How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for North Dakota

Step-by-step

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer calculator.

Use DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer to model how a North Dakota offer of judgment can affect cost exposure. This walkthrough is jurisdiction-aware for US-ND and uses the general/default rule in N.D. Cent. Code § 28-26-06.

1) Open the analyzer and select the right tool

1. Go to DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. If the interface asks for jurisdiction or jurisdiction code, choose:

   • Jurisdiction: North Dakota (US-ND)

2) Enter the key dates (this drives “from the date of the offer” effects)

You’ll typically see fields for dates such as:

• Offer date (the date you served the offer)
• Trial start date (or another “before trial” cutoff date)
• Judgment date (sometimes prompted, depending on the analyzer)

North Dakota linkage: Under N.D. Cent. Code § 28-26-06, the offer must be made “before trial.” That means the analyzer needs a coherent timeline so it can treat the offer as falling inside the covered window.

✅ Practical guidance for inputs:

• Put the actual offer/service date in the offer date field.
• Use the scheduled trial start date if you’re modeling based on the court calendar.

3) Enter the “offer amount” and the “expected outcome”

Most Offer Of Judgment Analyzer setups require numeric inputs that let DocketMath compare outcomes.

Common fields include:

• Offer amount (the proposed judgment amount)
• Estimated judgment amount (what the court/jury might award)
• Any other comparison amount the tool requests (varies by implementation)

What to watch:

• The analyzer’s conclusions usually turn on whether the offeree obtains a more favorable judgment than the offer.
• If the modeled judgment is not more favorable, the cost-shifting consequence described in § 28-26-06 becomes relevant (i.e., costs incurred from the date of the offer, not the entire case).

4) Add party posture (offeree vs. offeror)

If DocketMath asks you to choose a side (for example):

• “You are the offeror” vs.
• “You are the offeree”

Select the side that matches how you want to evaluate the risk.

Why this matters:

• The statute’s consequence runs against the offeree if they reject the offer and fail to obtain a more favorable judgment.
• The analyzer will generally switch the direction of cost exposure depending on your selection.

5) Input costs incurred (if the tool supports it)

Some analyses allow you to enter one or more cost figures.

North Dakota linkage: N.D. Cent. Code § 28-26-06 focuses on costs incurred by the offeror from the date of the offer.

So, if your tool supports a “from the offer date” approach, try to enter costs that align with that concept, such as:

• Estimated costs incurred after the offer date (or another field that explicitly represents “from the date of the offer”)

If instead the tool only accepts a single “total costs” number:

• Be cautious: entering total case costs can overstate exposure if some of those costs occurred before the offer.

6) Run the analysis and interpret the results

After you click Analyze (or the equivalent button):

• Review the summary comparison (offer vs. modeled judgment)
• Look for outputs related to:

  • Whether the modeled result is treated as a more favorable judgment
  • The estimated cost exposure / cost shifting range
  • Notes tied to the “before trial” timing window

How the output changes in North Dakota:

• Offer made before trial: the scenario is eligible for the modeled cost-shifting consequence.
• Offeree obtains a more favorable judgment: cost shifting may not trigger under the analyzer’s logic.
• Offeree does not obtain a more favorable judgment: the analyzer models potential liability for costs incurred from the date of the offer under N.D. Cent. Code § 28-26-06.

7) Save or export your scenario (if available)

If DocketMath lets you save:

• Save a baseline scenario name like: “US-ND OJ—offer before trial—judgment not more favorable”
• Then run alternatives by changing one variable at a time, such as:

  • Offer amount
  • Offer date (still before trial)
  • Modeled judgment amount
  • Post-offer costs

This helps you see exactly which input drives changes in the output.

Common pitfalls

Below are the most frequent reasons results can feel inconsistent when running the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer for North Dakota.

• § 28-26-06 limits the offer window to “before trial.”

• If your offer date is outside that window, the analyzer may not reflect ND’s timing framework.

• The statute keys on costs incurred from the date of the offer (N.D. Cent. Code § 28-26-06).

• If your costs input includes expenses from before the offer, your modeled exposure can be higher than intended.

• The triggering concept is whether the offeree obtains a more favorable judgment after rejecting the offer.

• Small differences in the modeled judgment figure can flip the analyzer’s conclusion.

• In this ND configuration, no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found.

• Treat § 28-26-06 as the general/default rule for this analyzer logic.

Try it

Run a quick sanity check to confirm the ND logic behaves as expected.

Checklist:

Then run two versions of the same scenario:

After running both:

• If A and B look the same, double-check:

  • Whether “more favorable judgment” is computed from the correct amounts
  • Whether your offer date and judgment comparison inputs are consistent

For additional workflow practice, revisit /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer and compare the output summary across small input changes.

Related reading

• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Alabama
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Arizona
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Colorado