*1 the sub determining the nature of port by the search. from Schneider stance taken BAGGE, Juanita M. agree of the lack that because Both sides A. Susan 19-03.1-37(4), certification, N.D. Section Plaintiffs C.C., require admission does Appellants, Although preferable method report. v. type adequate
providing foundation requirements comply DARDIS, Appellee. of case is to Defendant 19-03.1-37(4), rule of admis of Section No. 11103. Civ. of Evi independent of our Rules sibility is See, perforce not exclusive. dence and is of North Dakota. Supreme Court (N.D. Vetsch, e.g., 368 N.W.2d State 19, 1986. June 1985). 26, 1986. As Amended June Nastrom Mot. v. As we stated Ned Nastrom-Peterson-Neubauer, 338 N.W.2d (N.D.1983), or not an ex “whether on the have been excluded
hibit should adequate it lacked foundation
basis that discretion of the
primarily within the sound 901(a), According to Rule ...”
trial
N.D.R.Ev., requirement authentica by evidence sufficient
tion “is satisfied ques finding that the matter
support a proponent claims.” Prior to
tion is what its rule, the
admitting the document under this received evidence from an offi
lower court the sub
cer who stated that she delivered Laboratories, from
stance to the State
officer who stated that he received the
copy report (ostensibly from the Laboratories) mail, and from an
State stated that he obtained the
officer who from the State Laborato
substance back following testing.
ries The State Laborato top at the
ries letterhead is contained signed by copy, report apparently chemist who conducted
State circumstances, testing. Under these say that the trial court abused
we cannot concluding that the doc
its discretion report from the State Laborato
ument is a certification) (albeit admit
ries without See, e.g.,
ting Farmers Un document. Wood, 301
ion Dickinson v. Oil Co. of (N.D.1980).
N.W.2d 129 judgment is affirmed. LEVINE, GIERKE, JJ.,
MESCHKE *2 Office, plain- Fargo, Sortland Law for The district court concluded that the com- appellants; argued by Paul A. plaint tiffs and failed to a state claim which Sortland. granted relief can be and that the third party complaint did not comply with Rule Conmy, Feste, Bossart, Hubbard Cor-& 14 of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Pro- win, Fargo, and appellee; for defendant appellants cedure. represented The were Molbert, argued by Faegre N. Lauris by different at counsel these earlier pro- Benson, Minneapolis, & Minn. ceedings. Later, 1985, in March Bagges the com- GIERKE, Justice. menced By the instant action. an order appellants, Bagge, Walter The Juanita signed 10, September 1985, the District Bradley Bagge, Bagge, M. E. Susan A. County Court of Cass ordered that the (the Bagge Bagges), Farms complaint against Dardis be dismissed with appeal from a district court order dated prejudice and the by Bagges the to September portions 1985. The all consolidate five cases as be- order now under review are the dismissal Bagges tween and Norwest be in a prejudice join appel- with of motion to part and part. denied in lee, Dardis, as a party underly- to an attempt, This third the instant and the of a lawsuit denial motion to was dismissed with because the consolidate certain cases. We affirm in impermissible court viewed it as an part, in part, reverse and remand. previous eral attack on the court in represents This action third time that the Cass action. The court determined that attempted to make Stan attempt the instant action was to cir- a complaint Dardis defendant to a which cumvent the Cass action and that at this concerns identical transactions and occur- stage proceedings joinder late in the judge pre- rences. The same court delay prejudice. cause further sided in all three actions. challenge The Bagges the court’s dismis- attempt first was case by arguing sal the instant action a that et al. v. Norwest Bank of corporate employee personally respon- Fargo, County Court, Cass District Civil sible for tortious committed within (the action). No. 82-1658 Cass The Cass scope employment. of his The district action was commenced recognized “corporate court that a officer alleged Norwest fraudulent may separately jointly responsible be dealings Approxi of Norwest. carrying for torts committed while out his mately year began, one after the However, corporate duties”. Bagges sought complaint to amend the noting corporate responsi- a while officer’s add Dardis as a defendant. The district bilities, complaint upon dismissed the amend, court denied the motion to conclud ground complaint that constituted an joinder of Dardis would result in impermissible collateral attack. unduly preju of the trial and would remaining dice the defendants. The first issue to be discussed on appeal complaint whether was attempt Dardis was properly dismissed County Court, made in Traill District Nor instant action because it constituted an im Fargo Bagge west a attack permissible collateral Walter L. (the The record demonstrates that Dar- County, Traill No. action. Civil action). party was a to the Traill The Traill dis action resulted attempt party action included an dismissal with third Granted the complaint against complaint join Dardis. Dardis in March 1985. amend the and' opinion,
However, this mo- For the reasons stated the district decision of district court is affirmed used as be tion. Collateral attack cannot part, part, reversed in remanded. in the instant Dardis was case when shield (Cass action) party to the action never attacked.1 collaterally is said to be which and VANDE *3 of
Accordingly, portion we reverse this WALLE, MESCHKE, JJ., LEVINE and proceedings. and remand for further order issue is whether LEVINE, Justice, specially concurring. by deny- abused discretion district court its supplement in order to specially I write consolidate. The the motion to reversing the rationale the trial court’s sought Bagges had to consolidate five dismissing complaint. of The court consolidation cases. Bagges attempted The re- only and Traill actions. In the Cass join Dardis as a codefendant with de remaining three fusal to consolidate the I assume fendant Norwest Bank. premised the district court’s actions was (Amend proceeded Rules 15 under that further consolidation would conclusion Supplemental Pleadings), ed and one of the defendants. Parties), (Permissive Joinder of N.D.R. gov- action is Consolidation Civ.P., both which rest discre 42(a), N.D.R.Civ.P., which by Rule erned of the court. I further assume that tion follows: provides as court, in exercising its the trial discretion denying Bagges’ to amend the com plaint party, Dardis as a concluded “RULE 42. joinder CONSOLIDATION—SEPARATE have had on Norwest out TRIALS avoiding multiplicity weighed its benefit of “(a) in- actions Consolidation. When may suits. Norwest won that battle but volving common of law or question fact lost the war. court, may or- pending before the it are simply The Cass action order hearing any or all joint der a or trial right pend- Bagges the to sue Dardis actions; matters issue in the it action Norwest. It did consolidated; may order all being sued in preclude Dardis from may concerning make orders and it such It follows then that the separate proceedings may therein tend to avoid as separate initiation of a
unnecessary delay.” costs or against Dardis does not constitute order. eral attack the Cass action case, instant district
In the actions which was asked to consolidate five different sub
the court determined involve parties. The mat>
ject matter different consolidating pending actions lies
ter the trial court un
within the discretion of 42(a). The conclud
der Rule district court that consolidation of these actions would
ed parties. one of the We are not that the court abused its
convinced
discretion. Therefore, we attack to Traill action. The district court and counsel do not address eral do not
1. appeal. it possible application address on of collat- doctrine