Court Opinion

ID: 9403678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 15:11:29.986653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:08.590156
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAI.                                            06/20/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                                        Case Number: DA 23-0186

                                        DA 23-0186

DANIEL COYLE,                                                           FIFO
              Plaintiff and Appellee,                                   JUN 2 0 2023
                                                                   Bo
                                                                            Cif
                                                                                ,...:anwood
                                                                 Clerk of —opreme
                                                                                        Court
       v.                                                           S tate of Montana

DHANLAXML LLC, d/b/a BUDGET INN OF
DEER LODGE; ROHIT PATEL; PRAKASH
                                                                     ORDER
GANDHI, and JOHN DOES 1-5,

              Defendants,

POOJA HOSPITALITY, LLC; LAXMI GROUP,
LLC,

              Intervenors and Appellants.

      Appellee Daniel Coyle moves to dismiss this appeal, filed by Intervenors Pooja
Hospitality, LLC, and Laxmi Group, LLC, on March 22, 2023. Intervenors oppose Coyle's
motion to dismiss.
      Intervenors seek to appeal from the December 9, 2022 Order Denying Motion to
Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order of the Third Judicial District Court, Powell County,
in its Cause No. DV-19-26. On January 6, 2023, after intervening in the case, Intervenors
moved to amend the order under M. R. Civ. P. 59(e); that motion was deemed denied by
operation of law 60 days later and this appeal followed.
       Coyle argues this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the order at
issue is not a final order and, as a temporary restraining order, is not immediately
appealable.    Intervenors respond that the order is immediately appealable under
M. R. App. P. 6(3)(e) because in substance it is an order refusing to dissolve an injunction.
       We look to the District Court record to determine whether the order at issue created
a preliminary injunction, which would be immediately appealable under Rule 6(3)(e). On
July 31, 2020, Coyle moved for a temporary restraining order and injunction. At that time,
Intervenors had not yet intervened. That same day, the District Court issued a Temporary
Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause, setting the hearing for August 11, 2020.
      However, on August 11, 2020, the parties did not attend the show cause hearing,
instead filing a Stipulation to Continue Show Cause Hearing, in which they agreed that the
temporary restraining order of July 31, 2020, would "remain in effect until a hearing can
be scheduled on Plaintiff s Request for a Preliminary Injunction."
       On October 6, 2020, Defendant Dhanlaxmi, LLC, d/b/a Budget Inn of Deer Lodge,
moved to dissolve the temporary restraining order against Intervenors. On October 9,
2020, the parties filed a Stipulation to Amend Temporary Restraining Order. In that
stipulation, the parties assert, in relevant part, "Following a zoom hearing on October 6,
2020, the parties stipulated to amending the current Preliminary Injunction . . . . During
the hearing the parties agreed to an amended Temporary Restraining Order[.]" However,
briefing continued on the motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order, and after the
District Court denied the motion on December 6, 2022, Intervenors moved to intervene and
subsequently requested the District Court alter or amend the December 6, 2022 order under
M. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
       Having examined the December 9, 2022 Order Denying Motion to Dissolve
Temporary Restraining Order, we find that although the court referred to the action as a
"temporary restraining order," it relied on the statutes applicable to preliminary injunctions,
including § 27-19-201, MCA, and case law applicable to injunctions that enjoin non-
parties. Moreover, § 27-19-314, MCA, provides, "Where an application for an injunction
is made . . . the court . . . may enjoin the adverse party, until the hearing and decision of
the application, by an order which is called a temporary restraining order." The court held
such hearing on October 6, 2020, and decided to further enjoin Intervenors. After hearing
and decision, the subsequent enjoinment was no longer a temporary restraining order.
       We therefore conclude that the order at issue is immediately appealable under
M. R. App. P. 6(3)(e).

                                               2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that the motion to dismiss this appeal is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record.
Dated this Z.6 day of June, 2023.

                                                          aP. a.

                                                            Justices

                                       3