Bublitz v. Tsang, 990313

• Decision Date: 25 May 2000
• Docket Number: 990313
• Citation: 617 N.W.2d 131,2000 ND 100
• Parties: David Bublitz d.b.a. DC Marketing, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Abies Tsang d.b.a. Purple Rooster, Defendant and Appellant2000 ND 100 Filed
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

David Bublitz d.b.a. DC Marketing, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Abies Tsang d.b.a. Purple Rooster, Defendant and Appellant

No. 990313

2000 ND 100

Filed 5/25/00 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable

Ralph R. Erickson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Dennis W. Lindquist, P.O. Box 490, Mandan, N.D. 58554-0490, for plaintiff and appellee.

Abies Tsang, pro se, 4820 E. Second Street, Benicia, CA 94510, defendant and appellant.

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Abies Tsang, acting pro se, appeals from a judgment of the East Central Judicial District

Court against him and in favor of David Bublitz. Tsang argues, among other things, that the

district court erred in finding he submitted to the court's jurisdiction.

[¶2] This Court has held that the party challenging the findings of fact of a district court has the

burden of demonstrating those findings are clearly erroneous. See N.D.R.Civ.P. 52; Rosendahl

v. Rosendahl, 470 N.W.2d 230, 231 (N.D. 1991). Rule 10(b), N.D.R.App.P., requires that the

appellant provide a transcript of the proceedings on appeal. Sabot v. Fargo Women's Health

Org., Inc., 500 N.W.2d 889, 891 (N.D. 1993). "When an appellant raises issues on appeal

regarding the findings of fact, it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to discuss the merits of the

appeal without a transcript." Rosendahl, at 231 (citing Davis v. Davis, 448 N.W.2d 619, 620

(N.D. 1989)). If the record does not allow for a meaningful and intelligent review of alleged

error, we will decline to review the issue. Buzick v. Buzick, 533 N.W.2d 676, 677 (N.D. 1995);

Cullen v. Williams County, 446 N.W.2d 250, 253 (N.D. 1989).

[¶3] The rules of procedure are not to be applied differently merely because a party is acting pro

se. Rosendahl, 470 N.W.2d at 231 (citing Davis, 448 N.W.2d at 620). By failing to submit a

transcript of the district court proceedings, Tsang has not met his burden of showing that the

district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Rosendahl, 470 N.W.2d at 231.

[¶4] Because Tsang included materials in his brief that were not part of the district court's record,

we award Bublitz double costs on appeal. See N.D.R.App.P. 13, 28, 30; Estate of Wieland, 1998

ND 130, ¶ 22 n.3, 581 N.W.2d 140.

[¶5] The judgment of the district court is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (2).

[¶6] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J., Dale V. Sandstrom, William A. Neumann, Mary Muehlen

Maring, Carol Ronning Kapsner