Daniel L. Hovland

The case involved a motion to suppress statements made by defendant Ivanna Red Bow after her arrest in connection with a stabbing on the Standing Rock Reservation. Red Bow was advised of her Miranda rights, signed a written waiver, and provided both verbal and written statements to BIA and FBI agents over the course of about an hour. During the interview an attorney contacted by a relative attempted to reach her but was not permitted to speak with her, and she was not informed of the call; Red Bow had not requested counsel and was unaware of the attorney's efforts. The court denied the motion to suppress, holding that under Moran v. Burbine the officers' actions regarding the attorney had no bearing on the validity of Red Bow's voluntary Miranda waiver because the events occurred outside her knowledge and did not affect her capacity to understand and relinquish her rights.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Benjamin Gasal, an employee of Grain Inspection, Inc., who was injured when he fell from a moving railcar while working without fall protection at an elevator owned by CHS, Inc. Gasal sued CHS, alleging liability for his injuries. The court granted CHS's motion for summary judgment, finding that Grain Inspection was an independent contractor and CHS did not retain control over the method, manner, or operative details of the work performed by Grain Inspection or its employees. As a result, CHS owed no duty to protect Gasal from the acts or omissions of the independent contractor, and no exceptions to the general rule of non-liability applied.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved defendant Francis Merle Baker, Jr., who was indicted for aggravated sexual abuse of a child in violation of federal law and later entered a guilty plea under a formal plea agreement admitting to the conduct with the minor victim. Baker moved to withdraw his plea and for a new trial under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11 and 33, asserting actual innocence based on a later statement from the victim. The court denied both motions, finding that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an adequate factual basis from Baker's admissions during the change-of-plea hearing, that the victim's statement did not sufficiently undermine those admissions, and that Rule 33 does not apply to cases resolved by guilty plea without a trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Richard Chandler Black Cloud, who was charged with sexual abuse of a minor and moved to suppress statements he made to FBI agents during a January 2011 interview, arguing that he was in custody and should have received Miranda warnings. The court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion to suppress. The core reasoning was that, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in Black Cloud's position would have felt free to terminate the interview and leave, because the questioning occurred in a private office at a homeless shelter where he lived, the agents were not in uniform, he was not restrained or prevented from leaving, he was told he was not under arrest, the interview was short and respectful, and he was not arrested afterward.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the sentencing of Christian Robert Webb, who pled guilty to one count of receipt of materials involving the sexual exploitation of minors in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). The court reviewed undisputed facts from the presentence investigation report showing Webb, a public school teacher and IT administrator, possessed extensive child pornography including images and live webcam videos of prepubescent children, some depicting his own nine-year-old daughter. Applying the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, the court started with a base offense level of 22, added specific offense characteristics for a total adjusted level of 32, and after a downward departure under § 5K1.1 imposed a sentence of 144 months imprisonment plus lifetime supervised release and sex offender registration. The core reasoning was that this sentence, within the 121-151 month advisory range and below the 20-year statutory maximum, was sufficient but not greater than necessary to serve the ends of justice given the facts.

criminal law

The case involved North Dakota landowners suing an energy company in state court for a declaratory judgment that a 2007 pipeline easement across their property was either void under state law or limited to a single pipeline already built, after the company claimed rights under the easement to construct an additional line. The defendant removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, but the plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that the amount in controversy did not exceed the $75,000 threshold. The court granted the motion for remand, holding that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the value of the disputed easement met the jurisdictional amount, as the suit concerned only the existing easement rather than the cost of any new one or potential alternative pipelines. Evidence of compensation amounts from related easements fell short, and all doubts were resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns a dispute over the Turtle Mountain Tribal Court's jurisdiction in a lawsuit brought by tribal member Raymond Poitra against Ford Motor Credit Company and Ford Motor Company arising from a 2000 vehicle financing contract. Poitra had defaulted on payments, Ford obtained a 2004 default judgment in tribal court but did not enforce it, and Poitra later sued in tribal court seeking damages for the vehicle's disrepair along with credit report corrections. Ford filed suit in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to bar the tribal proceedings on the ground that tribal courts lack jurisdiction over non-Indian companies under Montana v. United States and Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co. The court denied Ford's motion for summary judgment, holding that Ford's voluntary filing of the 2004 tribal court action created a consensual commercial relationship that satisfied the first Montana exception and conferred tribal jurisdiction, and it also denied Poitra's motion to dismiss for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction while dismissing Ford's federal complaint without prejudice so that all claims could proceed in tribal court.

