home > opinions > predefined summary search > general search results
| Case Name Case Number Judge |
Nature of Suit Summary |
|---|---|
| Kunzer v. Magill 09-1950 DSD/FLN Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 10/29/2009 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The Plaintiff filed an action against the former United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota for failure to prosecute. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the United States Attorney was protected by absolute immunity as to the exercise of his discretion and judgment in determining whether to initiate a prosecution. |
| USA v. Tyrone Roper 4-08-cr-22 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 10/21/2009 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used An indictment was filed against the defendant in the Western District of Kentucky. The defendant was arrested in the District of North Dakota and requested a Rule 20 Transfer of his case to North Dakota. The defendant has failed to appear at scheduled hearings in this district. The Government filed a motion to vacate the Rule 20 Transfer, arguing that the defendant’s failure to appear is in violation of the rule. The Court granted the Government’s motion and vacated the Rule 20 Transfer, finding that by failing to appear at the scheduled hearings, the defendant is continuing to maintain a de facto not guilty plea to the charges. |
| Nokota Horse Conservancy, Inc. v. Bernhardt, et al. 1-09-cv-24 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 10/20/2009 |
840 Trademark The plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, arguing that the defendants should be enjoined and restrained from using the mark “NOKOTA” in any way, including at a pending roundup sale of horses. The Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order, finding that the Dataphase factors weigh in favor of the issuance of a temporary restraining order. |
| XTO Energy, Inc. v. Schmidt 4-09-cv-66 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 10/20/2009 |
290 All Other Real Property The Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, arguing that the Defendant should be enjoined from interfering with the Plaintiff’s attempts to access the Defendant’s property for geophysical operations. The Court granted the motion, finding that the Dataphase factors for issuance of a temporary restraining order were satisfied. |
| Medcenter One Health Systems, et al. v. Health & Human Services 1-08-cv-63 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 10/13/2009 |
151 Medicare Act The Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment and the Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The Court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion and denied the Defendant’s motion, finding that the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ decision was arbitrary and capricious. |
| Clausen v. National Geographic Society, et al. 4-08-cv-103 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 10/9/2009 |
440 Other Civil Rights The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the Title IX, breach of contract, state law discrimination, and fraud claims. The defendants further argue that the plaintiff’s state law retaliation claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and that they do not owe the plaintiff a fiduciary duty. The Court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the plaintiff’s claims under the state whistle-blower statute and the state Human Rights Act are time-barred, and that the plaintiff failed to assert a valid Title IX, breach of contract, actual fraud, or constructive fraud claim. As such, all claims should be dismissed as a matter of law. |
| USA v. Kyle Ray DeCoteau 4-08-cr-37 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 9/1/2009 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The defendant underwent a competency evaluation and a competency hearing was held. The Court found that the three-part scheme for determining mental competency to stand trial was met. |
| Arnegard, et al. v. Farm Service Agency, et al. 4-08-cv-83 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 8/19/2009 |
190 Other Contract The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that they were not in violation of their federal farm loan and that the liquidated damages, penalties, and future farm loan constrictions were not warranted. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that substantial evidence supported the agency’s findings. The Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the agency’s determination was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. |
| Brown v. Flying J, Inc. 1-08-cv-59 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 8/14/2009 |
442 Employment The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant knew or should have known of the racial harassment the plaintiff endured; that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of his employment; and that the defendant failed to take prompt and remedial action to end the harassment. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff did not establish that he was terminated either on account of his race or in retaliation for complaining of racial harassment. The Court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendant took prompt, remedial action reasonably calculated to end racial harassment in the workplace; that the plaintiff was not terminated on account of his race; and that the defendant did not retaliate against the plaintiff for complaining of racial harassment. |
| Puklich v. John E. Potter 1-06-cv-90 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 8/12/2009 |
442 Employment The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant knew or should have known of sexual harassment the plaintiff endured and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action to end the harassment. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff did not establish that the sexual harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of her employment. The Court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendant took prompt remedial action reasonably calculated to end the sexual harassment of the plaintiff in the workplace. |
| Gladue, et al. v. USA 4-07-cv-69 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 8/12/2009 |
