Mitzel v. Larson
2017 ND 48
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Larson and Mitzel had a romantic relationship June 2015–January 2016; after it ended, Larson obtained a Minnesota protective order alleging January 2016 physical and sexual assaults by Mitzel.
- In February 2016 Mitzel petitioned for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Larson, alleging harassment via email, text messages, and social media.
- The district court issued a temporary 30-day restraining order and set a hearing for March 3, 2016, later continued to March 17, 2016, after which a one-year order was issued against Larson.
- Larson argued lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service of the temporary order and disputed the continuance of the hearing.
- On review, this Court held the district court abused its discretion, noting lack of specific findings linking Larson’s conduct to Mitzel’s safety and privacy, and that the order improperly relied on acts directed at a nonparty (Mitzel’s wife). The order was reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court have personal jurisdiction over Larson? | Larson lacked proper service under § 12.1-31.2-01(5)(b). | Larson waived any personal-jurisdiction objections by appearing without objecting to service. | Personal-jurisdiction arguments waived by appearance. |
| Was the continuance of the hearing validly agreed to by the parties? | The continuance was improperly granted without consent. | Larson consented to the continuance by attorney acknowledgment in court. | Larson waived objection by appearance and consent to continuance. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion in issuing the disorderly conduct order? | Larson engaged in harassing conduct through messages; order justified. | The conduct failed to satisfy the statutory standard and findings were inadequate. | Court abused discretion; order reversed. |
| Did the district court properly make findings of fact to support the order? | Findings supported the restraining order. | The order relied on conclusory findings and lacked specific fact-based reasoning. | Lack of specific, fact-based findings; abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 2010 ND 138 (ND 2010) (waiver of personal jurisdiction by appearance; voluntary submission)
- Combs v. Lund, 2015 ND 10 (ND 2015) (disorderly conduct restraining orders require findings under Rule 52(a))
- Hanisch v. Kroshus, 2013 ND 37 (ND 2013) (standard for abuse of discretion in restraining orders; rational decision-making)
- Cusey v. Nagel, 2005 ND 84 (ND 2005) (specific facts or threats required; subjective fear insufficient)
- Interest of J.A.H., 2014 ND 196 (ND 2014) (finding of fact standards for orders; specificity required)