Fines v. Ressler Enterprises, Inc.
2012 ND 175
| N.D. | 2012Background
- In 2007 Ressler installed siding on Fines’ building, later replaced under warranty due to defects.
- Fines filed a negligence claim in 2010 seeking damages for improper siding installation.
- Ressler answered and asserted third-party warranty claims against Associated Materials, later dismissed.
- Fines had siding removed and replaced after notice from a third party, despite Ressler's preservation request.
- Ressler moved for summary judgment in 2011 on spoliation grounds; the district court dismissed the case.
- The court applied Bachmeier I factors and affirmed dismissal; a dissent argued dismissal was inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was an appropriate spoliation sanction | Fines contends dismissal was improper. | Ressler argues prejudice and need to deter spoliation justify dismissal. | Dismissal upheld; sanction appropriate under three factors. |
| Whether Ressler was prejudiced by spoliation | Evidence loss caused prejudice but could be mitigated by alternatives. | Examining the siding in place requires the destroyed evidence; prejudice exists. | Ressler prejudiced; prejudice supported the sanction. |
| Whether less severe sanctions were available | Adverse presumptions or costs could suffice. | Evidence destruction made trial impossible; necessary sanction may be dismissal. | Court found least restrictive sanction under circumstances was dismissal. |
| Whether the court properly applied Bachmeier I factors | Trial court misapplied factors and overlooked full record. | Factors properly weighed; culpability, prejudice, and alternatives considered. | Court correctly applied factors and did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether the dissent’s criticisms warrant reversal | Dissent argues prejudice insufficient and less drastic sanctions exist. | Dissent misreads record and standards for spoliation sanctions. | Majority opinion affirmed; dissent lacked record-based support for reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bachmeier v. Wallwork Truck Ctrs., 507 N.W.2d 527 (N.D. 1993) (inherent sanctions require least restrictive remedy; duties when spoliation occur)
- Bachmeier v. Wallwork Truck Ctrs.,, 544 N.W.2d 122 (N.D. 1996) (dismissal as sanction may be upheld when prejudice shown; burden on appeal)
- Belgarde v. Askim, 636 N.W.2d 916 (N.D. 2001) (standards for reviewing sanctions; abuse of discretion standard)
- Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (spoliation sanctions; case-by-case balancing of factors)
- Miller v. Lankow, 801 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 2011) (spoliation and sanctions considerations in state court cases)