Franciere v. City of Mandan, 932 N.W.2d 907

On Aug. 14, 2017 Susan Franciere was attacked by a dog in Mandan and on Aug. 16 requested the police report under Article I, § 25 and the open records law.
Franciere filed suit on Oct. 24, 2017 seeking declaratory relief, a writ of mandamus, costs, and $1,000 in damages for the City’s alleged wrongful refusal to produce records.
The Mandan PD provided a redacted report on Nov. 1, 2017 and an unredacted report on Jan. 13, 2018.
The City answered Nov. 15, 2018 asserting Rule 12 defenses and shortly thereafter moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction.
The district court dismissed the case with prejudice as moot because Franciere had received the report and declined to rule on the City’s jurisdictional/service-of-process motion.
The North Dakota Supreme Court vacated that judgment and remanded, holding the court must resolve the City’s jurisdictional/service-of-process defenses before dismissing on the merits or as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness after production of records	Franciere: relief not necessarily moot; damages and declaratory/penalty claims remain	City: providing the report moots mandamus and declaratory relief	Court vacated the dismissal and remanded—court must resolve jurisdictional defenses before dismissing as moot
Preservation of personal jurisdiction/insufficient service defenses	Franciere: (implicitly) court could rule on mootness first	City: defenses preserved by asserting them in the answer and moving promptly	Held: City timely preserved jurisdiction/service defenses via its answer and prompt motion
Order of adjudication — must jurisdiction be resolved before merits/mootness	Franciere: district court treated mootness as basis to dismiss without deciding jurisdiction	City: jurisdictional threshold must be decided first	Held: personal and subject-matter jurisdiction must be resolved before adjudicating merits or dismissing with prejudice

Gosbee v. Bendish, 512 N.W.2d 450 (N.D. 1994) (mootness/advisory-opinion authority relied on by district court)
Smith v. City of Grand Forks, 478 N.W.2d 370 (N.D. 1991) (jurisdiction precedes adjudication; vacating merits when personal jurisdiction lacking)
Western Life Trust v. State, 536 N.W.2d 709 (N.D. 1995) (court cannot dismiss with prejudice after finding lack of personal jurisdiction)
Kimball v. Landeis, 652 N.W.2d 330 (N.D. 2002) (no special appearance required; answer can preserve personal jurisdiction defenses)
Bland v. Comm’n on Medical Competency, 557 N.W.2d 379 (N.D. 1996) (mootness is a threshold issue decided before the merits)