Spring2026 Gavel | Page 24

Harlow’ s moved to intervene, which was granted. Bauer moved for default judgment against the employees, which was denied. After Bauer moved to amend his complaint, Harlow’ s moved to dismiss and requested sanctions; and asked the district court to declare Bauer a vexatious litigant. Harlow’ s employees joined in the motions. The district court granted the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing all claims except civil conspiracy and defamation; ordered a more definite statement on the surviving claims; and awarded sanctions for Bauer’ s frivolous claims. Subsequently, after more filings, the presiding judge issued an order finding Bauer to be a vexatious litigant and restricted his ability to file without prior court approval.

Rejecting Bauer’ s arguments, the Supreme Court held that district courts have the authority to control dockets to stem abuses of the judicial process and maintain the integrity of the court, and that, under N. D. C. C. § 28-36-04, the Supreme Court shall adopt rules to implement the vexatious litigation chapter. Bauer provided no supporting authority on his argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction or that the presiding judge was without authority to issue the order declaring him to be a vexatious litigant.

In rejecting Bauer’ s constitutional due process argument, the Supreme Court noted N. D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58 contains procedural safeguards providing for a specific vexatious litigant definition, appropriate notice, requisite court findings, and the pre-filing order contents. The Supreme Court concluded that, in addition to receiving notice and the opportunity for a hearing, the

final pre-filing order provided the district court’ s findings. Bauer did not argue what further process was due to him under the federal or state constitutions. The Supreme Court concluded Bauer received due process.

Finally, Bauer argued the presiding judge erred in finding him to be a vexatious litigant. The Supreme Court reviews an order finding a litigant vexatious for an abuse of discretion. In finding Bauer vexatious, under N. D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58( 2)( d)( 3), the presiding judge found he“ filed numerous unmeritorious motions, pleadings, and other papers; improperly conducted discovery and made demands related to his improper discovery attempts; and engaged in tactics exhibiting frivolous conduct which is intended to cause unnecessary burden, expense, or delay.” The judge found Bauer filed“ numerous motions in rapid succession, repeatedly citing nonexistent caselaw, or making arguments with no legal basis or authority, and filing or threatening to file disciplinary actions or have judges / attorneys removed from cases who do not comply with [ his ] demands, on [ his ] timeline, or rule in his favor on motions.” Bauer did not challenge those findings.

The Supreme Court noted at the time the district court issued the final pre-filing order – less than 10 months after he commenced suit, the docket contained 254 entries. In the pre-filing order, the presiding judge extensively cited his numerous unmeritorious findings. In affirming, the Supreme Court concluded the presiding judge did not abuse her discretion in finding Bauer to be a vexatious litigant under Rule 58( 2)( d)( 3) or N. D. C. C. § 28-36-01( 3)( c).

Your Charitable and Planned Giving Experts in North Dakota

We are available for free, confidential consultations regarding tax-wise giving and charitable gift & estate planning.

Ask us about CRUTs, CRATs, CGAs, and other charitable-giving tools. www. NDCF. net

Steve Lipp President & CEO Bismarck 701-222-8349 Steve @ NDCF. net

24 THE GAVEL