Riverside Park Condominiums Unit Owners Association v. Lucas

11 Citing cases

  1. Lucas v. Riverside Park Condominiums

    2009 N.D. 217 (N.D. 2010)   Cited 30 times
    Noting "conclusory and ambiguous nature" of claimant's documents requesting accommodation — two identical statements from two physicians asking the Association "to permit A. William to keep, maintain, and raise an assistive therapeutic companion service animal (dog). It is also my opinion that there has been a significant change in Mr. Lucas' health (disability status) since the last time he was examined by me" — justified Association's seeking additional information to enable it to make a meaningful review of and an informed decision on the request

    The court further ruled the "Association need not honor a future request by Lucas for an accommodation under the Act, unless there is a significant change in Lucas's health (disability status.)." This Court affirmed the district court's decision in Riverside Park Condominiums Unit Owners Ass'n v. Lucas, 2005 ND 26, ¶ 36, 691 N.W.2d 862 (" Lucas I"). [¶ 3] On September 9, 2004, while Lucas I was pending on appeal, Lucas requested that the Association grant him an accommodation under the federal Fair Housing Act and state Housing Discrimination Act to keep an "assistive therapeutic companion animal (dog)."

  2. Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Decker

    2005 N.D. 173 (N.D. 2005)   Cited 14 times
    Finding an insurer’s duty to defend arose when complaint was amended

    Based on this record, we decline to address the argument because issues not timely raised or adequately briefed are deemed waived. Riverside Park Condominiums Unit Owners Association v. Lucas, 2005 ND 26, ¶ 34, 691 N.W.2d 862; Riemers v. Grand Forks Herald, 2004 ND 192, ¶ 11, 688 N.W.2d 167; State v. Koble, 2000 ND 29, ¶ 5, 606 N.W.2d 521. Consequently, we do not decide whether use of the motorcycle off the insured location outside the policy term impacts the exception to the motor vehicle exclusion.

  3. Siana Oil & Gas Co. v. Dublin Co.

    2018 N.D. 164 (N.D. 2018)   Cited 4 times

    Riverside Park Condos. Unit Owners Ass'n v. Lucas , 2005 ND 26, ¶ 8, 691 N.W.2d 862 (quoting Zuger v. State , 2004 ND 16, ¶ 7, 673 N.W.2d 615 ). [¶ 8] In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the district court may consider the pleadings, depositions, admissions, affidavits, interrogatories, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence.

  4. Rusgrove v. Goter

    2015 N.D. 259 (N.D. 2015)

    We conclude the district court appropriately granted summary judgment dismissing Rusgrove's lawsuit with prejudice, because he failed to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to his case on which he would bear the burden of proof at trial because he did not timely retain an expert witness. Rusgrove's remaining arguments are completely without merit, because he provided no relevant legal authority in support of his positions. See Riverside Park Condominiums Unit Owners Ass'n v. Lucas, 2005 ND 26, ¶ 34, 691 N .W.2d 862 (indicating an argument is without merit when a party fails to provide supportive reasoning or citations to relevant authorities); Nesvig v. Nesvig, 2006 ND 66, ¶¶ 14–17, 712 N.W.2d 299 (holding a district court did not abuse its discretion because it could not compel an unretained expert to appear and provide expert testimony). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).

  5. Oil v. Creighton

    2013 N.D. 73 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 18 times
    Stating “[w]hether a party acted in good faith is a question of fact” for determining good faith purchaser status

    Riedlinger, at ¶ 10. If the motion is properly made and supported, the opposing party must set forth specific facts by presenting competent, admissible evidence, by affidavit or by directing the court to other evidence in the record, showing there is a genuine issue of material fact. Hale v. Ward Cnty., 2012 ND 144, ¶ 12, 818 N.W.2d 697. “Summary judgment is appropriate against parties who fail to establish the existence of a factual dispute on an essential element of a claim on which they will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Riverside Park Condo. Unit Owners Ass'n v. Lucas, 2005 ND 26, ¶ 8, 691 N.W.2d 862. [¶ 11] In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the district court may consider the pleadings, depositions, admissions, affidavits, interrogatories, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence.

  6. Collection Center, Inc. v. Bydal

    2011 N.D. 63 (N.D. 2011)   Cited 17 times
    Allowing a defendant to add new counterclaims without requesting leave of court when a plaintiff files an amended complaint

    [¶ 34] Allowing a defendant to add new counterclaims without requesting leave of court when a plaintiff files an amended complaint that changes the scope or theory of the case is also consistent with our decision in Riverside Park Condos. Unit Owners Assoc. v. Lucas, 2005 ND 26, ¶¶ 29-32, 691 N.W.2d 862. In Lucas, at ¶ 32, we held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions on a defendant, in part, based on the defendant's failure to seek leave of court before filing amended counterclaims in response to plaintiffs amended complaint.

  7. State v. Meador

    2010 N.D. 139 (N.D. 2010)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that the retroactive application of sexual offender registration requirements to an offender whose conviction for a sexual offense occurred before enactment of the registration requirements did not violate the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws because the registration requirements were remedial and nonpunitive

    We have said a party waives an issue if the party does not provide supporting argument, and an argument is without merit when a party does not provide supportive reasoning or citations to relevant authorities. See, e.g., Riverside Park Condo. Unit Owners Ass'n v. Lucas, 2005 ND 26, ¶ 34, 691 N.W.2d 862; Riemers v. Grand Forks Herald, 2004 ND 192, ¶ 11, 688 N.W.2d 167; Olander Contracting Co. v. Gail Wachter Invs., 2002 ND 65, ¶ 27, 643 N.W.2d 29. Because Meador's brief is conclusory we will only briefly address this issue.

  8. Olsrud v. Bismarck-Mandan Orchestral Ass'n

    2007 N.D. 91 (N.D. 2007)   Cited 18 times
    Discussing burden on plaintiff to show authority of defendant’s attorney to receive service of process

    We have often said a party waives an issue by not providing supporting argument, and without supportive reasoning or citations to relevant authorities, an argument is without merit. E.g., Riemers v. City of Grand Forks, 2006 ND 224, ¶¶ 9-10, 723 N.W.2d 518; Riverside Park Condominiums Unit Owners Ass'n v. Lucas, 2005 ND 26, ¶ 34, 691 N.W.2d 862. Olsrud's waiver and estoppel arguments are without merit.

  9. Santos v. Primerica Life Ins. Co.

    1:22-cv-066 (D.N.D. Aug. 24, 2023)

    Speculation alone is insufficient to create a genuine dispute as to a material fact. Riverside Park Condominiums Unit Owners Ass'n v. Lucas, 691 N.W.2d 862, 874 (N.D. 2005). The Court concludes Primerica has demonstrated there is no genuine dispute that Iguel made false representations regarding her medical history on her June 2019 Reinstatement Application.

  10. In re Disciplinary Action Against Lucas

    2010 N.D. 187 (N.D. 2010)   Cited 5 times
    Holding pro se attorney violated Rule 4.2 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct when sending a letter to represented opposing party to discuss subject matter of the controversy

    The hearing panel concluded Lucas violated Rule 4.2 and recommended he be publicly reprimanded. [¶ 3] Lucas has been a party in two litigated cases against the Association, Riverside Park Condos. Unit Owners Ass'n v. Lucas, 2005 ND 26, 691 N.W.2d 862 and Lucas v. Riverside Park Condos. Unit Owners Ass'n, 2009 ND 217, 776 N.W.2d 801. In both cases, the Association was represented by counsel and Lucas represented himself.