Court Opinion

ID: 9916433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 23:06:40.903495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:26.231600
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL                                               01/09/2024

           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                         Case Number: DA 24-0010

                                        DA 24-0010

 JAMES G. ARCHER, DENISE F. ARCHER,
 ROGER WAGNER, ANTOINETTE WAGNER,
 RUTGER NIERS, LAURA NIERS, GREGORY
 CHAPMAN, GREGORY SMITH, and LISA
 BRYANT,

              Plaintiffs and Appellants,                              O RD E R

         v.
                                                                             1:-     r
 GORDON TAIT and MICHELLE JANZ,
                                                                              JAN 0 9 2724
              Defendants and Appellees.                                     Bowen Greenwood
                                                                                           urt
                                                                                        lt

       Counsel for Plaintiffs and Appellants James G. Archer, et al., have filed a notice of
appeal from the December 5, 2023 Order and Rationale on Motions for Summary Judgment
entered in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, in its Cause No. DV-23-640E. In their
Notice of Appeal, they assert that the appeal is taken from an order certified as final under
M. R. Civ. P. 54(b)
       Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 4(4)(b), if an appeal is taken after a district court issues
certification under M. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the notice of appeal shall state that fact and a copy
of the certification order shall be attached to the notice. This Court then reviews the
certification order for compliance with M. R. App. P. 6(6).
       If a court abuses its discretion in certifying an order as final under Rule 54(b), we
are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Kohler v. Croonenberghs, 2003 MT 260,
317 Mont. 413. 77 P.3d 531. Thus, even if not raised by a party, we will sua sponte
determine if the court's certification order meets the criteria we have set forth in Roy v.
Neibauer, 188 Mont. 81, 610 P.2d 1185 (1980), and Weinstein v. University of Montana,
271 Mont. 435, 898 P.2d 101 (1995). Kohler, Til 8-9.
      In this case, Appellants failed to attach a copy of the certification order to their
Notice of Appeal as required under Rule 4(4)(b). We therefore cannot determine if the
court's certification order is in substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 6(6)
and our case law interpreting certification orders under Rule 54(b) and this matter cannot
proceed on appeal.
      IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
      The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record.
      Dated this cl    —day of January, 2024.

                                                              Chief Justice

                                                                               ttioaishas
                                                                .
                                                                    Justices

                                            2