240 Torts to Land The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was not liable for the alleged negligence of an independent contractor and that it was not liable for its own alleged negligence and trespass. The Court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding that under the Federal Tort Claims Act the defendant was not liable for the alleged negligence of its independent contractor, and that the plaintiffs failed to show that the defendant was directly liable for its own negligence and trespass. |
| Roemmich v. Eagle Eye Development, LLC, et al. 1-04-cv-79 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 8/11/2009 |
160 Stockholders' Suits The defendants filed a motion for execution of judgment in which they sought the foreclosure of the plaintiff’s membership interest in Eagle Eye Development, LLC. The Court denied the motion, finding that the North Dakota Limited Liability Company Act does not allow foreclosure as a remedy when enforcing a judgment against a judgment creditor’s membership interest in a limited liability company. |
| USA v. Darren Michael Henry 4-09-cr-06 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 7/16/2009 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The defendant filed a motion in limine requesting that the Court instruct the jury in the upcoming trial that he faces a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence if convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor. The Court denied the motion, finding that a defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to a jury instruction on a mandatory minimum sentence. |
| Roemmich v. Eagle Eye Development, LLC, et al. 1-04-cv-79 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 7/7/2009 |
160 Stockholders' Suits The Defendants moved to allow lay and expert testimony at a hearing for the pending motion to enforce judgment. The Defendants requested that Leland Bertsch and Eagle Eye Development’s accountant, Jon Wagner, be allowed to provide lay testimony at the hearing and that Professor Carter Bishop be allowed to provide expert testimony at the hearing. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion, finding that Bertsch and Wagner will be allowed to provide lay testimony but that Professor Bishop will not be allowed to provide expert testimony. |
| USA v. William Dean Sandland 1-07-cr-100 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 6/19/2009 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The defendant filed a motion for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the Court had violated his rights. The Court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant failed to show that defense counsel’s performance was deficient or, if defense counsel was deficient, that the defendant’s defense was prejudiced. Further, the defendant failed to show that the Court made a constitutional or jurisdictional error, or that there was a complete miscarriage of justice. |
| Gustafson v. Poitra, et al. 4-09-cv-16 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 6/17/2009 |
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment The plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief to enjoin and restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s access to and possession of fee land located within an Indian reservation. The plaintiff and defendant Sandra Poitra entered into a settlement agreement in which the parties agreed that Poitra no longer had any right or claim to the land. The Court sua sponte ordered a dismissal of the case, finding that the parties resolved the federal dispute. |
| EOG Resources Inc. v. Badlands Power Fuels LLC, et al. 4-08-cv-38 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 6/9/2009 |
190 Other Contract The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the indemnity provisions within a contract for oil well services were valid and enforceable under Texas law. The Court granted the motion, finding that the indemnity provisions were valid and enforceable. |
| EOG Resources Inc. v. Badlands Power Fuels LLC, et al. 4-08-cv-38 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 6/9/2009 |
190 Other Contract The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that defendant Badlands Power Fuels performed work for the plaintiff under a verbal work order and that the recital description of Badlands Power Fuels’ business in a contract for oil drilling services did not limit the scope of the agreement. The Court granted the motion, finding that it was within the normal course of business for Badlands Power Fuels to perform work for the plaintiff pursuant to verbal work orders, and that the recital description of Badlands Power Fuels’ business did not limit the scope of the agreement. |
| Burke v. ND Department of Correction & Rehabilitation, et al. 1-07-cv-04 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 6/5/2009 |
550 Civil Rights An inmate filed a complaint with the Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging statutory and constitutional violations, including interference with the free exercise of religion, lack of adequate medical care, retaliation for exercising his constitutional rights, failure to protect, refusal to accommodate his disability, and cruel and unusual punishment. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court granted the motion, finding that the inmate failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to a statutory or constitutional violation of his rights. |
| EOG Resources Inc. v. Badlands Power Fuels LLC, et al. 4-08-cv-38 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 6/5/2009 |
190 Other Contract Defendant B.O.S. Roustabout filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that an indemnity provision within a contract for oil well services was inconspicuous and, therefore, unenforceable under Texas law. The Court denied the motion, finding that the indemnity provision was conspicuous and that it created a mutual indemnity obligation on the contracting parties. |
| Miner v. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, et al. 1-08-cv-105 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 5/20/2009 |
442 Employment The Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the action pursuant to the holding in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978). The Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the holding under Santa Clara Pueblo is not applicable and that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court granted the Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to Santa Clara Pueblo. |
