Court Opinion

ID: 9409807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 15:08:58.153621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:53.631861
License: Public Domain

r-
                                            C   MINA!                                     07/18/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                      Case Number: OP 23-0329

                                         OP 23-0329
                                                                       FILL;
ASHLEY ADAMS, et al.,                                                   JUL 18 2023
                                                                      Bowen Graenw000
                 Petitioner,                                        Cie& of Supreme Cour.
                                                                       State of Me-,r1t .1;

       v.
                                                                  ORDER
MONTANA FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT, MISSOULA COUNTY,
HON. SHANE A. VANNATTA, Presiding,

                 Respondent.

       Petitioner Ashley Adams, et al., seeks a writ of supervisory control to reverse the
June 2, 2023 Opinion and Order (Granting Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment —(Detention Officers)) of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, in
its Cause No. DV-22-1154.       Missoula County, defendant in the underlying case, has
responded and objects to Adams's petition for writ. Hon. Shane A. Vannatta, Presiding Judge,
responded that the District Court would not offer any arguments in response but would defer
to this Court.
       Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that may be invoked when the case
involves purely legal questions and urgent or emergency factors make the normal appeal
process inadequate. M. R. App. P. 14(3). The case must meet one of three additional criteria:
(a) the other court is proceeding under a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice;
(b) constitutional issues of state-wide importance are involved; or (c) the other court has
granted or denied a motion for substitution of a judge in a criminal case.
M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a)-(c). Whether supervisory control is appropriate is a case-by-case
decision. Stokes v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court, 2011 MT 182, ¶ 5, 361 Mont. 279,
259 P.3d 754 (citations omitted). Consistent with Rule 14(3), it is the Court's practice to
refrain from exercising supervisory control when the petitioner has an adequate remedy of
appeal. E.g., Buckles v. Seventh Judicial Dist. Court, No. OP 16-0517, 386 Mont. 393, 386
P.3d 545 (table) (Oct. 18, 2016); Lichte v. Mont. Eighteenth Judicial Dist. Court,
No. OP 16:0482, 385 Mont. 540, 382 P.3d 868 (table) (Aug. 24, 2016).
       Adams explains that in the underlying case, each plaintiff is either a detention officer
or a sheriff's deputy employed by Missoula County. These plaintiffs alleged that the County
was incorrectly calculating their wages. The County moved for partial summary judgment,
arguing that the detention officers failed to exhaust the mandatory grievance procedure under
the provisions of their collective bargaining agreements. The District Court agreed, ruling
that the detention officers must exhaust the grievance procedure and granting partial summary
judgment in the County's favor.
       Adams then petitioned this Court for writ of supervisory control, alleging supervisory
control is necessary because the District Court's ruling grants the County summary judgment
to some but not all of the plaintiffs and thus, if the District Court's order is allowed to stand,
the detention officers will be forced to wait until the deputies' case is resolved before they
can appeal this ruling. In the interim, the detention officers will have to engage in a costly
and time-consuming grievance procedure in order to preserve their rights.
       In response, the County asserts that supervisory control is not appropriate in this case
because the detention officers have an adequate appeal remedy available to' them via
certification under M. R. Civ. P. 54(b). We agree. In the petition before this Court, Adams
admits that the District Court's order may meet the criteria for Rule 540 certification but
does not explain why certification was not sought. Certification under Rule 54(b) is the
ordinary course for seeking review of a judgment involving fewer than all parties to a case
and, if granted, affords the Court the benefit of a record and full briefing. Petitioners have
not persuaded us that we should invoke the extraordinary measure of supervisory control to
review their claims at this stage of the, case.
       IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Adams's Petition for a Writ of Supervisory
Control is DENIED and DISMISSED.
       The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for
Petitioners, all counsel of record in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, Cause
No. DV-22-1154, and the Honorable Shane A. Vannatta, presiding.

                                                  2
DATED this   day of July, 2023.

                                      Chief Justice

                                         Justices

                                  3