of a stranger , but only on the complaint of those with the requisite interest . The Supreme Court determined , in this case , the district court decided the constitutionality of N . D . C . C . § 14-09- 25 ( 8 ) on its own initiative and the question was not properly raised by a party and presented to the court . As a result , the court did not have the benefit of adversarial briefing of the issue and the process used to determine the constitutionality of the statute disrupts the separation of powers between the branches of government and contravenes the party presentation principle . The Supreme Court reversed and remanded .
McKenzie Electric Coop ., Inc . v . El-Dweek , et al ., 2024 ND 227 . Filed on 12 / 19 / 24 .
The case commenced in November 2019 with Judge El-Dweek as the presiding judge . In July 2020 , the judge disclosed to the parties that he was a member of McKenzie Electric . In 2023 , McKenzie Electric disclosed it was seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and intended to distribute the award to its members . In May 2024 , the respondents filed a motion for change of venue citing potential jurors ’ membership in McKenzie Electric . At a hearing on the motion in Aug . 2024 , the judge again reminded the parties he was a member of McKenzie Electric . Following the hearing , respondents filed a motion for recusal . The judge recused himself , concluding the integrity of the justice system demanded he recuse himself based on the mere appearance of impropriety . McKenzie Electric then filed a supervisory writ requesting the district court ’ s order of recusal be vacated .
The Supreme Court stated , even if it did not agree with the decision to recuse , it would still deny the petition because having a different judge decide the case does not constitute an extraordinary case mandating the issuance of a supervisory writ . The Supreme Court stated the upcoming trial date had already been delayed and such delay is now unavoidable and cannot be remedied through a supervisory writ . As such , under the circumstances presented in the case , where the delay cannot now be remedied and the reassignment of judge presents no serious question of judicial bias , the Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretion to consider the supervisory writ .
Nelson v . Pine View First Addition Association , 2025 ND 9 . Filed on 1 / 9 / 25 .
Nelson appealed the district court ’ s order granting Pine View First Addition Association ’ s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction . The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the order for further proceedings .
Nelson is a North Dakota resident that operated a snow and ice removal business . Pine View is a Minnesota corporation and homeowners ’ association that oversees 52 properties in Moorhead , Minnesota . Pine View ’ s property manager , 360 Properties , is a North Dakota company . The claim involved payment for work
Nelson provided to Pine View in 2023 . 360 Properties called Nelson in spring 2023 requesting urgent help in removing ice buildup that was causing water damage to Pine View ’ s Moorhead properties . Nelson told 360 Properties a final price could not be determined until his work was done . Pine View approved of Nelson proceeding with the work .
The final invoice from Nelson was for $ 57,756 , which Nelson discounted down from $ 79,695 . Pine View and 360 Properties did not dispute the invoice , nor did they pay Nelson . After failing to pay for several months , Nelson withdrew the discount . In February 2024 , Nelson filed suit against Pine View , in North Dakota , alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment , seeking $ 79,695 plus interest and attorney ’ s fees . Pine View responded by moving to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction , arguing North Dakota did not have personal jurisdiction over Pine View because it was a Minnesota company , its properties are in Minnesota , and the services were performed in Minnesota .
Nelson appealed , arguing the district court erred in holding it lacked jurisdiction over Pine View . A ruling on personal jurisdiction is a fully reviewable question of law on appeal reviewed de novo for legal conclusions and the clearly erroneous standard applies for factual findings . Nelson , as the plaintiff , had the burden of making a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to defeat the motion to dismiss . Nelson argued the court had jurisdiction under N . D . R . Civ . P . 4 ( b ) ( 2 )( A ) because Pine View initiated contact with him regarding his services . The court uses a two-part test to determine whether there is personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant . First , the court determines whether the requirements of North Dakota ’ s long-arm provision , Rule 4 ( b )( 2 ), are satisfied . If they are , the court then decides whether exercising personal jurisdiction comports with due process . They satisfy that the nonresident defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with North Dakota so the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice .
Under Rule 4 ( b )( 2 )( A ), a North Dakota court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent as to any claim for relief arising from the person ’ s having such contact with this state that transacts business in this state . The Supreme Court explained the phrase “ transacting any business in this state ” should be given an expansive interpretation and is used in a broader sense than merely doing business . When a nonresident initiates contact with a North Dakota resident seeking a product or service , that action is generally sufficient to show the nonresident transacted business for purposes of establishing personal jurisdiction . Whether a nonresident initiated contact with Nelson was dispositive of determining whether Rule 4 ( b )( 2 )( A ) was satisfied . The Supreme Court held Pine View ’ s contacts with North Dakota satisfy the requirements of the rule .
The Supreme Court then considered whether Pine View had sufficient minimum contacts with North Dakota , so the exercise
WINTER 2025 19