| Holbach v. Bertsch, et al. 1-09-cv-14 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 5/20/2009 |
550 Civil Rights The Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction, arguing that the Court should require the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to remove a phone block that has prevented the Plaintiff from talking to his son. The Court denied the motion, finding that the Plaintiff did not satisfy any of the factors required for a preliminary injunction as set forth in Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981). |
| USA v. Melvin Troy Twoshields 1-06-cr-19 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 5/14/2009 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The defendant filed a motion for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant did not show that defense counsel’s performance was deficient or, if defense counsel was deficient, that the defendant’s defense was prejudiced. |
| Hoff, et al. v. Elkhorn Bar, et al. 1-08-cv-71 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 5/12/2009 |
360 Other Personal Injury The Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on the Plaintiffs’ dram shop and wrongful death claims. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The Court granted judgment on the pleadings on the Plaintiffs’ dram shop claims, finding that North Dakota’s dram shop statutes prevent the intoxicated person’s family from recovering under the statutes. The Court denied judgment on the pleadings on the Plaintiffs’ wrongful death claims, finding that the Defendants owed a duty of reasonable care to its customers. |
| Anderson v. Hess Corporation 1-07-cv-65 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 5/5/2009 |
360 Other Personal Injury A third party filed a motion to intervene after the case had settled. The Court denied the motion, finding that the third party did not have a recognized interest in the lawsuit and that intervention would unduly prejudice the parties. |
| Gustafson v. Poitra, et al. 4-09-cv-16 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 4/15/2009 |
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment The Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion temporary restraining order, arguing that the Defendants should be enjoined from interfering with the Plaintiff’s access to and possession of the Plaintiff’s property. The court granted the motion, finding that the Dataphase factors for issuance of a temporary restraining order were satisfied. |
| USA v. Karl Robert Irwin 1-05-cr-21 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 3/31/2009 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The Defendant requested copies of his trial transcript and sentencing transcript so that he could file a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court denied the request for a copy of the trial transcript, finding that a trial transcript has no connection or relevance to a Section 2241 motion. The Court granted the request for a copy of the sentencing transcript. The Court ordered that the sentencing hearing be transcribed and a copy be made available to the Defendant and the Court. |
| Tweed, et al. v. Schuetzle, et al. 1-06-cv-32 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 3/23/2009 |
550 Civil Rights The Plaintiff inmates filed a motion for injunctive relief, arguing that the Defendants should be enjoined from prohibiting the Plaintiffs from communicating via United States mail for purposes of this case. The Plaintiffs also filed a motion for extension of time to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation on their Rule 60(b)(3) motion to vacate judgment. The Court granted the motion for extension of time but denied injunctive relief, finding that none of the Dataphase factors for issuance of injunctive relief was satisfied. |
| USA v. Kyle Ray DeCoteau 4-08-cr-37 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 3/17/2009 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The Defendant filed a motion to suppress statements that he made to law enforcement officers, arguing that he was subject to custodial interrogation without first being read his Miranda rights and that his statements were involuntarily made as a result of mental limitations. The Court denied the motion, finding that the Defendant was not in custody for purposes of Miranda. The Court determined that mental limitations alone are insufficient to render statements involuntary – there must also be evidence of coercive police activity. The Court found that the record was devoid of any evidence that police engaged in overreaching or coercive conduct. The Defendant’s statements to law enforcement officers are admissible. |
| USA v. Patrick Timothy McMorrow 1-03-cr-80 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 3/10/2009 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The defendant filed a motion for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that he was being improperly held in a special housing unit in prison, that he did not have access to legal resources, that an FBI agent falsely testified at trial, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court dismissed the motion, finding that it did not have jurisdiction over the first two claims and that the last two claims were not timely filed within the one-year limitation period. |
| White Body, Jr. v. Mukasey, et al. 4-08-cv-101 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 3/2/2009 |
530 General The Petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for habeas corpus relief. The Court reviewed the motion and concluded that the motion should be reclassified as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Pursuant to Morales v. United States, 304 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2002), the Court, prior to reclassifying the motion, informed the Petitioner of the restrictions on second or successive Section 2255 motions and of the one-year limitation period on filing Section 2255 motions. Additionally, the Court provided the Petitioner an opportunity to either consent to the reclassification or to withdraw the Section 2241 motion. |
