R-Montana v. Fulbright ( 2022 )

D ORIGINAL 04/12/2022
IN THF, SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
Case Number: DA 22-0163
DA 22-0163
FILED
R-MONTANA ASSOCIATES, LP,
APR 12 2022
Plaintiff and Appellee, Bowen Greenwooa
Clerk of Supreme Court
State or Montana
v.
ORDER
KEVIN FULBRIGHT AND ACCESS FITNESS,
INC. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
Defendants and Appellants Kevin Fulbright and Access Fitness, Inc., have filed a
notice of appeal from the Fourth Judicial District Court's March 3, 2002 Order Granting
Partial Summary Judgment to R-Montana in that Court's Cause No. DV-21-422. The appeal
is from an order certified as final by the District Court pursuant to M. R. Civ. R 54(b). The
District Court's partial summary judgment order included an order for Access Fitness to
vacate the "Lease Premises" at issue in the litigation by March 7, 2022. The issue of
damages for delinquent rent remains to be resolved.
Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 4(4)(b), we have reviewed the District Court's certification
order for compliance with M. R. App. P. 6(6). That rule allows a court to direct entry of
final judgment on an otherwise interlocutory order "only upon an express determination that
there is no just reason for delay, pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 54(b)." The rule further requires
the court, "in accordance with existing case law, [to] articulate in its certification order the
factors upon which it relied in granting certification[.]" As set forth in Roy v. Neibauer,
188 Mont. 81, 87, 610 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1980), the factors this Court normally considers
regarding a Rule 54(b) certification include: (1) the relationship between the adjudicated and
unadjudicated claims; (2) the possibility that the need for review might or might not be
mooted by future developments in the district court; (3) the possibility that the reviewing
court might be obliged to consider the same issue a second time; (4) the presence or absence
of a claim or counterclaim which could result in a set-off against the judgment sought to be
made final; and (5) miscellaneous factors such as delay, economic and solvency
considerations, shortening the time of trial, triviality of computing claims, expense, and the
like. "[A]11 or some of the above factors may bear upon the propriety of the order granting a
Rule 54(b) certificatioe in a particular case. Roy, 188 Mont. at 87, 610 P.2d at 1189.
In certifying its partial summary judgment order, the District Court recognized its
obligation to balance the competing factors present in the case to determine if it is in the
interest of sound judicial administration and public policy to certify the judgment as final. It
concluded that there was no just reason for delay, and the judgment should be certified for
immediate appeal. We require a certifying district court to "marshall [sic] and articulate the
factors upon which it relied in granting certification so that prompt and effective review can
be facilitated." Kohler v. Croonenberghs, 2003 MT 260, ¶ 16, 317 Mont. 413, 417,
77 P.3d 531 (citing Roy, 188 Mont. at 87, 610 P.2d at 1189). The District Court did not
discuss the Roy factors individually or sequentially, but it did articulate its reasoning for
concluding that the "infrequent harsh case threshold had been met. Roy, 188 Mont. at 87,
610 P.2d at 1188.
The court explained that the issue on which judgment was granted was its ruling on
standing. The effect of its order—compelling Access Fitness to vacate the premises—would
allow R-Montana to lease the premises to another tenant. At that point, the court
reasoned,
"there is no meaningful relief that could be granted to Access Fitness on appeal some months
down the road after the issue of damages is resolved." It acknowledged R-Montan
a's
concem about continued failures to pay rent, but observed, "that is a harm that can
be
remedied as part of the ongoing litigation before this Court on the issue of damages arising
2
frorn breach of the Lease agreement." The court found no just reason for delay, noting that
appeal of the standing issue would not impact a determination ofpayrnents made or damages
suffered, and the two issues are "separate and distinct." It noted further the parties'
agreement "that future developments before this Court on the damages claim have no
prospect of mooting the standing issue, that it is unlikely the Montana Suprerne Court would
have to consider the standing issue twice, [and I there are no pending counterclaims that
could result in a setoff against this Court's judgernent [sic]." On the other hand, the court
opined, denying certification had the potential to cause Access Fitness irreparable harm.
Upon review, we conclude that the court's certification order is in substantial
compliance with the requirernents of Rule 6(6) and our case law interpreting certification
orders under Rule 54(b).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this appeal may proceed.
The Clerk is dirsi to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record.
DATED this Z_, day of April. 2022.
Chief Justice
3