High Country Paving, Inc. v. United Fire and Casualty Company

District Court, D. Montana·Decided November 14, 2019·No. 9:18-cv-00163·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 14 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS In re: HIGH COUNTRY PAVING, INC. No. 19-72853 ______________________________ D.C. No. 9:18-cv-00163-DWM HIGH COUNTRY PAVING, INC., District of Montana, Missoula Petitioner, ORDER v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA, MISSOULA,

Respondent,

UNITED FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY,

Real Party in Interest.

Before: BYBEE and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner’s emergency motion to stay the district court’s November 4, 2019 order (Docket Entry No. 3) is granted. See Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). This petition for a writ of mandamus raises issues that warrant an answer. See Fed. R. App. P. 21(b). Accordingly, within 14 days after the date of this order, the real party in interest shall file an answer. The district court, within 14 days after the date of this order, may address the petition if it so desires. The district court may elect to file an answer with this court or to issue an order and serve a copy on this court. Petitioner may file a reply

within 5 days after service of the answer(s). The petition, answer(s), and any reply shall be referred to the next available merits panel. The Clerk shall serve this order on the district court and District Judge

Donald W. Molloy.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

High Country Paving, Inc. v. United Fire and Casualty Company, (D. Mont. 2019).

High Country Paving, Inc. v. United Fire and Casualty Company (High Country Paving, Inc. v. United Fire and Casualty Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hilton v. Braunskill
481 U.S. 770 (Supreme Court, 1987)