Montana's rule on filing a lawsuit without a lawyer turns on a feature the national template does not capture: Montana calls the opening paper a complaint. Self-represented parties file in District Court (Justice Court for smaller civil claims). Individuals may appear pro se. Entities generally need Montana counsel. The controlling authority is Montana Rules of Civil Procedure. E-filing: Montana File & Serve / Odyssey (where enabled). E-filing availability varies; Justice Court small claims remains paper-accessible in many counties. Service: Mont. R. Civ. P. 4. Small claims: Justice Court small-claims procedure (generally up to $7,000).
Key takeaways
- Individuals may appear pro se. Entities generally need Montana counsel.
- Main trial forum: District Court (Justice Court for smaller civil claims). Smaller disputes often belong in Justice Court small-claims procedure (generally up to $7,000).
- Procedure: Montana Rules of Civil Procedure. Opening paper: a complaint.
- Service: Mont. R. Civ. P. 4. Serve under Rule 4 — personal service or authorized alternatives.
- E-filing: Montana File & Serve / Odyssey (where enabled). E-filing availability varies; Justice Court small claims remains paper-accessible in many counties.
- Pair this page with the LawDiver search rail (scoped to Montana) and the Montana evidence guide.
Primary search phrases this page targets: file a lawsuit without a lawyer Montana; Montana pro se; how to sue in Montana; Montana Justice Court small claims.
Worked example under Montana law
The illustration below uses only rules already stated for Montana. It is a research hypothetical, not a prediction of what a court will do.
A person in Montana wants to sue without a lawyer and has not yet filed anything.
- Confirm you may appear without counsel: Individuals may appear pro se. Entities generally need Montana counsel.
- Draft a complaint and file it in District Court (Justice Court for smaller civil claims). E-filing: E-filing availability varies; Justice Court small claims remains paper-accessible in many counties.
- Serve under Mont. R. Civ. P. 4. Serve under Rule 4 — personal service or authorized alternatives. File proof of service. Rural service may require planning for travel distances.
- Expect discovery under Mont. R. Civ. P. 26–37 govern discovery. Scheduling orders set cutoffs in District Court. A jury demand follows Demand a jury under Mont. R. Civ. P. 38 for eligible claims. Small claims are typically non-jury.
Missing service or a limitations deadline is not excused because the filer is pro se in Montana. The evidence companion is the Montana evidence guide.
Contents
- What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
- Can you litigate pro se in Montana?
- Role of the judge and the jury
- Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
- How to file and serve in Montana
- Registering for e-filing
- Discovery
- Rules of evidence (short tour)
- Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
- How LawDiver can help
- Montana case law highlights
- Frequently asked questions
What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
Self-represented litigants lose cases when they confuse sources of law. Use these definitions when you research on LawDiver:
| Source | What it is | How you use it in Montana |
|---|---|---|
| Statute | A law enacted by the legislature (or Congress) | Creates rights, duties, damages caps, notice periods, and causes of action |
| Case (opinion) | A written decision of a court resolving a dispute | Interprets statutes and rules; binds lower courts in the same hierarchy when it is controlling precedent |
| Court rule | A procedural regulation adopted by the judiciary | Tells you how to plead, serve, discover, and try a case — e.g. Montana Rules of Civil Procedure |
| Regulation | A rule issued by an executive agency under statutory authority | Matters when your claim involves licensed industries, benefits, or administrative prerequisites |
| Local rule / administrative order | County- or court-specific filing practice | Often controls e-filing mandates, cover sheets, and hearing calendars |
A winning Montana theory usually needs all three of: (1) a substantive statute or common-law claim, (2) a pleading that satisfies the civil rules, and (3) admissible evidence under the Montana Rules of Evidence.
Can you litigate pro se in Montana?
Individuals may appear pro se. Entities generally need Montana counsel.
Pro se (sometimes in propria persona or self-represented) means you speak for yourself. Courts often construe pro se papers liberally on formatting, but they do not invent claims you failed to plead, excuse missed statutes of limitation, or waive service defects. If a corporation is on the other side with counsel, you will still be held to the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure.
Montana Judicial Branch self-help forms cover Justice Court and civil filings.
