State v. Hayes, 2012 ND 9

Holkesvig was previously involved in 2008 stalking and disorderly conduct restraining order matters in Grand Forks County.
After favorable rulings in his malicious-prosecution suit against Welte, Larson, and Smith, district court awarded $1,000 in sanctions under Rule 11 and entered a broader injunctive order restricting Holkesvig from filing further pleadings during the appeal.
During the appeal, Holkesvig continued to file pleadings; defendants moved to strike and sought contempt sanctions.
The district court found Holkesvig in contempt and imposed a $1,000 remedial sanction without holding a separate hearing.
The injunction-style order barred Holkesvig from filing new suits related to specific past matters unless leave of court was granted, with sanctions for violations.
On appeal, court reverses for lack of required notice-and-hearing and remands for a proper contempt hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was a hearing required before contempt sanctions were imposed?	Holkesvig argues no hearing was conducted as required by statute.	Welte, Larson, and Smith contend contempt was proper and hearing unnecessary under the circumstances.	Remand for a proper contempt hearing; holding without a hearing was reversible.
Whether the remedial sanction was properly issued under statute without a hearing.	Sanction without notice/hearing violated N.D.C.C. § 27-10-01.3(1)(a).	Remedial sanction to compensate costs may be imposed for contempt.	Remedial sanction requires notice and a hearing; remand to conduct it.
Whether the district court retained authority to hold contempt during appeal and impose an injunctive bar on Holkesvig's filings.	Continued filings violated prior injunction; appeal did not divest court of contempt powers.	Court could sanction for ongoing violations during appeal; injunctive restrictions were proper.	On remand, issue to be addressed; current ruling reversed.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in striking post-appeal filings and imposing costs.	Striking and fees were improper without due process and hearing.	Striking filings and costs were appropriate sanctions for contempt.	Remand for hearing; the merits of the sanctions are not decided here.

Peters-Riemers v. Riemers, 663 N.W.2d 657 (N.D. 2003) (court retains jurisdiction to sanction during appeal)
Bertsch v. Bertsch, 740 N.W.2d 388 (N.D. 2007) (order must be obeyed pending appeal unless stayed or reversed)
Flattum-Riemers v. Flattum-Riemers, 598 N.W.2d 499 (N.D. 1999) (contempt must be obeyed until stayed or reversed)
State v. Sevigny, 722 N.W.2d 515 (N.D. 2006) (intentional disobedience constitutes contempt; need for review when order stands)
Prchal v. Prchal, 795 N.W.2d 693 (N.D. 2011) (contempt sanctions require clear showing of contempt; notice and hearing where required)
Millang v. Hahn, 582 N.W.2d 665 (N.D. 1998) (procedural requirements for contempt hearings)
Endersbe v. Endersbe, 555 N.W.2d 580 (N.D. 1996) (distinguishes remedial vs punitive sanctions; procedural safeguards)
Lawrence v. Delkamp, 725 N.W.2d 211 (N.D. 2006) (notice and hearing required for remedial contempt sanctions)
Dieutz v. Dietz, 733 N.W.2d 225 (N.D. 2007) (reversal/remand when contempt hearing denied)
Ziebarth, 520 N.W.2d 51 (N.D. 1994) (context for costs and sanctions in banking-related actions)