Luallin v. Koehler
Robert Bedrossian; Wayne Baumgardner;
Stephen Nelson; Steven Franks, as
trustee of the Marie Anne Franks Trust;
and Mortimer J. Matthews, as trustee of
the Matthews Trust, Plaintiffs and Appellants
v.
Ronald C. Koehler and Condor Petroleum
Inc., Defendants and Appellees
-------------------
North Tioga #1, a partnership; Tioga 2-A, a
partnership; North Tioga #3, a partnership;
North Tioga #4, a partnership; Madison
Investors Basin Development, a partnership;
Erickson 3-2 Partners, a partnership;
Investors Production Acquisition #1, a
partnership; Madison Investors Development
#1, a partnership; Madison Investors
Development #1 Water Disposal, a
partnership; Madison Investors Development
#2, a partnership; Madison Investors
Development #3, a partnership; Madison
Investors Development #4, a partnership;
Production Buyers Acquisition #1, a
partnership; Production Buyers Association
#2, a partnership; Production Buyers
Acquisition #3, a partnership; Lodgepole
Re-Entry #1, a partnership; Lodgepole
Re-Entry #2, a partnership; Williston Basin
Preferred Partners #1, a partnership; Capa
Development #1, a partnership; Capa
Development #2, a partnership; Capa
Development #3, a partnership; Capa Water
Transportation System, a partnership, Defendants
Judge David W. Nelson
| Appellant: | Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole & Dietrich | |
| Appellee: | Pearce & Durick | |
| Appellee: | Lawyer not licensed in N.D. |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
1. Did the District Court err in dismissing the causes of action arising from the North Dakota Securities Act on the grounds that there was no sale within or from North Dakota?
2. Did the District Court err in dismissing the causes of action arising from the North Dakota Securities Act on the grounds that those causes of action are barred by the doctrines of collateral attack, collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) and/or res judicata (claim preclusion)?
3. Did the District Court err in dismissing the causes of action arising from the North Dakota Securities Act on the grounds that those causes of action belong to the receiver who was appointed in the federal SEC enforcement action, so that the individual investors lack standing to pursue those claims?
4. Did the District Court err in dismissing the causes of action arising from the North Dakota Securities Act on the grounds that the receiver who was appointed in the federal SEC enforcement action was a necessary and indispensable party to any North Dakota Securities Act claims?
5. Did the District Court err in dismissing the causes of action arising from the North Dakota Securities Act without giving the Plaintiffs an opportunity to conduct discovery as provided in Rule 56(f), N.D.R.Civ.P.?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Did the District Court properly dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for violation of the North Dakota Securities Act on the grounds that none of the securities sold to Plaintiffs were sold from or within the State of North Dakota?
2. Did the District Court properly dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for violation of the North Dakota Securities Act on the grounds that the Plaintiffs have no factual basis to assert fraud claims against Defendants?
3. Did the District Court err in requiring Plaintiffs to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact to overcome summary judgment and in not postponing a ruling in order to give Plaintiffs the opportunity to conduct discovery?
4. Was the District Court's ruling dismissing Plaintiffs' claims for violation of the North Dakota Securities Act supported by its alternate holdings that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the prohibition against collateral attack and the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, that the claims belong to the Federal Court-appointed receiver, and that the Receiver is a necessary and indispensable party?
Add Docket 20010301 RSS