Pozorski v. Trucks, Trailers & More

2023 ND 54, 988 N.W.2d 597
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 31, 2023
Docket20220267
StatusPublished

This text of 2023 ND 54 (Pozorski v. Trucks, Trailers & More) 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
Pozorski v. Trucks, Trailers & More, 2023 ND 54, 988 N.W.2d 597 (N.D. 2023).

Opinion

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT MARCH 31, 2023 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 54

Kurt and Jackie Pozorski, Plaintiffs and Appellants v. Trucks, Trailers & More, Inc. and Cody Fleck, Defendants and Appellees

No. 20220267

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Douglas A. Bahr, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Garrett D. Ludwig, Mandan, ND, for defendants and appellees.

Christopher A. Wills, St Cloud, MN, for plaintiffs and appellants. Pozorski, et al. v. Trucks, Trailers & More, et al. No. 20220267

[¶1] Kurt and Jackie Pozorski (“the Pozorskis”) appeal from a district court judgment dismissing their claims against Trucks, Trailers & More, Inc. and Cody Fleck (collectively “TTM”). On appeal, the Pozorskis argue the district court abused its discretion by issuing sanctions for spoliation of evidence. The Pozorskis also argue the court erred by finding they failed to provide sufficient notice of repair of a truck they purchased from TTM. Finally, they argue the court erred by finding TTM established prejudice.

[¶2] A court’s decision to exercise its inherent power to sanction when relevant evidence is destroyed or spoiled will only be reversed on appeal if the court abused its discretion. Fines v. Ressler Enters., Inc., 2012 ND 175, ¶ 7, 820 N.W.2d 688. Whether a party had notice is a finding of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Desert Partners IV, L.P. v. Benson, 2019 ND 19, ¶ 14, 921 N.W.2d 444. Findings of prejudice are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review. Hunter v. State, 2020 ND 224, ¶ 16, 949 N.W.2d 841. We conclude the district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous and it did not abuse its discretion. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte David W. Nelson, S.J. Stacy J. Louser, D.J.

[¶4] The Honorable David W. Nelson, S.J., and the Honorable Stacy J. Louser, D.J., sitting in place of Crothers, J., and Bahr, J., disqualified.

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

Related

Fines v. Ressler Enterprises, Inc.
2012 ND 175 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2012)
Desert Partners IV, L.P. v. Benson
2019 ND 19 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2023 ND 54, 988 N.W.2d 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pozorski-v-trucks-trailers-more-nd-2023.