Montana opinions on pro se practice
MOUNTAIN WEST BANK, N.A., Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. GLACIER KITCHENS, INC., CR WEAVER TRUST, and THE ESTATE OF
…ACKGROUND ¶2 On May 17, 2010, CR Weaver (Weaver), appearing pro se, filed a complaint in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, against Mountain West Bank (MWB) alleging breach of contract, unfair trade practices, and a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. MWB filed its answer and counterclaim for judicial foreclosure on June 4, 2010…
MOUNTAIN WEST BANK, N.A., Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. GLACIER KITCHENS, INC., CR WEAVER TRUST, and THE ESTATE OF is worth reading on Montana pro se because the court put the point in its own words: "CR Weaver (Weaver), appearing pro se, filed a complaint in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, against Mountain West Bank (MWB) alleging breach of contract, unfair trade practices, and a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
JOHN P. STOKES and PAMELA J. STOKES, Petitioners and Appellants, v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY OF MONTANA, INC., a
…t the appeals had been taken unreasonably. However, Stokes’ pro se appeals have repeatedly been found to be insufficiently presented, including a failure to provide a sufficient record or a failure to raise cognizable arguments, and have usually been affirmed in a memorandum opinion based upon the failure to meet the appellant’s burden. In this matter, we conclude that Mr. and…
On pro se, JOHN P. STOKES and PAMELA J. STOKES, Petitioners and Appellants, v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY OF MONTANA, INC., a speaks to the Montana dispute in this passage: "t the appeals had been taken unreasonably. However, Stokes’ pro se appeals have repeatedly been found to be insufficiently presented, including a failure to provide a sufficient record or a failure to raise cognizable arguments, and have usually been affirmed in a memorandum opin" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
SUN MOUNTAIN SPORTS, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAULA L. GORE, Defendant and Appellant
…rding the claimed debt, but she answered the Montana action pro se. On Sun Mountain’s motion, the Bexar County Court entered an order abating Gore’s Texas action pending disposition of the Montana proceeding. ¶5 Upon being served with the Montana summons and complaint, Gore, on or about April 8, 2002, submitted via certified mail to the Missoula County Clerk of Court, an answer…
On pro se, SUN MOUNTAIN SPORTS, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAULA L. GORE, Defendant and Appellant speaks to the Montana dispute in this passage: "Montana action pro se. On Sun Mountain’s motion, the Bexar County Court entered an order abating Gore’s Texas action pending disposition of the Montana proceeding." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
DONNIE DORRELL NOLAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RIVERSTONE HEALTH CARE, Defendant and Appellee
…od during that time. ¶4 On February 11, 2013, Nolan filed a pro se complaint against RiverStone asserting a crudely pled civil claim alleging that it violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment) by denying him access to a prescribed pain medication (Hydrocodone) while incarcerated. Nolan subsequently filed add…
On pro se, DONNIE DORRELL NOLAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RIVERSTONE HEALTH CARE, Defendant and Appellee speaks to the Montana dispute in this passage: "On February 11, 2013, Nolan filed a pro se complaint against RiverStone asserting a crudely pled civil claim alleging that it violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
RICHARD C. LUSSY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FRANK BENNETT, Donald Clark, John Stevens and the First Security Bank
…an amended complaint so as to be allowed attorney fees as a pro se litigant. On October 25, 1984, this Court issued a restraining order in cause No. 84-407 of this Court enjoining the appellant from proceeding pro se in any Montana court without requesting a leave to file or proceed, and staying all pending actions brought by him pro se. In prosecuting this appeal, the appellan…
On pro se, RICHARD C. LUSSY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FRANK BENNETT, Donald Clark, John Stevens and the First Security Bank speaks to the Montana dispute in this passage: "On October 25, 1984, this Court issued a restraining order in cause No. 84-407 of this Court enjoining the appellant from proceeding pro se in any Montana court without requesting a leave to file or proceed, and staying all pending actions brought by him pro se." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
JAY E. LUNDQUIST and DONNA M. LUNDQUIST Plaintiffs, Appellants, and Cross-Respondents, v. MICHAEL W. MCBETH and
…32 For Appellants: Jay E. Lundquist and Donna M. Lundquist (pro se), Philipsburg, MT. For Respondents: Joseph C. Connors, Jr., Connors Law Firm, P.L.L.P., Anaconda, MT. Justice TERRY N. TRIEWEILER delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶ 1 Plaintiffs, Jay E. Lundquist and Donna M. Lundquist, attempted to file a pro se complaint against Defendant, Michael W. McBeth, in the District…
On pro se, JAY E. LUNDQUIST and DONNA M. LUNDQUIST Plaintiffs, Appellants, and Cross-Respondents, v. MICHAEL W. MCBETH and speaks to the Montana dispute in this passage: "For Appellants: Jay E. Lundquist and Donna M. Lundquist (pro se), Philipsburg, MT. For Respondents: Joseph C. Connors, Jr., Connors Law Firm, P.L.L.P., Anaconda, MT. Justice TERRY N. TRIEWEILER delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶ 1 Plaintiffs, Jay E. Lundquist and Donna M." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
VIANNA STEWART, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CLARK E. RICE AND EDYTHE RICE, Defendants and Appellants; JUANITA STANDS
…time of the accident. On September 8, 2009, Edythe filed a pro se answer denying that Clark was acting as her employee at the time of the accident. On December 11, 2009, through her retained counsel, Robert Stephens, Edythe filed an amended answer denying vicarious liability and negligent entrustment and cross-claimed against Juanita. On February 2,2010, Juanita amended her cr…
VIANNA STEWART, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CLARK E. RICE AND EDYTHE RICE, Defendants and Appellants; JUANITA STANDS is worth reading on Montana pro se because the court put the point in its own words: "On September 8, 2009, Edythe filed a pro se answer denying that Clark was acting as her employee at the time of the accident." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Role of the judge and the jury
- The judge decides questions of law: what the statute means, whether a pleading states a claim, which evidence is admissible, and how the jury (if any) is instructed. In bench trials and most small-claims matters, the judge also finds the facts.
