Court Opinion

ID: 9514004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:43:07.079863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:07.873665
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 81] The State did not serve Tran or his criminal defense attorney with the application for default, but both were subsequently served with the notice of entry of default judgment. Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 55, the State was not required to serve the application for default judgment upon Tran or his criminal defense attorney. Such service upon both Tran and his attorney, however, is not barred by any procedural or ethical rule when the attorney is known to be representing the party in a related criminal proceeding. While the State is not required to serve the application for default judgment, it is not prohibited from serving these documents on both the defendant and the defendant’s attorney. Because serving the application for default judgment upon both Tran and his attorney would provide additional notice of the State’s claim, the State should serve the application for default judgment under similar circumstances even though it is not required under N.D.R.Civ.P. 55.
[¶ 32] The actions of the State in this case may be perceived as “sharp practice” and thus tend to undercut respect for the rule of law.
[¶ 33] Dale V. Sandstrom