home > opinions > predefined summary search > general search results
| Case Name Case Number Judge |
Nature of Suit Summary |
|---|---|
| Ryan Ehlis v. Shire Richwood A2-00-134 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 11/13/2002 |
440 Other Civil Rights Plaintiffs commenced this personal injury and wrongful death action against the defendants alleging Ryan Ehlis’ ingestion of Adderall, a prescription drug prescribed to him for ADHD, caused his psychosis resulting in his taking the life of his 5 week old daughter. The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding the learned intermediary doctrine, which provides the manufacturer has a duty to warn only the physician of the risks involved in the use of the pharmaceutical, would apply in ND. The court further found that the physician was adequately warned. |
| Copper v. City of Fargo A3-93-130 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 3/29/2002 |
440 Other Civil Rights Plaintiffs Copper and Norberg sought attorneys fees and defendant Niemann sought relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60. The court denied defendant’s motion, stating that it will not vacate a judgment the defendant specifically requested the Eighth Circuit to reinstate. As for attorney fees, the court noted the same were envisioned by the Eighth Circuit and are appropriately awarded to plaintiffs as the prevailing party. The court determined that fees up to and including May 10, 1995, the date of the first judgment, should be awarded, as well as fees incurred in preparing the motion for attorneys fees and responding to the Rule 60 motion. The court awarded plaintiffs attorneys’ fees in the amount of $42,705.75 and costs in the amount of $3,454.51. |
| Thomas Remmick v. SS Commissioner A3-00-147 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 3/22/2002 |
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Plaintiff sought judicial review of SSA’s denial of disability benefits. On cross motions for summary judgment, the court recommended a finding that the ALJ did properly evaluate plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain under Polaski and that the ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. The court also recommended a finding that the Appeals Council correctly concluded that the additional evidence of seizure activity was not material and did not give rise to a basis for changing the ALJ’s decision, given the hypothetical presented to the vocational expert took into account the seizure disorder. |
| Karen Senne v. SS Commissioner A3-01-30 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 3/22/2002 |
864 SSID Title XVI Plaintiff sought judicial review of SSA’s denial of disability benefits. On cross motions for summary judgment, the court found that the ALJ did apply the proper standard of review in that her case was not fully adjudicated prior to the enactment of Public Law 104-121 on March 29, 1996. The court also found that the ALJ’s conclusion that there was insufficient medical evidence to “document limitations based on medical determinable impairments, other than alcoholism, which would have significantly interfered with the claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities prior to September 30, 1995” is supported by substantial evidence. |
| Pamela Kramer v. Allstate Insurance Co. A3-00-107 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 11/28/2001 |
110 Insurance Defendant Allstate Insurance Company brought a motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Pamela Kramer’s claim for coverage on an automobile accident. Defendant Allstate, her insurer, denied coverage on the accident citing a lapse in her insurance coverage due to the failure to pay the insurance premium. Kramer alleges that Allstate should be equitably estopped from denying coverage because of its past treatment of late payments, or in the alternative the previous late payments should extend coverage to the date of the accident. The court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding a reasonable fact finder could find either a breach of contract or a basis for equitable estoppel. |
| Debra Bjerke v. Nash Finch Co. A3-98-134 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 9/28/2001 |
442 Employment Wayne Bjerke, the ex-husband of the plaintiff, brought a motion to intervene as a plaintiff in this action. The court denied the motion, stating that his interest in the outcome of the litigation is substantially similar to the plaintiffs and is therefore adequately represented. Defendant Nash Finch’s Motion for Costs was denied- the court found that defendant was not the prevailing party. The court awarded plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of $120,331.09 and costs in the amount of $9,417.46. |
| Adrian Spath v. ND Dept of Corrections A3-00-138 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 8/21/2001 |
530 General Respondent moved to dismiss petitioner’s application to this court seeking a writ of habeas corpus. This court recommended respondent’s motion be granted. Petitioner failed to show the North Dakota Supreme Court misapplied federal law when it held petitioner did not establish his trial counsel was ineffective. Petitioner’s argument that the prosecution failed to disclose important information and thus violated petitioner’s constitutional rights failed because the facts, even if true, do not undermine confidence in the outcome of Spath’s trial. Petitioner’s claim his right to a fair trial was violated because of the handling of a military bayonet failed because such error was harmless error, not plain error. Petitioner claim of pre-trial publicity failed because Spath could not demonstrate inherent or actual prejudice. |
