This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was found in contempt of court for failing to comply with a prior court order. The Defendant argued that the underlying order was invalid and that she could not be held in contempt for disobeying it. Additionally, the Defendant filed an emergency motion requesting the Court of Appeals to mandate the Plaintiff to provide her with running water.
Procedural History
- District Court, Quay County, presided by Judge Matthew J. Sandoval: The Defendant was found in contempt of court for failing to comply with a prior court order. The Defendant’s motion to dismiss was also denied.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the underlying court order was invalid and that she could not be held in contempt for disobeying it. She also claimed a due process violation during the contempt proceedings. Additionally, she filed an emergency motion requesting the Court of Appeals to mandate the Plaintiff to provide her with running water.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant could appeal the order denying her motion to dismiss, given its lack of finality.
- Whether the Defendant could be held in contempt of court for disobeying a prior court order she claimed was invalid.
- Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to issue a mandate requiring the Plaintiff to provide the Defendant with running water.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order holding the Defendant in contempt of court.
- The Court of Appeals declined to address the appeal of the order denying the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, as it was not a final appealable order.
- The Court of Appeals denied the Defendant’s emergency motion for lack of jurisdiction.
Reasons
Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Jonathan B. Sutin and Robert E. Robles, JJ., concurring):
The Court of Appeals held that the Defendant could not appeal the order denying her motion to dismiss because it was not a final appealable order, and the Defendant failed to address this issue in her response.
The Court affirmed the contempt order, reasoning that the validity of the underlying order was irrelevant to the contempt finding. The Court cited precedent establishing that a party cannot collaterally attack the validity of an order in an appeal from a contempt judgment. The three elements of contempt—knowledge of the order, ability to comply, and willful noncompliance—were satisfied in this case.
The Court denied the Defendant’s emergency motion to mandate the Plaintiff to provide running water, explaining that it lacked jurisdiction to issue such a mandate. The Court emphasized that it is a court of review, not a court of original jurisdiction, and that mandamus jurisdiction lies exclusively with the district court.