Riemers v. Peters-Riemers
Roland C. Riemers, Plaintiff and Appellant
Michael L. Gjesdahl, and
Gjesdahl & Dietz, PLLP, Defendants and Appellees
Northeast Central Judicial District,
Grand Forks County
Judge Karen Kosanda Braaten
|Nature of Action:||Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)|
|Term:||04/2004  Argument: 04/28/2004|
|ND cite:||2004 ND 153|
684 N.W.2d 619
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
A. Did the court err by ruling the Defendants were free to commit torts against Roland before, during and post divorce because they are protected from later civil action by res judicata and collateral estoppel stemming from the divorce action?
B. Did the court err by ruling that Roland had presented no facts supporting Jenese had given &/or had conspired to give false testimony?
C. Did the court err by ruling the Defendants are absolutely free to give perjured testimony without fear of later civil action?
D. Did the court err by ruling the Defendants are free to deny Roland's court ordered visitation and a meaningful relationship with his son as the Defendants are protected from civil action because only the divorce trail court can enforce visitation provisions?
E. Did the court err by ruling Roland had failed to present any evidence supporting his claim that Gjesdahl misrepresented facts, delayed settlement and was guilty of deceit and collusion in court as well as failed to show a causal relationship between those misrepresented facts and harm to Roland?
F. Did the court err by ruling that Roland is barred from a claim of abuse of process for false jailing by res judicata, collateral estoppel and failure to provide a factual basis?
G. Did the court error in not granting a 90 day continuance and ordering the Defendants to answer Roland's discovery requests?
Reply Brief Issues
A. Did Grand Forks Referee rule that Jenese had not threatened Roland with knives and guns?
B. Were Jenese's allegations against Roland uniformly accepted and Roland's allegations and contentions uniformly rejected?
C. Were days of divorce testimony given over to litigating the parties' competing claims?
D. Should this court adopt the general rule that there is no civil action for damages for perjury?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Reviewing the entire record de novo, did the trial court properly dismiss all of Roland Riemers' causes of action against the defendants herein?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing Roland Riemers' request for additional time to conduct discovery?
|Add Docket 20030353 RSS|
|1||12/05/2003 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 12/03/2003|
|2||12/05/2003 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 12/03/2003|
|3||12/12/2003 Acknowledgment of Order for Transcript & Request for RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 01/22/2004|
|4||01/12/2004 TRANSCRIPT DATED May 28, 2003|
|5||01/13/2004 DISK - TRA (5-28-03)|
|6||01/14/2004 RECORD ON APPEAL|
|7||02/17/2004 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|8||02/17/2004 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|9||02/18/2004 DISK - ATB|
|10||02/18/2004 Plaintiff's Rule 11 Answer|
|11||02/26/2004 Rule 11 Motion (filed by Mr. Gjesdahl for Defendants & Appellees)|
|12||03/18/2004 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|13||03/18/2004 APPELLEE APPENDIX|
|14||03/22/2004 Corrected Covers for AEB - inserted|
|15||03/23/2004 Corrected TOA for AEB - inserted|
|16||03/23/2004 DISK - AEB|
|17||03/24/2004 Copies of corrected pages for AEB - inserted|
|18||03/29/2004 "Brief and Affidavit of Michael L. Gjesdahl in Support of Rule 11 Motion"|
|19||04/05/2004 Addendum to Rule 11 Answer|
|20||04/04/2004 REPLY BRIEF of Appellant|
|21||04/06/2004 DISK - RYB|
|22||04/28/2004 APPEARANCES: Roland C. Riemers; Michael L. Gjesdahl|
|23||04/28/2004 ARGUED: Riemers; Gjesdahl (Vol. Y; Page 234)|
|24||04/28/2004 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|25||07/23/2004 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|26||07/23/2004 SPLIT OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen|
|27||07/23/2004 (CONCUR OR DISSENT): Kapsner, Carol Ronning: CON/DIS|
|28||07/23/2004 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Motion for Rule 11 sanctions - see opinion). Denied|
|29||07/23/2004 (CONCUR OR DISSENT): Neumann, William A.: JN/CON|
|30||07/23/2004 Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|32||08/25/2004 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|33||05/20/2011 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|