Find Legal Information

Tarnavsky v. TschiderNo. 20090348

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Edward J. Tarnavsky appeals the trial court's judgment granting David A. Tschider's summary judgment motion and dismissing Tarnavsky's complaint against Tschider.

[¶2] On appeal, Tarnavsky argues the trial court should not have granted summary judgment in favor of Tschider; the court erred in finding a legal privilege of absolute immunity; Tschider made an impermissible collateral attack on a federal judgment; Tschider has not shown a public purpose required to maintain his privilege; Tschider is bound by privity, by his profession, or by res judicata to a federal judgment; and an order releasing evidence and Tschider's assertion of different facts constitute a spoilation of evidence.

[¶3] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (6). Because Tarnavsky's appeal is frivolous, we award Tschider double costs incurred on appeal. N.D.R.App.P. 38.

[¶4] Carol Ronning Kapsner, Acting C.J.
Mary Muehlen Maring
Dale V. Sandstrom
Benny A. Graff, S.J.
Ronald E. Goodman, S.J.

[¶5] The Honorable Benny A. Graff, S.J., and the Honorable Ronald Goodman, S.J., sitting in place of VandeWalle, C.J., and Crothers, J., disqualified.