| USA v. Karl Robert Irwin 1-05-cr-21 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 2/27/2009 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The Defendant filed a letter with the Clerk of Court in which he requested copies of his trial transcript, sentencing transcript, and docket sheet so that he can file a Section 2255 motion for habeas corpus relief. The Court ordered the Defendant to show cause by April 3, 2009, as to why he should be entitled to receive copies of the trial transcript and sentencing transcript despite having failed to obtain authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive Section 2255 motion, and despite the fact that the filing of any such petition would fall beyond the one-year period of limitation. |
| USA v. Julian Spottedhawk Ramirez 1-07-cr-47 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 2/19/2009 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The Defendant filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence by a person in federal custody, arguing (1) that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to seek the suppression of statements that Defendant made to law enforcement officers; (2) that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate whether law enforcement officers investigated other suspects for the crimes charged against him; and (3) that the statements he made to law enforcement officers were in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. |
| EOG Resources, Inc. v. Badlands Power Fuels LLC, et al. 4-08-cv-38 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 2/18/2009 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used One Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The Defendant attempted to realign a co-Defendant as a party plaintiff, arguing that the legal interests of the Plaintiff and the co-Defendant are closely aligned. Realignment of the co-Defendant as a plaintiff would have defeated diversity jurisdiction. The Court denied the motion, finding that an actual controversy exists between the Plaintiff and the co-Defendant. |
| USA v. Fidel Diaz-Quintana 1-08-cr-64 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 2/6/2009 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that he was unlawfully detained by law enforcement officers in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and that evidence secured during the unlawful detention was obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. The Court denied the motion to suppress evidence, finding that the Defendant was lawfully detained while his immigration status could be determined and was not under custodial arrest until after it was discovered that he had a criminal and immigration history. Any evidence obtained prior to the custodial arrest is admissible, as are the Defendant’s incriminating statements made after he was read his Miranda rights. |
| USA v. Sebastian Joseph Feist 1-08-mc-06 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 1/28/2009 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The Defendant filed a motion to reconsider the Court’s order for payment of the statutory filing fee in an appeal. The Court denied the motion, finding that the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, permits district courts to require the payment of a filing fee, to waive all fees, or to impose partial filing fees. The Court found that the Defendant has sufficient funds to pay the filing fee over time in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. |
| Gillette v. ND Disciplinary Board Counsel, Brent Edison 4-08-cv-102 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 1/14/2009 |
440 Other Civil Rights The Plaintiff filed a motion for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff sought a declaration that North Dakota disciplinary law does not apply on an Indian reservation. The Plaintiff also filed a motion for injunctive relief to enjoin the North Dakota Disciplinary Board from administering state disciplinary proceedings against him. The Defendant filed motions to dismiss, contending that the doctrine of abstention, as announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), applies. The Court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the Younger doctrine of abstention applies. The Court denied the motion for declaratory and injunctive relief as moot. |
| Gravalin v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance 3-07-cv-71 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 1/13/2009 |
110 Insurance The Plaintiff filed a complaint for the wrongful denial of benefits under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act. Each party brought a motion for summary judgment. The Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court found that under a de novo review of the life insurance policies, the effective date of the retirement benefits at issue was October 20, 2006. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s husband died within the conversion period of the life insurance policies and the Plaintiff is entitled to the life insurance benefits. |
| Anderson v. Hess Corporation 1-07-cv-65 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 1/12/2009 |
360 Other Personal Injury The Defendant filed a motion in limine to suppress any causation testimony by the Plaintiff’s medical experts. The Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in the event that the Court granted the motion in limine in full and excluded causation testimony. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion in limine, finding that the Plaintiff’s treating medical physician could testify as to causation because he performed a differential diagnosis. The Court denied the motion for summary judgment as moot. |
| Krosch, et al. v. JLG Industries, Inc., et al. 1-07-cv-45 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 12/19/2008 |
365 Personal Injury - Product Liability The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs’ strict liability and negligence claims. The Court granted the summary judgment motions brought by defendants JLG Industries and P-Q Controls. The Court found that the Plaintiffs did not present expert witness testimony or sufficient evidence to support their strict liability claims, and that the Plaintiffs did not present credible evidence or expert witness testimony to satisfy the elements of their negligence claims. The Court denied the summary judgment motion brought by defendant Dakota-Montana Hardware, finding that the issue of spoliation is a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment. |
