Search Tips

Kainz, et al. v. Jacam Chemical Co. 2013

Docket No. 20220135
Oral Argument: Thursday, November 17, 2022 10:45 AM

Docket Info

Title
William Kainz and GeoChemicals, LLC, Plaintiffs and Appellants
v.
Jacam Chemical Company 2013, LLC, Defendant and Appellee
Case Type
CIVIL APPEAL : EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE DISPUTE
Appeal From
Case No. 2019-CV-00703
Southwest Judicial District, Stark County
William A. Herauf
Oral Argument 11/17/2022

Parties' Statement of Issues

  • Appellant

    1. Whether the district court erred by abating this action involving claims related to the enforceability of non-compete and non-solicitation of customers agreements against a North Dakotan working in North Dakota in favor of a Kansas action seeking to enforce those agreements under Kansas law.
    a. Whether the district court is required to decide the merits of the claims in this action under this Court’s decision in Osborne v. Brown & Saenger, Inc., 2017 ND 288, 904 N.W.2d 34.
    b. Whether the district court erred by abating this action under this Court’s decision in Lucas v. Porter, 2008 ND 160, 755 N.W.2d 88.
    c. Whether the district court erred by concluding that Jacam 2013 did not waive its abatement argument by failing to plead abatement as an affirmative defense.
    2. Whether the district court erred in denying the motion for reconsideration of its order abating this action and by concluding the reconsideration motion was frivolous in awarding attorney’s fees under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-01.

  • Appellee 1

    [10] Whether the Court must dismiss Mr. Kainz’s/GEO’s appeal as to the Stay Order because it is not an appealable order.
    [11] Whether the district court erred in concluding that there exists no exception to North Dakota’s claim splitting doctrine when the law of the foreign jurisdiction contravenes North Dakota public policy.
    [12] Whether the district court properly stayed the case when the record shows that Mr. Kainz’s/GEO’s North Dakota claims arise from the same transaction, or series of connected transactions and implicate a common nucleus of operative facts as Jacam 2013’s claims in Kansas, and Mr. Kainz/GEO have brought the exact same claims in Kansas.
    [13] Whether the district court abused its discretion in determining that Mr. Kainz’s/GEO’s Joint Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion to Abate (R. 260) was frivolous warranting an award of attorney fees to Jacam 2013.


Summary

William Kainz and GeoChemicals, LLC, appeal from an order granting a motion to abate, an order denying a motion for reconsideration, and an order and judgment awarding attorney’s fees.

Kainz and GeoChemicals sued Jacam Chemical Company 2013, LLC. Jacam moved to abate the action. The district court granted Jacam’s motion. Kainz and GeoChemicals moved for reconsideration, and the court denied their motion. Jacam moved for attorney’s fees. The court granted Jacam’s motion and entered an order and judgment awarding attorney’s fees.

On appeal, Kainz and GeoChemicals argue the district court erred by abating the action and by awarding attorney’s fees.


Briefs

Filing Date Description
08/12/2022 APPELLANT BRIEF View
09/26/2022 APPELLEE BRIEF View
10/20/2022 REPLY BRIEF View

Counsel

Party Type Name
APPELLANT PRIVATE PRACTICE Kirsten Tuntland - 07214
APPELLANT PRIVATE PRACTICE Zachary Evan Pelham - 05904
APPELLEE PRIVATE PRACTICE Not Licensed in ND - 00002
APPELLEE PRIVATE PRACTICE Shea Ashley Miller - 08498
APPELLANT PRIVATE PRACTICE Not Licensed in ND - 00002
APPELLANT PRIVATE PRACTICE Jordan Lee Selinger - 08454
APPELLEE PRIVATE PRACTICE Nicholas C. Grant - 07102

(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)

Seq. # Filing Date Description Attachment
1 05/10/2022 NOTICE OF APPEAL : 05/10/2022
2 05/10/2022 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 05/13/2022
3 05/10/2022 MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR A WRIT BY APPELLANTS
4 05/13/2022 Received $125 filing fee
5 05/13/2022 Affidavit of Sean D. Walsh in support of Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice
6 05/13/2022 NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.
7 05/13/2022 Notice served on Zachary E. Pelham, Kirsten Tuntland, Sean D. Walsh, Michael J. Geiermann,
8 05/13/2022 Nicholas C. Grant, Shea A. Miller, Janet A. Hendrick, & Angela M. Buchanan
9 05/16/2022 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE - Granted
10 05/25/2022 Affidavit of Angela M. Buchanan in support of Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice
11 05/25/2022 Affidavit of Janet A. Hendrick in support of Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice
12 05/25/2022 Affidavit of Michele C. Spillman in support of Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice
13 06/08/2022 ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JUNE 7, 2022(ENTRY NOS. 1-311)
14 07/05/2022 All Transcripts Filed in Record
15 07/06/2022 1ST ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JULY 5, 2022 (ENTRY NOS. 312-316)
16 08/12/2022 APPELLANT BRIEF View
17 08/12/2022 Oral Argument Request by Appellants
18 08/15/2022 Rec'd corrections to ATB (inappropriate addendum)
19 08/17/2022 Rec'd corrections to ATB (addendum removed)
20 08/17/2022 MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE View
21 08/19/2022 Motion to take Judicial Notice to be Considered With the Merits
22 08/19/2022 Rec'd 3 copies of ATB from CSD
23 09/06/2022 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF View
24 09/08/2022 ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 09/26/2022
25 09/26/2022 MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE (BY APPELLEE) View
26 09/26/2022 APPELLEE BRIEF View
27 09/26/2022 Oral Argument Request by Appellee
28 09/27/2022 Notice of Substitution of Counsel by Jordan L. Selinger for William Kainz, Appellant View
29 09/29/2022 Motion to take Judicial Notice to be Considered With the Merits
30 09/29/2022 MOT. EXT/TIME REPLY BRIEF View
31 09/30/2022 ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 10/20/2022
32 09/30/2022 Rec'd 3 copies of AEB from CSD
33 10/19/2022 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
34 10/20/2022 MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE (BY APPELLANT) View
35 10/20/2022 REPLY BRIEF View
36 10/21/2022 Rec'd 3 copies of RYB from CSD
37 10/24/2022 Motion to take Judicial Notice To Be Considered With the Merits
38 11/17/2022 APPEARANCES: Zachary E. Pelham, Jordan L. Selinger and Nicholas C. Grant
39 11/17/2022 ARGUED: Zachary E. Pelham and Nicholas C. Grant
40 11/17/2022 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST