Sollin v. Klein, 958 N.W.2d 144

In June 2020, Dale Klein filed for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Richard Sollin; the court issued an ex parte temporary order and set a hearing for July 8, 2020.
Shortly before that hearing, Richard and Linda Sollin filed a joint petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Klein based on the same June 26, 2020 incident.
At the July 8 hearing Klein (pro se) and his witness, Deputy Josh Siegler, testified; only after their testimony Klein was given a copy of the Sollins’ petition.
Linda Sollin testified and was cross-examined by Klein; Richard Sollin did not testify.
The district court found reasonable grounds for both petitions and granted mutual restraining orders; Klein appealed claiming inadequate service/notice and denial of a full hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of service / notice and unfair surprise	Sollins: any service defect was waived because Klein was informed at the hearing and received the petition during proceedings	Klein: petition was not served by sheriff as required and he suffered unfair surprise when he received the petition after the hearing began	Court: Klein waived service and surprise claims by appearing and not objecting or requesting continuance; affirmed
Denial of a full hearing because only one joint petitioner testified	Sollins: Linda's live testimony and cross-examination satisfied the full-hearing requirement	Klein: court should have compelled Richard to testify so Klein could confront both petitioners	Court: no abuse of discretion; testimony presented satisfied the statutory "full hearing" requirement; order may be granted without both petitioners testifying

State v. P.K., 951 N.W.2d 254 (N.D. 2020) (continuance is proper remedy for unfair surprise)
Reimche v. Reimche, 566 N.W.2d 790 (N.D. 1997) (new trial for surprise requires likely changed verdict)
Gullickson v. Kline, 678 N.W.2d 138 (N.D. 2004) (district court discretion over hearing conduct; due process for restraining orders)
Gonzalez v. Witzke, 813 N.W.2d 592 (N.D. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard articulated)
State v. Blunt, 799 N.W.2d 363 (N.D. 2011) (defining abuse of discretion standard)
Wetzel v. Schlenvogt, 705 N.W.2d 836 (N.D. 2005) (disorderly conduct restraining orders require a full hearing with live testimony and opportunity for cross-examination)
Cusey v. Nagel, 695 N.W.2d 697 (N.D. 2005) (petitions and affidavits alone are insufficient; testimony required)
Skadberg, 644 N.W.2d 873 (N.D. 2002) (summary proceeding purpose to quickly address volatile situations)