IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 172

Discover Bank, Petitioner

v.

Bruce Romanick, District Judge, South

Central Judicial District, and Brandon

D. Lapp, Respondents

No. 20230227

Petition for Supervisory Writ.

PETITION FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT GRANTED.

Opinion of the Court by McEvers, Justice.

Clifton G. Rodenburg, Fargo, ND, for petitioner; submitted on brief.

Daniel J. Nagle, Mandan, ND, for amicus curiae North Dakota Collectors 

Association.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2023 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

Discover Bank v. Romanick, et al.

No. 20230227

McEvers, Justice.

[¶1] Discover Bank (“Discover”) petitions for a supervisory writ directing the 

district court to vacate its order requiring Discover to serve upon the defendant 

the notice of filing the complaint and motion for default judgment. We exercise 

our supervisory jurisdiction, grant the petition, and direct the court to vacate 

its order.

I

[¶2] On April 25, 2023, Discover served a summons and complaint on the 

defendant alleging past due debt on a credit card. The defendant did not 

answer or otherwise appear. On May 25, 2023, Discover filed the summons and 

complaint, sheriff’s return of service, “affidavit of no answer,” and other 

documents supporting its motion for default judgment. In response, the district 

court filed a “Notice,” requiring Discover to serve a “Notice of Filing” of the 

complaint on the defendant and allow him 14 days from the date of the filing 

of the “Notice of Filing” to respond to the motion for default judgment. Discover 

now petitions for a supervisory writ directing the court to vacate its order.

II

[¶3] Discover argues we should exercise our supervisory jurisdiction because 

it has no adequate alternative remedy.

This Court’s authority to issue supervisory writs under N.D. Const.

art. VI, § 2 and N.D.C.C. § 27-02-04 is a discretionary authority 

exercised on a case-by-case basis and cannot be invoked as a 

matter of right. We exercise this discretionary authority rarely and 

cautiously to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary 

cases in which no adequate alternative remedy exists. We 

generally will decline to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction if the 

proper remedy is an appeal.

Pierce v. Anderson, 2018 ND 131, ¶ 6, 912 N.W.2d 291. We have exercised our 

supervisory jurisdiction when the case is extraordinary, the district court 
2

erred, and there is no adequate alternative remedy because the order is not 

appealable. State v. Haskell, 2001 ND 14, ¶ 4, 621 N.W.2d 358. In Marmon v. 

Hodny, 287 N.W.2d 470, 479 (N.D. 1980), the Court granted a supervisory writ 

and directed the district court to vacate its order compelling answers to 

interrogatories. The Court noted the interrogatories asked for attorney work 

product and the order compelling those answers was not an appealable order. 

Id. at 474, 478.

[¶4] We have rarely exercised our supervisory jurisdiction when an issue may 

be otherwise appealable. In Pierce, the district court denied a motion to dismiss 

in a medical malpractice action where the plaintiff failed to provide an expert 

opinion affidavit. 2018 ND 131, ¶ 5. We exercised our supervisory jurisdiction 

even though the issue could have been raised in a later appeal, because the 

court’s denial of the motion to dismiss contradicted North Dakota law including 

the statute requiring an expert affidavit. Id. at ¶ 7. We noted the purpose of 

the statute was to prevent an actual trial in “cases where a medical malpractice 

plaintiff cannot substantiate a basis for the claim.” Id.

[¶5] Discover argues this case involves an order contrary to the rules of civil 

procedure “for which there is no immediate appeal and no ultimate adequate 

alternative remedy.” We agree. Below we discuss the merits and conclude the 

district court erred by requiring Discover to serve the defendant with the notice 

of filing the complaint and the motion for default judgment, contrary to civil 

procedure rules. Additionally, the court’s order is not appealable and pertains 

to an issue that may evade review if the case progresses and service is 

effectuated on the defendant. As Discover outlines, if the defendant does not 

respond, default judgment will be issued without further review. If he does 

respond and Discover obtains judgment, it cannot appeal. Thus, the only 

avenue for review would be if the defendant responds and Discover is denied 

judgment. Then, Discover may be able to raise the issue on appeal, but only 

after additional judicial and legal resources are expended by the court and the 

parties. This case is similar to Pierce where although the issue could 

theoretically be resolved in a subsequent appeal, the governing rule appears to 

be designed to prevent the case from proceeding for a significant purpose. In 

Pierce, it was a statute preventing trial in unsubstantiated medical 
3

malpractice cases. Here, it is civil procedure rules allowing diligent plaintiffs 

to obtain default judgment without expending additional legal resources where 

the defendant does not submit to the court’s jurisdiction.1 Therefore, we 

exercise our supervisory jurisdiction.

III

[¶6] Discover argues the district court erred by requiring it to serve upon the 

defendant the notice of filing the complaint and motion for default judgment. 

