Fish v. Dockter
Gerald D. Fish, Plaintiff and Appellant
Neil E. Dockter, Defendant and Appellee
East Central Judicial District,
Judge Lawrence A. Leclerc
|Nature of Action:||Personal Injury|
|Term:||10/2003  Argument: 10/01/2003 Waived|
|ND cite:||2003 ND 185|
671 N.W.2d 819
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
ISSUE ONE: Whether the District Court abused discretion by deciding disputed facts and granting the defendant's summary judgment motion? After.
(a) the defense filed affidavits bad faith.
(b) the defense and the court refused to allow cross-examination of defense affiants .
(c) the court ignored Fish affidavits and "comparable means" of raising an issue to defeat the defense motion for summary judgment.
(e) the court restricted the plaintiff time to respond to thirty minutes after giving the defense all afternoon to present argument a summary judgment argument.
ISSUE TWO Whether the District Court abused it's discretion by denying Fish a full and fair hearing or any hearing at all on Fish's Summary Judgment Motion? By.
(a) scheduling, only enough time at the defense motion hearing to hear the defense argument and then cutting short, the plaintiff's time to respond.
ISSUE THREE Weather the District Court abused its discretion and denied Fish's constitutional right to due process, cross-examination, a full fair hearing and equal access to the court because of Fish is disabled and was proceeding pro se.
(a) by prematurely deciding the alleged low engine oil level was "four gallons" low.
(b) by finding the defendant was protected by qualified privilege and absolute immunity.
(c) by finding there was no evidence of damages to Fish.
(d) by failing to review Fish affidavit and exhibits
ISSUE FOUR Whether the North Dakota Supreme Court should reverse the grant of summary judgment for Dockter and grant Fish's summary judgment motion and award damages of $288,111.64 to Gerald Fish for loss of potential income and personal injury by intentional infliction of physic pain and suffering
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting Dockter's motion for summary judgment and denying Fish's motion for summary judgment, based upon its finding that statements by Dockter were either subject to a qualified privilege which was not abused, or were subject to an absolute privilege?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to permit cross-examination of witnesses at the summary judgment hearing?
3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to consider Fish's fourth brief and attachments at the summary judgment proceedings where the materials were filed untimely under N.D.R.Civ.P. 5(d)(2) and 6(a), and where the arguments generally were submitted in Fish's three previous briefs?
4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to void the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(iv) where Fish invoked personal jurisdiction of the court by bringing the action in state court and where Fish's claims for defamation under state statutory provisions of N.D.C.C. 14-02-01 et seq. (2002) created subject matter jurisdiction?
5. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to "nullify" or vacate the judgment under the general provisions of N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)?
|Add Docket 20030080 RSS|
|1||03/27/2003||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 03/25/2003|
|2||04/04/2003||Petition in Forma Pauperis to waive filing fee|
|3||04/09/2003||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT-Petition In Forma Pauperis to waive filing fee. Granted|
|4||04/09/2003||Order Mailed to Parties|
|5||04/10/2003||DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION REQUESTING REMAND FROM THE ND SUPREME COURT, BRIEF IN|
|6||04/10/2003||SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR REMAND with copies of Defendant's Objection to Statement of Evidence,|
|7||04/10/2003||Affidavit of Lolita Romanick and Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion for clarification of|
|8||04/10/2003||statement of evidence|
|9||04/10/2003||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (Mot Requesting Remand). Granted|
|10||04/10/2003||ORDER OF TEMPORARY REMAND|
|11||04/14/2003||Objection to Remand & Brief in Support|
|12||04/14/2003||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (Objection to Remand & Brief in Support). Denied|
|13||05/21/2003||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (letter from Gerald Fish dated 5-20-03)|
|14||05/22/2003||ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 06/18/2003|
|15||06/03/2003||Amended Notice of Appeal (filed in trial court on 5-28-03)|
|16||06/03/2003||RECORD ON APPEAL (3 vols.) & Separates 36, 44, 50, 57, 108, & 115, which includes 2 transcripts|
|17||06/03/2003||(Not rec'd: #54 & 113 -- Tapes)|
|18||06/10/2003||DISK - TRA (5-19-03) (e-mailed)|
|19||06/10/2003||DISK - TRA (1-27-03) (e-mailed)|
|20||06/11/2003||MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF WORD LIMITS|
|21||06/11/2003||E-FILED MOTION (fax)|
|22||06/12/2003||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (MOT/additional 1250 words for total of 11,750). Granted|
|23||06/13/2003||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|24||06/13/2003||E-FILED MOTION (via fax)|
|25||06/13/2003||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Granted: 06/25/2003|
|26||06/19/2003||APPELLANT BRIEF (Original only)|
|27||06/19/2003||APPELLANT APPENDIX (Only 1 received)|
|28||06/24/2003||Copies of the Appellant's Brief and affidavit of service|
|29||06/24/2003||Copies of the Appellant's Appendix|
|30||06/25/2003||DISK - ATB|
|33||07/29/2003||Corrected TOA & pages 7 & 8 for AEB|
|34||07/29/2003||DISK - AEB|
|35||09/16/2003||S.CT. DETERMINED ORAL ARGUMENT NOT NECESSARY|
|36||10/01/2003||APPEARANCES: submitted on briefs|
|37||10/01/2003||ARGUED: submitted on briefs (Vol. Y; Page 150)|
|39||12/02/2003||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.|
|40||12/02/2003||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee|
|41||12/04/2003||Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|43||01/07/2004||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|44||02/09/2010||EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|