| North Star Genetics v. Charles Bata, et al. A3-00-57 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 8/9/2001 |
890 Other Statutory Actions Parties tried this case regarding seed plant variety protection to the court. Because defendants had actual knowledge Dandy wheat was a protected variety before defendants sold it, they are liable to plaintiff for damages. Defendants motion for judgment as a matter of law was denied. Plaintiff was awarded damages, including interest, of $26,479.12. |
| Louis Charles Hamilton, II v. Christine Mostad A3-99-11 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 8/6/2001 |
320 Assault, Libel & Slander Plaintiff brought claim against defendant for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After defendant failed to respond to mail sent to her, plaintiff moved for default judgment. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for default on the defamation claim, but dismissed plaintiff’s emotional distress claim because plaintiff’s distress in this case was not severe enough to be actionable. |
| Michael Thyberg v. Melroe Company A1-00-01 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 6/27/2001 |
442 Employment Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiff’s claims. The court granted defendants’ motion on all claims, except as to plaintiff’s claim for employee benefits. Plaintiff’s claims for discrimination failed because plaintiff could not overcome defendants’ legitimate reason for terminating plaintiff. |
| Susan Waxvik v. SSA A2-99-152 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 3/12/2001 |
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Plaintiff sought judicial review of SSA’s denial of benefits. Based on the whole record, there is substantial evidence to support the finding plaintiff retains the residual functional capacity for certain light and sedentary work. The ALJ did not ignore the opinions of plaintiff’s treating physicians. There is substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff’s depressive disorder is not severe. The ALJ also sufficiently analyzed the combined effects of plaintiff’s impairments. Finally, the ALJ adequately evaluated plaintiff’s subjective complaints of disabling pain, and his decision to reject those complaints is supported by substantial evidence. The SSA’s decision was affirmed. |
| David Nuss v. Wells Fargo A2-00-33 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 2/20/2001 |
440 Other Civil Rights Defendant moved for summary judgment on both of plaintiff’s claims. The court granted defendant’s motion. Plaintiff sued defendant claiming defendant negligently allowed an imposter to open a checking account in another’s name and for violating plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff conceded its section 1983 claim by failing to respond to defendant’s arguments. Plaintiff’s negligence claim fails because defendant fulfilled any duty of care it owed to plaintiff in this case. |
| John North, et al. v. TransCor America, Inc. A3-00-72 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 12/29/2000 |
360 Other Personal Injury Defendant moved for summary judgment on both of the claims asserted by plaintiffs. The court granted defendant's motion. Plaintiffs asserted claims of negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Both claims require the plaintiffs to prove there is a duty of care owed. Since there was no relationship between plaintiffs and defendant, there was no duty of care owed, and consequently no negligence or negligent infliction of emotional distress. |
| Olheiser v. SSA A3-99-94 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 12/12/2000 |
865 RSI (405(g)) Plaintiff sought judicial review of SSA's denial of disability benefits. On cross motions for summary judgment, the court found that the ALJ failed to look at the administrative record as a whole and instead again gave considerable weight to the outdated FCA's and the opinion of a consultative medical expert. Because there is sufficient objective medical evidence, including the current FCA and the medical opinions given in conjunction therewith, to support the claimant's position, the court found that the ALJ did not base his decision on substantial evidence. SSA's decision was reversed. |
| Devitt, et al. v Pollach, et al. A3-00-117 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 12/4/2000 |
442 Employment Plaintiff commenced an action in state court against the respondents, requesting a disorderly conduct restraining order against the named individual respondents. The government, on behalf of the United States Postal Service and the respondents, removed the case to this court, alleging the action is against the USPS because all the parties to the action are employees of the USPS and the acts or omissions the respondents are charged with occurred during the course of such employment. The respondents further assert that the relief requested by the petitioners necessarily effects the operations of the USPS. Petitioners moved for an order remanding the action to state court. The court recommended a denial of petitioners' motion, finding the action is an employment matter, that all persons involved are employees of the federal government, and but for the employment relationship, none of the alleged "acts of harassment" would have occurred. |
