Court Opinion

ID: 9916695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 15:07:28.737267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:49.346585
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                       IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                    CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                          JANUARY 10, 2024
                                                                     STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                  2024 ND 3

Wilmot B. Yalartai,                                     Plaintiff and Appellant
      v.
Jamesetta K. Miller,                                               Respondent
      and
State of North Dakota                          Statutory Real Party in Interest

                                No. 20230159

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District,
the Honorable Stephanie R. Hayden, Judge.

DISMISSED.

Opinion of the Court by Crothers, Justice.

Wilmot B. Yalartai, Cranston, RI, plaintiff and appellant.
                           Yalartai v. Miller, et al.
                                No. 20230159

Crothers, Justice.

[¶1] Wilmot Yalartai appeals from an order dismissing his case against
Jamesetta Miller. The district court dismissed the case sua sponte without
notice to the parties. The dismissal order is not appealable under N.D.C.C. §
28-27-02 because it was issued without notice. We consequently dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                                       I

[¶2] Yalartai and Miller are married with minor children. Yalartai filed two
cases against Miller. He requested parenting responsibility in one case and a
divorce in the other. In the parenting responsibility case, Yalartai filed a
“Notice of Hearing on Motion for Establishing Custody.” A judicial referee held
the hearing, where each party was self-represented. The referee explained the
purpose of the hearing ordinarily would be for scheduling but, because issues
concerning parenting responsibility could be resolved in the divorce case, “this
case is going to be dismissed[.]” The referee entered a dismissal order on the
same day.

[¶3] The order stated: “At the hearing, the Court advised the parties that
because they have an open and pending divorce case in front of the Honorable
Judge Irby—this matter will be dismissed.” The record does not indicate
Yalartai or Miller were served with the dismissal order as required by N.D.
Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 13, § 10(b), which states a copy of a judicial referee’s order
“must be promptly served on the parties under N.D.R.Civ.P. 5.”

[¶4] Yalartai appeals from the dismissal order. He argues Miller and her
family have defamed him, violated his parental rights, and subverted his
relationship with his children. Yalartai also appealed from an interlocutory
order in the divorce case. That appeal was consolidated with the present appeal
but later dismissed. See Sup. Ct. No. 20230160. At the time of oral argument,
Yalartai also was subject to a temporary restraining order prohibiting him from
having contact with Miller and the children. Yalartai referenced the

                                       1
restraining order at argument, but it was entered in a different case, see 09-
2023-CV-4017, and is not the subject of this appeal.

                                      II

[¶5] The right to appeal is governed by statute. James Vault & Precast Co. v.
B&B Hot Oil Serv., Inc., 2018 ND 63, ¶ 8, 908 N.W.2d 108. We lack jurisdiction
over an appeal if the statutory requirements are not satisfied. State v. Rose,
2018 ND 195, ¶ 5, 916 N.W.2d 779. It is our duty to address a jurisdictional
issue that appears on the record even when the issue is not raised by a party.
Id.; see also Dahlen v. Dahlen, 393 N.W.2d 765, 767 (N.D. 1986) (stating “it is
the duty of this court to raise jurisdictional issues on its own”). We must
dismiss an appeal over which we lack jurisdiction. James Vault & Precast Co.,
at ¶ 8.

[¶6] Under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(7), orders issued without notice to the parties
are not appealable:

      “An order made by the district court or judge thereof without notice
      is not appealable, but an order made by the district court after a
      hearing is had upon notice which vacates or refuses to set aside an
      order previously made without notice may be appealed to the
      supreme court when by the provisions of this chapter an appeal
      might have been taken from such order so made without notice,
      had the same been made upon notice.”

Section 28-27-02(7), N.D.C.C., provides a clear directive for litigants to first
seek relief in the district court from an order made without notice. An appeal
of an order made without notice may not be taken “until such time as the judge
who made the order has a chance to reconsider his decision in an adversary
proceeding.” Estate of Kjorvestad, 395 N.W.2d 162, 163 (N.D. 1986) (quoting
Beck v. Smith, 296 N.W.2d 886, 888 (N.D. 1980)). Litigants must “obtain a
decision based on traditional adversarial methods.” Prod. Credit Ass’n of Minot
v. Schlak, 383 N.W.2d 826, 828 (N.D. 1986). That decision typically is obtained
by a motion to vacate the order. Id. (noting the order could be challenged by a
motion to vacate or for reconsideration); but see Zepeda v. Cool, 2021 ND 146,
¶ 12, 963 N.W.2d 282 (“While North Dakota law does not formally recognize

                                       2
motions to reconsider, motions for reconsideration may be treated as motions
to alter or amend a judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j), or motions for relief
from a judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b).”). Relief first must be sought in the
district court so “the appellate court will have the benefit of an adversarial
record upon which to determine whether or not the district court acted
correctly.” Beck, 296 N.W.2d at 888.

[¶7] Here, the judicial referee dismissed this case sua sponte. Although the
referee held a brief hearing to inform the parties of the dismissal, nothing in
the record indicates the referee gave the parties notice she intended to dismiss
the case before announcing that result. At the hearing, the referee told Yalartai
he could not make arguments concerning the case. Miller was not given an
opportunity to speak. The court’s dismissal announcement during the hearing
is not “notice” as contemplated by N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(7). No adversarial
record exists for our review. Neither side had the opportunity to brief or argue
whether dismissal was appropriate. Yalartai did not seek relief from the
dismissal order as required by law. Therefore, the referee’s December 6, 2022
dismissal order is not appealable.

                                      III

[¶8] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

[¶9] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr

                                       3