federal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerns a dispute over whether a nonprofit pooled trust for disabled individuals complied with Medicaid rules requiring repayment to the state upon a beneficiary's death, after North Dakota resident Allen Kemmet transferred assets into a trust managed by the Florida-based Center for Special Needs Trust Administration. The North Dakota Department of Human Services sued in state court to recover funds from the trust, and the defendants removed the action to federal court. The district court granted the state's motion to remand, holding that the claims arose solely under state law, did not raise a substantial federal question, and were not subject to complete preemption under the Medicaid statute, so federal subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking; the court denied the request for attorney fees and costs.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

This case arose from a 2008 train-truck collision near Berthold, North Dakota, in which plaintiff Robert Campbell, a BNSF conductor, was injured after a KC Transport tractor-trailer driven by Roland Pederson entered a crossing; BNSF and Berthold Farmers’ Elevator then asserted cross-claims against KC Transport and Pederson seeking contribution or indemnity for any damages. KC Transport and Pederson moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss those cross-claims. The court granted the motion as to Berthold Farmers’ Elevator’s cross-claim because the elevator filed no response, which the local rules treat as an admission that the motion is well taken. The court denied the motion as to BNSF’s indemnification claim, finding genuine issues of material fact on whether implied indemnity could arise from a great disparity in fault between the parties, an issue to be resolved after trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a married couple who sued multiple North Dakota state and county officials, social workers, and a foster parent after their adopted child was removed from their custody in 2004 following a state juvenile court finding that the child was unruly and deprived. The plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of their due process and other constitutional rights, including control over the child's religious upbringing, along with related state-law tort claims; they sought damages and injunctive relief. The federal district court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived it of subject-matter jurisdiction because the suit effectively sought review of a prior state-court judgment that the plaintiffs had not appealed. The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

civil rightsfamily lawfederal powerprocedure

The case arose from a 2008 train collision in North Dakota in which plaintiff Robert Campbell, a BNSF conductor, was injured when a tractor-trailer drove onto the tracks; his partner Brenda Southern later asserted a loss-of-consortium claim against the truck owner, driver, and a local elevator company. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Campbell and Southern were not common-law spouses under Montana law at the time of the accident because they had filed taxes and loan documents as single individuals and later formalized their marriage. The court denied the motions, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the couple had cohabited, commingled assets, and held themselves out publicly as married, which precluded summary judgment under the applicable Montana standards for proving common-law marriage by mutual consent, cohabitation, and public repute.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

In this federal sentencing case, defendant James Lee McGowan pled guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court addressed whether his prior Minnesota conviction for terroristic threats qualified as a predicate "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and 4B1.2(a), which would have raised his base offense level from 12 to 20. Applying the modified categorical approach from Shepard v. United States and Eighth Circuit precedent, the court examined the available record and found only the state complaint, with no plea agreement, transcript, or other evidence showing that McGowan had admitted facts establishing the requisite intent to threaten physical force. The court therefore held that the government failed to meet its burden, resulting in a lower advisory guideline range of 15-21 months after also adjusting the criminal history category.

criminal lawgunsfederal power

This case involved a dispute between Bank of Oklahoma and Tharaldson Motels II over a guaranty tied to financing for a Nevada real estate project, with the bank filing suit in North Dakota federal court to enforce the guaranty while parallel claims proceeded in Nevada state court. The bank moved for an injunction to bar the defendant from continuing to litigate the guaranty's validity or enforceability in the Nevada action, citing a forum-selection clause designating North Dakota courts and the defendant's prior admissions. The court denied the motion, holding that the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, barred federal courts from enjoining pending state proceedings absent narrow exceptions. It found that neither the "necessary in aid of its jurisdiction" exception nor any other applied, as the action was in personam, no federal judgment existed to protect, and doubts must be resolved in favor of allowing the state case to proceed.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves a dispute between North Dakota landowners and an oil company over alleged underpayment of rent under a salt water disposal agreement for wells on their property, with the plaintiffs initially seeking $84,200 in damages plus injunctive relief in state court. The defendant removed the action to federal district court asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on the parties' citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. After removal, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to seek only a minimum of $65,400 and moved to remand the case to state court. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that jurisdiction is determined by the complaint as it existed at the time of removal. The core reasoning relies on precedent that a post-removal amendment reducing the damages claimed does not divest the federal court of jurisdiction.

