Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

D.W. was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous individual in June 2004. D.W. requested discharge from civil commitment in December 2014. The district court found the State's expert, Dr. Jennifer Krance, and the independent expert, Dr. Stacey Benson, agreed D.W. remained a sexually dangerous individual and had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. D.W. appealed when the district court denied his petition for discharge from civil commitment. Because the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were supported by clear and convincing evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Interest of D.W." on Justia Law

Scott Klein appealed, and Janis Klein cross-appealed, a district court order denying Scott's motion to terminate spousal support. In the divorce judgment, the district court awarded Janis permanent spousal support of $4,500 per month until such time as she died or remarried. Scott alleged Janis habitually cohabitated with another individual in a relationship analogous to marriage for at least one year, as required to terminate a permanent spousal support award under N.D.C.C. 14-05-24.1(3). Janis, among other arguments, argued N.D.C.C. 14-05-24.1(3) did not apply to cohabitation prior to August 1, 2015. Because he did not satisfy the requirements under N.D.C.C. 14-05-24.1(3), the district court denied Scott Klein's motion to terminate the spousal support. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial. View "Klein v. Klein" on Justia Law

Jonathan Garaas appeals after a district court entered a judgment of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In 2015, the Cass County Joint Water District ("District") ordered the establishment of an assessment district to fund the development, operation and maintenance of a Fargo-Moorhead flood risk management project. Garaas filed a notice of appeal of the decision with the district court. Thereafter, a Cass County deputy sheriff served Garaas' notice of appeal on the District's secretary-treasurer, Carol Harbeke Lewis. Lewis was not a member of the District's governing board. Attorneys from Ohnstad Twichell, P.C., served Garaas a notice of appearance in the case. The deputy sheriff's return was served on the District's attorneys and filed in the district court. The District then moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. A Cass County deputy sheriff served Garaas' notice of appeal on District board member, Mark Brodshaug. Then the district court dismissed Garaas' claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding he failed to perfect his appeal by properly serving the notice of appeal on a board member as required by N.D.C.C. 28-34-01. Garaas appealed the dismissal. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. View "Garaas v. Cass County Joint Water Resource District" on Justia Law

According to the complaint, Dustin Limberg sought emergency department care and treatment at Sanford Medical Center Fargo. He did not have insurance and was asked to sign, and did sign, Sanford's "Statement of Financial Responsibility and Release of Information" form ("the contract"). After receiving his bill for the visit, Limberg filed a class action lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that Sanford's billing practices were unfair, unconscionable, or unreasonable because the contract contained an "open price" term. He claimed the term "all charges" as referenced in the Sanford contract was ambiguous and he and the class were liable to Sanford only for the reasonable value of the treatment and services provided to them. Sanford moved for dismissal, which the district court granted. Limberg appealed. On appeal, he argued the district court should not have dismissed the case. Because the district court appropriately dismissed the case, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "Limberg v. Sanford Medical Center Fargo" on Justia Law

In June 2014, the Traill County Water Resource District initially approved Patricia Bertsch's application to install subsurface drain tile on her land, conditioned on her obtaining flowage easements from affected landowners, including appellant Ray Zajac. At a regularly scheduled meeting on July 7, 2015, the Resource District amended its original approval of Bertsch's application to eliminate the requirement that she obtain an easement from Zajac. Zajac did not dispute the agenda for the Resource District's regularly scheduled July 7, 2015 meeting was filed with the Traill County Auditor before the meeting and stated the "Jon Bertsch-Zajac Easement Issue" would be addressed at 7:30. The parties did not dispute that a separate notice of hearing was not mailed to or otherwise served upon Zajac before the meeting. After amending approval of Bertsch's application, the Resource District sent Zajac a July 14, 2015 letter notifying him of the July 7, 2015 decision. On August 10, 2015, Zajac filed a notice of appeal from the Resource District's amended decision with the district court. The district court dismissed Zajac's appeal, concluding it was not timely under N.D.C.C. 28-34-01. Finding no error in the district court's dismissal, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Zajac v. Traill County Water Resource District" on Justia Law

Matthew Viscito sued Kevin Christianson asserting claims regarding the parties' agreement to build, own, and lease a hospital. On August 1, 2013, the district court granted Christianson's motion to compel arbitration, ordering the parties to complete arbitration within six months. On January 30, 2014, Viscito moved for an extension of time to complete arbitration. In response Christianson opposed the motion, moved to dismiss the action with prejudice, and requested "costs and fees incurred herein" under N.D.R.Ct. 11.5. In March 2014 the district court held a hearing on the parties' motions and ruled from the bench that the case be dismissed without prejudice and awarded Christianson reasonable attorney fees and costs. In May 2014 the court entered a judgment of dismissal without prejudice, awarding Christianson $33,405.14 for the full amount of costs and attorney fees Christianson had incurred in defending the entire case. iscito appealed the judgment, arguing the district court had abused its discretion in awarding all of Christianson's costs and attorney fees incurred throughout the case because the court misinterpreted the rules authorizing sanctions. In "Viscito I," the Supreme Court reversed the court's award and remanded for a determination of authority on which the court had imposed sanctions and for findings necessary to support its award. In this case's second trip, the Supreme Court concluded the district court on remand did not follow its mandate in "Viscito I" when the court applied N.D.R.Civ.P. 41 to justify the full amount of its prior attorney fees and costs award. The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Viscito v. Christianson" on Justia Law

