Court Opinion

ID: 9510205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:53:45.463524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:58.099982
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GRAY,
specially concurring.
¶22 I concur in the entirety of the Court’s opinion on the narrow issue of whether the District Court erred in dismissing Cut Bank’s complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), M.R.Civ.P, for failure to state a claim. I write separately to briefly address another matter raised by Tom Patrick.
¶23 In addition to its contentions on the Rule 12(b)(6) issue addressed by the Court, Tom Patrick argues that Cut Bank should be bound by the contract it prepared, which requires submission of disputes to arbitration. The Court does not address this argument, and properly so, since the issue before us involves only Rule 12(b)(6) and, in resolving that issue, we look only to the allegations of the complaint. The question of whether Cut Bank can be held to the provisions of the contract it purportedly prepared and presented to Tom Patrick for execution simply does not fall within the issue presently before us and, therefore, that question is premature at this time. In my view, Tom Patrick can still raise that question via an affirmative defense, a motion for summary judgment or in some other context on remand.