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.

Mitzel v. Larson

Supreme Court of North Dakota

March 7, 2017

James Daniel Mitzel, Petitioner
v.
Katherine Deanna Larson, Respondent and Appellant

         Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Thomas R. Olson, Judge.

         REVERSED.

          James D. Mitzel, petitioner; no appearance.

          Katherine D. Larson, respondent and appellant; on brief. William R. Hartl for respondent and appellant.

          MCEVERS, JUSTICE.

         [¶ 1] Katherine Larson appeals from a district court disorderly conduct restraining order issued against her. We reverse, concluding the court abused its discretion in issuing the order.

         I

         [¶ 2] Larson and James Mitzel were in a romantic relationship from June 2015 to January 2016. After the relationship ended, Larson obtained an order for protection in Minnesota, alleging Mitzel had physically and sexually assaulted her in January 2016.

         [¶ 3] In February 2016 Mitzel petitioned the district court for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Larson, alleging she had harassed him and his wife through email, text messages, and social media. The court issued a temporary thirty-day restraining order and scheduled a hearing for March 3, 2016. The hearing was continued until March 17, 2016, and after the hearing, the court issued a one-year disorderly conduct restraining order against Larson. The order prohibited Larson from contacting Mitzel and excluded her from his home.

         II

         [¶ 4] Larson argues the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over her because a sheriff did not personally serve her the temporary restraining order under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31.2-01(5)(b). She also argues the parties did not agree to continue the hearing from March 3, 2016, to March 17, 2016.

         [¶ 5] A party may waive a personal jurisdiction argument by voluntarily submitting to the personal jurisdiction of the court. Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 2010 ND 138, ¶ 57, 785 N.W.2d 863. Regarding the continuance of the hearing, the following exchange took place between the court and Larson's attorney:

The Court: All right. And Ms. Larson is here in court with her attorney, Ms. Gehrig.... This is the time and place for a hearing on whether to make a protection restraining order permanent. A temporary order has been issued. Now is the ...

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.