|11:00am||Monday, June 17, 2013|
McColl Farms, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant and
Aaron McColl, personally, Plaintiff
Lisa Rae Pflaum,
f/k/a Lisa Rae McColl, Defendant and Appellee
|Appeal from:||Northeast Judicial District, Pembina County, Judge M. Richard Geiger, 34-2011-CV-00161|
|Nature of Action:||Other (Civil)|
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I.Whether the District Court erred in continuing to exercise jurisdiction over a deceased party.
A.Whether Rule 25 divests the District Court of Jurisdiction when no motion for substitution is made.
B.Whether by operation of law the deceased dismissed his cause of action by filing the notice of death and not making the motion to substitute a party at the District Court level.
C.Whether the District Court erred in assessing sanctions against the estate of a deceased party when substitution was not ordered by the court or motion by any party.
II.Whether the District Court erred in dismissing McColl Farms complaint and in particular in disposing of dispositive motions based upon its finding that the outcome of a stipulated divorce controls McColl Farms who was not a party to the divorce action.
A.Whether the District Court erred in granting Defendant's Motion under Rule 12(b)(vi) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure.
B.Whether the District Court erred in granting Defendant's Motion under Rule 56 of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure.
C.Whether the District Court erred in refusing to entertain Plaintiff's Motion under Rule 56 of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure.
D.Whether the District Court erred in its evidentiary rulings regarding submitted Affidavits.
i.The District Court erred in excluding the affidavit of Aaron McColl.
ii.The District Court erred in excluding the entire affidavit of DeWayne Johnston and in particular the attached exhibits.
E.Whether the District Court erred in making factual determinations regarding state of mind of the parties and counsel as well as other determinations left to the fact finder.
III. Whether the District Court erred in assessing sanctions.
Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 06/30/2013