| Bjerke v. Nash Finch Co. A3-98-134 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 12/4/2000 |
442 Employment Following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, defendant Nash Finch moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial and remittitur. Defendant's motions were denied. Plaintiff Debra Bjerke's motion for liquidated damages in an amount equal to the jury verdict was granted. The court found that, viewed in a light most favorable to the prevailing party, the jury properly concluded the defendant failed to meet its burden with respect the to the affirmative defenses and that plaintiff did prove her prima facie case. In addition, defendant's objections to the jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were again considered by the court and again rejected as not supported by the facts or law. In support of its motion for remittitur the defendant provided additional calculations not previously presented to the jury. The court found that the amount of the award was not so "grossly excessive as to shock the court's conscience," and denied the motion. The court awarded the plaintiff liquidated damages, concluding the defendant failed to establish good faith noncompliance with the law. Prejudgment interest was eliminated as a damage component. |
| Shirley v. Dietz A3-99-120 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 11/22/2000 |
440 Other Civil Rights Defendants made a motion in limine to exclude the presentation of evidence of the plaintiff's acquittal of the disorderly conduct charge, asserting the admission would be wholly inappropriate and prejudicial. Plaintiff asserts the evidence is admissible as relevant evidence to prove his excessive force claim. The court concluded that, because the excessive force claim presents issues that are entirely separate and distinct from those underlying the state prosecution, the outcome of the state prosecution in irrelevant. |
| Thyberg v. Melroe, et al. A1-00-01 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 11/20/2000 |
442 Employment Defendants brought a motion to amend answer to add additional affirmative defenses and motion to sever and/or bifurcate. The plaintiff did not object to the motion to amend and it was therefore granted. Plaintiff asserted the motion to bifurcate or sever was premature. The court disagreed and ordered that the state law NDHRA claim and the ADEA claims shall be severed and presented to two different juries, given the differing standards of proof applicable to each claim and the likelihood of confusion if the same jury were to consider both. |
| Shirley v. Dietz, et al. A3-99-120 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 11/7/2000 |
440 Other Civil Rights Plaintiff Norman Shirley commenced this action against the defendant police officers, the Chief of Police and the City of Jamestown. Plaintiff alleges the individual officers used excessive force in effectuating his arrest and are liable for assault and battery and false arrest and imprisonment. Plaintiff also alleges that Chief Donegan failed to properly and adequately train the officers. Defendants moved for summary judgment as to all counts. The court denied summary judgment as to counts one and two of the complaint, finding a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the amount of force used by the officers was reasonable under the circumstances. The officer defendants were denied qualified immunity by the court, finding the same standard of reasonableness applies. The court dismissed plaintiff's claim of false arrest and imprisonment, finding the defendants are immune because plaintiff failed to prove that defendants' acts or omissions constituted reckless or grossly negligent conduct, or willful or wanton conduct. Chief Donegan was also dismissed because plaintiff presented no evidence that he either participated in or failed to adequately train, supervise and discipline the officers. Finally, the City of Jamestown was dismissed on the ground that there was no evidence that the City was either a 'moving force' behind the violation or its policies in any way 'caused' the constitutional violation. |
| Mavis Jones v. USA A3-98-142 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 10/20/2000 |
870 Taxes (US Plaintiff or Defendant) The defendant United States of America filed a motion for summary judgment as to its counterclaim, asserting the plaintiff has failed to fully pay a 1982 tax liability. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of order granting summary judgment and/or in the alternative motion to amend pleadings and brief in opposition to the summary judgment motion, contending her innocent spouse defense precludes summary judgment. The court rejected the government's argument that plaintiff had waived her innocent spouse defense and permitted the plaintiff to amend her complaint and reply to counterclaim to assert the claim of innocent spouse, finding that the government was not unduly prejudiced and that discovery relating to the innocent spouse defense was ongoing. This court's previous order granting summary judgment was withdrawn. |
| Senger v. Stock A3-99-31 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 10/20/2000 |
