Gosbee v. Martinson
Court of Appeals
v.
Rob Martinson;
Eskrawl, Inc.;
Mailwiper, Inc.;
Spy Deleter, Inc.; Defendants and Appellees
and
John and Mary Does 001
through 100; and
Doe & Doe, Inc. 101-200, Defendants
Judge Ronald L. Hilden
| Appellant: | Pro se | |
| Appellee: | Smith Bakke Porsborg & Schweigert |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
1. If a party files a timely objection to costs and disbursements, may a trial court ignore the party's request to schedule a hearing under Rule 54(e)(1), NDRCivP?
2. If a party files a motion under Rule 3.2, NDRoC, and makes a timely request for oral argument under Rule 3.2(a), NDRoC, may a trial court ignore that request and rule on the motion without giving the moving party an opportunity to present oral argument?
3. If a trial court grants a defendant's motion for summary judgment, citing variances between the plaintiff's complaint and the plaintiff's theory and argument advanced in resisting summary judgment, is the plaintiff entitled to amend the complaint to conform to the theory and argument so advanced?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether Mr. Gosbee was entitled to a hearing on his objection to costs and disbursements under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54 and whether he was prejudiced as a result of not receiving a hearing.
II. Whether Mr. Gosbee was entitled to a hearing on his motion for reconsideration and to amend the complaint, and whether he was prejudiced as a result of not receiving a hearing.
III. Whether the trial court erred by denying Mr. Gosbee's motion to amend his complaint.
Add Docket 20050056 RSS