877 N.W.2d 814
N.D.2016Background
- William Rakowski owned rental property in Fargo; city inspectors found building-code violations in Nov 2011 and scheduled multiple re-inspections through Feb 2012.
- Fargo charged a $100 fee for the January 23, 2012 second re-inspection under its ordinance adopting the IPMC and a local fee schedule.
- Rakowski did not pay the $100 fee; Fargo sued in small claims, Rakowski removed to district court, and both parties moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Fargo; Rakowski appealed raising multiple constitutional and preclusion defenses and a § 1983 counterclaim.
- The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed de novo and affirmed summary judgment for Fargo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fargo) | Defendant's Argument (Rakowski) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to assess re-inspection fee | City may adopt codes and fee schedules; ordinance adopted IPMC and sets re-inspection fees | City exceeded authority; fee unlawful | Fee authorized and not arbitrary or unreasonable; ordinance valid |
| Warrant requirement for inspection | Inspections under IPMC and ordinance are permitted; no record of a warrant issue | Re-inspection required a search warrant (Fourth Amendment) | No meaningful record of a Fourth Amendment search; claim not reviewable on this record |
| Bill of attainder challenge | Fee applies generally to property owners, not to an identifiable punished individual | Fee is punitive and singled out Rakowski | Ordinance applies to an activity/class, not a named individual; not a bill of attainder |
| Double jeopardy | Civil fee is not successive criminal punishment | Prior municipal convictions bar collection as double jeopardy | Double jeopardy inapplicable to civil fee; no successive criminal punishment |
| Res judicata (claim preclusion) | Prior criminal/civil matters did not cover the January 23, 2012 fee | Prior municipal conviction/plea resolved the dispute | Rakowski failed to include the prior case record; court could not find res judicata applied |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 counterclaim | City’s actions were lawful; no constitutional violation | Rakowski alleged deprivation of constitutional rights under § 1983 | Rakowski’s pleading failed to state a § 1983 claim under Rule 8; even on merits no constitutional violation shown |
| Request for admissions effect | City’s facts and law controls; no material factual dispute affecting outcome | Admissions deemed admitted for summary judgment purposes | Admissions did not raise a material fact that would change the legal result; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Woll, 823 N.W.2d 754 (N.D. 2012) (summary judgment standards)
- City of Grand Forks v. Lamb, 697 N.W.2d 362 (N.D. 2005) (municipal ordinance fee upheld as reasonable)
- Ennis v. City of Ray, 595 N.W.2d 305 (N.D. 1999) (judicial deference to municipal regulatory choices)
- State v. Mittleider, 809 N.W.2d 303 (N.D. 2011) (reasonable expectation of privacy / warrant rule)
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (U.S. 1977) (definition of bill of attainder)
- United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1946) (bill of attainder principles)
- WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Gasconade County, Mo., 105 F.3d 1195 (8th Cir. 1997) (ordinance not an attainder because it targets activity, not a person)
- State v. Stockert, 684 N.W.2d 605 (N.D. 2004) (appellate review limited when record insufficient)
- State v. Hammer, 787 N.W.2d 716 (N.D. 2010) (double jeopardy protects against successive prosecutions)
- Hager v. City of Devils Lake, 773 N.W.2d 420 (N.D. 2009) (res judicata/claim preclusion principles)