## Facts

- Guang Xiang Liang sued Gerri Lai and Ping Lai (doing business as Genki Japanese Restaurant and New Asia Restaurant) in Montana district court seeking monetary damages.
- The district court granted defendants’ motion for a change of venue.
- Liang filed a notice of appeal from the change-of-venue order and stated in the notice that the appeal was subject to the mediation process required by Rule 54, M.R.App.P.
- Rule 54 required mediation in appeals arising from actions seeking money damages and set a deadline (75 days from the notice of appeal) to complete the mediation process.
- After the appellate record was filed, the clerk issued a briefing schedule; no Rule 54(c) stipulation was filed to pause briefing deadlines while mediation occurred.
- Liang filed an unopposed motion asking the Montana Supreme Court to dispense with Rule 54 mediation because the only issue on appeal was venue and counsel believed mediation could not resolve that issue.
- Liang relied on prior Montana decisions where the Court concluded Rule 54 did not apply because the underlying cases primarily sought non-monetary relief and monetary issues were only incidental.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 54’s mandatory appellate mediation requirement applies when the underlying lawsuit seeks monetary damages but the appeal challenges only a non-monetary interlocutory order (change of venue).
2. Whether the Montana Supreme Court should dispense with Rule 54 mediation based on the parties’ agreement that mediation would not help resolve the issue on appeal.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court denied Liang’s unopposed motion to dispense with mediation.
- The Court held the appeal was subject to Rule 54 mandatory mediation because it arose from an action seeking monetary damages, even though the appellate issue involved only venue.
- The Court rejected Liang’s reliance on earlier cases declining to apply Rule 54, explaining those decisions involved underlying actions whose main thrust was non-monetary (with only incidental monetary components).
- Because no Rule 54(c) stipulation was filed, the briefing deadlines were not paused by the mediation process.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 54(a)(3), M.R.App.P., applies to “appeals in actions seeking monetary damages/recovery.”
- Whether Rule 54 applies turns on the nature and main thrust of the underlying action, not on how the particular issue on appeal is labeled.
- Prior decisions limiting Rule 54’s reach apply where the underlying action primarily seeks non-monetary relief (such as injunction, easement, or specific performance) and any monetary component (such as attorney’s fees) is secondary.
- The parties’ shared view that mediation is unlikely to resolve the appellate issue does not remove an otherwise covered appeal from Rule 54’s mandatory mediation process.
- Appellate timelines continue to run unless the parties file a Rule 54(c) stipulation that places deadlines on hold.

## Conclusion

Because Liang’s underlying lawsuit sought monetary damages, the Montana Supreme Court treated the appeal as one “in an action seeking monetary damages/recovery” and required Rule 54 mediation even though the only question on appeal was a change of venue, denying the parties’ request to skip mediation and leaving briefing deadlines in place absent a Rule 54(c) stipulation.


Liang v. Lai, 78 P.3d 1212 (2003)