Discover contends such service is contrary to the rules of civil procedure. “Rules 

of court are interpreted by applying principles of statutory construction.” 

Rekkedal v. Feist, 2006 ND 147, ¶ 9, 718 N.W.2d 10. “[W]ords are to be 

interpreted and understood in their ordinary sense.” Id. (citing N.D.C.C. § 1-

02-02). We “give meaning and effect to every word, phrase, and sentence, and 

do not adopt a construction which would render part of the [rule] mere 

surplusage.” State v. Houkom, 2021 ND 223, ¶ 7, 967 N.W.2d 801. Rules “are 

construed as a whole and are harmonized to give meaning to related 

provisions.” Grand Prairie Agric., LLP v. Pelican Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 2021 

ND 29, ¶ 7, 955 N.W.2d 87. Like the interpretation of a statute, the 

interpretation of a court rule is a question of law. Fleck v. Fleck, 2023 ND 129, 

¶ 8, 993 N.W.2d 534.

[¶7] The defendant was served the original summons and complaint on April 

25, 2023, commencing the action. N.D.R.Civ.P. 3 (stating a civil action is 

commenced by service of a summons). The summons notified the defendant 

that his failure to respond would result in a default judgment:

Within 21 days after service of this summons upon you, you 

must serve on the undersigned an answer to the attached 

complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the North Dakota Rules of 

1 The North Dakota Collectors Association notes in its amicus curiae brief that the creditors it serves 

are “extremely concerned about the affordability of paying additional costs of serving an additional 

notice of default judgment which, from their experience, does not increase the number of answers or 

appearances in these cases.”
4

Civil Procedure. If you fail to do so, default judgment will be 

rendered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

[¶8] Rule 5(a)(1), N.D.R.Civ.P., governs when service is required and states

that pleadings served after the original summons and complaint and any 

written motions and notices must be served on every party unless the rules 

provide otherwise. Rule 5(a)(2), N.D.R.Civ.P., contains an exception: “No 

service is required on a party who is in default for failing to appear. But a 

pleading that asserts a new claim for relief against such a party must be served 

on that party under Rule 4.” See also Olsrud v. Bismarck-Mandan Orchestral 

Ass’n, 2007 ND 91, ¶ 14, 733 N.W.2d 256 (noting “no service of pleadings or 

other papers need be made on parties in default” under Rule 5(a)). Under 

N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(A), “a defendant must serve an answer within 21 days 

after being served with the summons and complaint.” Discover argues that 

because the defendant did not answer or otherwise appear within 21 days after 

being served with the summons and complaint, he was in default and was not 

entitled to be served with the notice of filing the complaint or motion for default 

judgment.

[¶9] The district court concluded service was required under N.D.R.Civ.P. 

5(d)(2)(A)(ii), which states, “A party who files a complaint or other initiating 

pleading must serve notice of filing on the other parties.” Discover filed the 

summons and complaint on May 25, 2023, along with its motion for default 

judgment, but did not serve a notice of filing on the defendant. Discover argues 

that when read with N.D.R.Civ.P. 5(a)(2), the phrase “the other parties” in Rule 

5(d)(2)(A)(ii) does not include parties in default. We agree. Concluding that a 

notice of filing the complaint was required to be served on a defaulting party 

would render N.D.R.Civ.P. 5(a)(2) mere surplusage, which goes against our 

rules of statutory construction. Instead, conflicting rules are to be harmonized. 

State v. Beilke, 489 N.W.2d 589, 593 (N.D. 1992) (“We construe statutes to 

harmonize them and avoid conflicts.”); State v. Woytassek, 491 N.W.2d 709, 712 

(N.D. 1992) (“If two or more statutes relating to the same subject matter 

conflict, we attempt to give meaningful effect to each without rendering one or 

the other useless.”). Under N.D.C.C. § 1-02-07,
5

Whenever a general provision in a statute is in conflict with 

a special provision in the same or in another statute, the two must 

be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both 

provisions, but if the conflict between the two provisions is 

irreconcilable the special provision must prevail and must be 

construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the 

general provision is enacted later and it is the manifest legislative 

intent that such general provision shall prevail.

Rules 5(a)(2) and 5(d)(2)(A)(ii) can be harmonized by requiring a party who 

files a complaint to serve notice of filing on the other parties, except upon 

defaulting parties. To the extent there is an irreconcilable conflict, Rules 5(a)(1) 

and 5(d)(2)(A)(ii) are the more general rules on service and Rule 5(a)(2) is a 

specific rule omitting service on defaulting parties. Thus, N.D.R.Civ.P. 5(a)(2) 

prevails under these circumstances.

