State ex rel. City of Marion v. Alber, 936 N.W.2d 52

In 2003 the City of Marion sued Larry Alber, and the district court found abandoned vehicles on Alber’s property a public nuisance, ordering removal or lawful maintenance.
In 2013 the court held Alber in contempt for violating the 2003 judgment and ordered removal of nuisance vehicles; the City was authorized to remove vehicles not removed by Alber; this contempt order was affirmed on appeal.
Alber’s 2014 Rule 60(b)(6) motion for reconsideration was denied; he later filed a “Report of Compliance,” which the City opposed.
Alber sought injunctive relief in 2016 and again in January 2019 seeking a TRO to prevent the City from entering his property to remove vehicles; the district court denied both motions and denied reconsideration.
Alber appealed only the district court’s denials of his January 2019 injunctive motion and his motion for reconsideration; earlier judgments and contempt determinations were not open for review on this appeal.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief or reconsideration and noting res judicata and inadequate demonstration of injunction factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Alber’s request for injunctive relief (TRO/preliminary/permanent injunction)	The City argued the matter was previously litigated and decided; Alber failed to show the injunction factors (likelihood on merits, irreparable harm, balance of harms, public interest).	Alber argued he had complied with prior orders and sought to bar the City from entering his property to remove vehicles.	Denied. Court did not abuse discretion; res judicata/previous litigation bars relitigation and Alber failed to show required injunction factors.
Whether the district court erred in denying Alber’s Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration	The City argued there was no basis for relief and prior appeals/res judicata foreclosed relitigation.	Alber sought relief under Rule 60(b)(3),(5),(6) alleging fraud/misrepresentation or other grounds and asserting compliance.	Denied. Court did not abuse discretion; motion was inadequately supported and earlier rulings precluded review.

N.D. Private Investigative & Sec. Bd. v. TigerSwan, LLC, 2019 ND 219, 932 N.W.2d 756 (recognizing injunctive relief is equitable and rests in court’s sound discretion)
Desert Partners IV, L.P. v. Benson, 2019 ND 19, 921 N.W.2d 444 (defining abuse of discretion standard for appellate review)
Black Gold OilField Servs., LLC v. City of Williston, 2016 ND 30, 875 N.W.2d 515 (identifying factors governing preliminary injunctions)
State ex rel. City of Marion v. Alber, 2018 ND 267, 920 N.W.2d 739 (holding res judicata barred Alber’s compliance argument on appeal)
State ex rel. City of Marion v. Alber, 2013 ND 189, 838 N.W.2d 458 (affirming contempt order for violation of nuisance judgment)
State v. Noack, 2007 ND 82, 732 N.W.2d 389 (court will not consider inadequately briefed arguments)
Estate of Bartelson, 2019 ND 107, 925 N.W.2d 416 (standard of review for denial of Rule 60(b) motions)