Kautzman v. Doll

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Brenda Doll’s motion for reconsideration of a disorderly conduct restraining order. The court held that her challenges to the underlying restraining orders were untimely and that she failed to establish extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion warranting relief under North Dakota Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).

Holdings

1. An appeal from the denial of a motion for reconsideration does not permit the appellant to attack underlying orders from which a direct appeal could have been taken but was not. Doll therefore could not challenge the propriety of the temporary or permanent restraining orders.
2. The motion for reconsideration, if treated as a motion to alter or amend under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j), was untimely because it was not served and filed within 28 days after notice of entry of the restraining order.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because Doll failed to establish extraordinary or exceptional circumstances justifying relief from the restraining order.
4. Doll received a full hearing on the restraining-order petition, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying reconsideration based on her claim that she was not permitted to testify, present evidence, or make closing argument.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Doll's motion for reconsideration could be used to challenge the underlying temporary and permanent disorderly conduct restraining orders that she did not timely appeal.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Doll's motion for reconsideration under North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure 59(j) or 60(b)(6).
3. Whether Doll was denied a full and fair hearing or due process when she did not testify, present additional evidence, or make closing argument.

Disposition

affirmed