N. D. Private Investigative & Sec. Bd. v. Tigerswan, LLC, 932 N.W.2d 756

Background

TigerSwan, LLC (foreign LLC) and its majority owner James Reese provided services during Dakota Access Pipeline protests; North Dakota Board notified TigerSwan it may be providing unlicensed security services and denied its licensing application.
Board sued (June 2017) alleging unlicensed security and investigative services (Counts 1–2) and seeking an injunction plus administrative fees (Count 3).
TigerSwan removed employees from North Dakota after suit began; parties litigated motions including summary judgment and Rule 11 fee requests.
District court denied merits summary judgment on Counts 1–2 (genuine issues of fact), granted summary judgment dismissing Count 3 (injunctive relief) for lack of evidence TigerSwan was in or would imminently return to ND, and dismissed remaining regulatory claims to administrative process.
District court denied TigerSwan/Reese’s motion for sanctions and attorney fees and denied Board’s reconsideration; judgment dismissing the case was entered.
Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying injunction, refusing to impose administrative fees absent an injunction, and denying sanctions/attorney-fee awards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board was entitled to injunction under § 43-30-10 without proof of ongoing or future violations	Board: statute allows injunction "without proof of actual damages" and can be based on prior violations alone	TigerSwan/Reese: Board produced no evidence TigerSwan was presently operating in ND or intended to return; injunction inappropriate	Court: Board may obtain injunction without proof of damages, but district did not abuse discretion in denying injunction because Board failed to show TigerSwan was in or likely to return to ND imminently
Whether district court erred in granting summary judgment/dismissing Counts 1–2	Board: factual disputes (e.g., licensing attempts, intent) preclude summary judgment; needed more discovery	Defendants: employees left ND and no evidence of intent to return; dismissal of injunctive/administrative relief appropriate	Court: affirmed—district did not err in finding insufficient evidence of present/ongoing violations and did not abuse discretion denying further discovery under Rule 56(f)
Whether an administrative fee under § 43-30-10.1 can be imposed absent an injunction	Board: may assess administrative fees via § 43-30-10.1 as regulatory remedy	Defendants: § 43-30-10 permits administrative fee only "in addition to issuing the injunction"; no injunction, so no fee	Court: statutory text requires an injunction before court may impose the administrative fee; refusal to impose fee affirmed
Whether sanctions and attorney fees under Rule 11 and § 28-26-01 were warranted	TigerSwan/Reese: Board’s claims were frivolous or filed for improper purpose; fees and sanctions appropriate	Board: brought good-faith statutory and legal arguments on issues of first impression	Held: district court did not abuse discretion in denying sanctions/fees; Board’s claims were not frivolous

Key Cases Cited

Heartland State Bank v. Larson, 927 N.W.2d 407 (N.D. 2019) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Dahms v. Nodak Mutual Ins. Co., 920 N.W.2d 293 (N.D. 2018) (summary judgment principles)
Alerus Fin., N.A. v. Erwin, 911 N.W.2d 296 (N.D. 2018) (standard for denying discovery continuance under Rule 56(f))
Ayling v. Sens, 926 N.W.2d 147 (N.D. 2019) (abuse of discretion standard)
Waterfront Comm'n of New York Harbor v. Sea Land Serv., Inc., 764 F.2d 961 (3d Cir. 1985) (issuance of injunctions by licensing/regulatory bodies)
State ex rel. Med. Licensing Bd. v. Stetina, 477 N.E.2d 322 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (injunctions in licensing enforcement context)
Miner v. State, 331 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 1983) (upholding injunction for unlicensed business activity)
Kuntz v. State, 923 N.W.2d 513 (N.D. 2019) (Rule 11 sanctions standard)
Estate of Hogen, 927 N.W.2d 474 (N.D. 2019) (frivolous-claim standard under § 28-26-01)