Court Opinion

ID: 9383851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 14:06:47.609584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:48.502079
License: Public Domain

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 51

Kayla Rath, n/k/a Kayla Jones,                          Plaintiff and Appellee
     v.
Mark Allen Rath,                                     Defendant and Appellant
     and
State of North Dakota            Statutory Real Party in Interest and Appellee

                                 No. 20220240

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Troy J. LeFevre, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by McEvers, Justice.

Thomas M. Jackson, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

Mark A. Rath, Bismarck, ND, self-represented, defendant and appellant.

Sheila K. Keller, Special Assistant Attorney General, Bismarck, ND, for
statutory real party in interest and appellee.
                              Rath v. Rath, et al.
                                No. 20220240

McEvers, Justice.

[¶1] Mark Rath appeals from an order denying his motion to modify child
support. He argues the district court erred when it applied this Court’s
vexatious litigant pre-filing order, when it allowed the State to file a response
to his motion after the deadline, and when it denied his motion without a
hearing. We affirm.

                                        I

[¶2] In Rath v. Rath, 2022 ND 105, 974 N.W.2d 652, we affirmed an amended
judgment in this case and decided to issue an N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58
vexatious litigant pre-filing order. At the time of our decision, motions filed by
Rath for contempt and to modify child support were pending in the district
court. Id. at ¶ 9. In June 2022, Rath filed various documents supplementing
his contempt motion. Our vexatious litigant pre-filing order was issued in July
2022. After our pre-filing order was issued, the district court entered an order
denying Rath’s motion to modify child support and deciding a number of
interlocutory matters. The court did not hold a hearing on the motion noting
“[t]he record does not reflect that the Defendant secured a hearing under
N.D.R.Ct. Rule 3.2 or attempted to secure a hearing on the issue.” The court
set an evidentiary hearing on Rath’s contempt motion, but it determined the
documents Rath filed in support of the motion “shall be disregarded” because
Rath was on notice a pre-filing order was forthcoming. On August 12, 2022,
Rath filed a notice of appeal listing various orders for which the appeal would
have been untimely. On August 16, 2022, he filed an amended notice of appeal
listing only the order denying his motion to modify child support. On
September 23, 2022, the district court entered an order denying Rath’s motion
for contempt, which he did not appeal.

                                       II

[¶3] Rath argues the district court erroneously applied our N.D. Sup. Ct.
Admin. R. 58 vexatious litigant prefiling order to disregard documents he filed

                                        1
in support of his contempt motion. Rath claims his “brief, affidavit and exhibits
should not have been dismissed sua sponte by the court utilizing an order that
was not placed until after Rath filed them to invalidate the new issues.”
Although we had not yet issued our pre-filing order at the time Rath filed his
supplemental contempt documents, the district court’s order, which held the
documents “shall be disregarded,” did not decide Rath’s contempt motion. The
court instead denied Rath’s contempt motion, after holding an evidentiary
hearing, in a subsequent order that Rath did not appeal. See Kettle Butte
Trucking LLC v. Kelly, 2018 ND 110, ¶ 9, 910 N.W.2d 882 (contempt
proceedings are collateral to the merits of the case and specially appealable).
Issues concerning Rath’s contempt motion are therefore not properly before us.

[¶4] Rath also argues the district court violated his right to due process by
placing a page limit on his applications for leave to file under the pre-filing
order. In his words, the court erred by “[s]ua sponte modifying the prefiling
orders in a prejudicial and rather arbitrary fashion.” However, there is nothing
in the order on appeal in this case discussing pre-filing application page
limitations. It appears Rath is challenging an order entered in Case No. 08-05-
C-073, which limited Rath’s pre-filing applications to five pages in length. We
recently decided an appeal from that case in Burleigh County Social Service
Board v. Rath, 2023 ND 12, 985 N.W.2d 725. That case is not the subject of this
appeal. We will not address issues from orders in a different case.

                                       III

[¶5] Rath argues the district court erred when it denied his motion to modify
child support. Rath first asserts the court erred by allowing the State to file its
response brief after the deadline. However, Rath has not identified anything in
the record to show he objected to the State’s motion for an extension or raised
this as an issue in the district court. We therefore will not address it. See
Schrodt v. Schrodt, 2022 ND 64, ¶ 7, 971 N.W.2d 861 (the purpose of an appeal
is to review the actions of the district court; an issue not presented to the
district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal).

[¶6] Rath also argues the district court erred because it did not hold a hearing
on his motion. Under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(3), a request for a hearing must be

                                        2
timely, and the requesting party must secure a time for the hearing and serve
notice on the opposing party. Rath claims he attempted to secure a hearing but
court staff hindered his efforts. We are not convinced. Rath’s arguments on
appeal are not evidence. See Gunia v. Gunia, 2009 ND 32, ¶ 7, 763 N.W.2d 455.
Rath has not identified anything in the record to indicate he attempted to
secure a time for a hearing or objected after court staff allegedly refused to
schedule one. We conclude Rath’s arguments concerning the district court’s
order denying his motion to modify child support are without merit.

                                     IV

[¶7] Rath’s remaining arguments are either without merit or unnecessary to
our decision. The district court’s order denying Rath’s motion to modify child
support is affirmed.

[¶8] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte

[¶9] Justice Douglas A. Bahr was not a member of the Court when this matter
was submitted and did not participate in the decision.

                                      3