Aarstad v. BNSF Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 August 2022
• Docket Number: DA 22-0380
• Parties: KOREY L. AARSTAD, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; JOHN SWING; MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a Maryland Corporation; ROBINSON INSULATION COMPANY, a Montana Corporation for profit; and DOES A-Z, Defendants and Appellees.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

KOREY L. AARSTAD, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; JOHN SWING; MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a Maryland Corporation; ROBINSON INSULATION COMPANY, a Montana Corporation for profit; and DOES A-Z, Defendants and Appellees.

No. DA 22-0380

Supreme Court of Montana

August 16, 2022

ORDER

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Appellants Korey L. Aarstad, et al., have filed a notice of appeal from the June 15, 2022 Entry of Judgment as to Plaintiffs entered in the Asbestos Claims Court of the State of Montana, Twenty-Third Judicial District Court, in its Cause No. DV-57-20160000785-AE.

The Entry of Judgment as to Plaintiffs states, in its entirety:

On June 9, 2021 the Honorable Judge Amy Eddy signed an Order dismissing all claims on the deferred docket unless the plaintiffs filed a motion to activate by October 29, 2021 Plaintiffs [sic] claims were placed on the deferred docket and no motion to activate was filed by the October 29, 2021 deadline. The Court finds pursuant to Mont. R. Civ. P. 54(b) that there is no just reason for delaying the entry of judgment as to the claims brought by Plaintiffs. JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED in favor of Defendants BNSF Failrway Co. and John Swing

Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 4(4)(b), we have reviewed the Asbestos Claims Court's June 15, 2022 Entry of Judgment for compliance with M. R. App. P. 6(6). Rule 6(6) provides that a district court may direct entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and, "[i]n so doing, the

1

district court must 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, and the court shall, in accordance with existing case law, articulate in its certification order the factors upon which it relied in granting certification ...

If a court abuses its discretion in certifying an order as final under Rule 54(b), we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Kohler v. Croonenberghs, 2003 MT 260, 317 Mont. 413, 77 P.3d 531. Thus, even if not raised by a party, we will sua sponte determine if the court's certification order meets the criteria we have set forth in Roy v. Neibauer, 188 Mont. 81, 610 P.2d 1185 (1980), and Weinstein v. University of Montana, 271 Mont. 435, 898 P.2d 101 (1995). Kohler, ¶¶ 8-9.

To meet these criteria, the trial...