Background
Scott Volker, self-represented, filed a civil action in Cass County district court against Danielle Hough (formerly Danielle Nygaard) and Ahlaina Mohler. During proceedings on defendants’ motion to dismiss, the district court warned Volker that his filings contained fictitious legal citations. Volker continued to submit briefs with fabricated citations after the warning, prompting the court to issue an Order to Show Cause. At that hearing, the court found Volker had willfully defied its directive and dismissed his claims with prejudice as a Rule 11, N.D.R.Civ.P., sanction.
On May 20, 2025, the district court entered judgment dismissing Volker’s claims and awarding defendants their costs and disbursements, with notice of entry of judgment served the following day. Defendants subsequently filed a statement of costs seeking $55 in statutory costs. Volker filed no objection, and on June 18, 2025, the court clerk administratively inserted the $55 amount into what was styled an “Amended Judgment.” No post-judgment motions were filed by either party.
Volker filed his notice of appeal on August 28, 2025—more than 90 days after service of notice of entry of the May 20 judgment. This Court had previously entered a September 17, 2025 order purporting to extend the deadline to appeal from the June 18 amended judgment, but reserved the jurisdictional question for full briefing on the merits.
The Court’s Holding
The North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the appeal clock ran from the May 20, 2025 merits judgment, not the June 18, 2025 document in which the clerk inserted the $55 statutory costs. The Court reasoned that the May 20 judgment was final because it resolved all claims on the merits; the outstanding costs amount did not render it non-final under established North Dakota precedent treating the merits and costs components of a judgment as separable, with costs being “only incidental to the judgment.”
The Court further held that the clerk’s June 18 ministerial action—inserting an unopposed, pre-determined statutory costs figure under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(e)(1)(D)—did not restart the appeal period. No judicial decision was made, no post-judgment motion was filed, and the substantive rights settled by the May 20 judgment were untouched. The “Amended Judgment” label was immaterial; the character of the act was ministerial, not adjudicative. The Court distinguished costs under Rule 54(e)(1) from attorney’s fees under Rule 54(e)(2), noting that a motion for attorney’s fees expressly stays the appeal period while no analogous stay applies to the costs procedure.
Because the 60-day deadline expired July 21, 2025, and the absolute 90-day jurisdictional deadline expired August 19, 2025, Volker’s August 28 notice of appeal was nine days late. The Court held that the September 17 extension order could not confer jurisdiction it lacked, as no court order—whenever entered—can extend the time for appeal beyond the 90-day jurisdictional limit.
Key Takeaways
- A judgment awarding costs and disbursements is final for appeal purposes even before the specific dollar amount of costs is calculated; the clerk’s subsequent ministerial insertion of an unopposed statutory costs figure does not restart the appeal period.
- The absolute 90-day deadline to file a notice of appeal in North Dakota civil cases is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by court order, even one entered before the deadline expires.
- A Rule 11 sanction of dismissal with prejudice was upheld as appropriate where a self-represented litigant repeatedly submitted fictitious, AI-generated case citations after explicit judicial warning.
- Procedural orders issued without full briefing on jurisdiction do not resolve the jurisdictional question; the court retains authority to revisit and correct such orders upon complete briefing.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the strict, non-waivable nature of appellate deadlines in North Dakota and illustrates a trap for unwary litigants: when a merits judgment awards costs to be quantified later, the appeal clock starts running from the merits judgment, not from the later ministerial amendment. Practitioners must carefully distinguish between a clerk’s routine costs insertion under Rule 54(e)(1)—which does not toll the appeal period—and a post-judgment motion for attorney’s fees under Rule 54(e)(2), which does.
The opinion also adds to the growing body of case law addressing sanctions for AI-generated fictitious citations. The court affirmed that dismissal with prejudice under Rule 11 is an available and proportionate sanction where a litigant continues to submit fabricated authorities after explicit judicial warning, signaling that North Dakota courts will not tolerate unchecked reliance on hallucinated AI output in legal filings.