Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court of Montana.

Jada KU, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GREAT FALLS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant and Appellee.

DA 21-0095

Decided: October 19, 2021

For Appellant: Jada Ku, Self-Represented, Great Falls, Montana For Appellee: Jean E. Faure, Katie R. Ranta, Faure Holden Attorneys at Law, P.C., Great Falls, Montana

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.

¶2 Jada Ku appeals from the February 2, 2021 Order to Re-Close Case filed by the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. Ku filed a complaint against Great Falls Public Schools (GFPS) on July 17, 2020. She alleged “Breach of Confidence,” “Discrimination of my mental disability,” “Intimidation,” and “Harassment” and sought financial compensation and a public apology. Ku attached 114 pages of her handwritten diary, as well as letters she wrote to various government agencies about her complaints against GFPS. GFPS moved to dismiss the case under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on August 11, 2020. Ku filed an untimely response on October 28, 2020. The District Court held a hearing on the motion on December 8, 2020. Ku did not attend the hearing. The District Court dismissed the case with prejudice on December 10, 2020. On December 15, 2020, Ku filed a motion to reopen the case and a 40-page handwritten affidavit. GFPS opposed the motion, arguing Ku satisfied none of the M. R. Civ. P. 60(b) criteria for relief from final judgment. The District Court denied the motion on February 2, 2021, and Ku appeals.

¶3 In her briefing on appeal, Ku generally alleges she was treated differently by the staff at GFPS's adult education program while a student there. She maintains the District Court erred in dismissing her case against GFPS as the court should have appointed her counsel because she has a mental disability and an interpreter due to a language barrier.

¶4 “[A] district court's decision is presumed correct and it is the appellant who bears the burden of establishing error by that court.” In re Marriage of McMahon, 2002 MT 198, ¶ 7, 311 Mont. 175, 53 P.3d 1266. An appellant's brief on appeal must raise legal errors with the district court's order and contain citations to legal authorities in support of the appellant's contentions. See M. R. App. P. 12(1)(g). Ku has failed to articulate a legal error with the District Court's orders or cite to any legal authority in support of her contentions. She has failed to meet her burden of establishing error by the District Court.

¶5 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. This appeal presents no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does not establish new precedent or modify existing precedent.

¶6 Affirmed.

Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.


Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Copied to clipboard