Franciere v City of Mandan
- Susan Franciere, Plaintiff and Appellant
City of Mandan, Defendant and Appellee
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : OTHER (Civil)
- Appeal From
Case No. 2017-CV-00914
South Central Judicial District, Morton County
James S. Hill
Parties' Statement of Issues
1. Whether the biases by District Judge James S. Hill resulted in the incorrect and unjustified dismissal with prejudice of the Appellant's lawsuit.
2. Whether judicial misconduct by Judge Hill resulted in an incorrect and unjustified dismissal with prejudice of the Appellant's lawsuit.
3. Whether Judge Hill improperly interfered with the Appellant’s ability to use discovery to support the Appellant's positions.
4. Whether Judge Hill acted improperly by dismissing with prejudice the Appellant's lawsuit when claiming a lack of personal jurisdiction.
5. Whether Judge Hill’s repeated criticisms of the Appellant should have resulted in an immediate recusal by Judge Hill.
6. Whether the conduct of Judge Hill towards the Appellant violated the Appellant's rights as a “victim” under the constitutional mandates in Marsy’s Law contained in Const., Art. I, Sec. 25(1).
7. Whether Judge Hill incorrectly ignored case law that supported the Appellant's lawsuit against the Appellee.
8. Whether Judge Hill incorrectly ignored misconduct committed by the Appellee during the Appellant's lawsuit that harmed the Appellant.
9. Whether Judge Hill incorrectly ignored that the Appellee received the the Complaint and Summons and based on the facts that included where the Appellee admitted the Summons accompanied the Complaint and when the Appellee’s Answer and Jury Demand specifically addressed the content of the Complaint without stating the Summons and the Complaint were allegedly not received by the Appellee or not in the possession of the Appellee or an agent for the Appellee.
10. Whether Judge Hill erred by ignoring that the Appellee’s actions waived any claims made by the Appellee on a lack of personal jurisdiction.
11. Whether Judge Hill’s conduct was improper in the response to the pleadings filed by the Appellant.
Was the District Court correct in granting Defendant and Appellee City of Mandan’s Motion to Dismiss on the basis of insufficiency of service of process and therefore lack of jurisdiction?
Susan Franciere appeals the district court’s judgment granting the City of Mandan’s motion to dismiss the case.
In Franciere v. City of Mandan, 2019 ND 233, 932 N.W.2d 907, the North Dakota Supreme Court vacated the district court’s prior judgment and remanded the case to decide Mandan’s motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. On remand, the district court denied Franciere’s motion to compel discovery and granted Mandan’s motion to dismiss, and entered a judgment of dismissal with prejudice based on lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient service.
On appeal Franciere argues the district court improperly dismissed the case with prejudice, Mandan had actual knowledge of the complaint, and Mandan waived any claims based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Franciere also argues the district court erred when it denied her motion to compel discovery and alleges the district court engaged in multiple acts of misconduct and was biased.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||01/22/2020||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 01/22/2020|
|2||01/22/2020||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERVICE|
|3||01/22/2020||Notice served on Susan Franciere and Scott K. Porsborg|
|4||02/20/2020||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED FEBRUARY 19, 2020 (ENTRY NOS.)|
|7||03/11/2020||Rec'd non-substantive corrections for ATB & ATA|
|8||03/13/2020||Rec'd 6 copies of ATB & ATA from Central Duplicating|
|9||03/18/2020||Rec'd $18.50 for ATA (receipt #27545)|
|11||04/01/2020||Rec'd 6 copies of AEB from CSD|
|12||04/08/2020||MOT. EXT/TIME REPLY BRIEF|
|13||04/14/2020||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE - Granted : 05/21/2020|
|14||04/15/2020||ORAL ARGUMENT WAIVED - NO REQUESTS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT|
|15||05/21/2020||Non-Compliant RYB rec'd; revised RYB due 5/22/20 3pm (overlength)|
|16||05/26/2020||MOTION FOR EXTRA PAGE|
|17||05/27/2020||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE - Granted|
|19||05/27/2020||Rec'd 5 copies of RYB from CSD|