Christopher James Gum, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Muddy Boyz Drywall LLC, Defendant and Appellee
No. 20250045
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2025 ND 111 Filed 06-05-2025
2025 ND 111
Honorable Constance L. Cleveland, Judge.
DISMISSED.
Opinion of the Court by Bahr, Justice.
Christopher J. Gum, Bismarck, ND, plaintiff and appellant; submitted on brief.
Elliot J. Stoll and Kendra E. Olson, Detroit Lakes, MN, for defendant and appellee; submitted on brief.
Bahr, Justice.
[¶1] Christopher Gum appeals from a district court judgment granting Muddy Boyz Drywall LLC‘s (“Muddy Boyz“) motion for summary judgment and dismissing Gum‘s claims. On appeal, Gum argues there were genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. We conclude we lack jurisdiction of the appeal because the district court has not entered a final judgment resolving all the parties’ claims. We dismiss the appeal.
I
[¶2] In May 2024, Gum filed a complaint against Muddy Boyz. Muddy Boyz filed an answer and counterclaims for conversion, breach of contract, fraud, and trespass. Muddy Boyz later moved for summary judgment requesting Gum‘s claims be dismissed with prejudice. After briefing, the district court granted Muddy Boyz‘s motion and entered judgment dismissing Gum‘s claims on the merits.
II
[¶3] “Before we consider the merits of an appeal, we must have jurisdiction.” Kaspari v. Kaspari, 2023 ND 207, ¶ 4, 997 N.W.2d 621 (quoting Hoffarth v. Hoffarth, 2020 ND 218, ¶ 5, 949 N.W.2d 824). “Although neither party raised the issue of jurisdiction, this Court has the duty to dismiss an appeal on its own if we conclude the attempted appeal fails for lack of jurisdiction.” Id.
[¶4] “The right to appeal in this State is governed solely by statute.” Sanderson v. Walsh Cnty., 2006 ND 83, ¶ 5, 712 N.W.2d 842. Under
[¶5] The district court‘s judgment granted Muddy Boyz‘s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of Gum‘s claims against Muddy Boyz on the merits. Muddy Boyz did not request summary judgment on its counterclaims, and the court‘s judgment does not dispose of Muddy Boyz‘s counterclaims. Additionally, the parties did not request, and the court did not enter, certification under
III
[¶6] We conclude the judgment is not final for purposes of our appellate jurisdiction. We dismiss the appeal.
[¶7] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr
Douglas A. Bahr
Justice
