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 Title 28 of the North Dakota Century Code to address 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. Covered conduct includes actions intended to harass, delay, burden the courts, or relitigate matters already finally decided.
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 litigation without prior court approval. The order must also shift costs to the filing party and award the opposing party reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with responding to the vexatious conduct and obtaining the order. The bill also 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 preserves preexisting supreme court rule-based prefiling orders in effect before August 1, 2025, and declares the act an emergency measure.
The bill’s primary legal impact is to codify and standardize a process for limiting abusive litigants in North Dakota courts, expanding court authority to control repetitive, frivolous, or harassing filings across civil, small claims, administrative appeals, and disciplinary proceedings. It also creates statewide administrative tracking of restricted litigants and requires the supreme court to adopt implementing rules, affecting court procedure and litigants who repeatedly file meritless actions.
The overall sentiment appears generally supportive, as reflected by strong bipartisan passage in both chambers and the emergency designation. The vote totals suggest broad agreement that courts need a clearer mechanism to manage abusive litigation and protect judicial resources. There is no committee transcript available in the provided materials, so specific debate points are not documented here.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between preventing abusive filings and preserving access to the courts, especially for self-represented litigants. Because the bill allows a court to impose filing restrictions based on a preponderance of the evidence and includes broad definitions of vexatious conduct, concerns could arise about how the standard is applied and whether legitimate but persistent claims might be swept in. However, no recorded opposition or detailed objections are included in the provided context.
This bill adds a new statutory framework in Title 28 for identifying vexatious litigants and authorizing courts to impose prefiling restrictions, cost-shifting, and attorney-fee awards. It affects civil litigants, self-represented parties, attorneys, clerks of court, the state court administrator, and the North Dakota Supreme Court, which must adopt implementing rules. It also preserves existing prefiling orders issued under supreme court rule before August 1, 2025, and requires distribution of new orders to state and federal courts in North Dakota.
The available voting history indicates strong support for the bill, with passage in both chambers by wide margins and the bill designated as an emergency measure. That suggests a general legislative consensus that vexatious litigation is a problem warranting immediate statutory action. No committee testimony or floor debate is provided, so the record here does not show organized opposition or divided sentiment beyond the inherent policy tradeoff.
The likely contention centers on due process and access to justice versus court efficiency. Supporters would view the bill as a tool to stop repetitive, harassing, and resource-draining litigation, while critics might worry that the definitions of vexatious conduct and litigant are broad enough to capture persistent but legitimate claims, especially from pro se parties. The bill’s mandatory prefiling restrictions, fee shifting, and statewide roster of restricted litigants could also raise concerns about fairness, notice, and the risk of overuse by courts.