AAA COLLECTIONS INC v. ROSSILLO (2026)

[¶1] Stephen Rossillo appeals from a district court's judgment entered after the court granted AAA Collections, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. Rossillo argues AAA Collections did not properly serve him, the court violated his due process rights by not affording him a full and fair opportunity to respond, and the court erred by granting summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed.

[¶2] This Court reviews whether the district court failed to provide a nonmoving party the allotted time to respond under an abuse of discretion standard. Davis v. Davis, 2021 ND 24, ¶ 7, 955 N.W.2d 117. Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56(c), a party opposing a summary judgment motion must be given 30 days to file an answer brief and supporting papers. Chase v. State, 2021 ND 206, ¶ 8, 966 N.W.2d 557. “On appeal, this Court decides whether the information available to the district court precluded the existence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitled the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.” Kutcka v. Gateway Bldg. Sys. Inc., 2023 ND 91, ¶ 5, 990 N.W.2d 605 (citing Markgraf v. Welker, 2015 ND 303, ¶ 10, 873 N.W.2d 26). “Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law which we review de novo on the entire record.” Id.

[¶3] AAA Collections properly served Rossillo on December 9, 2025. Rossillo did not meaningfully respond after the December 9 service. The district court granted AAA Collections’ motion for summary judgment on January 22, 2026. This 43-day period exceeds the 30-day requirement of N.D.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The court did not violate Rossillo's due process rights because he was given reasonable notice the motion had been filed and an opportunity to respond. See First Am. Bank & Tr. of Minot v. Elsberry, 448 N.W.2d 184, 186 (N.D. 1989) (affirming summary judgment entered 33 days after the motion and supporting brief were served, where the nonmoving party filed no response); see also State by & through Workforce Safety & Ins. v. Eight Ball Trucking, Inc., 2019 ND 102, ¶¶ 4, 10, 925 N.W.2d 411 (declining to disturb a summary judgment entered 35 days after the motion was served by mail, where the defendants did not respond).

[¶4] The information available to the district court did not establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitled AAA Collections to judgment as a matter of law. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (6).

Per Curiam.

[¶5] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Jon J. Jensen Douglas A. Bahr Mark A. Friese