Search Tips

Franciere v City of Mandan

Docket No. 20200018
Oral Argument: Waived

Docket Info

Title
Susan Franciere, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
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

  • Appellant

    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.

  • Appellee 1

    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?


Summary

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.


Briefs

Filing Date Description
03/02/2020 APPELLANT BRIEF View
03/30/2020 APPELLEE BRIEF View
05/27/2020 REPLY BRIEF View

Counsel

Party Type Name
APPELLEE CITY ATTORNEY Austin Theodore Lafferty - 07833
APPELLEE CITY ATTORNEY Scott Kenneth Porsborg - 04904
APPELLANT PRO SE Susan Franciere

(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.)
5 03/02/2020 APPELLANT BRIEF View
6 03/02/2020 APPELLANT APPENDIX
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)
10 03/30/2020 APPELLEE BRIEF View
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
18 05/27/2020 REPLY BRIEF View
19 05/27/2020 Rec'd 5 copies of RYB from CSD