home > opinions > predefined summary search > general search results
| Case Name Case Number Judge |
Nature of Suit Summary |
|---|---|
| Kraft v. USDA, Secretary Johanns 1-04-cv-84 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 7/31/2007 |
440 Other Civil Rights Plaintiff asserted that the USDA had breached the parties’ two settlement agreements. The court allowed her to proceed with her claim for breach of the second agreement. Finding that the USDA had failed to comply with the terms of the second agreement, the court, inter alia, awarded Plaintiff back pay to which it found her entitled and directed the USDA to correct her payroll records to accurately reflect her retroactive promotion and leave without pay status. |
| USA v. Neff, et al. 4-05-cv-128 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 2/22/2007 |
220 Foreclosure Following its foreclosure on and sale of the debtor’s real and chattel property, the government filed an application requesting that surplus proceeds from the sale of the debtor’s real property be used to satisfy the debtor’s outstanding chattel debt. Determining that another of the debtor’s judgment creditors had priority to surplus proceeds and that the debtor qualified for a homestead exemption, the magistrate judge recommended that the government’s application be denied. |
| Siegfried v. BIA, et al. 1-05-cv-55 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 2/12/2007 |
350 Motor Vehicle The BIA filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting, inter alia, that the plaintiff’s FTCA claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the FECA. The court concluded there was a substantial question regarding FECA coverage. Given the fact determinations regarding FECA eligibility are matters left to the sole discretion of the Secretary of Labor, the court stayed the action pending a ruling by the Secretary on the plaintiff’s application for FECA benefits. |
| Roemmich v. Eagle Eye Development, LLC, et al. 1-04-cv-79 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 12/29/2006 |
160 Stockholders' Suits The court concluded in an earlier order that the defendants were prevailing parties and were entitled to percentage of their costs and attorney’s fees as a matter of state substantive law. In this order, the court ruled on the plaintiff’s objections to the specific amounts claimed by the defendants and ordered entry of judgment. |
| USA v. David Joseph Jackson 1-06-cr-27 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 12/20/2006 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The court, finding the defendant guilty of four out of the ten offenses with which he was charged, continued the conditions of the defendant’s release pending sentencing. The government subsequently filed a motion for detention. The court granted the motion, concluding that 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) mandated detention. |
| ACUITY v. North Central Video, LLLP, et al. 1-05-cv-10 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 12/7/2006 |
110 Insurance The court denied the plaintiff insurer’s motion for reconsideration of its order granting the defendants’ request for a protective order. In so doing the court acknowledged that insurers are not necessarily precluded from obtaining discovery in a declaratory action and do not necessarily have to rely on the fact development and discovery in the underlying state-court proceedings. It then explained that, with respect to the case at bar, the insurer had failed to sufficiently articulate why further discovery was necessary at present. |
| Kemnitz v. SSA 1-05-cv-125 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 10/6/2006 |
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Claimant sought review of the Social Security Administration's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. The magistrate judge opined there was not substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s assessment of the claimant’s residual functional capacity, but held that the evidence was not so transparently one-sided in the claimant’s favor to warrant an award of benefits. Consequently, the judge recommended that the matter be remanded to the Social Security Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). |
| Roemmich v. Eagle Eye Development, LLC, et al. 1-04-cv-79 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 9/12/2006 |
160 Stockholders' Suits Plaintiff filed suit under the North Dakota Limited Liability Company Act claiming that an LLC’s majority member had engaged in prejudicial conduct and had breached his fiduciary duties to the plaintiff. In an earlier order, the court granted the plaintiff limited injunctive relief but found in favor of the defendant on most of the other issues. In this order, the court concluded that the defendants were the prevailing parties and were entitled to recover a percentage of their reasonable costs and attorney’s fees as a matter of state substantive law. |
| Ferderer v. North Dakota, et al. 1-05-cv-19 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 8/22/2006 |
442 Employment The State of North Dakota filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting, inter alia, that the plaintiff’s employer was an agency unamenable to suit under Title VII because it had less than fifteen employees, that the plaintiff’s employer took immediate corrective action to address the alleged harassment of the plaintiff by an elected official, and that the harassment alleged was insufficient to create a hostile work environment. The court denied the State’s motion, concluding that the plaintiff was properly classified as a State employee as opposed to a mere agency employee (therefore satisfying Title VII’s numerosity requirement) and that there were issues of fact as to the remaining issues. |
| Roemmich v. Eagle Eye Development, LLC, et al. 1-04-cv-79 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 8/16/2006 |
