Riemers v. State

2006 ND 162 (2006) · Supreme Court of North Dakota · July 18, 2006 · No. 20050433

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that service of process on the State and a state district court judge by certified mail did not comply with North Dakota Rule of Civil Procedure 4, so the district court lacked personal jurisdiction. Because the action was dismissed for insufficient service, the district court could not reach the merits of the judicial-immunity defense or dismiss with prejudice. The judgment was affirmed as modified to provide for dismissal without prejudice.

Court
Supreme Court of North Dakota
Writing for the Court
Daniel J. Crothers; Mary Muehlen Maring; Carol Ronning Kapsner; Dale V. Sandstrom; Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Jurisdiction
North Dakota
Decision date
July 18, 2006
Docket number
20050433
Procedural posture
Plaintiffs appealed from a district court judgment dismissing their complaint with prejudice against the State of North Dakota and District Court Judge Douglas Herman for insufficient service of process and judicial immunity.
Precedential value
Published North Dakota Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Roland C. Riemers, Jonathan P. Riemers v. State of North Dakota, Douglas Herman
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

service of processpersonal jurisdictionappellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether mailing the summons and complaint by certified mail with return receipt satisfied North Dakota Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2)'s requirement of delivering process to the State and Judge Herman.
  2. Whether the district court could dismiss the action with prejudice, or adjudicate judicial immunity, when defective service deprived it of personal jurisdiction.

Holdings

  1. The term "delivering" in Rule 4(d)(2)(E) and (F) does not include mailing, even certified mail with return receipt and restricted delivery. Because Riemers did not properly serve the State or Judge Herman, the district court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over them.
  2. When personal jurisdiction is absent because service is defective, the court may dismiss only without prejudice and may not reach the merits of a judicial-immunity defense under those circumstances.

Key quotations

We conclude therefore that "delivering" a copy of the summons as contemplated under N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2)(E) and 4(d)(2)(F) does not include mailing, even by certified mail with return receipt and restricted delivery. (¶ 6)
Absent personal jurisdiction, "the court is powerless to do anything beyond dismissing without prejudice." (¶ 10)

Factual background

The action arose from rulings made by Judge Herman in domestic cases involving Riemers. Riemers mailed the summons and complaint by certified mail to Judge Herman, Governor John Hoeven, and Assistant Attorney General Wade Mann. Although all three return receipts were signed and returned, only one was signed by the addressee.

Procedural history

Riemers attempted to serve the State and Judge Herman by certified mail with return receipts. The district court concluded service was insufficient, that it lacked personal jurisdiction, and that the claims against Judge Herman were barred by judicial immunity; it dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed dismissal but modified the judgment to make the dismissal without prejudice.

Remand instructions

The judgment was modified to dismiss the action without prejudice.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…