- The jury decides disputed questions of fact in jury-eligible civil cases when a timely demand is made and any jury fee is paid.
- Demand a jury under Mont. R. Civ. P. 38 for eligible claims. Small claims are typically non-jury.
Practical tip: decide before filing whether you want a jury. Late demands are often waived. Small-claims paths (Justice Court small-claims procedure) usually trade speed for no jury and limited discovery.
Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
Pleadings are the formal papers that frame the lawsuit. In Montana the plaintiff's opening paper is typically a complaint. It should:
- Identify the parties and the court (District Court (Justice Court for smaller civil claims) or the small-claims forum).
- Allege facts that, if true, entitle you to relief under a recognized claim.
- Demand judgment (money, injunction, declaratory relief, or other remedies the court can grant).
- Include a jury demand if you want one and the claim is jury-triable.
The defendant responds with an answer (admissions, denials, affirmative defenses) and/or a motion to dismiss challenging legal sufficiency, jurisdiction, or service. Later motions (compel discovery, summary judgment, limine) are usually not “pleadings” in the technical sense, but they drive most civil cases.
Montana pleadings opinions
MYKL MEAGHER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BUTTE-SILVER BOW CITY-COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation and Political
…h M. R. Civ. P. 56 (Rule 56) when it converted the County’s Motion to Dismiss to a motion for summary judgment? ¶4 Did the District Court err when it denied Meagher’s motion for a continuance? FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶5 In October 2003 Butte-Silver Bow City-County acquired several properties through tax forfeiture proceedings and posted them for sale at the County Tre…
MYKL MEAGHER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BUTTE-SILVER BOW CITY-COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation and Political is worth reading on Montana pleadings because the court put the point in its own words: "M. R. Civ. P. 56 (Rule 56) when it converted the County’s Motion to Dismiss to a motion for summary judgment?" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
DOUGLAS L. PLOUFFE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, GAMBLING CONTROL DIVISION
…ng malicious prosecution and defamation. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on principles of res judicata. The District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and Plouffe appeals that order. We reverse the order of the District Court. ¶2 The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred when it granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. FACTUAL AND PROC…
Montana opinions such as DOUGLAS L. PLOUFFE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, GAMBLING CONTROL DIVISION are cited where pleadings is disputed. The court stated: "Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on principles of res judicata. The District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and Plouffe appeals that order. We reverse the order of the District Court." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
INQUIRY CONCERNING COMPLAINT OF: JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION, Complainant, v. LEROY NOT AFRAID, Respondent
…I, Section 10 ¶6 In March 2010, the JSC denied Not Afraid’s motion to dismiss concluding that Article VII, Section 10 and the Code of Judicia Conduct applies to Not Afraid for his actions as Justice of the Peace and that the Crow Tribal Chairman position is included within th< common definition of an “elective public office.” The JSC furthei determined that the Code of Judicial…
Practitioners open INQUIRY CONCERNING COMPLAINT OF: JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION, Complainant, v. LEROY NOT AFRAID, Respondent when Montana pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Not Afraid’s motion to dismiss concluding that Article VII, Section 10 and the Code of Judicia Conduct applies to Not Afraid for his actions as Justice of the Peace and that the Crow Tribal Chairman position is included within th< common definition of an “elective public office." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
ARLIN HOVELAND, WENDY HOVELAND, Individually and as Guardian for DANYEL HOVELAND, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v
…dicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without giving notice to the parties and granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of the respondent, Charles E. Petaja. We reverse and remand. Appellants raise the following issues for this Court to consider: 1. Whether the District Court erred in converting…
