Court Opinion

ID: 9889907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 18:08:19.477586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:49.218438
License: Public Domain

D ORIGINAL                                               10/10/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                        Case Number: DA 23-0400

                                          DA 23-0400

 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:
                                                                   FLED
 JASON GAGE JONES,
                                                                    OCT 1 0 2023
                                                                 Bowen Groenw000
              Petitioner and Appellant,                        Clerk of supremo Couri
                                                                  strata cif Montana
                                                                     ORDER
       v.

 QUINN ERIN JONES,

              Respondent and Appellee.

       Appellee Quinn Erin Jones (Quinn) moves for sanctions against Appellant Jason
Gage Jones (Jason) under M. R. App. P. 7(8) for failure to substantially comply with
rnandatory appellate alternative dispute resolution as Rule 7 requires. Quinn asserts that
Jason has twice failed to timely subrnit his appellate statement of position as required by
M. R. App. P. 7(5)(d), thereby precluding the parties from timely cornpleting the
mandatory inediation process.      Jason, via counsel Jami Rebsom, has responded in
opposition to Quinn's motion and requests additional time to submit his statement of
position.
       M. R. App. P. 7(5) sets forth the process by which parties to any appeal subject to
Rule 7 rnust follow. Rule 7(5)(d) provides that the appellant must submit their required
written statement of position to the mediator and the responsive party within 15 days of the
date the notice of selection or order of appointrnent of the mediator is filed. In this case,
Quinn alleges Jason had two opportunities to submit his stateinent of position but failed to
do so. On August 14, 2023, the Clerk of this Court appointed a mediator in accordance
with Rule 7. Under Rule 7(5)(d), Jason thus had until August 29, 2023, to submit his
statement of position but he failed to do so. On September 6, 2023, the appointed mediator
declined the appointment, and the Clerk then appointed a new mediator. Under the
September 2, 2023 order of appointment, Jason then had until September 21, 2023, to
submit his statement of position, but he again failed to do so.
       Quinn then filed this rnotion for sanctions on September 27, 2023. Noting that
pursuant to the mediation time limitations set forth in M. R. App. P. 7(3)(a), the parties had
until October 4, 2023, to accomplish the mediation and the parties were unable to meet this
deadline because ofJason's failure to comply withRule 7(5)(d).
                                                 ,
       In response, Jason does not dispute that he failed twice to timely submit his
statement of position. He admits he is still not prepared to do so and requests that this court
allow him another week to comply. He urges this Court to excuse his failure to comply
with Rule 7 because his attorney was busy preparing for a trial, was short staffed, and failed
to note the deadline. Jason argues this Court should allow his appeal to proceed because it
is meritorious and because there is "ample time to complete the mediation process.
       M. R. App. P. 7(8) provides that substantial noncompliance with Rule 7 may result
in sanctions, including the assessment of mediator fees, imposition of monetary sanctions,
costs, disrnissal of the appeal, or suth other sanction as this Court deems appropriate.
Quinn argues that dismissal is appropriate in this case because Jason's failure has precluded
the parties from timely completing the mediation process.
       We agree with Quinn that sanctions are appropriate here. Not only did Jason miss
the first deadline to submit the statement of position, which was over five weeks ago, and
the second deadline, which was over two weeks ago, but he requests yet another week to
complete this requirement. Furthermore, asking this Court for such leave is misguided, as
it would be the mediator who would have the authority to consider such request. We also
note that Jason's response fails to comply with M. R. App. P. 16(3), which allows up to
1,250 words for a response to a motion; in this instance, his response is roughly triple that
amount and he devotes the majority of it to attempting to argue the merits of his appeal.
We find no excuse in his counsel's assertion that she was "unaware of the deadline to file
Jason's statement of position as counsel is an experienced appellate attorney and the
deadline is clearly set forth in Rule 7. Furthermore, counsel's assertion that there is

                                              2
"ample" time to cornplete mediation is incorrect as the 75-day time limitation of M. R.
App. P. 7(3)(a) expired on October 4, 2023.
       Since the inception of the mandatory appellate alternative dispute resolution
process, this Court has rnaintained that the provisions are self-executing, and "this Court
will not insert itself in the process except under unusual or extraordinary circumstances."
Hanvood v. Glacier Elec. Coop., 282 Mont. 38, 39, 939 P.2d 981, 981-982 (1997). In this
case, where the appellant has wholly failed to comply with the mediation process and
remains unprepared to mediate this case even after the 75-day deadline expired, we
conclude that dismissal of the appeal is warranted.
      IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for sanctions is GRANTED. This
appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
      The Clerk is diMI to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record.
      Dated this I -1;, day of October, 2023.

                                                              Chief Justice

                                                                          eCe—..„

                                                               4   Justices

                                              3