Jarick Products, Inc. v. MID AM Group

2010 ND 48
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 18, 2010
Docket20090290
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2010 ND 48 (Jarick Products, Inc. v. MID AM Group) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jarick Products, Inc. v. MID AM Group, 2010 ND 48 (N.D. 2010).

Opinion

Filed 3/18/10 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2010 ND 48

Jarick Products, Inc. d/b/a

Dakota Gypsum, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

MID AM Group, LLC, Defendant

        and

D. Duane Peterson,                                                                Defendant and Appellant

No. 20090290

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Douglas R. Herman, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Monte L. Rogneby (argued), Vogel Law Firm, P.O. Box 2097, Bismarck, ND 58502-2097, Jon R. Brakke (on brief) and Michael S. Raum (on brief), Vogel Law Firm, P.O. Box 1389, Fargo, ND 58107-1389, for plaintiff and appellee.

L. Patrick O’Day, Jr., P.O. Box 1727, Fargo, ND 58107-1727, for defendant and appellant.

Jarick Products v. MID AM Group

[¶1] D. Duane Peterson appealed from the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate the default judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b).  On appeal, Peterson argued the district court erred by denying his motion because the default judgment pierced the corporate veil of his limited liability corporation, and his six to seven month delay in bringing his Rule 60(b) motion was reasonable.  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Peterson’s motion.  The order is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).   See Royal Indus., Inc. v. Haugen , 409 N.W.2d 636, 638 (N.D. 1987) (quoting Bender v. Liebelt , 303 N.W.2d 316, 318 (N.D. 1981)) (holding a disregard of legal process is not excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)); Follman v. Upper Valley Special Educ. Unit , 2000 ND 72, ¶ 11, 609 N.W.2d 90 (quoting Industrial Comm’n of North Dakota v. Wolf , 1999 ND App 2, ¶ 6, 588 N.W.2d 590) (holding a Rule 60(b) motion does not “relieve a party from free, calculated, and deliberate choices”).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Donovan J. Foughty, D.J.

[¶3] The Honorable Donovan J. Foughty, D.J., sitting in place of Kapsner, J., disqualified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Monster Heavy Haulers, LLC v. Goliath Energy Services, LLC
2016 ND 176 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2010 ND 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarick-products-inc-v-mid-am-group-nd-2010.