procedureproperty

The case involved North Dakota landowners who leased their mineral rights in 2004 for a five-year primary term, with the leases containing habendum clauses allowing extension if oil or gas was produced or drilling operations were underway, and Pugh clauses limiting the lease to producing units. After the leases were assigned to Hess Corporation, the company performed extensive pre-drilling activities on a spacing unit including the leased land before the primary term ended in May 2009, began actual drilling shortly after, and completed a producing well in June 2009. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the leases had expired, while Hess sought summary judgment upholding their validity. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted Hess's, holding as a matter of law that the preparatory steps constituted "drilling operations" under North Dakota precedent because they demonstrated good-faith intent and capability to complete a well. This reasoning relied on the continuous prosecution of operations and the absence of any genuine factual dispute.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Greywind v. Podrebarac, an inmate at the North Dakota State Penitentiary sued prison dental and administrative staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment after fracturing a tooth and being offered extraction rather than the root canal and crown he requested. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to compel the alternative treatment, antibiotics, and pain relief. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because prison staff had provided ongoing treatment with medication, his disagreement with the recommended extraction did not establish constitutional deliberate indifference, and judicial restraint counseled against interfering in prison medical decisions absent a clear violation. The court also noted the plaintiff had not filed a supporting memorandum as required by local rules but considered the motion on its merits anyway, and determined that the balance of harms, public interest, and other Dataphase factors did not support injunctive relief.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a wrongful death claim brought by Pearl Reiss after her husband Henry Reiss was killed in 2006 when the P-3000 pneumatic compactor he was operating rolled over into a ditch. The plaintiff sued Komatsu America Corp., as successor to the manufacturer, and Diesel Machinery, Inc., the dealer that sold the equipment, asserting claims including strict products liability, failure to warn, negligence, and breach of warranties, primarily alleging that the compactor lacked a rollover protective structure (ROPS) and adequate warnings about rollover risks. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims under North Dakota law. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, finding that certain claims such as breach of warranty were time-barred by the statute of limitations while others, including aspects of failure to warn and negligence under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, presented genuine issues of material fact that precluded full dismissal.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case arose from a 2008 train-truck collision in North Dakota that injured a train conductor, prompting federal claims under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and Locomotive Inspection Act against BNSF Railway, along with state-law negligence claims against the truck driver, his employer KC Transport, and another party. The court considered a motion joined by all parties asking whether supplemental jurisdiction existed over the state claims against Pederson and KC Transport. It held that supplemental jurisdiction was present under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the state and federal claims derived from a common nucleus of operative fact. The court further decided to exercise that jurisdiction, finding none of the discretionary grounds for declining it in § 1367(c) applied and that judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favored retaining the entire case in federal court.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved whether Louis J. Solsbury, convicted after pleading guilty to receipt of materials involving the sexual exploitation of minors under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2) and 2252(b)(1), should pay restitution to "Vicky," a victim depicted in some of the child pornography images he received. The government moved for a mandatory restitution award of $312,953.60 under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 on behalf of Vicky. The court denied the request after finding that Vicky qualified as a victim under the statute but that the government had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that her losses were proximately caused by Solsbury's specific conduct, given the lack of evidence that he viewed the Vicky images, contacted her, or was otherwise linked to her harms. The opinion noted that the statutory restitution framework for child pornography receipt cases is unworkable in the criminal context and better addressed by Congress.

criminal law

In this case, former employee Rory Stroklund sued his employer Nabors Drilling under the North Dakota Human Rights Act, alleging he was denied a reasonable accommodation for a non-work-related hand injury and was terminated after his medical leave expired. The defendant moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the Nabors Dispute Resolution Program, which Stroklund had acknowledged in writing as a condition of employment and which broadly requires arbitration of employment-related disputes including discrimination claims. The court granted the motion and stayed the proceedings, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of the agreement, that it was not unconscionable as an adhesion contract or otherwise, and that the claims fell squarely within its scope. The court reasoned that any doubts about arbitrability must be resolved in favor of arbitration and that the plaintiff would retain substantive rights in the arbitral forum.

labor & employmentprocedure