| USA v. Billy Dean Sandland 1-07-cr-100 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 12/18/2008 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The Defendant filed a motion to appoint counsel to assist in applying for habeas corpus relief. The Court denied the motion, finding that there is not a constitutional right to counsel in habeas corpus proceedings, that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel, and that neither the claims nor the facts giving rise to them appear to be complex. |
| USA v. Melvin Troy Twoshields 1-06-cr-19 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 12/9/2008 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The Defendant filed a motion to appoint counsel, arguing that counsel is necessary for his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion because he does not have sufficient access to the law library and he is not capable of assisting in his own defense. The Court denied the motion, finding that there is not a constitutional or statutory right to counsel in habeas proceedings, that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel, and that neither the claims nor the facts giving rise to them appear to be complex. |
| USA v. Patrick Timothy McMorrow 1-03-cr-80 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 12/5/2008 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The Defendant filed a motion for to appoint counsel, arguing that counsel is necessary for his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion because he is unable to afford counsel, his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate, and he has little access to jailhouse lawyers because he is in special housing. The Court denied the motion, finding that there is not a constitutional or statutory right to counsel in habeas proceedings, that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel, and that neither the claims nor the facts giving rise to them appear to be complex. |
| Wilhelm v. Credico, Inc., et al. 1-05-cv-02 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 12/5/2008 |
480 Consumer Credit The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that their previously-served Rule 68 Offer of Judgment moots the case. The Court denied the motion, finding that the Rule 68 Offer of Judgment does not moot the case, and reserved the issues of liability and damages for the jury to resolve. |
| Geokinetics USA, Inc. v. Marmon, et al. 4-08-cv-104 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 12/3/2008 |
290 All Other Real Property The Plaintiffs filed a motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order, arguing that the Defendants should be enjoined from interfering with the Plaintiff’s attempts to access the Defendants’ property for the Plaintiff’s geophysical operations. The court granted the motion, finding that the Dataphase factors for issuance of a temporary restraining order were satisfied. |
| Wilhelm v. Credico, Inc., et al. 1-05-cv-02 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 12/2/2008 |
480 Consumer Credit The Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The Court denied the motion, finding that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. |
| Pressdough of Bismarck, LLC v. A&W Restaurants, Inc., et al. 1-08-cv-62 Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland 11/24/2008 |
196 Franchise The Defendants filed a motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), contending that the action should be transferred to the Western District of Kentucky, where an action between the same parties is pending. The Court granted the motion, finding that the interests of justice weigh in favor of consolidating the actions in the Western District of Kentucky. |
| USA v. Micheal Fisher 1-08-cr-26 Judge Daniel L. Hovland 11/17/2009 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The defendant pled guilty to various counts of filing false tax returns and conspiracy to defraud. During the first phase of the sentencing hearing, both parties were afforded the opportunity to present evidence designed to address the disputed facts in the PSR and the parties’ objections to the Sentencing Guideline calculations. The parties then submitted post-hearing briefs. The Court found that a downward departure to criminal history category II is warranted, that the tax loss is greater than $400,000, that a two-level increase for a role adjustment is warranted, and that the defendant is entitled to a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. |
| EOG Resources Inc. v. Badlands Power Fuels LLC, et al. 4-08-cv-38 Judge Daniel L. Hovland 11/17/2009 |
190 Other Contract Defendant Badlands Power Fuels filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the indemnity provisions within a contract for oil well services violated the public policy of North Dakota pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 9-08-02. The Court denied the motion, finding that the indemnity provisions did not violate the public policy of North Dakota. |
| Iverson v. Bronco Drilling Company, Inc., et al. 4-08-cv-10 Judge Daniel L. Hovland 11/4/2009 |
360 Other Personal Injury Defendants Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. and RPM Consulting, Inc. filed motions for summary judgment, based on independent contractor status. The plaintiff does not object to RPM Consulting, Inc.’s motion. The Court granted the motions for summary judgment, finding that Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. did not owe the plaintiff a duty to protect him from injuries caused by the acts or omissions of RPM Consulting, Inc. and Kenneth McIntyre, and Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. did not negligently retain control over Bronco Drilling Company, Inc. The claims against Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. and RPM Consulting, Inc. were dismissed as a matter of law. |
| Herschbach, et al. v. Herschbach, et al. 1-09-cv-08 Judge Daniel L. Hovland 11/3/2009 |
290 All Other Real Property The Defendant filed a motion for a change of venue, arguing that there is an identical action pending in the Eastern District of Texas and that the issues could be resolved more efficiently in Texas. The Court granted the motion, finding that the interests of justice compel a transfer of this action to federal court in the Eastern District of Texas. |
If the layout of this web page appears plain, and you see few or no graphics, you are probably looking at it with a browser or device that does not fully support CSS.
While this site looks more appealing through CSS-compliant browsers, it content is the same for any web browser