Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Holkesvig v. Dakota Spas

Supreme Court of North Dakota

January 14, 2014

Randy HOLKESVIG, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
DAKOTA SPAS, Respondent.

Randy Holkesvig (on brief), self-represented, Fargo, N.D., petitioner and appellant.

Dakota Spas, respondent; no appearance.

SANDSTROM, Justice.

[¶ 1] Randy Holkesvig appeals from a district court order denying his motion for reconsideration of a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order and from an order denying his request for an " oral hearing." We affirm, concluding a disorderly conduct restraining order can be

Page 756

brought only against a natural person, as opposed to a business entity.

I

[¶ 2] In April 2013, Holkesvig petitioned the district court for a disorderly conduct restraining order against a business, Dakota Spas. Holkesvig's petition included extensive allegations, but he essentially alleged that after buying a hot tub cover from Dakota Spas, he encountered many problems with the business. He alleged Dakota Spas and its employees " order[ed] the wrong color of a hot tub cover" and " refus[ed] to send [him] receipts in a timely fashion," a Dakota Spas individual " yelled" at him, he was told he needed a credit card receipt even though he claimed he was never given one, Dakota Spas initially only offered him in-store credit, Dakota Spas " harassed" him by failing to give him an immediate credit back on his credit card and by requiring him to order a new hot tub cover to correct their alleged error, and Dakota Spas was dishonest with him and initiated unwanted telephone calls and sent unsolicited mail to him.

[¶ 3] The district court denied Holkesvig's petition, concluding restraining orders can be issued only against an individual, not a business. The court also denied Holkesvig's motion for reconsideration. Holkesvig then filed a motion entitled " oral hearing requested with an honest and a lawful explanation why order was issued denying petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order dated 5-14-13." This was also denied. Holkesvig appealed.

[¶ 4] The district court had jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06. The appeal is timely under N.D.R.App.P. 4(a). This Court has jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 6, and N.D.C.C. § 28-27-01.

II

[¶ 5] Holkesvig argues the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the disorderly conduct restraining order. He argues the court misinterpreted or misapplied the law and ignored relevant evidence supporting a restraining order.

[¶ 6] The standard of review when a court has refused to grant a disorderly conduct restraining order has been established:

The decision whether to grant a temporary restraining order generally lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. First American Bank & Trust Co., 186 N.W.2d 573, 574 (N.D.1971); see also Selland v. Fargo Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 285 N.W.2d 567, 570 (N.D.1979).

Wishnatsky v. Huey, 1997 ND 35, ¶ 8, 560 N.W.2d 878. " A trial court's denial of a motion for reconsideration will not be reversed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion." Larson ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.