City of Fargo v. Malme
City of Fargo, Plaintiff and Appellee
Mitch Malme and Mitch
Malme Investments, L.L.C., a
North Dakota limited liability
company, Defendants and Appellants
East Central Judicial District,
Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger
|Nature of Action:||Administrative Proceeding|
|Term:||06/2007  Argument: 06/05/2007|
|ND cite:||2007 ND 137|
737 N.W.2d 390
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
1.Has the City of Fargo implemented a process that usurps the power of the judiciary, denies parties due process of law, and implements a bill of attainder?
2.Did Fargo's Administrative Enforcement Board have subject matter jurisdiction, or even personal jurisdiction over Mitch Malme Investments, L.L.C., a North Dakota limited liability company?
3.Is there factual or legal justification for the City of Fargo to impose a fine against either Mitch Malme or Mitch Malme Investments, L.L.C.?
4.Does the City of Fargo's methodology of enforcing its penalties, by special assessment of real property, violate N.D.C.C. 57-20-07, and due process of law?
5.Can Appellants be held responsible for the use of the property by the tenants?
REPLY BRIEF ISSUES
The Brief of Appellee ["Brief"] does not contain a separate statement identifying what the City of Fargo ["FARGO"] believes are the "Issues on Appeal." FARGO apparently agrees the five issues identified by Appellants Mitch Malme and Malme Investments, L.L.C., [hereafter, the "MALMES"] adequately identify the issues.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did the district court properly conclude that the City of Fargo has authority to create an administrative enforcement and appeal process for enforcing ordinance violations?
II. Did the district court properly conclude that the board's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable and that the parties were afforded due process?
III. Did the district court properly conclude that the board's decision concerning the cited ordinance violations was supported by sufficient evidence?
IV. Did the district court properly conclude that the penalties associated with the City's administrative enforcement program are lawful?
|Add Docket 20070043 RSS|
|1||02/08/2007 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 02/07/2007|
|2||02/08/2007 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 02/07/2007|
|3||02/26/2007 TRANSCRIPT DATED August 2, 2006|
|4||02/27/2007 DISK-tra(8/2/06) electronic|
|5||03/12/2007 RECORD ON APPEAL including Separate (Entry No. 5-VHS Tapes). Not rec'd Entry No. 14 (CR Tape).|
|6||04/06/2007 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|7||04/06/2007 Addendum (attached to ATB)|
|8||04/06/2007 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|9||04/06/2007 Transcripts dated 2-9-06 & 3-9-06 (Administrative Hearings)|
|10||04/09/2007 Affidavit of Service by Mail of ATB, ATA, & Transcripts|
|11||04/09/2007 DISK - atb|
|12||04/13/2007 Rec'd Copies of Order for Judgment dated 1-5-06 for ATA|
|13||04/13/2007 DISK - TRAs dated 2-9-06 and 3-9-06|
|14||05/08/2007 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|15||05/08/2007 Addendum to Appellee's Brief|
|16||05/08/2007 APPELLEE APPENDIX|
|17||05/09/2007 DISK - AEB|
|18||05/24/2007 REPLY BRIEF|
|20||06/05/2007 APPEARANCES: Jonathan T. Garaas; Patricia A. Roscoe|
|21||06/05/2007 ARGUED: Garaas; Roscoe|
|22||06/05/2007 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|23||07/25/2007 Letter dated July 25, 2007, from Jonathan Garaas with citation under NDRAppP 28(k): Greens at Half|
|24||07/25/2007 Hollow, LLC v. Town of Huntington, 15 Misc.3d 415, 831 N.Y.S.2d 649 (2006 N.Y. Slip Op 26541)|
|25||08/22/2007 DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED|
|26||08/22/2007 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Crothers, Daniel John|
|27||08/22/2007 Cost taxed in favor of Appellants|
|28||08/23/2007 Judgment e-mailed to Parties|
|30||09/17/2007 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|31||10/24/2017 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|