AN ACT to create and enact a new chapter to title 28 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to vexatious litigation; and to declare an emergency.
SB 2382 creates a new chapter in North Dakota Century Code addressing vexatious litigation. The bill defines “litigation,” “vexatious conduct,” and “vexatious litigant,” and sets out criteria for when a person may be found to have engaged in repeated abusive or frivolous litigation behavior. It covers both self-represented parties and parties represented by counsel, and includes repeated meritless filings, relitigation of resolved issues, and conduct intended to harass, delay, or burden the court system.
If a court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a person is a vexatious litigant, the court must issue a prefiling order restricting that person from filing new litigation or documents in existing cases without prior court approval. The order must also shift costs to the vexatious litigant and award the opposing party reasonable attorney fees and related costs. The bill requires clerks to send prefiling orders to the state court administrator and federal district courts in North Dakota, and directs the state court administrator to maintain a roster of vexatious litigants. It also preserves prefiling orders already in effect under supreme court rule before August 1, 2025, and directs the North Dakota Supreme Court to adopt implementing rules. The act is declared an emergency measure, making it effective immediately upon passage.
The bill’s impact is primarily on civil procedure and court administration in North Dakota. It adds a statutory framework for identifying and restricting abusive litigants, supplements existing court authority, and creates a statewide tracking mechanism for prefiling orders. It affects litigants, attorneys, clerks of court, the state court administrator, and the judiciary by formalizing sanctions and filing restrictions for repeated frivolous or harassing litigation conduct.
Overall, the recorded votes suggest strong support for the measure, with large majorities in both chambers and only limited opposition. The absence of committee transcripts limits insight into debate, but the broad margins indicate the bill was generally viewed favorably as a tool to protect courts and opposing parties from abusive litigation practices. The emergency clause and the preservation of existing prefiling orders also suggest an intent to make the protections available quickly and to avoid disruption to current court restrictions.
The main point of contention likely centers on balancing court efficiency and abuse prevention against access to the courts and due process for litigants who may be labeled vexatious. Because the bill allows restrictions based on a preponderance of the evidence and applies to both represented and self-represented parties, critics could be concerned about overuse or inconsistent application. Supporters, by contrast, would likely emphasize the need to curb repeated frivolous filings, unnecessary costs, and burdens on judicial resources.
SB 2382 creates a new statutory chapter in Title 28 governing vexatious litigation and authorizes courts to impose prefiling restrictions, cost-shifting, and attorney-fee awards against litigants found to meet the statutory definition. It also requires notice to the state court administrator and federal district courts, establishes a statewide roster of vexatious litigants, preserves existing prefiling orders entered under supreme court rule before August 1, 2025, and directs the North Dakota Supreme Court to adopt implementing rules. The bill affects civil and disciplinary proceedings, small claims, administrative appeals, and related appellate review, but excludes criminal cases.
The bill appears to have been received positively overall, as reflected by strong vote totals in both chambers and no recorded committee opposition in the materials provided. The large margins suggest broad agreement that the legislation addresses a legitimate court-management problem and provides a formal mechanism to deter abusive litigation. The emergency clause further indicates a sense of urgency and practical support for immediate implementation.
The likely controversy is whether the bill strikes the right balance between preventing abusive litigation and preserving access to the courts. Opponents or skeptics may worry that the definition of vexatious conduct is broad and could be applied too aggressively against pro se litigants or parties pursuing difficult but legitimate claims. Supporters likely argue that repeated frivolous filings, relitigation, and delay tactics impose real costs on courts and opposing parties, and that the bill gives judges a necessary tool to manage those cases efficiently.