In this case, plaintiff Kent Albers purchased a used John Deere combine and header under a contract that disclaimed all warranties; several years later, the combine caught fire and destroyed both items along with onboard fuel, leading Albers to sue Deere on claims of negligent design, failure to warn, breach of warranties, and strict liability. Deere moved for summary judgment, arguing the economic loss doctrine barred the tort claims, the statute of limitations barred the warranty claims, and no warranties had been provided. The court granted the motion, concluding that under North Dakota law the header and fuel did not qualify as "other property" separate from the purchased product, so the economic loss doctrine applied and eliminated the tort claims, while the warranty claims failed due to the contract's disclaimers and timing rules.
This case involves Acuity, an insurer for North Central Video, seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court that it has no duty to defend or indemnify the defendants in a related state-court tort action arising from a strip search at work. The defendants moved for a protective order to prevent Acuity from taking additional depositions of key witnesses, arguing the discovery would be duplicative of prior state-court depositions and impose undue burdens. The magistrate judge initially granted the protective order and, on reconsideration of Acuity's appeal (treated as a motion for reconsideration), upheld limits on the discovery. The court reasoned that federal procedural rules govern the scope and timing of the federal action relative to the state proceeding, and that repetitive discovery is unwarranted absent a sufficient showing of need, even if North Dakota law permits consideration of extrinsic facts in duty-to-defend disputes.
The case involves plaintiff Jacqui Ferderer’s Title VII claim against the State of North Dakota for gender discrimination arising from two alleged incidents in 2003 in which former Public Service Commissioner Leo Reinbold made unwanted advances and kissed her in a Capitol elevator and hallway. After Ferderer reported the conduct, an investigation occurred, Reinbold retired under pressure, other claims and parties were dismissed or settled, and the State moved for summary judgment on the remaining federal employment discrimination claim. The court reviewed the disputed facts regarding the incidents and Ferderer’s reporting to co-workers, analyzed whether the State could be held liable for the conduct of a high-ranking elected official under agency principles such as alter-ego liability, and considered the application of Title VII standards to these events.
The case involved a petition by the court-appointed guardian of an incapacitated veteran seeking state court intervention to require the Department of Veterans Affairs to resume direct depositing the veteran's benefits into a fiduciary account managed by the guardian, after the VA instead designated the nursing home administrator as the authorized payee. The petition was removed to federal court, which first confirmed federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court then held that sovereign immunity barred the claim because 38 U.S.C. § 5502 did not waive the United States' immunity from suit, so the VA's selection of payee could not be reviewed or enforced in this proceeding.
The case involved several power companies operating in North Dakota that filed suits to block state officials from enforcing a 1933 state law imposing a 12 percent tax on their gross receipts, which was intended to replace all other state and local taxes on the companies' property. The companies argued that the law violated the North Dakota Constitution's requirement that their property be assessed by the State Board of Equalization and also denied due process by providing no opportunity to challenge the tax amount or validity. The court agreed, ruling that the statute was invalid because it substituted a gross-receipts measure for the required property assessment and because it lacked any mechanism for a hearing on the assessment or tax. The court further determined that the tax could not be upheld as an excise tax, given the constitutional mandate for property taxation and the law's replacement of all other property taxes.