Opinion
DA 23-0636
12-05-2023
BLUEBIRD PROPERTY RENTALS, LLC, and ALAINA GARCIA, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. WORLD BUSINESS LENDERS, LLC; WBL SPO I, LLC; and WBL SPO II, LLC, Defendants and Appellants.
ORDER
Appellees Bluebird Property Rentals, LLC, and Alaina Garcia (Bluebird) have moved to dismiss this appeal, arguing that Appellants World Business Lenders, LLC, WBL SBO I, LLC, and WBL SPO II, LLC, (WBL) are attempting to appeal from an order that is not immediately appealable under M. R. App. P. 6.
Bluebird alleges that the October 19, 2023 Opinion and Order Re Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration, entered by the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, in its Cause No. DV-23-201D, is not that court's "final decision on the referenced matter" and therefore this matter is not ripe for appeal. WBL opposes Bluebird's motion and alleges that it has appealed from an order immediately appealable under M. R. App. P. 6(3)(c) because it is an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and nothing in the order implies that it is not the District Court's final decision on that question.
In the order at issue, the District Court explained that, although WBL characterized its motion as a "Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration," the court considered it to be a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The court then denied the motion, being unpersuaded by WBL's argument that Montana courts lack jurisdiction because the contract underlying the parties' dispute contained a Nevada choice-of-law provision. The court concluded that Montana law governs the dispute and that Montana law must be applied to the question of whether the contract's arbitration and choicc-of-law provisions are enforceable.
Noting that M. R. App. P. 6(3) provides that certain orders in civil cases are immediately appealable "[provided that the order is the court's final decision on the referenced matter," Bluebird argues that the District Court's order is not a final decision because it did not rule on whether the contract's arbitration and choice-of-law provisions are enforceable under Montana law. However, those are separate issues beyond the question of subject matter jurisdiction. As such, WBL is correct that the October 19,2023 Opinion and Order Re Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration, denying WBL's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, is properly before this Court on appeal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all parties of record.