State ex rel. Dept. of Labor v. Riemers
State of North Dakota, by
North Dakota Department of
Labor, for the benefit of Fair
Housing of the Dakotas, Plaintiff and Appellee
Roland Riemers, individually, Defendant and Appellant
Affordable Apartments, LLC, Defendant
Northeast Central Judicial District,
Grand Forks County
Judge Karen Kosanda Braaten
|Nature of Action:||Other (Civil)|
|Term:||09/2008  Argument: 09/16/2008 1:30pm|
|ND cite:||2008 ND 191|
757 N.W.2d 50
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. Did the Court err by granting a Default Judgment based on a summons, complaint and pleadings that were never served?
II. Did the Court err in awarding the State attorney fees?
III. Did the Court err in awarding Fair Housing damages without any real evidence that it had been damaged by Riemers TRUTHFUL rental advertisement?
IV. Did the Court err and violate Riemers right to free speech by punishing him for publishing a truthful rental advertisement?
V. Can Riemers legally represent Affordable Apartments LLC?
Appellant's Reply Brief Issues
I. Does Riemers have the right to represent Affordable Apartments LLC as well as himself?
II. Was Affordable Apartments LLC ever really part of this action as it held no interest in the chestnut property involved in this dispute?
III. Did Riemers knowingly refuse service to avoid process?
IV. Were Plaintiff's award for damages against Riemers and Affordable Apartments LLC actually listed for previously dismissed Defendants?
V. Was Riemers response to the suit timely and not in default?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Affordable Apartments is not a party to this appeal
II. There are no irregularities on the face of the Judgment
III.The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting default Judgmentagainst Riemers
A. Service upon Riemers was proper
B. Default Judgment may be entered without notice to defendants if there has been no appearance by defendants in the action
1. Riemers did not appear prior to the Department filing for default
2. Riemers did not make any appearance in the action
IV. Riemers' remaining arguments fail
A. Riemers cannot address substantive issues on appeal, which were not addressed below
B. The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the Department
1. N.D.C.C. 14-02.5-41 provides a statutory basis for attorney's fees
2. The district court found that a discriminatory housing practice had occurred
C. Sufficient evidence of damages to FHD was shown
D. Riemers' First Amendment claim is inapplicable
|Add Docket 20070363 RSS|
|1||12/17/2007||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 12/14/2007|
|2||12/24/2007||Defendant's Petition to Remand Case Back to District Court (motion to reopen pending)|
|3||12/24/2007||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (petition to remand). Granted|
|4||12/24/2007||ORDER OF REMAND|
|5||03/13/2008||RECORD ON APPEAL|
|6||03/13/2008||Reset briefing schedule after remand|
|7||03/13/2008||Briefing schedule reset after remand. Granted: 04/12/2008|
|8||04/10/2008||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|9||04/10/2008||E-FILED MOTION - MAT|
|10||04/10/2008||ACTION BY CLERK - MAT. Granted: 05/12/2008|
|11||04/18/2008||Supplemental Clerk's Certificate dated April 16, 2008 (Entry Nos. 31 & 32)|
|14||05/05/2008||DISK - ATB (e-mailed)|
|15||05/06/2008||Affidavit of Service by Mail of ATB & ATA|
|17||06/03/2008||DISK of AEB (e-mailed)|
|19||06/03/2008||Affidavit of Service by Mail|
|20||06/22/2008||DISK - RYB|
|22||06/24/2008||Affidavit of Service by Mail of Appellant's Reply Brief|
|23||09/16/2008||APPEARANCES: Roland C. Riemers; Michael T. Pitcher|
|24||09/16/2008||ARGUED: Riemers; Pitcher|
|25||09/16/2008||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|27||10/24/2008||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning|
|28||10/24/2008||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellee|
|29||10/24/2008||Judgment e-mailed to Parties|
|30||10/27/2008||Supplemental Clerk's Certificate dated 10-23-08 (Entry Nos. 33-35)|
|32||11/24/2008||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|