Opinion
DA 21-0398
03-22-2022
ZACHARY RUSK, Petitioner and Appellant, v. THOMAS ROSEEN, CINDY ROSEEN, and SHAWN ROSEEN, Respondents and Appellees.
ORDER
On February 4, 2022, Appellant Zachary Rusk (Rusk) filed a petition for rehearing of this Court's January 25, 2022, Opinion affirming the District Court's dismissal of Rusk's request for injunctive and declaratory relief with prejudice. Rusk v. Roseen, DA 21-0398, 2022 MT 2IN, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 62. Appellees indicated their intent to file a response motion opposing Rusk's petition for rehearing by March 11, 2022; however, no response was ever filed. We nevertheless proceed with our ruling on Rusk's petition for rehearing.
Under M. R. App. P. 20, this Court seldom grants petitions for rehearing. The rule makes clear that this Court will entertain a petition for rehearing on very limited grounds. This Court will consider a petition for rehearing only if the opinion "overlooked some fact material to the decision," if the opinion overlooked a question that would have decided the case, or if the "decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed" by the Court. M. R. App. P. 20.
Having fully considered Rusk's petition, the Court concludes that rehearing is not warranted under Rule 20. The Court did not overlook material facts or issues raised by the parties or fail to address a controlling statute or decision that conflicts with the Opinion. Furthermore, in light of our denial of Rusk's petition for rehearing, we decline to rule on Rusk's subsequent February 22. 2022 "Motion for Contempt and Forthwith Rescinding of [the Court's] Order for Extension of Time.”
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all parties and counsel of record.