Opinion
OP 22-0021
01-18-2022
MATTHEW G. MONFORTON, Petitioner, v. MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, THE HONORABLE MICHAEL F. McMAHON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondent.
ORDER
Petitioner Matthew G. Monforton seeks a writ of supervisory' control directing the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, to vacate its January 13, 2022 Temporary Restraining Order and Show Cause Order in its Cause No. BDV-2022-29. Montforton alleges that supervisory control is necessary and this Court must vacate the order because the District Court has no jurisdiction to hear this case, which involves challenges to ballot issue statements and legal sufficiency determinations. Monforton argues that the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which enjoins Monforton and all others from gathering or accepting signatures in support of placing CI-121 on any 2022 ballot, prejudices the proponents by shortening the timeframe in which they may-gather the necessary signatures. He further requests a stay of the District Court's order.
CI-121 is a constitutional initiative that would limit the annual increases and decreases in valuations of residential property for the purpose of assessing property tax.
Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when urgency or emergency factors exist making the normal 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.3d 754 (citations omitted).
Here, Monforton asserts this matter is appropriate for supervisory control because the TRO is not readily appealable and the issue presented is purely one of law. Under M. R. App. P. 14(7)(a), upon the filing of a petition for writ, this Court may either order a summary response or dismiss the petition without ordering a response. In its January 13, 2022 order, the District Court set a show cause hearing for January 24, 2022, at which time Monforton and the other named Respondents in the District Court action are ordered to appear before the District Court to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. If we were to order a response in this instance, providing the petitioners in the underlying case and the District Court time to respond and allowing time for this Court to rule upon the matter, even if proceedings were set on an expedited basis, would delay resolution well beyond January 24, 2022. Although Monforton promptly filed this Petition on January 14, 2022, the TRO is only in effect for 10 days and the more expedient path is to allow the District Court to proceed; if Monforton is dissatisfied with the court's ruling regarding the preliminary injunction, that ruling is immediately appealable pursuant to M. R. App. P. 6(3)(e), and Monforton may also move to stay that ruling under M. R. App. P. 22.
We summarily denied other recent petitions for writs of supervisory control for similar reasons. See Kennedy v. Mont. First Judicial Dist. Court, No. OP 21-0545, Order (Mont. Nov. 9, 2021) (petition denied where District Court failed to hold show cause hearing within 21 days as required by § 40-4-220(2)(b), MCA, because entertaining petition would delay resolution beyond the set hearing date); Shepard v. Eighteenth Judicial Dist. Court, No. OP 21-0602, Order (Mont. Dec. 7, 2021) (petition denied where District Court issued TRO and show cause hearing in excess of 10 days because. entertaining petition would delay resolution beyond the set hearing date).
We further note that although a TRO, issued for a time not to exceed 10 days in accordance with § 27-19-316, MCA, may not be readily susceptible to supervisory control by the nature of the extremely short timeframe involved, the restrained party is not left without remedy for the duration of the TRO. Section 27-19-319, MCA, provides:
On 2 days' notice to the party who obtained the temporary restraining order without notice or on such shorter notice as the court or judge may prescribe, the adverse party may appear and move that the order be dissolved or modified. The court shall hear and determine such motion as expeditiously as the ends of justice require.
Thus, Monforton is not left without a remedy as he may seek relief from the TRO in the District Court prior to the January 24, 2022 show cause hearing.
Therefore, IT IS 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 First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, Cause No. BDV-2022-29 and the Honorable Michael F. McMahon, presiding Judge.