Opinion
DA 21-0555
01-04-2022
PAMELA JO POLEJEWSKI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CASCADE COUNTY, JOHN and JANE DOE, Defendants and Appellees.
ORDER
Through counsel, Appellee Cascade County (the County) moves this Court for dismissal of this appeal because it is premature, referencing Cause No. ADV-20-274, arising in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. Self-represented Appellant Pamela Jo Polejewski (Polejewski) responds in opposition.
Some background is necessary. In May 2020, fire fighters responded to a fire in a trailer functioning as housing for animals on Polejewski's property, located on 77 Wexford Lane, in Great Falls. The County seized 172 animals. Pursuant to § 27-1-314, MCA, Polejewski challenged the County's handling of her animals that had been seized by law enforcement and that were the subject of a forfeiture proceeding in the District Court. In a June 4, 2020 forfeiture Order, the District Court ordered that Polejewski provide a bond to cover the monthly costs of $30,000 for the seized animals or face forfeiture. The court also consolidated both Cause Nos. ADV-20-274 and BDV-20-276(a) in 2020, which this Court decided on appeal that same year. See State v. Polejewski, Cause No. DA 20-0306, 2020 MT 287N, 2020 Mont. LEXIS 2484 (We affirmed the District Court's Order) (Polejewski XIV).
In March 2021, Polejewski also appealed a District Court Order, issued in Cause No. ADV-20-274, that denied her motions for reconsideration and injunction, pointing out that any new issues Polejewski sought to raise were barred by res judicata. We affirmed. State v. Polejewski, No. DA 21-0150, 2021 MT 283N, 2021 Mont. LEXIS 887 (Polejewski XVI).
In the present action. Polejewski tiled a "Motion to Compel Discovery” on July 16, 2021, directed to the County. The District Court denied the motion on October 1, 2021, and Polejewski appealed. The County contends that the District Court's October 1, 2021 Order is not appealable, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 6(5)(a). The County explains that the court has not issued a scheduling order nor has discovery been requested or answered after Polejewski filed her action. The County concludes that Polejewski's appeal should be dismissed because it is not from a final judgment.
An order denying a motion to compel is an interlocutory order, meaning that it is not a final judgment, but a decision that manages the case's proceeding. The Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure clearly disallow appeals of interlocutor)' orders. M. R. App. P. 6(5)(f). "[A]n aggrieved party may not appeal from an 'interlocutory judgment."' Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bodell, 2008 MT 363, ¶ 16, 346 Mont. 414, 197 P.3d 913 (citing M. R. App. P. 6(5)(f)). The purpose of our rules is found in a legal doctrine that precludes piecemeal litigation. Farmers Union, ¶ 17.
This Court reviewed the order on appeal, attached to Polejewski's Notice of Appeal. The District Court denied her Motion to Compel Discovery, pointing out that Polejewski had not complied with the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure by serving proper discovery requests upon counsel for the County. The order that Polejewski seeks to appeal is not an appealable order. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the County's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to close this case and to issue remittitur as of the date of this Order.
The Clerk is also directed to provide a copy of this Order to Tina Henry, Clerk of District Court, Cascade County, under Cause No. ADV-20-0274 and Cause No. BDV-20-276(a); to counsel of record, and to Pamela Jo Polejewski personally.