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, Defendant and Appellant
Affordable Apartments, LLC, Defendant
Northeast Central Judicial District,
Grand Forks County
Judge Karen Kosanda Braaten
|Nature of Action:||Other (Civil)|
|Term:||11/2009  Argument: 11/30/2009 10:00am|
|ND cite:||2010 ND 43|
779 N.W.2d 649
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. Did the Court err and deny Roland Riemers (here-in-after just Riemers) his right to Due Process under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by denying his Rule 60 N.D.R.Civ.P. request to reopen the case when this Court had already clearly indicated the District Court had violated Rule 55, and thus violated federally mandated Due Process?
II. Did the Court err and violate Riemers state and federal constitutional right to Commercial Free Speech by punishing him for publishing a truthful rental advertisement, and thus the judgment has to be considered null and void?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Default judgment was entered against Riemers. Riemers filed a request to reopen case. The district court denied Riemers' request. Riemers appealed the default judgment but did not appeal the order denying his request to reopen case. This Court held Riemers' failure to file a notice of appeal on his request to reopen case precluded relief from being granted. Riemers now appeals from the denial of his second request to reopen case. Is Riemers' claim barred by res judicata or the law of the case?
II. Riemers' second request to reopen the case, dated April 20, 2009, came almost 5 months after entry of this Court's judgment and 14 months after the district court's denial of his first request to reopen the case. Should Riemers' appeal be denied because his April 20, 2009, request to reopen the case was untimely?
III. Riemers never raised a constitutional free speech argument before the district court in either of his requests to reopen the case. Is Riemers' constitutional free speech argument barred because it was not raised below?
IV. Commercial speech concerning unlawful activity is not protected speech under the First Amendment. Riemers' rental advertisement was commercial speech concerning illegal housing discrimination. Was Riemers free to publish discriminatory advertising?
|Add Docket 20090190 RSS|
|1||06/24/2009||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 06/19/2009|
|2||07/15/2009||RECORD ON APPEAL & Separates (Entry No. 3).|
|3||07/27/2009||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|4||07/27/2009||ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 08/28/2009|
|5||07/31/2009||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE (indicates 2 docs filed in error were returned.|
|6||08/03/2009||Received corrected register of actions. (Entry Nos 47 & 48 Per Clerk all parties served w/correct)|
|9||08/28/2009||DISK OF ATB (e-mailed)|
|10||09/28/2009||APPELLEE BRIEF, w/attached Exhibit A|
|11||09/29/2009||DISK - aeb (e-mailed)|
|12||10/12/2009||"Amended" Affidavit of Service by Mail of AEB on Mr. Riemers|
|13||10/20/2009||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|14||11/02/2009||Request for Radio/TV Coverage (KCND - FM) approved|
|15||11/30/2009||APPEARANCES: Roland C Riemers, Pro se; Michael T. Pitcher, Asst. Attorney General|
|16||11/30/2009||ARGUED: Riemers; Pitcher|
|17||11/30/3009||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|19||03/16/2010||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning|
|20||03/16/2010||Costs on Appeal taxed in favor of Appellee|
|21||03/17/2010||Judgment Sent to Parties|
|23||04/14/2010||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|