Nandan, LLP v. City of Fargo

Nandan, LLP, and Border States Paving, Inc., (collectively, "Border States") appealed a district court judgment dismissing its amended complaint against the City of Fargo for failing to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Nandan, LLP, and Border States Paving, Inc., owned real property in Fargo. In 2012, a landslide occurred along 32nd Street North adjacent to the industrial facility of Border States. According to a report, the landslide likely originated from a stockpile of granular material located on Border States' property. The landslide ruptured a water main and storm sewer, and damaged 32nd Street North and Drain No. 10. Drain No. 10 was owned, operated, and maintained by the Southeast Cass Water Resource District. Fargo owned the street, water main, and storm sewer. Border States received a notice from Fargo stating that it created "Improvement District 6237" to fund a portion of the local share of a project that would provide for drain, water main and sanitary sewer repairs on a portion of Drain No. 10. The notice indicated Fargo would contribute approximately $600,000 to the project, paid for through special assessments assessed to real property owners within the improvement district. The only real property within the improvement district to be assessed was owned by Border States. In September 2013, Border States sued Fargo to determine whether Fargo properly created Improvement District No. 6237. Border States' amended complaint sought relief asserting the improvement district was made without a resolution of necessity and without providing Border States adequate notice and depriving it of the right to protest the creation of the improvement district. Fargo moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, and for judgment on the pleadings. Border States opposed Fargo's motion. The district court concluded Border States' amended complaint provided no right to relief under N.D.C.C. sections 40-22-06 and 40-22-15. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the part of the district court judgment that concluded Border States had no right to relief against Fargo under N.D.C.C. 40-22-06, relating to when a resolution of necessity was required and the right of public protest arises under an agreement between a municipality and another entity. The Court reversed and remanded the part of the judgment concluding Border States had no right to relief under N.D.C.C. 40-22-15, relating to the requirements for resolutions declaring an improvement necessary, because viewing the allegations in the amended complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the Court was not certain of the impossibility of proving a claim upon which relief can be granted. View "Nandan, LLP v. City of Fargo" on Justia Law