TO: Joint Procedure Committee
FROM: Mike Hagburg
DATE: September 14, 2011
RE: Rule 58, N.D.R.Civ.P., Entry and Notice of Entry of Judgment
Mr. Plambeck has submitted a string of emails detailing a discussion he had with the Cass County Clerk of Court's office regarding service and filing of the notice of entry of judgment. The clerk had requested that a copy of judgment not be filed with the notice of entry of judgment. Mr. Plambeck responded that Rule 58 required service and filing of the copy.
Mr. Plambeck's email details reasons why it is important to serve and file a copy of the judgment with the notice of entry. He suggested that, if the clerks do not want to have the additional copy of the judgment filed, the clerks could assume responsibility for serving the notice of entry electronically at the same time they notify the parties that judgment has been entered.
Staff presented Mr. Plambeck's concerns to State Court Administrator Sally Holewa. She pointed out that the rule it does not require that a copy of the judgment be served and filed. Instead, it says "a copy of the judgment or a general description of the nature and amount of relief and damages granted" may be included when the notice of entry is served and filed.
Ms. Holewa suggests that the attorneys continue to serve the notice of entry but that they include the title and file date of the judgment that was served rather than attaching a copy of the judgment to the notice of entry. Staff has prepared proposed amendments to Rule 58 that would make this an option for parties serving and filing the notice of entry.
Ms. Holewa said that the clerk could serve the notice of entry of judgment with the notice of filing. She said, however, that the clerk may not have always have an address for all the parties. She said that if the rule was amended to require clerks to do the service, then it would also need to be further changed to require that the attorneys provide addresses for all parties to the clerk.
In the attached proposed amendments to Rule 58, staff has included the proposed deletion of a paragraph from the explanatory note. As written, the paragraph simply parrots the language of the rule and does not explain anything. The Committee may wish to discuss whether the paragraph should be amended instead of deleted.