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 3:00pm|
|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)|
|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|
|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|