Westmoreland v. 16th Judicial District ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                              01/04/2022
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                                Case Number: OP 21-0655
    OP 21-0655
    WESTMORELAND ROSEBUD MINING LLC,
    f/k/a WESTERN ENERGY CO., NATURAL                                       FILEO
    RESOURCE PARTNERS, L.P.,
    INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING                                         JAN 0 4 2022
    Bovven C.ireenw000
    ENGINEERS, LOCAL 400, and NORTHERN                                   Clerk of Supreme Coun
    State of Mr.ntona
    CHEYENNE COAL MINERS ASSOCIATION,
    Petitioners and Intervenors,
    ORDER
    v.
    MONTANA SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COURT, ROSEBUD COUNTY, HONORABLE
    KATHERINE M. BIDEGARAY,
    Respondent.
    Petitioners seek a writ of supervisory control directing the Sixteenth Judicial District
    Court, Rosebud County, to vacate its October 28, 2021 Order on Petition in its Cause No.
    DV-19-34. In that Order, the District Court reversed a decision of the Montana Board of
    Environmental Review that approved the AM4 permit expanding the Rosebud Mine. The
    Order on Petition further remanded the matter to the Montana Department of
    Environmental Quality with directions for the Department to review the AM4 permit
    application consistent with the court's rulings and the applicable laws. Petitioners allege
    that the court's decision was erroneous and if not corrected will cause gross injustice.
    Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when
    urgency or emergency factors exist making the norrnal appeal process inadequate, when
    the case involves purely legal questions, and when the other court is proceeding under a
    mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice, constitutional issues of state-wide
    importance are involved, or, in a criminal case, the other court has granted or denied a
    motion to substitute a judge. M. R. App. P. 14(3). 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.3 d 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).
    Here, Petitioners assert that the District Court is proceeding under multiple mistakes
    of law, and its rulings are causing a gross injustice that warrants supervisory control by this
    Court. Petitioners identify five rulings the District Court made in the Order on Petition that
    Petitioners assert are erroneotis. However, Rule 14(3) requires that urgency or emergency
    factors exist that make the normal appeal process inadequate. Petitioners have a pending
    motion to stay the Order on Petition in the District Court and if denied by the District Court,
    M. R. App. P. 22(2) provides an avenue for Petitioners to seek review of that denial.
    Moreover, "a writ of supervisory control is not to be used as a means to circumvent the
    appeal process. Only in the most extenuating circumstances will such a writ be granted."
    State ex rel. Ward v. Schmall, 
    190 Mont. 1
    , 
    617 P.2d 140
     (1980). Here, Petitioners offer
    no explanation as tO why they seek supervisory control rather than simply appealing from
    the District Court's Order—or seeking certification of the Order on Petition under M. R.
    Civ. P. 54(b) if necessary.
    As such, Petitioners have not demonstrated that this case is appropriate for this
    Court to take supervisory control.
    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for writ of supervisory control is
    DENIED and DISMISSED.
    The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for
    Petitioner, all counsel of record in the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Rosebud County,
    Cause No. DV-19-34, and the Honorable Katherine M. Bidegaray, presiding Judge.
    2
    DATED this cA   day of January, 2022.
    Justices
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: OP 21-0655

Filed Date: 1/4/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/4/2022