Jones v. Rath, 989 N.W.2d 92

Jones (ex-spouse) filed for a disorderly conduct restraining order on July 21, 2022 after Rath sent numerous emails to Jones, her attorney, and her employer. A temporary restraining order issued the same day.
The hearing was initially set within 14 days but reassigned because all South Central Judicial District judges were disqualified; the earliest available date with the reassigned Southeast Judicial District judge was August 9, 2022.
At the August 9 hearing the district court found Rath sent 20–30 emails a day, sent an inappropriate email to Jones’s employer, accused Jones and her attorney of sexual activity, and referenced slitting Jones’s throat; the court entered a one-year no-contact disorderly conduct restraining order.
Rath appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by holding the hearing after the 14-day statutory window, (2) the petition failed to comply with the statutory requirement that facts be alleged under oath, and (3) the court issued the order without sufficient findings (particularly on intent).
The district court found reassignment and scheduling delay were good cause for the hearing delay, treated Jones’s attached factual statement as part of the sworn petition, and made factual findings sufficient to infer Rath’s intent.
The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the restraining order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jones)	Defendant's Argument (Rath)	Held
1. Timeliness of hearing under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31.2-01(5)(c)	Hearing may be set within 14 days; reassignment justified short delay	Court abused discretion by not holding hearing within 14 days	Affirmed — reassignment/disqualification and scheduling delay constituted good cause for brief delay
2. Petition compliance with § 12.1-31.2-01(3) (facts under oath)	Petition and referenced affidavit together satisfied statutory requirement	Petition invalid because the factual statement was on an unsigned/separate attachment	Affirmed — petition’s sworn signature and reference to the attached factual statement made the attachment part of the petition
3. Sufficiency of findings (including intent) for disorderly conduct	Findings showed unwanted, threatening, and invasive emails warranting order	Findings lacked explicit statement of intent; therefore insufficient	Affirmed — court’s factual findings permitted a reasonable inference of intent to affect safety, security, or privacy

Lehnerz v. Christopher, 2022 ND 122, 975 N.W.2d 585 (sets abuse-of-discretion standard and defines reasonable grounds for restraining orders)
Rekow v. Durheim, 2022 ND 177, 980 N.W.2d 917 (reversed where court failed to identify facts supporting intent element)
Clarke v. Taylor, 2019 ND 251, 934 N.W.2d 414 (affirmance where court’s rationale could be understood despite limited specificity)
Lindstaedt v. George, 2020 ND 262, 952 N.W.2d 102 (similar principle permitting affirmance when rationale is discernible)
VND, LLC v. Leevers Foods, Inc., 2003 ND 198, 672 N.W.2d 445 (affirmed orders despite less specific findings when decision’s basis is clear)