Luger v. Luger

20080194 Candace E. Luger, Joan M. Netterville,
Mary P. Swallow, Lisa S. Kampeska,
and Jeffrey Kurt Luger, Plaintiffs and Appellees
v.
Robert Luger and Raymond Luger, Defendants and Appellants

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Sioux County
Judge Sonna M. Anderson
Nature of Action: Contracts
Counsel:
Appellant: Kelsch, Kelsch, Ruff & Kranda
Appellee: Larson Latham Huettl LLP
Term: 03/2009   Argument: 03/10/2009  9:00am
ND cite: 2009 ND 84
NW cite: 765 N.W.2d 523

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether North Dakota District Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Native Americans and a Native American Partnership located on Standing Rock Sioux Reservation?
II. Whether North Dakota District Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants/Appellants, Native Americans residing on Standing Rock Sioux Reservation?
III. Whether the Judgment granted was for greater or different relief from that which was prayed for in Complaint?
IV. Whether Trial Court abused its discretion to deny a Motion to Vacate Default Judgment?
A) Motion for Relief from Judgment under N.D.R.Civ. P.60(b) is remedial in nature and hould be liberally construed and applied.
B) Decision Merits are preferable to those by default.
C) When timely relief is sought from Default Judgment and movant has meritorious defense, doubt, if any, should be resolved in favor of motion to set aside Judgment so case may be decided on its merits.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether a North Dakota District Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute between partners in a North Dakota partnership of nonmember Indians operating on and concerning the management of privately-owned fee land in Sioux County, North Dakota.
II. Whether a North Dakota District Court has personal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians residing within the boundaries of the reservation of a tribe of which they are not a member.
III. Whether the monetary Judgment granted against Appellants was appropriate.
IV. Whether the District Court properly denied Appellants' Motion to Vacate Default Judgment

Add Docket 20080194 RSS Add Docket 20080194 RSS

Docket entries:
108/07/2008 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 08/06/2008
208/07/2008 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 08/06/2008
310/10/2008 MOT. EXT/TIME TRANSCRIPT
410/10/2008 ACTION BY TRIAL COURT. Granted: 11/04/2008
510/10/2008 RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL (part of Order/Ext/Time/TRA): 11/04/2008
610/30/2008 TRANSCRIPT DATED January 7, 2008
710/30/2008 DISK of tra dtd 1-7-08
811/04/2008 RECORD ON APPEAL
912/09/2008 APPELLANT BRIEF
1012/09/2009 APPELLANT APPENDIX
1112/09/2008 DISK - atb (e-filed)
1201/08/2009 APPELLEE BRIEF
1301/08/2009 APPELLEE APPENDIX
1401/08/2009 E-FILED BRIEF - AEB
1501/08/2009 E-FILED APPENDIX - AEA
1601/21/2009 Received $25 surcharge for Appellee Brief (#18694)
1701/23/2009 Copies of AEB from Central Duplicating Services
1801/23/2009 Copies of AEA from Central Duplicating Services
1902/06/2009 MOTION FOR Continuance of Argument
2002/06/2009 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Granted
2103/10/2009 APPEARANCES: Thomas D. Kelsch; James W. Martens and Steven L. Latham
2203/10/2009 ARGUED: Kelsch; Martens
2303/10/2009 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2405/14/2009 DISPOSITION (AND REMANDED): AFFIRMED/PT, REVERSED/PT
2505/14/2009 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.
2605/14/2009 No costs awarded to either party
2705/14/2009 Judgment E-Mailed to Parties
2806/09/2009 MANDATE
2906/13/2009 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 10/24/2014