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|
|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|
|12||09/10/2002 RESPONDENT BRIEF|
|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|