Brock v. Price, et al.
- Huey Brock, Plaintiff, Appellant, and Cross-Appellee
Richard Price and KS Industries, LLC, Defendants, Appellees and Cross-Appellants
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : PERSONAL INJURY
- Appeal From
Case No. 2015-CV-00106
North Central Judicial District, Mountrail County
Douglas L. Mattson
Parties' Statement of Issues
1) Did the District Court err by invoking the exclusive remedy rule to shield LLC from civil liability when North Dakota's exclusivity statutes immunize employers from civil liability, where there has been a final adjudication finding LLC was not Brock’s employer at the time of the Accident, and WSI was repaid by the correct insurance company based on that finding?
2) Do LLC’s premium payments to WSI give rise to employer immunity where there is a judicial finding on employment against LLC, and WSI is reimbursed based on that finding as well as a finding LLC incorrectly reported Brock's injuries to WSI?
3) Did the District Court err by allowing LLC to violate the Court’s Scheduling Order by filing a second motion for summary judgment on November 21, 2018, over two years past the August 31, 2016 deadline to file dispositive motions?
4) Did the District Court err by denying collateral estoppel effect to the administrative decision (WCAB Judgement on employment) on the basis Brock could not satisfy the party/privity element where a) LLC admitted in responses to request for admissions they were represented at the WCAB trial through the California Court of Appeal; and b) there was no discussion of privity between LLC and LP (pursuant to Ungar v. North Dakota State University, 721 N.W.2d 16 (N.D. 2006)?
5) Did the District Court err by refusing to give full faith and credit to the California judicial proceeding under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 1 which requires sister states to give full faith and credit to the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state"?
6) Did the District Court err by applying Trinity Hospitals v. Mattson, 2006 N.W. 231, based on the “finding” of the WCAB that KSI LLC is an “alter-ego” of KS Industries LP where the WCAB made no such finding, and all reasonable inferences of privity should have been afforded to Brock, the opposing party?
1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion when it considered KSI, LLC’s and Price’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment which was filed beyond the dispositive motion deadline.
2. Whether KSI, LLC, Brock’s contributing employer, and Price, Brock’s coemployee, are entitled to statutory immunity from suit under the exclusive remedy rule.
3. Whether Brock’s proceedings before the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, to which neither KSI, LLC nor Price were a party, collaterally estop KSI, LLC and Price from claiming statutory immunity under the exclusive remedy rule.
4. Whether Brock is collaterally estopped from claiming KSI, LLC was not his contributing employer because he failed to request reconsideration of or otherwise challenge WSI’s Notice of Decision Accepting Liability and Awarding Benefits.
Huey Brock appeals from district court judgments dismissing his negligence action against Richard Price and KS Industries, LLC (“KSI, LLC”) and awarding Price and KSI, LLC costs and disbursements in the amount of $181,467. Price and KSI, LLC cross-appeal from the judgment awarding costs and disbursements.
In March 2011, Brock was severely injured in a traffic accident while traveling with Price and another KSI, LLC employee to a job site in North Dakota. Workforce Safety and Insurance (“WSI”) accepted Brock’s claim for benefits as an employee of KSI, LLC. Brock also applied for workers’ compensation benefits in California, claiming he was employed by KS Industries, LP (“KSI LP”). The California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board agreed, and KSI LP’s insurance carrier was required to reimburse WSI and take over payment of Brock’s benefits. Brock then sued Price and KSI, LLC for negligence. The district court dismissed the action, concluding Price and KSI, LLC were entitled to statutory immunity from suit under the exclusive remedy rule. The court also awarded Price and KSI, LLC $181,467 for their costs and disbursements.
On appeal, Brock argues the district court erred in invoking the exclusive remedy rule to shield the defendants from liability because KSI, LLC was not his employer at the time of the accident. He argues the court erred in allowing the defendants to violate its scheduling order. He contends the court should have given collateral estoppel effect and full faith and credit to the California administrative decision. He argues the court misapplied North Dakota law and erred in awarding the defendants costs and disbursements. In their cross-appeal, the defendants argue the court erred in failing to hold a hearing before ruling on costs and disbursements and erred in failing to award the entire amount they sought.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||03/21/2019||NOTICE OF APPEAL|
|2||03/26/2019||Rec'd $125 filing fee (Receipt# 26966)|
|3||03/27/2019||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|4||03/27/2019||Notice served Duane A. Lillehaug, Michael D. Ainbinder, Colleen M. Pratt, Seth A. Thompson,|
|5||03/27/2019||Brenda Blazer, Briana L. Rummel, Thomas P. Mannion, & Daniel A. Leister|
|6||03/28/2019||Affidavit of Michael Ainbinder in support of Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice|
|7||03/28/2019||Affidavit of Colleen Pratt in support of Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice|
|10||04/15/2019||Oral Argument Request by Appellant|
|11||04/17/2019||Rec'd $222 surcharge for AX (Receipt# 27014)|
|12||04/22/2019||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED APRIL 18, 2019 (ENTRY NOS. 1-388)|
|13||04/23/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATB from CSD|
|14||04/24/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATA from CSD|
|17||05/15/2019||Oral Argument Request by Appellees|
|18||05/17/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of AEB & AEA from CSD|
|19||05/20/2019||Rec'd $38 e-filing surcharge for AEA (176 pages)|
|20||05/22/2019||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|21||05/23/2019||SECOND NOTICE OF APPEAL|
|22||05/24/2019||Notice served Duane A. Lillehaug, Michael D. Ainbinder, Colleen M. Pratt, Seth A. Thompson,|
|23||05/24/2019||Brenda Blazer, Briana L. Rummel, Thomas P. Mannion|
|24||05/28/2019||MOTION FOR one extra page to be added to Appellant Reply Brief - RspDue : 05/29/2019|
|26||05/29/2019||Response Filed to Motion for one extra page to be added to Appellant Reply Brief|
|27||05/29/2019||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT - Granted|
|28||05/31/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of RYB back from Central Duplicating|
|29||06/06/2019||NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL|
|30||06/06/2019||SUPPLEMENTAL APPELLANT BRIEF||View|
|31||06/11/2019||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF CROSS-APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|32||06/11/2019||Notice served Duane A. Lillehaug, Michael D. Ainbinder, Colleen M. Pratt, Seth A. Thompson,|
|33||06/11/2019||Brenda Blazer, Briana L. Rummel, Thomas P. Mannion|
|34||06/18/2019||Rec'd C.O.C. & C.O.S. for Supp ATB|
|35||06/20/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of Supp. ATB from Central Duplicating|
|36||06/25/2019||MOTION FOR additional pages by Appellee|
|37||06/26/2019||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (2 extra pages) - Granted|
|38||07/03/2019||SUPPLEMENTAL APPELLEE BRIEF||View|
|39||07/03/2019||SUPPLEMENTAL APPELLEE APPENDIX|
|40||07/10/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of Supplemental AEB & AEA from CSD|
|41||07/18/2019||ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JULY 17, 2019 (ENTRY NOS. 389-397)|
|42||08/02/2019||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|