State v. Gratech Co.
State of North Dakota, the
North Dakota Department of
Transportation, and its
Director David A. Sprynczynatyk, Plaintiffs, Appellants,
Gratech Company, Ltd., Defendant, Appellee,
American Arbitration Association, Defendant
the Honorable Bruce B. Haskell, Judge
of the District Court, South Central
Judicial District, Respondent
South Central Judicial District,
Judge Bruce B. Haskell
|Nature of Action:||Other (Civil)|
|Term:||10/2002  Argument: 10/22/2002 2:45pm|
|ND cite:||2003 ND 7|
655 N.W.2d 417
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Petitioner's Statement of the Issues:|
1. Is the State entitled to a stay of the arbitration proceeding pending appeal, or other like relief, so the merits of the arguments presented by the State can be heard?
2. Is the timely filing of the administrative claim under N.D.C.C. 24-02-26.1 a jurisdictional or contractual limitation on the right to arbitrate such that a party is entitled to a judicial determination of the issues prior to being forced to arbitrate the merits of the arbitration action and did the district court error by not making such a judicial determination?
3. Should the decision of the arbitrators refusing to dismiss the arbitration proceeding because of the failure of the contractor to timely file its administrative claim under N.D.C.C. 24-02-26.1 be reviewed at this time, and, if so, what standard of review should be employed.
4. Should the court provide the state with relief under its supervisory powers to protect the State from having to proceed with the arbitration if the court determines that the arbitrators decision should be reviewed and that the arbitrators erred? 3. The Department's District Court action, and this appeal and petition are jurisdictionally defective and untimely as a matter of law pursuant to N.D.C.C. 32-29.2-11 to 32-29.2- 13
Respondent's Statement of the Issues:
Respondent 1: 1. The District Court's Order must be affirmed since this court's previously controlling decisions in Stremick and Allstate are dispositive of the appeal pursuant to N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7)
2. The District Court's Order must be affirmed since the appeal and petition are frivolous and completely without merit pursuant to N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1)
3. The Department's District Court action, and this appeal and petition are jurisdictionally defective and untimely as a matter of law pursuant to N.D.C.C. 32-29.2-11 to 32-29.2- 13
4. The Department has made no showing justifying the extraordinary use of a supervisory writ.
Respondent 2: I. The district court correctly ruled that the courts have no subject matter jurisdiction due to the pending arbitration.
II. Writ of supervision not issuable due to lack of detriment and adequate remedy.
III. Response to department's brief.
|Add Docket 20020211 RSS|
|1||08/14/2002||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 08/14/2002|
|2||08/14/2002||PETITION FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT; Brief in Support; Appendix|
|3||08/14/2002||MOTION FOR STAY OF ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS (see Petition)|
|4||08/19/2002||Respondent Gratech's Response to Petition & Request for expedited disposition|
|5||08/19/2002||DISK - Respondent Gratech's Response to Petition & Request for Expedited Disposition|
|6||08/20/2002||Return to Response to Motion for Stay|
|7||08/21/2002||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (stay of arbitration proceedings granted). Granted|
|8||08/21/2002||DISK - Pet. Brief in Support of Petition|
|9||08/21/2002||DISK - Pet. Return to Respondent's Motion|
|10||08/27/2002||Affidavit of Ronald G. Schmidt & copy of order of Judge Haskell granting Mr. Schmidt permission to|
|11||08/27/2002||appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice|
|13||09/10/2002||DISK of Respondent's Brief|
|14||09/11/2002||RECORD in ND Dept. of Transportation v. Gratech, et al. --Burleigh Co. # 02-C-02254)|
|15||10/21/2002||Faxed copy of letter dated 10-21-02 from Vivienne M. Ashman, American Arbitration Association|
|16||10/22/2002||Original of faxed ltr. dtd. 10-21-02 from Vivienne M. Ashman, Amer. Arbitration Assoc.|
|17||10/22/2002||APPEARANCES: Charles S. Miller, Jr.; Ronald G. Schmidt, Jack McDonald|
|18||10/22/2002||ARGUED: Miller; Schmidt (Vol Y; Page 43)|
|19||10/22/2002||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|20||01/17/2003||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Supervisory Writ). Denied|
|21||01/17/2003||DISPOSITION (Temporary Stay Vacated, Supervisory Writ Denied, and Dist. Ct. Order Affirmed: AFFIRMED|
|22||01/17/2003||SPLIT OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen|
|23||01/17/2003||Concurring Specially: VandeWalle, Gerald W.: CONCUR|
|24||01/17/2003||Join in concurrence: Sandstrom, Dale V.: JN/CON|
|25||01/17/2003||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellee|
|26||01/21/2003||Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|28||02/13/2003||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|29||08/14/2008||EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|