Krile v. Lawyer
- Robyn Krile, Plaintiff and Appellant
Julie Lawyer, in her official and individual
capacity as Assistant Burleigh County
State's Attorney, Defendant and Appellee
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : TORTS (NEGLIGENCE, LIAB., NUIS.)
- Appeal From
Case No. 2019-CV-00667
South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Troy J. LeFevre
Parties' Statement of Issues
1. Whether the lower court misapplied the law as articulated by this Court in its previous decision.
2. Whether the lower court erred in concluding as a matter of law that it was impossible for the plaintiff to prove a claim upon which relief could be granted.
3. Whether the lower court erred in not finding a material genuine issue of fact in dispute, therefore improperly granting the motion to dismiss.
4. Whether the lower court erred in failing to review all the materials submitted by the parties and improperly limited itself to the complaint and materials embraced by the pleadings.
5. Whether the lower court erred by failing to consider the materials submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
6. Whether the lower court erred in failing to convert the motion to dismiss to a summary judgment motion once the parties provided evidence and material beyond the scope of the complaint and materials embraced by the pleadings.
A. Whether the District Court erred in its legal determination that disclosure of the Giglio letter to Chief Donlin was made without malice and shielded by qualified privilege under N.D.C.C. § 14-02-05(3).
B. Whether the District Court erred in its legal determination that disclosure of the Giglio letter to the Lincoln Police Chief Gibbs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and alternatively was a disclosure made without malice and shielded by qualified privilege under N.D.C.C. § 14-02-05(3).
C. Whether the District Court erred in its refusal to consider Krile’s other “matters outside the pleadings” and in declining to convert Lawyer’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.
Robyn Krile appeals from a judgment dismissing her defamation claims against Julie Lawyer.
Krile sued Lawyer, in her official and individual capacity as Assistant Burleigh County State’s Attorney, for defamation, alleging Lawyer defamed Krile by publishing a letter about Krile to the Bismarck Police Department, Peace Officer Standards and Training Board, and prospective employers. Lawyer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court granted Lawyer’s motion. Krile appealed. The district court’s decision was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the matter was remanded. Krile v. Lawyer, 2020 ND 176, 947 N.W.2d 366. On remand, Lawyer renewed her motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion and dismissed the remaining claims.
On appeal, Krile argues the district court erred in dismissing her claims because the court erred in concluding it was impossible for her to prove a claim upon which relief could be granted, there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute, the court failed to review all the materials the parties submitted, it failed to consider the materials in the light most favorable to Krile, and it should have treated Lawyer’s motion as a motion for summary judgment.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||05/07/2021||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 05/07/2021|
|2||05/07/2021||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 05/12/2021|
|3||05/10/2021||ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION : Jensen, Jon J.|
|4||05/10/2021||Rec'd $125 Filing Fee|
|5||05/12/2021||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|6||05/12/2021||Notice served on Lynn M. Boughey, Randall J. Bakke & Bradley N. Wiederholt|
|7||06/02/2021||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED DECEMBER 9, 2020|
|8||06/02/2021||C.O.S. OF TRANSCRIPT|
|9||06/03/2021||Rec'd non-substantive correction to 12/9/20 transcript|
|10||06/07/2021||C.O.S. OF AMENDED TRANSCRIPT|
|11||06/07/2021||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JUNE 7, 2021 (ENTRY NOS.1-203)|
|13||07/12/2021||Oral Argument Request by Appellant|
|15||07/15/2021||Rec'd corrections to ATB & ATA (page numbering)|
|16||07/16/2021||Received $532 e-filing surcharge for appendix overage (receipt #28188)|
|17||07/19/2021||Rec'd 4 copies of ATB from CSD|
|18||07/19/2021||Received proof of service of non-substantive corrections to ATB & ATA.|
|19||07/21/2021||Rec'd 3 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating|
|20||08/02/2021||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF|
|21||08/03/2021||No Objection to Motion for Extension (Appellant)|
|22||08/03/2021||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 08/23/2021|
|24||08/23/2021||Oral Argument Request by Appellee|
|26||08/26/2021||Rec'd copies of AEB & AEA from Central Duplicating|
|27||09/16/2021||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|28||09/22/2021||SITTING WITH THE COURT : Christofferson, Lee A.|
|29||10/20/2021||APPEARANCES: Lynn M. Boughey/Bradley N. Wiederholt|
|30||10/20/2021||ARGUED: Lynn M. Boughey/Bradley N. Wiederholt|
|31||10/20/2021||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|