from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central
Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce B. Haskell, Judge.
Rath, petitioner, no appearance.
A. Rath, self-represented, 1021 W. Saint Benedict Dr.,
Bismarck, ND 58501, respondent and appellant.
VandeWalle, Chief Justice.
1] Mark Rath appealed the district court's order granting
Kayla Rath a disorderly conduct restraining order and the
district court's order denying his motion for
reconsideration. On appeal, Mark Rath argues the district
court erred in finding Kayla Rath met her burden of proving
the element of intent and in finding that his actions were
not constitutionally protected. He also argues the district
court lacked jurisdiction when it issued its order. Because
the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing
its order granting the disorderly conduct restraining order
and had jurisdiction at the time it denied Mark Rath's
motion for reconsideration, we affirm.
2] This appeal represents the latest opinion in the dispute
between Mark Rath and Kayla Rath. See Rath v. Rath,
2016 ND 105, 879 N.W.2d 735; Rath v. Rath, 2016 ND
83, 878 N.W.2d 85; Rath v. Rath, 2016 ND 71, 877
N.W.2d 298; Rath v. Rath, 2016 ND 46, 876 N.W.2d
474; Rath v. Rath, 2015 ND 22, 861 N.W.2d 172;
Rath v. Rath, 2014 ND 171, 852 N.W.2d 377; Rath
v. Rath, 2013 ND 243, 840 N.W.2d 656; and two pending
cases: Rath v. Rath, No. 20160222 and Rath v.
Rath, No. 20160338.
3] On April 17, 2015, Kayla Rath petitioned for a disorderly
conduct restraining order against Mark Rath, citing a
compilation of conduct purportedly rising to the level of
disorderly conduct. These allegations include: Mark Rath
called his children nearly twenty times in one night, Mark
Rath using foul language toward Kayla Rath, Mark Rath said he
had an "outlaw business associate" look into Kayla
Rath's phone records, Mark Rath reported Kayla Rath to
authorities out of concern she may be illegally receiving
government benefits, and a variety of other conduct.
4] The district court held a hearing on the petition. At the
hearing, the district court asked Kayla Rath, under oath, if
the information and allegations contained in her petition and
accompanying affidavit were correct. She answered in the
affirmative and offered no other evidence or testimony in
support of her petition at the hearing. Mark Rath was not
able to cross-examine Kayla Rath; instead, the district court
restricted him to submitting questions for the court to ask
Kayla Rath. The district court granted Kayla Rath's
request for a permanent restraining order.
5] Mark Rath appealed, arguing, among other things, that he
was not given a full hearing and the district court failed to
rule on his claims that his actions were protected by the
constitution, specifically his freedom of speech and right to
parent. We reversed and remanded the case to the district
court with instructions to rule on Mark Rath's
constitutional claims and to allow him the opportunity to
cross-examine Kayla Rath or, in the alternative, specifically
state its reasoning for denying cross-examination and provide
Mark Rath with an adequate opportunity to identify his
questions. Rath v. Rath, 2016 ND 71.
6] We issued our opinion on March 28, 2016. On April 8, the
district court held a hearing where Mark Rath was able to
cross-examine Kayla Rath and make his constitutional claims.
The district court issued its order on April 8, again
granting the disorderly conduct restraining order. Five days
later, Mark Rath moved the district court to reconsider its
order. On April 19, this Court issued its mandate. Mark Rath
filed an appeal on May 4, and on May 20, we remanded
jurisdiction to the district court because Mark Rath's
motion for reconsideration was still pending before it. The
district court denied the motion on May 31. On June 10, Mark
Rath filed an amended notice of appeal, arguing the district
court abused its discretion in denying his motion for
7] In this appeal, Mark Rath argues the district court abused
its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration
because: (1) Kayla Rath failed to prove the element of intent
and (2) his actions were constitutionally protected.
Additionally, Mark Rath argues the district court lacked
jurisdiction to issue its order on April 11, 2016.
8] As to Mark Rath's first two arguments, because the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mark
Rath's motion for reconsideration, we summarily affirm
under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4). See Amerada Hess
Corp. v. Furlong Oil and Minerals Co., 348 N.W.2d 913, 919
(N.D. 1984) (intent can be proven by circumstantial
evidence); State v. Holbach, 2009 ND 37, ¶ 16,
763 N.W.2d 761 (citing State v. Adgerson, 2003 MT
284, ¶ 29, 78 ...