LARSGAARD v. State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest (2026)

[¶1] Cassidy Larsgaard appeals from a pre-filing order designating her a vexatious litigant and restricting her ability to file new litigation or documents in existing litigation without first obtaining leave of court. She also appeals from the accompanying order requiring her to pay Michael Larsgaard $7,500 in attorney's fees and costs.

[¶2] “A pre-filing order entered by a presiding judge designating a person as a vexatious litigant may be appealed to the supreme court under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02 and N.D.R.App.P. 4.” N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58(6)(a). The order awarding attorney's fees is part of the pre-filing order, which “must contain” the award. N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58(3)(d). “This Court reviews pre-filing orders issued under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58 for an abuse of discretion.” In re Emelia Hirsch Tr., 2022 ND 224, ¶ 3, 982 N.W.2d 617 (quoting In re Emelia Hirsch Tr., 2022 ND 89, ¶ 10, 973 N.W.2d 427).

[¶3] Cassidy Larsgaard argues there was no notice of motion or motion requesting that she be designated a vexatious litigant. She also asserts the district court denied her request for a hearing before it designated her a vexatious litigant. Under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58(3)(a), “[a]t the request of a party or on the court's own motion, the presiding judge may designate a litigant as a vexatious litigant.” In compliance with Rule 58(3)(b), the presiding judge issued a proposed pre-filing order with proposed findings. Cassidy Larsgaard filed written responses, which the court considered before issuing the final order. Under Rule 58(3)(b), the presiding judge has discretion whether to grant a hearing. N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58(3)(b) (“If a response is filed, the presiding judge may, in the judge's discretion, grant a hearing on the proposed order.”). The district court complied with Rule 58(3). It provided Cassidy Larsgaard the notice required under Rule 58(3)(b). It did not abuse its discretion by declining to hold a hearing. See Bauer v. Adam, 2026 ND 67, ¶¶ 14–15, 33 N.W.3d 1 (concluding litigant received due process when the presiding judge, on her own motion, issued a proposed pre-filing order with findings and notice of the time to respond, and then issued the order without a hearing); Rath v. Rath, 2022 ND 105, ¶ 38, 974 N.W.2d 652 (“Procedural safeguards are contained within N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58 providing for a specific vexatious litigant definition, appropriate notice, requisite court findings, and the pre-filing order contents.”).

[¶4] Cassidy Larsgaard argues the district court abused its discretion in designating her a vexatious litigant. “Rule 58, N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R., allows the court to designate a litigant as vexatious if the court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, there is a sufficient basis to do so.” City of Dickinson v. Helgeson, 2026 ND 34, ¶ 7, 31 N.W.3d 672. The presiding judge made specific findings regarding Cassidy Larsgaard's “vexatious conduct” under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58(2)(c)(5) and (6) and how she met the definition of “vexatious litigant” under Rule 58(2)(d)(3). The record supports the presiding judge's findings. The presiding judge did not abuse his discretion in designating Cassidy Larsgaard a vexatious litigant. We summarily affirm the pre-filing order under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶5] Cassidy Larsgaard argues the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees. Rule 58(3)(d) requires a pre-filing order to contain “an award of all costs of the vexatious litigation against the filing party” and “an award of all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with responding to the vexatious litigant, including the cost of seeking the prefiling order.” N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58(3)(d)(3)–(4); see also N.D.C.C. § 28-36-02(2)(b) (providing a pre-filing order must “[a]ward the opposing party reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with responding to the vexatious litigant, including the cost of seeking the prefiling order”). An award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs under Rule 58(3)(d)(4) is mandatory. This Court reviews the amount and reasonableness of an award of attorney's fees for an abuse of discretion. Bolinske v. Sandstrom, 2024 ND 163, ¶ 23, 10 N.W.3d 770; Sanderson v. Agotness, 2024 ND 232, ¶ 11, 15 N.W.3d 1.

[¶6] Cassidy Larsgaard argues Michael Larsgaard did not move for fees and the court made no findings under N.D.C.C. §§ 28-26-01 or 14-05-23. The court did not award fees under either statute. Because the court designated Cassidy Larsgaard a vexatious litigant, Rule 58(3)(d)(4) required the pre-filing order to include an award of reasonable attorney's fees. Because Rule 58(3)(d)(4) required the award, neither a motion nor findings under sections 28-26-01 or 14-05-23 were needed. The court considered fees relating to Michael Larsgaard's request that Cassidy Larsgaard be designated a vexatious litigant and fees incurred afterward, found $13,990 in relevant fees and costs, and determined $7,500 was a reasonable award. Cassidy Larsgaard does not argue the amount is unreasonable. The court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of the award. We summarily affirm the order awarding attorney's fees and costs under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Per Curiam.

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