[¶10] Additionally, the district court stated in its order that the defendant has 

14 days from the date of the filing of the “Notice of Filing” to respond to the 

motion for default judgment. Given the 14-day period to respond to the motion, 

the court appears to have required service of the motion for default judgment 

upon the defendant. See N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2) (providing non-movant 14 days to 

respond after service of motion and brief). To the extent the court required 

service of the motion for default judgment on the defendant, that requirement 

is contrary to the rules of civil procedure. Rule 5(d)(2)(A)(ii), N.D.R.Civ.P., only 

refers to service of the notice of filing the complaint (or other initiating 

pleading), not service of notice of filing the default judgment motion. Although 

service of the motion would normally be required under the general rule of 

N.D.R.Civ.P. 5(a)(1)(D) for appearing parties, Rule 5(a)(2) is the clear exception 

to that rule for defaulting parties.

[¶11] The general requirements for a default judgment are set forth in

N.D.R.Civ.P. 55(a)(1)-(2),

(a) Entry. If a party against whom a judgment for affirmative 

relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise appear and the 

failure is shown by declaration or otherwise, the court may direct 
6

the clerk to enter an appropriate default judgment in favor of the 

plaintiff and against the defendant as follows:

(1) If the plaintiff’s claim against a defendant is for a sum certain 

or a sum that can be made certain by computation, the court, on a 

declaration of the amount due and on production of the written 

instrument, if any, on which the claim is based, may direct the 

entry of judgment for the amount due plus costs and 

disbursements.

(2) In all other cases, the court, before directing the entry of 

judgment, must require the necessary proof to enable it to 

determine and grant any relief to the plaintiff. To this end, the 

court may:

(A) Hear evidence and assess damages;

(B) Direct a reference for an accounting or for taking 

testimony or for a determination of the facts; or

(C) Submit any issue of fact to a jury.

“If the party against whom a default judgment is sought has appeared 

personally or by a representative, that party or its representative must be 

served with a motion for judgment. Notice must be served with the motion and 

must comply with N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a).” N.D.R.Civ.P. 55(a)(3). However, when a 

defendant has not appeared, he is not entitled to be notified of the motion for 

default judgment. AE2S Constr., LLC v. Hellervik Oilfield Techs. LLC, 2021 

ND 35, ¶ 18, 955 N.W.2d 82; Hatch v. Hatch, 484 N.W.2d 283, 285 (N.D. 1992).

[¶12] In moving for default judgment, Discover declared the defendant is in 

default because he did not answer or otherwise appear. Discover declared a 

sum certain of $13,297.76 in its “affidavit of no answer” and supplemental 

affidavit of claim. Discover provided documentation of this amount by 

submitting an “account summary.” Discover also filed a proposed order and 

judgment and an affidavit of costs and disbursements. In its order, the district 

court acknowledged the motion for default judgment was filed by Discover. The 

court did not state the motion was deficient under N.D.R.Civ.P. 55(a)(1) for lack 

of proof of the defendant’s failure to appear or for lack of proof of a sum certain.
7

Nor did the court order evidence be heard or submitted under N.D.R.Civ.P.

55(a)(2).

[¶13] Under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “When a party 

against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or 

otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk 

must enter the party’s default.” (Emphasis added.) “If the plaintiff’s claim is 

for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation, the clerk—

on the plaintiff’s request, with an affidavit showing the amount due—must 

enter judgment for that amount and costs against a defendant who has been 

defaulted for not appearing and who is neither a minor nor an incompetent 

person.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, the federal rule requires 

a two-step process, first entering default, and then entering default judgment. 

Another difference is the federal rule states the clerk “must enter” default and 

default judgment when the requirements are met. Whereas, N.D.R.Civ.P. 55(a) 

states the court “may direct the clerk” to enter default judgment and “may

direct the entry of judgment” when the requirements are met. Thus, while our 

rule recognizes some court discretion, that discretion is limited to whether the 

declaration shows the defendant failed to plead or otherwise appear and shows 

a sum certain, and whether to award costs and disbursements under 

N.D.R.Civ.P. 55(a)(1). If further proof is required, the court has discretion to 

hear evidence and assess damages, direct a reference for an accounting or take 

testimony, or submit a factual issue to a jury. N.D.R.Civ.P. 55(a)(2). When the 

plaintiff declares the defendant did not answer or otherwise appear and its 

claim is for a sum certain—as evidenced through declaration and written 

instrument—the court abuses its discretion by failing to direct entry of default 

judgment.

[¶14] For these reasons, we conclude the district court erred by requiring 

Discover to serve the defendant with the notice of filing the complaint and 

motion for default judgment, contrary to our civil procedure rules.

IV

[¶15] We grant the relief requested in the petition for supervisory writ and 

direct the district court to vacate its order.
8

[¶16] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr

Norman G. Anderson, S.J.

[¶17] The Honorable Norman G. Anderson, S.J., sitting in place of Crothers, 

J., disqualified.