Manning v. Jaeger, 964 N.W.2d 522

Background

P&P Industries, LLC I (P&P) had its North Dakota certificate of authority revoked in May 2015 for failing to file an annual report; Richard Manning is P&P’s managing member.
Manning filed a petition for reinstatement under N.D.C.C. § 10-32.1-91 on April 14, 2020; the Secretary of State admitted service, waived further notice, and consented to immediate reinstatement.
The district court entered an order reinstating P&P on April 16, 2020; no party appealed that order.
Continental Resources moved to intervene and to vacate the reinstatement, arguing Manning lacked statutory standing and that P&P did not exist in Delaware when the petition and order were entered.
The district court denied intervention (first for procedural deficiency, later on the merits), holding Continental’s interest was tangential to the reinstatement proceeding and that reinstatement actions involve only the company and Secretary of State.
Continental appealed the denial of intervention and asked this Court to use supervisory authority to vacate the reinstatement order; the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of intervention and declined supervisory review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Continental may intervene as of right under N.D.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2) in the § 10-32.1-91 reinstatement proceeding	Manning/P&P: Only the company and Secretary are parties to a reinstatement appeal; Continental has no legally protectable interest here.	Continental: It has a protectable interest because reinstatement defeats its motion to dismiss P&P’s counterclaim in a separate Williams County case and it can enforce § 10-32.1-84(1).	Held: Denied — Continental’s interest is tangential/collateral, not direct, substantial, and legally protectable.
Whether the district court should consider Continental’s Rule 60(b) request to vacate the reinstatement order without intervention	Manning/P&P: Continental is not a party; Rule 60 relief is available only to parties or legal representatives.	Continental: Timely sought intervention and Rule 60 relief; reinstatement order was void for lack of subject-matter/standing.	Held: Denied — court properly refused to consider Rule 60(b) relief because Continental was not a party.
Whether the Supreme Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction to vacate the reinstatement order	Manning/P&P: No extraordinary circumstances; proper remedy is appeal; no public-interest grounds for writ.	Continental: Reinstatement order is void (lack of standing/subject-matter jurisdiction) and cannot be cured by subsequent events; supervisory review warranted.	Held: Declined — no extraordinary circumstances or important public-interest issues to justify supervisory relief.

Key Cases Cited

White v. T.P. Motel, LLC, 863 N.W.2d 915 (N.D. 2015) (North Dakota Rule 24 derived from and similar to federal rule; federal interpretations persuasive).
Fisher v. Fisher, 546 N.W.2d 354 (N.D. 1996) (discusses standards for intervention under Rule 24).
United States v. Union Elec. Co., 64 F.3d 1152 (8th Cir. 1995) (applicant must have a direct, substantial, legally protectable interest to intervene).
Medical Liability Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alan Curtis LLC, 485 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir. 2007) (interest must be direct, substantial, and legally protectable; economic interest alone insufficient).
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Treesdale, Inc., 419 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2005) (mere economic or collateral impact on a separate suit generally does not support intervention).
Minn-Kota Ag Prods., Inc. v. N.D. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 938 N.W.2d 118 (N.D. 2020) (post-judgment intervention is unusual and not often granted).
Wyatt v. R.D. Werner Co., Inc., 524 N.W.2d 579 (N.D. 1994) (order denying motion to intervene is appealable).
Wilkinson v. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 947 N.W.2d 910 (N.D. 2020) (standards for exercising supervisory jurisdiction).