350 Motor Vehicle Following jury verdict in favor of the defendant, plaintiff sought a new trial. As the basis for new trial, plaintiff argued that the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. The court disagreed and declined to substitute its judgment for that of the jury under the circumstances. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict that the plaintiff's injuries were not causally related to the accident. |
| Goodale v. SSA A3-99-05 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 9/18/2000 |
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Plaintiff sought judicial review of SSA's denial of disability benefits. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ's finding that plaintiff is able to perform some sedentary jobs. Although some evidence conflicted, the ALJ resolves those conflicts, not this court on appeal. The ALJ's discounting of plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain and limitation is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Although the plaintiff introduced new evidence, the evidence is not probative of plaintiff's condition for the time period at issue. Thus remand to the Commissioner to evaluate the new evidence is inappropriate. The SSA's decision was affirmed. |
| Hlebechuck v. SSA A3-99-146 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 9/18/2000 |
720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations Plaintiff sought judicial review of SSA's denial of disability benefits. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ's finding that plaintiff is able to perform some light work. The ALJ properly evaluated plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain and his decision to reject those complaints is supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ's finding that plaintiff's mental impairments are not severe is also supported by substantial evidence. The SSA's decision was affirmed. |
| Collins v. SSA A3-99-81 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 9/18/2000 |
865 RSI (405(g)) Plaintiff sought judicial review of SSA's denial of disability benefits. On cross motions for summary judgment, the court found that the ALJ's findings that plaintiff's claim of disabling pain is not credible and that plaintiff retains the RFC to perform a limited range of sedentary or light work, subject to limitations outlined by her physicians, are all supported by substantial evidence. Because the claimant's condition could be effectively relieved by medication, she was found not to be disabled. |
| Hansen v. SSA A2-99-89 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 9/14/2000 |
864 SSID Title XVI Plaintiff sought judicial review of SSA's denial of disability benefits. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ's finding that plaintiff is able to perform some light work. An RFC assessment when, as here, supported by the medical record as a whole, may constitute substantial evidence. The hypothetical question asked by the ALJ adequately described plaintiff's limitations and was thus not error. The SSA's decision was affirmed. |
| Harris v. McNeil A3-98-105 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 9/5/2000 |
365 Personal Injury - Product Liability Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of the claims asserted by the plaintiff. Following oral arguments, the court granted defendants' motion. Plaintiff asserted that his dependence on the drug ULTRAM was the result of the defendants' failure to warn of the dependency potential and "overpromotion" of the drug. Although whether or not a warning is adequate is a question of fact, the court held that plaintiff's inability to establish through the presentation of competent evidence that the allegedly deficient warning was the proximate cause of his injuries was fatal to his claims. Plaintiff's warranty claims were also dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to respond to defendant's motion for summary judgment as to these remaining counts. |
| Grzeskowiak v. State of MN Commissioner of Corrections A3-00-96 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 8/14/2000 |
530 General Plaintiff was convicted in Polk County, MN and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He sought post conviction relief in the state court, to no avail. He then brought a § 2254 motion in this court. The magistrate judge held that this court has no jurisdiction over the defendant as to the claims previously asserted and any new claims arising from the conditions of plaintiff's confinement. Accordingly, it was recommended that plaintiff's complaints be dismissed. |
| Linda Halvorson v. SSA A3-99-57 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 8/7/2000 |
865 RSI (405(g)) Plaintiff sought judicial review of SSA's denial of disability benefits. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ's finding that plaintiff's subjective complaints of low back pain were not fully credible. The court recognizes that although Mr. Halvorson's limitations did not allow him to perform the full range of light work, the ALJ's finding that he had the capacity to perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy such as a parking attendant, security guard, and light assembler was supported by substantial evidence. Finally, the additional evidence submitted by the plaintiff to the Appeals Council was consistent with the ALJ's findings and would not have changed his decision. SSA's decision was affirmed. |
