North Dakota Supreme Court Highlights
By Scott O . Diamond , Joshua A . Swanson , and Ian McLean
Authors ’ Note and Caveat : The following cases of interest were recently decided by the North Dakota Supreme Court . Because the following contains the authors ’ summary of the decisions , the reader is encouraged to read the entire published decision to determine its precedential value , if any , in any given case .
Meuchel v . Red Trail Energy , LLC , 2024 ND 44 . Filed on 3 / 7 / 24 .
Meuchel is a member and investor in Red Trail Energy , a North Dakota limited liability company . Meuchel commenced action against Red Trail after his attempts to obtain information from Red Trail had failed . Meuchel sought information regarding solicited bids for a project of Red Trail . Meuchel ’ s company had submitted an unsuccessful bid to Red Trail , and Meuchel argued he had a right to information regarding the successful bids as a member of Red Trail .
Meuchel brought a motion for summary judgment and also brought a motion to compel the requested information . The district court denied both motions . After a bench trial , the district court ruled Meuchel was not entitled to the information , as the information was not material to his rights as a member and because his request was unreasonable or otherwise improper .
The Supreme Court stated a member has a right to any record and any information that is material to the member ’ s rights and duties under the operating agreement and a right to any other information unless the demand or information demanded is unreasonable or otherwise improper under the circumstances . The Supreme Court held the district court did not err under the clearly erroneous standard in determining Red Trail ’ s bidding process was not material to Meuchel ’ s rights and duties as a member because he was not a governor or board member of Red Trail and had no voting power of Red Trail ’ s activities . Likewise , the Supreme Court found it was not error for the district court to determine Red Trail ’ s refusal to provide the information was not unreasonable since it kept information regarding the bidding process confidential and disclosure of the information could have impacted the company ’ s financial status .
State v . Fischer , 2024 ND 29 . Filed 2 / 22 / 24 .
Fischer was charged with burglary , reckless endangerment , terrorizing , and tampering with physical evidence , for shooting four bullets into a door lock while attempting to enter his estranged wife ’ s home and later disposing of the firearm . Fischer reached a plea agreement with the state . At the change of plea hearing , the state amended the felony terrorizing charge to a misdemeanor charge of menacing and Fischer pled guilty to menacing . Under the terms of the plea agreement , the remaining charges would be dismissed . The state informed the district court that the plea agreement was a binding plea agreement . Midway through the hearing , the district court learned that some of the victims wanted to address the court . The district court accepted the guilty plea to the amended charge of menacing . The district court “ set aside the other counts till later ” and continued the matter to the next day for sentencing and to hear from the victims .
The district court resumed the proceedings the following day and stated the matter was set for sentencing on the amended charge of menacing . During the sentencing , three victims spoke and one provided a video of Fischer shooting the door and attempting to enter the home . After watching the video , the judge stated the evidence and statements create a “ felony .” The judge further stated , “ and frankly , after watching that video , if the video was offered , I don ’ t realistically see how he would be found not guilty of all of those charges .” The judge then rejected the binding plea agreement . Months later , a jury trial was conducted and Fischer was found guilty of terrorizing and reckless endangerment and not guilty of burglary and tampering with evidence .
On appeal , Fischer argued the district court erred by rejecting his plea agreement the day after expressly accepting his guilty plea to the amended charge . The Supreme Court determined the dispositive question is whether the district court implicitly accepted the binding plea agreement by accepting Fischer ’ s plea to the reduced charge . After reviewing a similar South Dakota case and a U . S . Supreme Court case , the Court determined the district court ’ s acceptance of Fischer ’ s guilty plea did not mean the district court had accepted the plea agreement . The Supreme Court concluded the district court accepted Fischer ’ s guilty plea , but , by that action , did not necessarily accept the plea agreement . The district court was not bound by a
Scott O . Diamond is a judicial referee for the East Central Judicial District of North Dakota .
Joshua A . Swanson is a shareholder at Vogel Law Firm in Fargo where he practices energy law , construction and property law , and general litigation .
Ian McLean is a shareholder at Serkland Law Firm in Fargo where he practices in commercial litigation , municipal and education law , and criminal law .
SPRING 2024 19