Practitioners open ARLIN HOVELAND, WENDY HOVELAND, Individually and as Guardian for DANYEL HOVELAND, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v when Montana pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "District Court, Lewis and Clark County, converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without giving notice to the parties and granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of the respondent, Charles E. Petaja. We reverse and remand." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
MING DA SITU and PEI SHU ZHOU, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. H. DOUGLAS SMOLE, as Successor Trustee of the LOIS M
…peal: ¶3 1. Did the District Court err in granting Murphy’s motion to dismiss in light of Situs’ presentation of facts to demonstrate that the statute of limitations had not expired, as well as facts to demonstrate that Murphy should have been estopped from claiming the statute of limitations as a defense? ¶4 2. Did the District Court improperly consider matters outside the ple…
Practitioners open MING DA SITU and PEI SHU ZHOU, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. H. DOUGLAS SMOLE, as Successor Trustee of the LOIS M when Montana pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Court err in granting Murphy’s motion to dismiss in light of Situs’ presentation of facts to demonstrate that the statute of limitations had not expired, as well as facts to demonstrate that Murphy should have been estopped from claiming the statute of limitations as a defense?" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
BILL GORDON POWELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE SALVATION ARMY, Defendant and Respondent
…tory of alcoholism. The Salvation Army subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, which the District Court granted on July 1, 1997. It is from the court’s order dismissing his complaint that Powell presently appeals. For the reasons stated below, we reverse. The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in granting the Salvation Army’s motion to dismiss for failure…
Practitioners open BILL GORDON POWELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE SALVATION ARMY, Defendant and Respondent when Montana pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The Salvation Army subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, which the District Court granted on July 1, 1997. It is from the court’s order dismissing his complaint that Powell presently appeals. For the reasons stated below, we reverse." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
BERTHA R. CREMER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ED BRAATEN and OLGA BRAATEN, His Wife, Defendants and Cross-Complaints
…iff and defendants both filed affidavits and thereafter the motion to dismiss was granted and an order of dismissal entered pursuant thereto. Upon motion of the plaintiff the order of dismissal was vacated in order that further argument could be had. Briefs were submitted and oral argument heard, and on May 26, 1967, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not prosecuted her…
On pleadings, BERTHA R. CREMER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ED BRAATEN and OLGA BRAATEN, His Wife, Defendants and Cross-Complaints speaks to the Montana dispute in this passage: "Upon motion of the plaintiff the order of dismissal was vacated in order that further argument could be had." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
How to file and serve in Montana
Filing
- Choose the correct forum: District Court (Justice Court for smaller civil claims) for larger or complex civil cases; Justice Court small-claims procedure when your claim fits generally up to $7,000.
- Prepare the complaint (and any required cover sheet, civil case information statement, or summons).
- Pay the filing fee or apply for a fee waiver / indigency finding as Montana practice allows.
- Obtain a signed summons (or local equivalent) from the clerk after the case is opened.
Governing procedure: Montana Rules of Civil Procedure.
Service of process
Filing alone does not start the clock against the defendant in a meaningful way — service does. Authority: Mont. R. Civ. P. 4.
Serve under Rule 4 — personal service or authorized alternatives. File proof of service. Rural service may require planning for travel distances.
Defective service is one of the most common reasons pro se cases are dismissed without prejudice (or worse, delayed until limitations problems appear). Keep copies of every affidavit or return.
