892 N.W.2d 891
N.D.2017Background
- Fritz Opp was stopped for careless driving and speeding; officer observed signs of intoxication, failed field sobriety tests, and treated Opp as refusing an Intoxilyzer breath test after arrest.
- The Department revoked Opp’s noncommercial driving privileges (180 days) and issued a reciprocal one-year disqualification for his commercial driver’s license; Opp requested administrative hearings on both matters.
- Hearing officer mailed decisions: implied-consent revocation decision dated November 30, 2015; commercial-license reciprocal decision dated December 17, 2015.
- Opp served notices of appeal on the Department within seven days of each decision (Dec. 7 and Dec. 23, 2015) but did not file the notices with the district court until January 12, 2016.
- The Department moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely district-court filing; the district court granted Opp an extension under N.D.R.Civ.P. 6(b) for excusable neglect and affirmed the Department’s decisions.
- The Supreme Court held the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Opp failed to file timely notices of appeal with the court and the court could not enlarge the statutorily fixed appeal period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether timely service on the Department (by mail) suffices when the notice of appeal is filed late with the district court | Opp: Serving the Dept within seven days satisfied appeal requirement; filing delay is non-jurisdictional or harmless | DOT: Statute requires both service on director and filing in district court within seven days; filing late deprives court of jurisdiction | Held: Service alone is insufficient; Opp failed to file in court within seven days, so appeals untimely and jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether the court may extend the statutory seven-day filing period under N.D.R.Civ.P. 6(b) for excusable neglect | Opp: District court may enlarge time under Rule 6(b) for excusable neglect | DOT: Rule 6(b) cannot enlarge a time period fixed by statute | Held: Court cannot use Rule 6(b) to extend statutorily fixed appeal period; extension was improper |
| Whether Amoco and other civil procedure rules allow applying court rules to administrative appeals to extend deadlines | Opp: Cited authority that court-adopted rules apply to administrative appeals | DOT: Statutory deadlines govern appeals to district court; procedural rules cannot override statute | Held: Amoco does not control here; rules apply only when not inconsistent with statute; cannot override statutorily fixed times |
| Remedy when appeal is untimely and district court lacked jurisdiction | Opp: Late filing should be excused or harmless; district court affirmed decisions | DOT: Appeals should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | Held: Appeals must be dismissed; Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgments dismissing Opp’s appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- Amoco Oil Co. v. Job Serv., 311 N.W.2d 558 (N.D. 1981) (court-adopted rules may apply to agency appeals to the extent not inconsistent with statutes)
- Basin Elec. Power Coop. v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bur., 541 N.W.2d 685 (N.D. 1996) (Rule 6(b) cannot enlarge statutory appeal periods; district court lacked jurisdiction)
- Benson v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 672 N.W.2d 640 (N.D. 2003) (appellate rules cannot be used to enlarge statutorily mandated periods for appeals from agencies)
- City of Casselton v. N.D. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 307 N.W.2d 849 (N.D. 1981) (distinguishes service by mail from filing; filing complete only when clerk receives notice)
- Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214 (N.D. 1979) (standard of review for agency findings of fact: whether a reasonable mind could so conclude)