Rule 12 North Dakota Case Management Time Standards for District Courts

Section 1. Statement of Policy .

(a) A goal of the judicial system of North Dakota is to promote efficient and timely disposition of cases.

(b) The North Dakota judicial system recognizes the need to provide administrative procedures and time standards to guide the management of trial court dockets and avoid unnecessary delay. These case management time standards and procedures are established to meet this administrative goal.

(c) These standards and procedures guide the management of cases in the North Dakota trial courts. They are not intended and may not form the basis to change or affect the substantive and procedural rights of the parties in any case. Deviation from these standards does not cause the dismissal of any case.

(d) Judges will ensure that all cases or contested matters are scheduled in a manner that minimizes delay for the parties and reduces the possibility of continuances. The court will control cases from case initiation through post-disposition proceedings.

(e) Judges should monitor open cases and contested matters to ensure that all pending matters are set for a future action or review. A case or contested matter should not remain on the court’s docket in excess of the guidelines set forth in this rule without prompt judicial review.

(f) Case management time standards are established to assist judicial leaders in identifying specific cases which are in need of attention and to assist presiding judges and individual judges in management of their caseloads.

(g) The responsibility for management of cases rests with each individual judge. The formal unit of accountability for case management is the judicial district and the presiding judge. Because there are variations in case management techniques among the judicial districts, the assignment of accountability to the district permits flexibility in determining the best approach to case management while maintaining accountability among districts. Each judge is expected to actively participate in the management of their assigned cases and collaborate with other members of the bench, judicial support staff, and other justice system stakeholders within the judicial district.

(h) Each presiding judge has authority under N.D.Sup.Ct.Admin.R. 2 to assign cases and coordinate judicial resources and support services in order to maintain a current docket throughout the district. To this end, the presiding judges have been directed to take appropriate action to meet this goal. The supreme court, through the chief justice, has communicated to each presiding judge the court's commitment to respond to requests for assistance in meeting the standards.

(i) Each presiding judge should exercise the authority to assure the timely resolution of cases within their respective judicial district. This authority includes assignment of cases among the judges of the judicial district (N.D.Sup.Ct.Admin.R. 2, section 8), referral to the advisory board (N.D.R. Local Ct.P.R., section 8), convening meetings of the judges within the judicial district (N.D.Sup.Ct.Admin.R. 2, section 7), and supervision of all local administrative practice and procedure regulations by judges, clerks of court, and other officers and employees of the courts (N.D.Sup.Ct.Admin.R. 2, section 12). The presiding judge may refer any matter to the chief justice for assistance.

(j) These case management and time standards apply to cases filed in district court. They do not apply to trust cases (post disposition), mental health, or criminal cases in which there is a deferred imposition of sentence under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-02(4). For purposes of calculating time to disposition, the period in which a criminal case is on active warrant status or under interlocutory appeal review does not count towards the calculation of case age.

Section 2. Time Standards.

(a) These standards run from the date of filing to the date of entry of a disposition. The running of time is suspended under these standards by occurrences such as the filing of an interlocutory appeal or issuance of a warrant. If a file is re-opened these standards run from the date of the reopen event to the date of entry of a disposition.

(b) Matters Submitted for Decision.

(1) Orders disposing of matters submitted for decision that are under advisement must be entered within 90 days of oral argument, the end of trial, or the filing of the last brief, whichever is later.

(2) If a matter will not be decided within 90 days, the judicial officer must report to the presiding judge within 10 days after the due date, indicating the reason the judicial officer has failed to decide the matter. If good cause is found for the delay, the presiding judge may grant an extension of up to 90 additional days to decide the matter.

(3) If the matter remains undecided after the extension, the chief justice may grant an additional 30 day extension upon a showing of good cause, or may file a report with the judicial conduct commission.

(4) If the chief justice grants an extension and the matter is not decided in the time granted, the chief justice may file a report with the judicial conduct commission.

(c) Disability or Illness

The requirements of this policy may be waived by the presiding judge in consultation with the chief justice in cases of disability or illness. In such situations, time standards may be waived or cases may be reassigned.

Section 3. Caseflow Management Plans.

Each district court must prepare and maintain a current caseflow management plan in the format specified by the supreme court. These plans and any subsequent amendments must be filed with the state court administrator. Each presiding judge is encouraged to convene a local caseflow management committee to solicit input from other justice system agencies and representative, including the local bar, in the development of a local caseflow management plan.

Section 4. Caseflow Management Information.

Consistent with Policy 507, judges, clerks, and administrators are to review caseflow management reports and information available from the case management system to aid in monitoring the progress of individual cases, as well as assessing overall court performance towards meeting caseflow management goals.