| Dale Burke v. Donald Rudnick, et al. A3-97-77 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 8/4/2000 |
440 Other Civil Rights Plaintiff Dale Burke commenced an action under § 1983 concerning the conditions of his confinement at the Cass County Correctional Center as a pretrial detainee. The court recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted, finding that plaintiff failed to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety and health concerns, that plaintiff failed to allege that the conditions of his confinement deprived him of any basic human need, that plaintiff failed to establish he was deprived of his right of access to the courts, and that the restrictions and policies of the CCCC were not punishment for the crime alleged but rather served some legitimate security or other facility concerns. Plaintiff's cause of action was dismissed. |
| Debra Bjerke v. Nash Finch Co. A3-98-134 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 6/29/2000 |
442 Employment Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law following the presentation of all of the evidence. The court granted defendant's motion as to the plaintiff's emotional distress claim, finding that plaintiff failed to present any "competent evidence of 'genuine injury.'" Plaintiff's testimony alone and the circumstances did not suffice to establish an emotional distress claim. |
| EEOC v. Fargo Assembly Co. A3-99-27 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 6/28/2000 |
442 Employment Defendant Fargo Assembly filed a motion to deem facts admitted as a result of plaintiff's failure to answer a Request for Admissions. Plaintiff objected to the Request for Admission because they were served with insufficient time to respond within the scheduling order deadlines. The Request for Admissions at issue were more akin to Interrogatories than Requests for Admission, and in the court's view were being used as a discovery device. Plaintiff's objection to the timeliness was sustained. Defendant's Motion to Deem Facts Admitted was denied. |
| Harold Hanson, et al.v . Acceleration Life A3-97-152 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 6/21/2000 |
110 Insurance The parties in this case requested final certification of a nationwide class for settlement purposes, approval of the settlement, a determination of the sufficiency of the notice given, request for attorneys fees, payment of costs and payment of an incentive award to each of the class representatives. The court held that Nationwide Class Certification, consisting of 13,320 current or former policyholders, was appropriate for settlement purposes in accordance with Rule 23(b) in that the class representatives have fairly protected the interests of the entire class and the constituency of the Settlement Class may easily be determined for purposes of the conclusiveness of the judgment. The court also held that the notice given, both in terms of location and content fairly apprized the class members of the settlement. As to the settlement itself, all of the Grunin factors weighed heavily in favor of approval. Finally, the court found that the efforts of counsel justify an attorney fee award of 30%, Class Counsel's costs were justified and should therefore be paid, and an incentive award to the Class Representatives was appropriate and reasonable. |
| Vigen Construction v. Browning Enterprises A2-99-3 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 6/7/2000 |
190 Other Contract Defendant brought a motion for summary judgment asserting that plaintiff's negligence claim is not permitted by the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in North Dakota and that plaintiff's warranty claims should be dismissed because plaintiff failed to give proper notice of the alleged defects. The court granted summary judgment as to the negligence claim, given that plaintiff conceded the applicability of the UCC in its response. However, the court denied summary judgment as to the warranty claims, holding that there existed a genuine issue of material fact whether notice was given and the sufficiency of such notice. |
| Raphael Slominski, et al. v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co. A2-98-114 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 4/11/2000 |
110 Insurance Defendant moved for summary judgment alleging that plaintiffs' failure to file a timely proof of loss statement for flood damages precluded plaintiffs from receiving insurance coverage. HELD: Defendant's motion granted. Plaintiffs' standard flood insurance policy was purchased pursuant to the national flood insurance program which regulates the manner in which flood insurance claims must be filed. Plaintiffs filed outside of the time limit allowed by the regulations. |
| Keith Nelson v. Soo Line Railroad Company A3-99-83 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 4/7/2000 |
330 Federal Employers Liability Plaintiff brought this claim under the FELA and moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability because defendant violated the Federal Safety Appliance Act, and that defendant was not entitled to the defense of contributory negligence. HELD: Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied with respect to liability because plaintiff was the only witness to the incident, so causation was a question best left for determination by the jury. The motion was granted with respect to the defense of contributory negligence because a finding of a violation of the Safety Appliance Act would constitute negligence per se, to which the defense of contributory negligence would not apply. |