Johnston Law Office, P.C. appealed an order compelling discovery and finding it in contempt of court. PHI Financial Services, Inc., ("PHI") sued Johnston for alleged fraudulent transfers relating to a federal crop payment made to Johnston's client. After trial, the district court entered judgment against Johnston in the amount of $167,203.24. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. While that appeal was pending, PHI began post-judgment discovery in aid of execution. PHI served Johnston with various interrogatories pertaining to Johnston's financial assets. Johnston returned the interrogatories on April 4, 2015, answering the first two interrogatories in their entirety, answering a portion of the third interrogatory, and objecting to the remainder of the third interrogatory and all other remaining interrogatories. Johnston claimed the unanswered interrogatories violated N.D.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(3). PHI moved for an order compelling Johnston to answer the remaining interrogatories. In its motion, PHI certified its May 8 letter and May 19 attempt to contact Johnston via telephone was a good faith attempt to confer to resolve the discovery dispute without judicial intervention, as required by N.D.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1). The district court granted PHI's motion. The court concluded N.D.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(3) did not bar PHI's interrogatories because, after including all discrete subparts, PHI served thirty-seven interrogatories. The court also concluded PHI's pre-judgment interrogatories should not have been considered in determining whether PHI's post-judgment interrogatories exceeded the limits under N.D.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(3). Further, the court concluded PHI's efforts to contact Johnston regarding the discovery dispute, and Johnston's resulting inaction, constituted a good faith attempt to confer to resolve the discovery dispute before seeking judicial intervention. The court entered its order to compel. PHI served notice of entry of the order. After Johnston did not comply with the order to compel, PHI moved to hold Johnston in contempt of court. The district court granted the motion, concluding Johnston had actual notice or knowledge of the order to compel and it had a willful and inexcusable intent to violate the order. PHI served notice of entry of this order too. Johnston appealed both orders. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the discovery order and finding of contempt. View "PHI Financial Services, Inc. v. Johnston Law Office, P.C." on Justia Law

Mark and Kayla Rath were divorced in January 2013. Kayla was awarded primary residential responsibility of the couple's children. Mark was awarded supervised parenting time. Mark filed a motion for an order to show cause and a motion for relief from the original divorce judgment. He argued both motions in one brief, asserting Kayla violated his due process and First Amendment rights by monitoring his phone calls with the children. He also argued Kayla violated the terms of the divorce judgment by making the children unavailable for scheduled calls, ending calls prematurely, and refusing to allow one of the children to accept a cell phone he sent as a gift. Finally, Mark asserted the district court judge presiding over his case failed to remain impartial and should have recused himself. The district court denied Mark's motion for an order and for relief. Finding no reversible error in the district court's order, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law

Lori Jury appealed a district court's order denying her motion to vacate a summary judgment. Jury argued the district court should have provided notice of the summary judgment hearing independent of the notice provided by the Barnes County Municipal Airport Authority ("BCMAA"). Jury had sued BCMAA pro se after she was terminated from her at-will employment. Jury worked as a part-time clerk for the Airport under the direction of its board and manager. In 2012, Jury applied for the vacant manager position. The BCMAA board of directors did not hire Jury for the manager position and shortly thereafter the BCMAA terminated her, citing a lack of trust. Jury filed a charge with the North Dakota Department of Labor alleging, among other things, that the BCMAA discriminated against her based on her gender. The Department found no probable cause to substantiate Jury's allegations and dismissed her charge. Jury subsequently sued the BCMAA alleging workplace discrimination, wrongful termination, defamation of character, harassment, emotional distress, loss of income, and retaliation. Finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jury v. Barnes County Municipal Airport Authority" on Justia Law

This case was another in an endless stream of repetitive actions stemming from Randy Holkesvig's 2008 stalking charge to which he pled guilty. Under a negotiated plea agreement, Holkesvig pled guilty to stalking in exchange for dismissal of an additional charge for violating a disorderly conduct restraining order. In addition to bringing numerous other actions, Holkesvig petitioned for post-conviction relief from the consequences of his pleading guilty to stalking, which was denied by the district court and summarily affirmed by the North Dakota Supreme Court. Holkesvig sued Gerald VandeWalle, individually and as Chief Justice of the North Dakota Supreme Court, and the State of North Dakota, alleging numerous claims, including, obstruction of justice, defamation, corruption, deceit, fraud, false statements, breach of duty, conspiracy, collusion, racketeering, obstruction, and North Dakota constitutional violations. Holkesvig's ultimate grievance appeared to, at least in part, arise from a misstatement of the procedural facts in "Holkesvig v. North Dakota," where the Supreme Court stated, "Holkesvig's guilty plea was accepted by the district court in 2008 as part of a negotiated plea agreement between his lawyer and the State, which agreement included the State dropping charges that Holkesvig violated a domestic violence protection order." The district court dismissed Holkesvig's lawsuit on the ground it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims. Holkesvig moved for relief from the district court's judgment. The district court denied Holkesvig's motion for failure to comply with N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 and N.D.R.Civ. P. 60(b). Holkesvig timely appealed. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court appropriately determined Holkesvig violated an order prohibiting him from filing further lawsuits that arose out of or related to his 2008 stalking charge and charge for violating a disorderly conduct restraining order, it affirmed. View "Holkesvig v. VandeWalle" on Justia Law