ARM 24.5.316 MOTIONS

Ivie v. MUS Self Funded Workers' Compensation Program [06/09/10] 2010 MTWCC 15 The Court will not require a party to re-file its motion where it set forth the basis for the motion within the motion itself and did not file a separate brief.
Pinnow v. Halverson, Sheehy & Plath [06/20/08] 2008 MTWCC 31 Under ARM 24.5.316(4), failure to file briefs may subject the motion to summary ruling, and failure of the adverse party to timely file an answer brief may be deemed an admission that the motion is well-taken. Intervenor’s motion for summary judgment on one of the issues in this case was granted where Respondent responded that Intervenor’s motion was well-taken and Petitioner filed no response, leading the Court to conclude Intervenor’s motion should be granted.
Benton v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [05/15/08] 2008 MTWCC 23 Where Petitioner failed to timely file her response to a motion to dismiss and failed to set forth any circumstances establishing good cause for her untimely response, the argument contained in her untimely response will not be considered by the Court.
Pinnow v. MSF [02/24/06] 2006 MTWCC 9 Although Petitioner argued that her request to deny attorney fees to the attorney who negotiated the settlement she wished to repudiate should be granted due to the attorney’s failure to file a brief in response to her motion within ten days as set forth in Rule 24.5.316 ARM, the attorney was not allowed to intervene in this action until its motion to intervene was granted, and therefore the time requirements set forth in the administrative rules do not apply as the firm was not a party to this action at the time Petitioner’s motion was filed.
Shell v. Valor Ins. Co. [03/24/06] 2006 MTWCC 12 Where a party files a document entitled “Response to Motion,” but fails to substantively address the motion within the body of the document, it is insufficient to constitute substantive opposition to that motion. Rule 24.5.316 ARM provides that the failure of an adverse party to timely file an answer brief may be deemed an admission that the motion is well taken.
Insurance Company of State of Pennsylvania and Carol Bergquist v. State Compensation Insurance Fund [5/2/00] 2000 MTWCC 26 Where time for filing motion to amend response to petition has been set in WCC scheduling order, and missed by one day by moving party, the question is whether there is good cause to extend the deadline and excuse the moving party from its failure to file a timely motion. Where the deadline was missed by one day, the parties have already agreed to postpone the trial date, and the proposed amendments appear to state tenable defenses, the amendment of the response is allowed.
Taves v. AIU Insurance Company [11/30/99] 1999 MTWCC 76 Where insurance counsel moved to compel claimant to appear at a resumed deposition, WCC considered the fact that said counsel had rejected the suggestion of claimant's counsel to contact the WCC during deposition for resolution of the dispute, rather than to terminate the deposition. The deposition was not ordered resumed where the questions giving rise to the dispute were not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and insurance counsel unilaterally chose to terminate the deposition rather than seek an immediate ruling.
Jensen v. State Fund [1/12/98] 1998 MTWCC 1 Employer's motion to dismiss on ground that claimant was not an employee and faked his fall denied where not supported by "appropriate supporting documents and affidavits" as required by ARM 24.5.316(3).