| Mavis Jones v. USA A3-98-142 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 3/31/2000 |
870 Taxes (US Plaintiff or Defendant) Plaintiff brought this action alleging taxes assessed for the tax years of 1981-1989 were erroneously assessed and/or collected. Defendant brought a motion to dismiss claiming that plaintiff was only challenging the assessment for 1985-1989 and was seeking under the Doctrine of Equitable Recoupment to offset the deficiencies of the earlier years. HELD: plaintiff's claim for a refund for tax years 1981-1984 was dismissed because plaintiff conceded that taxes were properly assessed for those years, and was dismissed for the tax years 1986-1989 because plaintiff's amended returns were untimely. The amended return for the 1985 tax year was timely filed; therefore plaintiff was allowed to proceed with her claim on that year. |
| Constance Nelson v. Paracelsus Healthcare Corp. A3-98-141 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 2/14/2000 |
710 Fair Labor Standards Act Various and numerous motions were filed by both parties in this case. Of particular significance was plaintiff's motion to compel responses to interrogatories and document requests relating to the salaries of other management personnel of defendant. Plaintiff asserted that because she was a director she was "similarly situated" to all other directors for comparison purposes under the Equal Pay Act. In denying the plaintiff's motion to compel the court held that plaintiff must make a threshold showing of at least substantial similarity between her position and that of each of the other employees whose compensation information she seeks. The court further found that plaintiff's contention that all directors are per se similarly situated is not sufficient. |
| ProGold Limited v. Precision Stainless A3-98-102 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 2/3/2000 |
380 Other Personal Property Damage Plaintiff in contract dispute moved for summary judgment on defendants' affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction. HELD: denied because factual dispute on issue of mutual assent. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on defendant's counterclaim. HELD: deferred until time of trial because issue of accord and satisfaction central to defendant's counterclaim. |
| Debra Bjeke v. Nash Finch Co. A3-98-134 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 2/1/2000 |
442 Employment A number of discovery motions were brought by the parties. First, defendant brought a motion for a mental examination pursuant to Rule 35. In response, plaintiff withdrew her emotional distress claims but persisted in her "garden variety" claim for compensatory damages for mental anguish. The court held that because plaintiff's mental condition is genuinely not in controversy, the defendant has failed to make a showing of good cause and a mental examination is not warranted. Next, the court ruled that defendant is entitled to recover plaintiff's complete tax returns of the subject years, even though some of the plaintiff's husband's financial information is contained therein. As to plaintiff's motion for protective order and to quash subpoena directed to plaintiff's husband, the court held that it is not satisfied that a marital privilege exists in a federal civil action under the law of the Eighth Circuit, and certainly is not available in North Dakota except in criminal actions. As to the documents themselves, the court found the subpoena to be duplicative and an annoyance, granting plaintiff's motion for protective order as to the documents listed in the subpoena. Neither party was awarded costs or attorney's fees. |
| ANR Western v. Basin Electric A1-92-105 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 1/25/2000 |
190 Other Contract The court addressed various post trial motions brought by both parties. Plaintiff's request for oral argument was denied because of the court's extensive familiarity with plaintiff's arguments. The court considered plaintiff's challenge to its damage calculation and held that there was no basis for changing its original damage award. The court also denied defendant's motion to alter or amend judgment on the basis that the court again found that its damage calculation was proper and rejected the calculations made by a fact witness at trial. Finally, both parties motion for costs was denied; the court found that neither party was the prevailing party in that each was successful in some but not all of their respective claims. |
| Cecilia Brenot v. USA v. Grand Forks Clinic A2-97-8 Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein 12/30/1999 |
362 Personal Injury - Med. Malpractice Bench trial held on allocation of fault between defendants in a medical malpractice case. Defendants had reached settlement with plaintiff but could not agree on apportionment of fault between themselves. The court concluded that defendant the United States was ninety percent (90%) at fault for obstetrical care and defendant Grand Forks Clinic, Ltd., and Leslie Soine, M.D. were ten percent (10%) at fault for ultrasound report. |
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