Hawkins v. Northwestern Corp., DA 25-0393

Hawkins sued Northwestern and Rhoades in March 2024 over utility services to trust-owned property and several tort and statutory claims. 1
Northwestern’s first dismissal motion was denied, then it answered and later filed a second Rule 12(b)(6) motion; the court set a December 1, 2024 deadline to join additional parties. 2
Hawkins moved to disqualify Judge Recht, but he denied the motion as procedurally defective; Hawkins sought mandamus, and the case later shifted to Judge Snipes Ruiz. 3
After the scheduling conference, Hawkins filed a Rule 20 joinder of Terry Wallace as a plaintiff, while Northwestern moved to strike the joinder as untimely and unsupported. 4
At the April 3, 2025 hearing, the court considered the joinder, dismissal, and discovery motions, then dismissed the case under Rule 2(c) for Hawkins’s failure to file a response brief. 5
The court also refused to join Wallace, finding the request untimely, unsupported under Rule 20, and insufficient to show good cause to modify the scheduling order. 6
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding Hawkins waived her challenge to Judge Snipes Ruiz’s assignment, Rule 2(c) supported dismissal, and denying Wallace’s joinder was not an abuse of discretion. 7

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Hawkins waive her challenge to Judge Snipes Ruiz’s assignment? 8	Hawkins said she preserved the disqualification issue by seeking to disqualify Judge Recht.	Northwestern said Hawkins never timely objected to Judge Snipes Ruiz’s assignment.	Waived; first raised on appeal. 9
Could the court dismiss under Rule 2(c) for no response brief? 10	Hawkins said the court had to address the motion’s legal defects.	Northwestern said Hawkins’s failure to respond made the motion well taken.	Yes; dismissal was within discretion. 11
Did Rule 12(d) require summary judgment conversion? 12	Hawkins said outside materials required conversion and discovery.	Northwestern said any materials were public-record immaterialities.	No conversion required. 13
Was Northwestern’s second Rule 12(b)(6) motion improper? 14	Hawkins said a second Rule 12 motion was barred.	Northwestern said the court could consider the merits to promote economy.	Court could consider it; no abuse of discretion. 15
Did the court err by refusing to join Wallace as plaintiff? 16	Hawkins said Rule 20 allowed joinder and the deadline should be extended.	Northwestern said joinder was late and unsupported, and good cause was lacking.	No; joinder properly denied. 17

Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Addink, 383 Mont. 243, 371 P.3d 970 (Mont. 2016) (judicial disqualification reviewed de novo 18)
In re Marriage of Marez & Marshall, 377 Mont. 304, 340 P.3d 520 (Mont. 2014) (Rule 2(c) motions reviewed for abuse of discretion 19)
In re Estate of Burns, 414 Mont. 365, 540 P.3d 1029 (Mont. 2023) (joinder rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion 20)
Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C., 387 Mont. 430, 395 P.3d 497 (Mont. 2017) (§ 3-1-805 procedure governs judicial disqualification affidavits 21)
State v. Dunsmore, 378 Mont. 514, 347 P.3d 1220 (Mont. 2015) (disqualification claims must be raised within a reasonable time 22)
State v. Pizzola, 283 Mont. 522, 942 P.2d 709 (Mont. 1997) (Rule 2(c) cannot make an incorrect motion well taken as a matter of law 23)
Garza v. Forquest Ventures, Inc., 381 Mont. 189, 358 P.3d 189 (Mont. 2015) (failure to timely object waives a Rule 12(b)(2) defense 24)
Anderson v. ReconTrust Co., N.A., 390 Mont. 12, 407 P.3d 692 (Mont. 2017) (outside-the-pleadings materials can require Rule 12(d) conversion 25)
Brookins v. Mote, 367 Mont. 193, 292 P.3d 347 (Mont. 2012) (good cause to modify a scheduling order depends on the totality of circumstances 26)