Lucas v. Riverside Park Condominiums Unit Owners Association
A. William Lucas, Plaintiff and Appellant
Riverside Park Condominiums
Unit Owners Association, a
North Dakota Nonprofit Corporation, Defendant and Appellee
South Central Judicial District,
Judge Steven E. McCullough
|Nature of Action:||Contracts|
|Term:||09/2009  Argument: 09/10/2009|
|ND cite:||2009 ND 217|
776 N.W.2d 801
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
Judicial bias and prejudice against Lucas.
a. Whether the court erred in denying Lucas' request for recusal and Lucas' Motion for Recusal.
b. Whether the court erred in not giving Lucas presumptions required by law.
c. Whether the court erred in giving Lucas the presumption of bad faith throughout.
Summary Judgment decisions and Orders.
a. Whether the court erred in denying Lucas' Motion for Summary Judgment
b. Whether the trial court erred in not shifting the burden of proof to the Association.
c. Whether the court erred in granting Association's Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing Lucas' Fourth Request for a Reasonable Accommodation under Fair Housing Laws.
d. Whether the court erred in granting Association's Motion for Dismissal of Plaintiff's First, Second and Third Request for Reasonable Accommodation Under Fair Housing Laws.
e. Whether the trial court erred in denying Lucas' Motion for Dismissal based on lack of authority for this litigation by Association.
Sanctions and attorney's fees against Lucas
a. Whether the court erred in granting Association's attorney's fees as the "almost prevailing party".
b. Whether the court erred in granting attorney's fees and costs to the Association as a prevailing defendant.
c. Whether the court erred in granting sanctions for failure of Lucas to appear for a deposition noticed without the knowledge of Lucas.
Whether the court erred in giving any consideration or weight to the prior case of Riverside Park Condominium Association v. Lucas, 2005 ND 26, 691 NW 2d 862 (Lucas I)
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Was the District Court Biased Against Lucas?
II. Did the District Court Properly Grant the Association Summary Judgment on all of Lucas' Claims in the Complaint, Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint?
III. Did the Association Properly Defend Itself in this Action?
IV. Was Lucas Properly Sanctioned for Failing to Appear at his Deposition?
V. Did the District Court Properly Award the Association Costs and Fees?
|Add Docket 20090122 RSS|
|1||04/15/2009 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 04/09/2009|
|2||04/15/2009 ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning|
|3||05/08/2009 RECORD ON APPEAL|
|4||05/19/2009 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|5||05/19/2009 ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 06/18/2009|
|6||05/27/2009 ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION: Maring, Mary Muehlen|
|7||06/15/2009 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|8||06/17/2009 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (MAT). Granted: 07/17/2009|
|9||07/17/2009 APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed)|
|10||07/17/2009 E-FILED BRIEF (ATB)|
|11||07/17/2009 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|12||07/22/2009 Received $25 surcharge for ATB (Receipt #18937)|
|13||07/29/2009 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT MAILED|
|14||08/03/2009 SITTING WITH THE COURT: Graff, Benny A.|
|15||08/03/2009 SITTING WITH THE COURT: Goodman, Ronald E.|
|16||08/03/2009 Received 7 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating.|
|17||08/17/2009 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed letter from Mr. Rogneby)|
|18||08/17/2009 E-FILED MOTION (MAE)|
|19||08/17/2009 ACTION BY CLERK (MAE). Granted: 08/18/2009|
|20||08/18/2009 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|21||08/25/2009 Corrected pages iii & 35 for AEB|
|22||08/25/2009 DISK - AEB|
|23||09/04/2009 REPLY BRIEF (e-filed)|
|24||09/04/2009 E-FILED BRIEF (RYB)|
|25||09/08/2009 Made 7 copies of RYB|
|26||09/10/2009 APPEARANCES: A. William Lucas; Monte L. Rogneby|
|27||09/10/2009 ARGUED: Lucas; Rogneby|
|28||09/10/2009 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|29||11/30/2009 Request for Radio/TV Coverage (Associated Press) approved|
|30||12/22/2009 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED/PT, REVERSED/PT|
|31||12/22/2009 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.|
|32||12/22/2009 Costs on appeal not taxed against either party|
|33||12/23/2009 Judgment E-Mailed to Parties|
|34||01/05/2010 Mot. Ext/Time Petition for Rehearing (e-mailed)|
|35||01/05/2010 E-FILED MOTION (MPR)|
|36||01/05/2010 ACTION BY CLERK (MPR). Granted: 01/07/2010|
|37||01/07/2010 PETITION FOR REHEARING (e-filed)|
|38||01/12/2010 E-FILED BRIEF (Pet/Rehearing)|
|39||01/12/2010 Received copies of Petition for Rehearing from CSD|
|40||02/02/2010 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (PER). Denied|
|42||02/23/2010 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|