Court Opinion

ID: 9872286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 20:57:59.888839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:24.260969
License: Public Domain

VandeWalle, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 20] I understand the district court stated the action was “frivolous” not because the underlying claim was necessarily frivolous but, rather, that the claim was brought in a North Dakota state court when the court clearly held no jurisdiction over the action because the defendants were members of a recognized Indian tribe. If the underlying claim had been without any merit, presumably it would not have been dismissed without prejudice although it is unclear to me whether a court which has no jurisdiction can dismiss a claim for any reason other than a lack of jurisdiction, whether or not the claim has merit. In any event, here the trial court, although it found the action to be frivolous, did dismiss without prejudice and did not assess any attorney fees. Whether or not the trial court believed the claim was frivolous, in the wording of N.D.C.C. § 28-26-01(2), that, upon a finding that a “claim for relief’ was frivolous the court must award attorney fees, is left to be explained in light of the dismissal without prejudice. While I agree the matter should be remanded, the trial court should have the opportunity to further explain its rationale for not awarding attorney fees and, if it determines to award attorney fees, to consider it dismissed for lack of jurisdiction rather than because the underlying “claim for relief’ was frivolous.
[¶ 21] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.