Holkesvig v. Rost
2015 ND 67
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Holkesvig appeals a dismissal without prejudice of his complaint against Rost and Funkhouser, conditioned on not refiling in North Dakota state court.
- The underlying matter arises from Holkesvig's 2008 stalking conviction and related litigation history with multiple parties and officials.
- The district court treated the dismissal as appealable due to its practical termination effect on the state action.
- The court found Holkesvig’s appeal frivolous and sanctioned him with attorney fees and double costs.
- The court ordered continued restrictions: Holkesvig may not initiate future North Dakota actions without court approval.
- The appeal is part of a longstanding pattern of vexatious litigation by Holkesvig related to his criminal case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the dismissal without prejudice appealable? | Holkesvig contends it is not appealable as a dismissal without prejudice. | Defense argues dismissal has practical effect of terminating action and is appealable. | Appealable due to practical termination effect. |
| Was Holkesvig's appeal frivolous and meritless? | Holkesvig contends opposition lacks merit or viability. | Defendants assert persistent frivolous conduct justifies sanctions. | Yes, appeal frivolous and lacking merit. |
| Are sanctions appropriate and what is the amount? | Not applicable or disputed; seeks relief challenges. | Requests attorney fees and double costs due to frivolous action. | Holkesvig liable for $2,604 in attorney fees and double costs. |
| Should Holkesvig be barred from filing further North Dakota actions? | Holkesvig challenges broad restriction. | Court previously constrained similar filings; warrants continued restriction. | Yes; permanent preapproval requirement for new actions in ND state court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanderson v. Walsh County, 712 N.W.2d 842 (N.D. 2006) (dismissal with preclusive-like effect can be appealable when practically terminating the action)
- Federal Land Bank v. Ziebarth, 520 N.W.2d 51 (N.D. 1994) (courts may restrict vexatious litigation by preapproval provisions)
- Holkesvig v. Welte, 823 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 2012) (pattern of frivolous and repetitious litigation by Holkesvig)
- Holkesvig v. Grove, 844 N.W.2d 557 (N.D. 2014) (continued sanctions for frivolous actions arising from underlying conviction)
- Holkesvig v. Moore, 828 N.W.2d 546 (N.D. 2013) (sanctions and limitations on litigation related to stalking conviction)