Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vexatious Litigation Rule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves narrower vexatious‑litigant standard and sends revised rule to floor
Summary
The Judiciary Committee amended and approved Senate Bill 23‑82, moving a court rule into statute with two small changes: lowering a threshold from three prior adverse litigations to two and sending a courtesy copy of pre‑filing orders to federal district courts; the committee also removed language extending the rule to a party's immediate family.
Senator Jonathan Sickler, sponsor of Senate Bill 23‑82, asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to adopt a statutory version of the state’s vexatious‑litigant rule (Rule 58) with two proposed adjustments. The committee approved an amendment and a do‑pass motion as amended.
What the bill does: SB 23‑82 moves the state’s vexatious‑litigant rule into Century Code and makes two substantive changes to the version of Rule 58 that the Judicial Rules Committee had approved to take effect March 1. First, the bill lowers one numerical threshold in the definition of a vexatious litigant from three prior adverse litigations to two. Second, it requires district courts that enter a pre‑filing order to send a courtesy copy of that order to the federal district courts in North Dakota.
Sponsor’s rationale and discussion - Senator Jonathan Sickler told the committee he sought the change because litigants who repeatedly bring similar suits against different defendants can evade the protections that apply when litigation is finally decided against the same defendant. “You can kind of think of it: how many bites of the apple does the vexatious litigant get to be bringing those types of suits,” he said. - Sickler said he proposed the two adjustments after attempting to get the Judicial Rules Committee to change Rule 58; the committee declined, so he brought the items as legislation to allow lawmakers to weigh policy tradeoffs.
Key amendment and committee action - The committee adopted an amendment to delete the phrase “or the party’s immediate family member” from two places in the draft. The amendment was moved, seconded and passed by voice vote. - Senator Michael Lueck moved a do‑pass on SB 23‑82 as amended; Senator Paulson seconded. The committee recorded unanimous support and ordered the bill to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation.
Why supporters want it in statute - Sickler and other proponents argued that bringing the rule into code creates a more durable, legislative standard and addresses a practical problem they said exists in many cases: repeat filers who bring similar claims across different defendants to wear down opponents.
Concerns and process notes - Committee staff and the state court administrator indicated the Judicial Rules Committee had deliberated the change and preferred to keep a higher threshold; staff said the court system is cautious about curtailing litigants’ access too early. The sponsor and staff agreed the primary difference is a policy decision about where to set the numeric threshold.
Outcome - The committee adopted a technical amendment (removing “immediate family member”), agreed to the two substantive changes described above, and passed SB 23‑82 as amended on a voice and roll‑call sequence recorded in committee. The bill advances to the Senate floor for consideration.