Montana service opinions
MICKEY D. FONK, Petitioner and Appellant, v. MAVANEE J. ULSHER, Respondent and Respondent, and J.C.F. and S.J.F
…d for child support, to determine paternity and to question service of process on the basis that he had not been personally served in the underlying dissolution proceeding. The District Court for the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County, dismissed Forik’s service of process claim and entered final judgment. Fonk appeals that portion of the judgment which denies his m…
Practitioners open MICKEY D. FONK, Petitioner and Appellant, v. MAVANEE J. ULSHER, Respondent and Respondent, and J.C.F. and S.J.F when Montana service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The District Court for the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County, dismissed Forik’s service of process claim and entered final judgment." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
ROBERT NIKOLAISEN, JUDY NIKOLAISEN, and PLENTYWOOD ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. ADVANCE TRANSFORMER
…gment pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), based on improper service of process. Therefore, we do not fully discuss the other issues Advance raises. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶3 On November 19, 2002, a fire destroyed Plentywood Electric, owned by the Nikolaisens. The State Fire Marshall investigated the fire the following day and, according to Plentywood, concluded that…
Montana opinions such as ROBERT NIKOLAISEN, JUDY NIKOLAISEN, and PLENTYWOOD ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. ADVANCE TRANSFORMER are cited where service of process is disputed. The court stated: "M. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), based on improper service of process. Therefore, we do not fully discuss the other issues Advance raises. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶3 On November 19, 2002, a fire destroyed Plentywood Electric, owned by the Nikolaisens." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
DAN EDDLEMAN and JAMES D. SLACK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO., a Connecticut Corporation
…tana Commissioner of Insurance, Aetna’s statutory agent for service of process, on November 13,1995, at 5:30 p.m. Plaintiffs filed their return of service of process with the Yellowstone County Clerk of the District Court on November 20, 1995. On November 28, 1995, the court entered its order dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint on the merits. However, the *52court vacated this ord…
DAN EDDLEMAN and JAMES D. SLACK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO., a Connecticut Corporation is worth reading on Montana service of process because the court put the point in its own words: "Commissioner of Insurance, Aetna’s statutory agent for service of process, on November 13,1995, at 5:30 p.m. Plaintiffs filed their return of service of process with the Yellowstone County Clerk of the District Court on November 20, 1995." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
DONNIE DORRELL NOLAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RIVERSTONE HEALTH CARE, Defendant and Appellee
…inst RiverStone Health Care (RiverStone) for lack of timely service of process. We affirm. ISSUE ¶2 The dispositive issue in this matter is whether the District Court erred in dismissing Nolan’s complaint for failure to comply with applicable Rules of Civil Procedure for service of process. BACKGROUND ¶3 From 2011 through September 30, 2016, RiverStone contracted with Yellowsto…
On service of process, DONNIE DORRELL NOLAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RIVERSTONE HEALTH CARE, Defendant and Appellee speaks to the Montana dispute in this passage: "RiverStone Health Care (RiverStone) for lack of timely service of process. We affirm." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
CLAIRE PESARIK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GABRIEL R. PERJESSY, D.D.S., Defendant and Appellee
…M. R. Civ. P. 41(e). Rule 41(e) governed the time limit for service of process for actions filed before January 1, 2000. ¶12 The District Court cited Otto v. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 2000 MT 333, ¶ 20, 303 Mont. 86, ¶ 20, 15 P.3d 402, ¶ 20, in which this Court determined that the courts lacked authority to enlarge the time period in which a plaintiff must serve…
CLAIRE PESARIK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GABRIEL R. PERJESSY, D.D.S., Defendant and Appellee is worth reading on Montana service of process because the court put the point in its own words: "M. R. Civ. P. 41(e). Rule 41(e) governed the time limit for service of process for actions filed before January 1, 2000. ¶12 The District Court cited Otto v. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 2000 MT 333, ¶ 20, 303 Mont. 86, ¶ 20, 15 P." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Registering for e-filing
Montana's primary electronic filing path is Montana File & Serve / Odyssey (where enabled).
How to register: Register with the Montana courts e-filing vendor used by your county, verify identity, and fund fees or request a waiver.
Pro se reality check: E-filing availability varies; Justice Court small claims remains paper-accessible in many counties.
When you e-file:
- Use PDF/A or the portal's accepted formats; flatten forms before upload.
- Check that party names match the caption exactly.
- Calendar the clerk's acceptance email — a rejected filing is often treated as unfiled.
- Serve other parties under the rules (e-service through the portal may not replace initial service of process).
Discovery
After pleadings, parties exchange information. In Montana:
Mont. R. Civ. P. 26–37 govern discovery. Scheduling orders set cutoffs in District Court.
Typical tools:
- Interrogatories — written questions answered under oath.
- Requests for production — documents, ESI, and tangible things.
- Requests for admission — force yes/no authenticity or fact stipulations.
- Depositions — live testimony under oath (expensive; plan carefully if you are self-represented).
If the other side stonewalls, a motion to compel and, later, sanctions motions are the enforcement path. Courts expect meet-and-confer first in most jurisdictions.
