. P. 26(1). Accordingly,
      IT IS ORDERED that Ku's "Motion Requesting Interpreter, Advocator/Attorney"
is DENIED and DISMISSED.
      The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel
of record and to Jada Ku along with a copy of this Court's Civil Appellate Handbook.
      DATED this 2 l'filt'- day of April, 2023.
                                                  For the Court,

                                                               Chief Justice

                                            2