To: Justice Sandstrom, Chair
Joint Procedure Committee
Fr: Clerk's Office
Re: North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure
A member of the Clerk's Office will be present at the Joint Procedure Committee Meeting on Friday, September 29, to discuss our concerns. While there are some general comments regarding several of the amendments which can be discussed at the meeting, the serious concerns are with amendments to Rules 4 and 27.
Generally, the Clerk's Office is concerned that the amendments to Rule 4 are confusing, difficult to apply, adds delay, and inconsistent. While the list is not exclusive, below are a few concerns noted regarding amendments to Rule 4:
RULE 4 N.D.R.App.P.
N.D.R.App.P. Rule 4(a)(2): This section appears to encourage notices of appeal to be filed prematurely which is not the preferred procedure.
N.D.R.App.P. Rule 4(a)(4)(B): order is confusing. 4(a)(4)(C)(ii) requires a separate notice of appeal on the order disposing of the post-judgment motion which appears to be inconsistent with 4(a)(4)(B).
N.D.R.App.P. Rule 4(a)(4)(C)(ii): adds an additional 63 days to the time an appeal is pending in the supreme court.
N.D.R.App.P. Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(i) combined with 4(a)(5)(C) extends the time an appeal is pending in the supreme court and does not address a majority of late filed notices of appeal.
N.D.R.App.P. Rule 4(a)(5)(B): Why ex parte? Currently, the trial court sets its own notice requirements or uses 3.2, N.D.R.Ct.
N.D.R.App.P. Rule 4(b)(3)(D) is different from 4(a)(4)(C)(ii) which requires an amended notice of appeal.
N.D.R.App.P. Rules 4(b)(4), and 4(c) are different from the amended version of 4(a)(5), all regarding extensions of time.