Montana discovery opinions
HUMBERT MULARONI, SR., MARY JO MULARONI, HUMBERT MULARONI, JR., EDWARD MULARONI, DEAN MULARONI, MARC MULARONI, and
…ement was a general access easement, both parties began the discovery process. ¶16 The original plaintiffs in this action were the five Mularoni children. Humbert Mularoni Sr., (Humbert Sr.) and his wife, Mary Jo, *410 were later added as parties upon the request of Bings. Although Humbert Sr. was not an owner of the property, he had interacted with Bings in the preceding years…
On discovery, HUMBERT MULARONI, SR., MARY JO MULARONI, HUMBERT MULARONI, JR., EDWARD MULARONI, DEAN MULARONI, MARC MULARONI, and speaks to the Montana dispute in this passage: "The original plaintiffs in this action were the five Mularoni children. Humbert Mularoni Sr., (Humbert Sr.) and his wife, Mary Jo, *410 were later added as parties upon the request of Bings. Although Humbert Sr." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE OF MONTANA, Ex Rel., BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Relator, v. the DISTRICT COURT OF THE EIGHTH
…r certain interrogatories and was enjoined from any further discovery until compliance with the order. The District Court further ordered Burlington Northern to pay plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs in bringing the motion to compel discovery. We affirm in part and reverse in part. This action arises from injuries received by Mr. Gilliland, an employee of Burlington Northern R…
On discovery, STATE OF MONTANA, Ex Rel., BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Relator, v. the DISTRICT COURT OF THE EIGHTH speaks to the Montana dispute in this passage: "The District Court further ordered Burlington Northern to pay plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs in bringing the motion to compel discovery. We affirm in part and reverse in part. This action arises from injuries received by Mr." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
DAVID PETERMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC., and HERBALIFE OF AMERICA, INC
…athead County, dismissed Peterman’s *543 case on account of discovery abuses. Peterman appeals this and two other pretrial rulings. We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case and, therefore, affirm. ¶2 The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in dismissing Peterman’s case as a sanction for discovery abuse.…
Practitioners open DAVID PETERMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC., and HERBALIFE OF AMERICA, INC when Montana discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "County, dismissed Peterman’s *543 case on account of discovery abuses. Peterman appeals this and two other pretrial rulings. We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case and, therefore, affirm." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
JOHN MIKE DOWNEY, PATRICE DOWNEY, THOMAS DOWNEY, AND THE DONUT HOLE, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. DENVER
…e complaint on Christensen and Baker Boy, the Downeys began discovery by serving requests for production on Christensen and Baker Boy. Both Christensen and Baker Boy responded to the Downeys’ first discovery requests. Christensen and Baker Boy separately answered the complaint on the merits and each asserted the following affirmative defenses: “As an affirmative defense, Baker…
Montana opinions such as JOHN MIKE DOWNEY, PATRICE DOWNEY, THOMAS DOWNEY, AND THE DONUT HOLE, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. DENVER are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "Christensen and Baker Boy, the Downeys began discovery by serving requests for production on Christensen and Baker Boy. Both Christensen and Baker Boy responded to the Downeys’ first discovery requests." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Kenneth DALEY, and v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPAN — Sandefur, J., concurring in part and dissenting
…ling party on Daley's motion to compel previously requested discovery. ¶ 44 As a threshold matter, I am well aware from first-hand experience, and thus empathize with district courts regarding the all-too-common, frustrating difficulty faced in trying to effectively and efficiently manage discovery and the overall litigation schedule in contested FELA cases in Montana's overloa…
Kenneth DALEY, and v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPAN — Sandefur, J., concurring in part and dissenting is worth reading on Montana discovery because the court put the point in its own words: "Daley's motion to compel previously requested discovery." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
JOLENE SHELTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., Defendant and Respondent
…for summary judgment and denying Shelton’s motion to compel discovery. We reverse and remand. ¶2 We review whether the District Court erred in granting State Farm’s motion for summary judgment? FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 Shelton and her husband, Kenneth Shelton, were injured in an automobile accident in Missoula in early April of1995. Tim Hazelbaker (Hazelbaker) “rear-en…
Montana opinions such as JOLENE SHELTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., Defendant and Respondent are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "Shelton’s motion to compel discovery. We reverse and remand. ¶2 We review whether the District Court erred in granting State Farm’s motion for summary judgment?" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Rules of evidence (short tour)
Trials and many motion hearings are decided on admissible evidence, not on what you know happened. Montana applies the Montana Rules of Evidence. Core ideas:
- Relevance — does the proof make a fact of consequence more or less probable?
- Authenticity — is the exhibit what you claim it is?
- Hearsay — is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, and if so, does an exception apply?
- Privileges — attorney-client, spousal, and other privileges can block inquiry even when the facts are relevant.
For a full Montana walkthrough of hearsay, business records, authenticity, and depositions at trial, read the companion guide: Montana Evidence Law: Admissibility, Hearsay, and Authenticity.
Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
Many civil cases never reach a jury. A party may move for summary judgment by showing there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pro se litigants lose these motions when they respond with argument instead of affidavits, authenticated exhibits, and pinpoint record citations.
