Missoula v. Mountain Water, 487 P.3d 15

Condemnation litigation between the City of Missoula and Mountain Water Company/Carlyle began in 2014 and raised challenges to Montana's fee-cap statute, §70-30-306(2)-(3), under Article II, §29 of the Montana Constitution.
Owners sought discovery of the City’s legal bills to support an as-applied challenge that county "customary" caps unconstitutionally undercompensated their "necessary expenses of litigation."
The District Court ruled Owners were prevailing parties but barred discovery into the City’s bills, applied county customary rates, held the statute constitutional, and significantly reduced Owners’ fee awards.
This Court in City of Missoula v. Mt. Water Co. (Mountain Water III) reversed the District Court’s summary-judgment ruling on the Owners’ as-applied challenge because the bar on discovery prevented Owners from establishing necessity; the case was remanded for further proceedings (limited discovery).
On remand Owners timely filed a motion for substitution of judge under §3-1-804(12), MCA; the District Court denied the motion as untimely, reasoning the remand was only for limited discovery and did not trigger §3-1-804(12).
The Supreme Court reviewed de novo and held that Mountain Water III reversed the summary judgment and remanded, thus invoking the substitution right; the District Court erred and any orders entered after Owners’ timely substitution motion were vacated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §3-1-804(12) applies when this Court reverses summary judgment and remands	Remand was limited for discovery only and §3-1-804(12) does not apply	The Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded, so §3-1-804(12) grants substitution	§3-1-804(12) applies: Mountain Water III reversed summary judgment and remanded, triggering substitution rights
Whether Owners’ substitution motion was timely and whether the District Court properly denied it	District Court concluded motion untimely despite filing requirements met	Owners complied with statutory filing requirements and filed within remittitur period	Denial was erroneous: Owners timely filed; District Court abused its authority in denying substitution
Whether a remand described as "limited discovery" avoids the substitution rule	City: remand limited, akin to Mines Mgmt., so substitution right not triggered	Owners: plain language of Mountain Water III reversed summary judgment and remanded; statutory text controls	The Court refuses to construe Mountain Water III narrowly; the remand followed a reversal of summary judgment and triggers §3-1-804(12)
Effect of a timely substitution motion on post-motion district court rulings	City: proceedings could continue	Owners: after timely motion the original judge lacks authority to act on merits	After timely motion, the original judge has no power to act on merits; orders entered after the motion are vacated

City of Missoula v. Mt. Water Co., 391 Mont. 422 (2018) (reversed summary-judgment ruling on as-applied challenge and remanded for further proceedings)
Mines Mgmt. v. Fus, 376 Mont. 375 (2014) (distinguishes remands that do not affect summary-judgment status for substitution purposes)
Labair v. Carey, 389 Mont. 366 (2017) (standard of review: substitution-of-judge timeliness is a question of law reviewed for correctness)