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.

[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.