Montana summary-judgment opinions
GARY R. MOTARIE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NORTHERN MONTANA JOINT REFUSE DISPOSAL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent
…ng Northern Montana Joint Refuse Disposal District (NMJRDD) summary judgment. The court concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the essential element of Motarie’s claim of wrongful discharge, specifically, that NMJRDD fired Motarie in retaliation for his reporting a violation of public policy. We reverse. The following issue is raised on appeal: Did the…
Montana opinions such as GARY R. MOTARIE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NORTHERN MONTANA JOINT REFUSE DISPOSAL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent are cited where summary judgment is disputed. The court stated: "Northern Montana Joint Refuse Disposal District (NMJRDD) summary judgment." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
ANN M. BROOKINS, as an Individual and ANN M. BROOKINS, as Natural Parent and Legal Guardian on Behalf of ALLEN
…. The first reopened discovery, while the other two granted summary judgment to the Mineral Community Hospital (the Hospital) on all of Ann’s claims. We address the following issues and affirm: ¶2 1. Did the District Court err in reopening discovery ? ¶3 2. Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to the Hospital on the agency claims? ¶4 3. Did the District Court…
Montana opinions such as ANN M. BROOKINS, as an Individual and ANN M. BROOKINS, as Natural Parent and Legal Guardian on Behalf of ALLEN are cited where summary judgment is disputed. The court stated: "The first reopened discovery, while the other two granted summary judgment to the Mineral Community Hospital (the Hospital) on all of Ann’s claims. We address the following issues and affirm: ¶2 1. Did the District Court err in reopening discovery ?" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The ESTATE OF MADELEINE WILLSON and ROBERT WILLSON, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DR. BRICE T. ADDISON, BENEFIS
…”), 1 and Dr. T. Brice Addison (“Dr. Addison”) 2 motion for summary judgment and denying Robert’s motion for summary judgment. Benefis cross-appeals. We affirm. ¶2 Dr. Addison was Madeleine Willson’s (“Madeleine”) physician for approximately 20 years. In 2000, Madeleine was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy but declined chemotherapy or radiation treatmen…
Practitioners open The ESTATE OF MADELEINE WILLSON and ROBERT WILLSON, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DR. BRICE T. ADDISON, BENEFIS when Montana summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Dr. T. Brice Addison (“Dr. Addison”) 2 motion for summary judgment and denying Robert’s motion for summary judgment. Benefis cross-appeals. We affirm. ¶2 Dr. Addison was Madeleine Willson’s (“Madeleine”) physician for approximately 20 years." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
In THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CECELIA JUSTENE HARMON, Deceased
In THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CECELIA JUSTENE HARMON, Deceased, 360 Mont. 150 (2011)
…om the order of the Eighth Judicial District Court granting summary judgment in favor of the Estate’s Personal Representative, Roger Harmon (Harmon). We affirm the District Court and remand for further proceedings. ¶2 We consider the following issues on appeal: ¶3 1. Whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Harmon. ¶4 2. Whether the District Cou…
Montana opinions such as In THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CECELIA JUSTENE HARMON, Deceased are cited where summary judgment is disputed. The court stated: "Eighth Judicial District Court granting summary judgment in favor of the Estate’s Personal Representative, Roger Harmon (Harmon). We affirm the District Court and remand for further proceedings. ¶2 We consider the following issues on appeal: ¶3 1." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
MARY MCCULLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AMERICAN LAND TITLE COMPANY and U.S. BANK OF MONTANA, Defendants and
…otional distress, and malice. All parties filed motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted ALTC’s and U.S. Bank’s motions for summary judgment and denied McCulley’s. McCulley appeals. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. ISSUE ¶3 A restatement of the issue on appeal is: ¶4 Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to American Land Title…
Practitioners open MARY MCCULLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AMERICAN LAND TITLE COMPANY and U.S. BANK OF MONTANA, Defendants and when Montana summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "All parties filed motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted ALTC’s and U.S. Bank’s motions for summary judgment and denied McCulley’s. McCulley appeals. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
TOM HINDERMAN and GLORIA SCHNELL, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. G. ALLAN KRIVOR, ROCKY MOUNTAIN LAND, and NORTHERN
…trict Court, Mineral County, granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, enforcing the settlement agreement entered into between the parties. We affirm. BACKGROUND ¶ 2 In 2003, Plaintiffs entered into agreements to purchase Lots 7[1] and 8 of the Cayuse Ridge Ranch subdivision owned by Defendants. The purchase agreement for Lot 8 specifically noted matters of record, inclu…
TOM HINDERMAN and GLORIA SCHNELL, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. G. ALLAN KRIVOR, ROCKY MOUNTAIN LAND, and NORTHERN is worth reading on Montana summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "Court, Mineral County, granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, enforcing the settlement agreement entered into between the parties. We affirm." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
JAMES and CHRISTINE GORDON, Petitioners and Appellees, v. JOSEPH KIM KUZARA, Individually and as Representative of R
…the order granting James and Christine Gordon’s motion for summary judgment and ordering dissolution of Half Breed Land and Livestock, LLC. We affirm. ¶2 Kuzaras and R Three present the following issues for review: ¶3 Issue One: Whether the District Court properly granted summary judgment, ordering judicial dissolution of the LLC. ¶4 Issue Two: Whether the District Court prope…
Montana opinions such as JAMES and CHRISTINE GORDON, Petitioners and Appellees, v. JOSEPH KIM KUZARA, Individually and as Representative of R are cited where summary judgment is disputed. The court stated: "James and Christine Gordon’s motion for summary judgment and ordering dissolution of Half Breed Land and Livestock, LLC. We affirm." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
GENE BRIDGMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., Defendant and Appellee
…t Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, granting summary judgment to Union Pacific Railroad Company on Bridgman’s Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) claim and denying his request for additional discovery. We address the following issues on appeal: ¶2 1. Whether the District Court erred in concluding as a matter of law that Bridgman’s FELA claims are barred by th…
GENE BRIDGMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., Defendant and Appellee is worth reading on Montana summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, granting summary judgment to Union Pacific Railroad Company on Bridgman’s Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) claim and denying his request for additional discovery. We address the following issues on appeal: ¶2 1." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
How LawDiver can help
LawDiver is built for researching the same authorities a courtroom expects — not for inventing cites.
- LawDiver search — From this guide page, the search rail is scoped to Montana. Search phrases like
pro se,service of process,motion to compel, or your statute number. - Corpus-linked opinions — Every case block above links to a
/casedisplayopinion id that exists in LawDiver's caselaw corpus. Do not paste outside citations into filings unless you have verified them. - Statutes — Where Montana codes are mirrored, open the linked statute sections from this article and read the live text before quoting.
- GoodLaw / citator workflow — Before you rely on an older opinion, check how later Montana cases treat it.
- Evidence companion — Use the Montana evidence guide when you are preparing exhibits or opposing a motion in limine.
- AI research with grounding — Prefer tools that require retrieval from your matter and the LawDiver corpus over chatbots that invent case names.
LawDiver does not file documents for you, give legal advice, or replace a lawyer when the stakes, opposing counsel, or entity-representation rules require one.
Montana case law highlights
Use the topic sections above for pro se practice, pleadings, service, discovery, and summary judgment. Re-run LawDiver searches before hearings — new published opinions appear continuously.
Checklist before you file in Montana
- Confirm you (not an entity) may appear pro se for this claim.
- Pick Justice Court small-claims procedure vs District Court (Justice Court for smaller civil claims) based on amount and remedy.
- Draft a complaint that states facts and a legal theory.
- Register on Montana File & Serve / Odyssey (where enabled) (or confirm paper filing is allowed).
- Arrange proper service under Mont. R. Civ. P. 4.
- Calendar answer deadlines, discovery cutoffs, and any jury-demand deadline.
- Research controlling Montana cases and the Montana Rules of Evidence on LawDiver.
- Consider limited-scope or full representation if the other side has counsel or the claim exceeds small-claims complexity.
Frequently asked questions
How do I file a lawsuit without a lawyer in Montana?
Prepare a complaint, file it in the correct Montana court (District Court (Justice Court for smaller civil claims) or Justice Court small-claims procedure), pay or waive the fee, obtain a summons, and complete service under Mont. R. Civ. P. 4. Register for Montana File & Serve / Odyssey (where enabled) when e-filing is required or available.
What is the difference between a statute and a court rule?
A statute creates substantive rights and duties. A court rule (such as Montana Rules of Civil Procedure) controls procedure — captions, service, discovery, and trial mechanics. You usually need both.
Do I need to register for e-filing?
E-filing availability varies; Justice Court small claims remains paper-accessible in many counties. Registration steps: Register with the Montana courts e-filing vendor used by your county, verify identity, and fund fees or request a waiver.
Will I get a jury?
Demand a jury under Mont. R. Civ. P. 38 for eligible claims. Small claims are typically non-jury.
What happens in discovery?
Mont. R. Civ. P. 26–37 govern discovery. Scheduling orders set cutoffs in District Court.
How does LawDiver help a pro se litigant?
It lets you search and read Montana opinions and statutes that actually exist in the LawDiver corpus, with links you can verify — reducing the risk of hallucinated citations — while you still remain responsible for filing, service, and courtroom advocacy.
Disclaimer
LawDiver publishes this guide for public legal-information and SEO education purposes. It is not a substitute for advice from a licensed Montana attorney. Court rules, e-filing vendors, fee schedules, and jurisdictional limits change. Verify every citation and deadline against official Montana sources and the live LawDiver corpus before relying on them in a filing.