Riemers v. Peters-Riemers

20030353 Roland C. Riemers, Plaintiff and Appellant
Jenese Peters-Riemers,
Michael L. Gjesdahl, and
Gjesdahl & Dietz, PLLP, Defendants and Appellees

Appeal from: District Court, Northeast Central Judicial District, Grand Forks County
Judge Karen Kosanda Braaten
Nature of Action: Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Appellant: Pro se
Appellee: Gjesdahl Law, P.C.
Term: 04/2004   Argument: 04/28/2004
ND cite: 2004 ND 153
NW cite: 684 N.W.2d 619

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: 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 Add Docket 20030353 RSS

Docket entries:
112/05/2003 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 12/03/2003
212/05/2003 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 12/03/2003
312/12/2003 Acknowledgment of Order for Transcript & Request for RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 01/22/2004
401/12/2004 TRANSCRIPT DATED May 28, 2003
501/13/2004 DISK - TRA (5-28-03)
601/14/2004 RECORD ON APPEAL
902/18/2004 DISK - ATB
1002/18/2004 Plaintiff's Rule 11 Answer
1102/26/2004 Rule 11 Motion (filed by Mr. Gjesdahl for Defendants & Appellees)
1203/18/2004 APPELLEE BRIEF
1403/22/2004 Corrected Covers for AEB - inserted
1503/23/2004 Corrected TOA for AEB - inserted
1603/23/2004 DISK - AEB
1703/24/2004 Copies of corrected pages for AEB - inserted
1803/29/2004 "Brief and Affidavit of Michael L. Gjesdahl in Support of Rule 11 Motion"
1904/05/2004 Addendum to Rule 11 Answer
2004/04/2004 REPLY BRIEF of Appellant
2104/06/2004 DISK - RYB
2204/28/2004 APPEARANCES: Roland C. Riemers; Michael L. Gjesdahl
2304/28/2004 ARGUED: Riemers; Gjesdahl (Vol. Y; Page 234)
2607/23/2004 SPLIT OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen
2707/23/2004 (CONCUR OR DISSENT): Kapsner, Carol Ronning: CON/DIS
2807/23/2004 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Motion for Rule 11 sanctions - see opinion). Denied
2907/23/2004 (CONCUR OR DISSENT): Neumann, William A.: JN/CON
3007/23/2004 Judgment Mailed to Parties
3108/18/2004 MANDATE
3305/20/2011 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 05/25/2018