Sadek v. Weber, 948 N.W.2d 820

Background

Jason Weber, a Richland County deputy and SEMCA task force officer, recruited college student Andrew Sadek in Nov. 2013 to serve as a confidential informant after marijuana sales were discovered; Sadek signed a cooperation agreement.
Weber told Sadek he faced two felony charges and there was a “good possibility” of prison unless Sadek worked as an informant; Weber later texted Sadek to line up another buy or he would file charges and gave a May 1, 2014 deadline.
Sadek disappeared on May 1, 2014; his body was found June 27, 2014 with a gunshot wound to the head; manner and circumstances of death (homicide, suicide, accidental) remained undetermined.
Sadek’s parents sued Weber and Richland County for deceit and negligence, alleging Sadek’s death was tied to his informant role and to defendants’ recruitment, training, warning, and supervision failures.
The district court granted summary judgment: deceit dismissed because the alleged statements were predictions/opinions and plaintiffs failed to plead with Rule 9(b) particularity; negligence dismissed because plaintiffs offered no admissible evidence establishing proximate cause of Sadek’s death.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment; Justice VandeWalle dissented, concluding triable issues on proximate cause existed given the timing of Weber’s threats and Sadek’s disappearance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Deceit: Were Weber’s statements actionable misrepresentations (and were they pleaded with required particularity)?	Sadeks: Weber lied/promised and deceived Sadek about consequences and requirements as an informant; pleadings viewed as a whole state deceit and breach of duties.	Weber/Richland Cty: Statements were opinions/predictions about future sentencing (not actionable); deceit claims also fail Rule 9(b) specificity.	Court: Affirmed dismissal — Weber’s “good possibility” of prison was a nonactionable prediction; plaintiffs did not meet Rule 9(b) particularity for other alleged misrepresentations.
Negligence: Did defendants’ conduct proximately cause Andrew Sadek’s death?	Sadeks: Expert testimony, texts, and facts create reasonable inference that coercion/pressure and supervisory failures caused or contributed to death; proximate cause is for jury.	Defendants: No evidence what, where, when, or how Sadek died; causation would be speculative and plaintiffs’ expert is insufficient.	Court: Affirmed dismissal — absence of evidence linking defendants’ acts to the death means proximate cause cannot be shown as a matter of law.
Pleading amendment under Rule 15 / Ability to cure 9(b) defects	Sadeks: If 9(b) deficiencies exist, permit amendment to add specificity.	Defendants: Plaintiffs already unable to allege facts to avoid the nonactionable nature of predictions.	Court: Did not err in dismissing deceit claims; plaintiffs’ general contention insufficient and 9(b) defects not cured on record (no remand for amendment ordered).

Key Cases Cited

Ortega v. Sanford Bismarck, 2019 ND 133, 927 N.W.2d 872 (summary judgment standard; appeal from judgment treated where consistent judgment entered)
Farmers Union Oil Co. v. Smetana, 2009 ND 74, 764 N.W.2d 665 (treatment of appeals from orders granting summary judgment)
Kuntz v. State, 2019 ND 46, 923 N.W.2d 513 (deceit/fraud pleading particularity under Rule 9(b))
Kary v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 541 N.W.2d 703 (N.D. 1996) (expressions of opinion or predictions of future events are not actionable as fraud/deceit)
Sperle v. Weigel, 130 N.W.2d 315 (N.D. 1964) (same rule on opinions/predictions)
Kimball v. Landeis, 2002 ND 162, 652 N.W.2d 330 (proximate-cause principles; foreseeability and natural/continuous sequence)
Barbie v. Minko Constr., Inc., 2009 ND 99, 766 N.W.2d 458 (plaintiff must show defendant’s conduct was more probably the cause than other causes)
Botner v. Bismarck Parks & Recreation Dist., 2010 ND 95, 782 N.W.2d 662 (proximate cause depends on facts and circumstances)