160 Stockholders' Suits Plaintiff filed suit under the North Dakota Limited Liability Company Act ostensibly against an LLC and its majority member. Plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the majority member had engaged in prejudicial conduct and had breached his fiduciary duties to the plaintiff . The court concluded that the majority of the plaintiff’s claims were time barred and were otherwise meritless. Nevertheless, the court granted the plaintiff injunctive relief in terms of imposing financial controls and meeting requirements on the LLC to protect the minority interests. |
| Alex v. Schuetzle 1-05-cv-113 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 6/5/2006 |
550 Civil Rights An inmate stripped of good-time credit for his alleged involvement in gang activity petitioned this court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for restoration of his good-time credits. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss, averring that the inmate had not petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court for relief and therefore had failed to exhaust his state court remedies. In the alternative, the respondent asserted that the petition failed on the merits. The magistrate judge recommended that: (1) the motion as it pertained to exhaustion be granted; (2) the motion as it pertained to the petition’s merits be denied without prejudice because the inmate’s due process claims may have merit; and (3) the inmate’s petition be stayed and held in abeyance to give the inmate an opportunity to exhaust his state court remedies. |
| Kraft v. USDA Secretary 1-04-cv-84 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 5/3/2006 |
440 Other Civil Rights Plaintiff asserted that the USDA had breached the parties’ two settlement agreements. She sought to rescind the agreements and reinstate her underlying civil rights claims. The USDA moved for summary judgment, asserting, inter alia, that it had complied with the terms of the agreements and that plaintiff had released her claims. The court granted the motion in part. It dismissed plaintiff’s claims for rescission, breach of the parties’ initial settlement agreement, and alleged civil rights violations. However, it allowed plaintiff to proceed with her claim for breach of the parties’ second settlement agreement. |
| Rush v. Social Security Administration 1-05-cv-54 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 2/10/2006 |
865 RSI (405(g)) Claimant sought review of the Social Security Administration's denial of her application for CDB and SSI benefits. The magistrate judge concluded that the SSA had failed to adequately consider claimant's obesity and that its assessment of claimant's residual functional capacity was not supported by substantial evidence. In addition, he observed there were problems with the administrative record and that the SSA had not applied the appropriate criteria when evaluating claimant's request for CDB benefits. Consequently, he recommended that the matter be remanded to the SSA for an award of SSI benefits and for further consideration of claimant's application for CDB benefits. |
| Fisher, et al. v. Dakota Community Bank, et al. 1-05-cv-100 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 11/7/2005 |
190 Other Contract The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that motions to remand filed by the plaintiffs be granted on the grounds that complete diversity of citizenship amongst the parties was lacking. The report concluded that North Dakota Community Bank, who issued a letter of credit, was more than a mere stakeholder or nominal party. |
| Garcia v. Bertsch 3-04-cv-75 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 9/12/2005 |
530 General The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, asserting five claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, a violation of his Sixth Amendment public trial rights, and a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s proscription of cruel and unusual punishment. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending the dismissal of the habeas petition. However, recognizing that three claims were debatable, he recommended that a certificate of appealability be issued with respect to Sixth Amendment claim along with two of the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. |
| Ford v. Peters, et al. 1-04-cv-76 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 5/5/2005 |
362 Personal Injury - Med. Malpractice Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of chiropractic malpractice and loss of chance, asserting they had no duty as a matter of law to either diagnose plaintiff’s cancer or refer plaintiff to a medical doctor, and, in any event, there no evidence to suggest the alleged breach of their duties was the proximate cause of any harm she had suffered. The court determined that the standard of care for chiropractors in North Dakota was similar to the standard for physicians. Concluding there were issues of fact as to whether any care provided by the defendants breached this standard, the court denied the motions. The court also stated that it may be possible under North Dakota law to prove recoverable damages if it can be demonstrated that plaintiff’s chances of living longer would have been increased by earlier detection of the cancer and there is some reasonable basis for estimating the damages. |
| Blunt v. USA 1-04-cv-119 Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller 2/15/2005 |
890 Other Statutory Actions A court-appointed conservator and guardian of an incapacitated veteran initiated an action against the U.S. Dept. of Veteran’s Affairs (VA), claiming that it had usurped his powers by selecting the veteran’s nursing home as the authorized payee of the veteran’s benefits. The court dismissed the action, concluding that the VA’s actions were lawful and not arbitrary, capricious, or a clear error of judgment. |
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