Recovery Resources, LLC v. Cupido
2012 ND 143
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Meier appealed a termination of his employment by the North Dakota Department of Human Services following an ALJ’s affirmation.
- Meier served the notice of appeal and specifications of error on executive level department officials not HRMS, attempting to comply with N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(4).
- HRMS moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because Meier failed to serve HRMS as required by N.D.C.C. § 54-44.3-12.2; district court agreed and dismissed.
- The issue presented is whether service on HRMS is required to perfect an appeal from an ALJ decision under the Central Personnel System Act.
- The court analyzes statutory language, harmonizes related provisions, and considers whether service on HRMS is a jurisdictional requirement.
- The court ultimately holds that service on HRMS is necessary to perfect the appeal, and affirms the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is HRMS service required to perfect an appeal? | Meier argues HRMS service is unnecessary for perfection. | HRMS service is mandatory under §54-44.3-12.2 when appealing under ch. 54-44.3. | Yes; service on HRMS is necessary to perfect the appeal. |
| Can legislative history render HRMS service nonjurisdictional? | History suggests service on HRMS was only for certifying the record, not jurisdiction. | Statutory language is unambiguous and requires HRMS service; history does not override. | No; service remains jurisdictional and mandatory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Interest of K.J., 2010 ND 46 (2010) (establishes statute-based framework for perfecting administrative appeals)
- Geffre v. North Dakota Dep’t of Health, 2011 ND 45 (2011) (affirmed still requires service on HRMS under pre-2009 law)
- North Dakota Dep’t of Human Services v. Ryan, 2003 ND 196 (2003) (failure to serve HRMS does not deprive district court of jurisdiction under older rule)
- Reliable, Inc. v. Stutsman Cnty. Comm’n, 409 N.W.2d 632 (N.D. 1987) (jurisdictional service requirements are necessary for perfection)
- In re McIntyre’s Estate, 47 N.W.2d 531 (N.D. 1951) (filing of undertaking does not substitute for notice of appeal service)
- Latendresse v. Latendresse, 283 N.W.2d 70 (N.D. 1979) (general principle on statutory interpretation)
- Sletten v. Briggs, 448 N.W.2d 607 (N.D. 1989) (statutory policy considerations belong to Legislature)
- Montana-Dakota Utils. Co. v. Johanneson, 153 N.W.2d 414 (N.D. 1967) (court defers to legislative enactments and statutory meaning)