Made available by Touch N' Go Systems, Inc.
e-mail: touchngo@touchngo.com, and
Law Offices of James B. Gottstein
406 G Street, Suite 210, Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 274-7686 fax 333-5869
e-mail: jimgotts@touchngo.com
You can
recent opinions, or the
chronological or
subject indices.
Prazak v. Alaska Local No. 1 International Union of Bricklayers (10/27/95), 904 P 2d 428
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before
publication in the Pacific Reporter. Readers are
requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk
of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage,
Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0607, fax (907) 276-5808.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
WILLIAM PRAZAK, )
) Supreme Court No. S-6354
Appellant, )
) Superior Court No.
v. ) 3AN-91-2044 CI
)
ALASKA LOCAL NO. 1, INTERNATIONAL )
UNION OF BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED ) O P I N I O N
CRAFTSMEN, WILLIAM C. WOLTER, )
THE STEBBINS ENGINEERING AND )
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a New )
York Corporation, LARRY R. ) [No. 4277 - October 27,
1995]
STENSTROM d/b/a S & H MASONRY )
and/or HENSEN MASONRY & EQUIPMENT )
CO., INC., a Washington Corpora- )
tion, JOHN DOE, and JANE DOE, )
)
Appellees. )
___________________________________)
)
WILLIAM PRAZAK, )
)
Appellant, ) Superior Court No.
) 3AN-91-6546 CI
v. ) (CONSOLIDATED)
)
ALASKA LOCAL NO. 1, INTERNATIONAL )
UNION OF BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED )
CRAFTSMEN, and WILLIAM C. WOLTER, )
)
Appellees. )
___________________________________)
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State
of Alaska, Third Judicial District,
Anchorage,
Peter A. Michalski, Judge.
Appearances: Ronald K. Melvin, Anchorage,
for Appellant. James A. Gasper, Jermain,
Dunnagan & Owens, P.C., Anchorage, for
Appellees Alaska Local No. 1, William Wolter,
and Larry Stenstrom. Douglas S. Parker, Ann
M. Bruner, Bogle & Gates, Anchorage, for
Appellee Stebbins Engineering.
Before: Moore, Chief Justice, Rabinowitz,
Matthews, Compton and Eastaugh, Justices.
PER CURIAM
William Prazak filed two civil suits against the
appellees. The cases were assigned to the "fast track" under
Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1, and were later consolidated.
The superior court eventually used the procedures set out in Rule
41(e) to dismiss the case.1 When Prazak moved for
reconsideration, raising for the first time the court's failure
to follow Rule 16.1's procedures for dismissal,2 the superior
court issued a one page order denying Prazak's motion for
reconsideration which stated, in part:
Until reconsideration no party treated
this case as a fast track case regardless of
characterization. The court did not treat
this case as "fast-track". Nor should the
case have been characterized as "fast-track".
Prazak appeals this decision.
Nothing in Rule 16.1 suggests that, upon consolidation,
"fast-track" cases lose their "fast-track" status. To the
contrary, the rule suggests the possibility of complex cases by
stating that multiple issues must be joined before a trial date
may be set. Alaska R. Civ. P. 16.1(c)(1). Because the appellees
fail to cite any persuasive authority suggesting that the rule
operates otherwise, we hold that consolidated Rule 16.1 cases
retain their "fast-track" status.
Because this case retained its "fast-track" status, it
is governed by Ford v. Municipality of Anchorage, 813 P.2d 654
(Alaska 1991). Ford holds that Rule 16.1 cases can be dismissed
only by following the Rule 16.1 dismissal procedures. Id. at 655-
56. Because the superior court did not follow Rule 16.1's
procedures in this case, we REVERSE and REMAND for further
proceedings.3
_______________________________
1 Alaska Civil Rule 41(e) provides:
Actions which have been pending in a
court for more than one year without any
proceedings having been taken may be
dismissed as a matter of course, for want of
prosecution, by the court on its own motion
or on motion of a party to the action. The
clerk shall review all pending cases
semiannually and in all cases in which no
proceedings have been taken for more than one
year, the court shall hold a call of the
calendar or the clerk shall send notice to
the parties to show cause in writing why the
action should not be dismissed. If good
cause to the contrary is not shown at a call
of the calendar or within 30 days of
distribution of the notice, the court shall
dismiss the action. The clerk may dismiss
actions under this paragraph if a party has
not opposed dismissal. A dismissal for want
of prosecution is without prejudice unless
the court states in the order that the case
is dismissed with prejudice.
2 Alaska Civil Rule 16.1(g) provides:
Where a motion to set trial and certifi
cate have not been filed within 270 days
after the service of the summons and
complaint, the case shall be transferred to
the inactive calendar by the clerk of the
court. The clerk shall promptly notify
counsel in writing of the transfer. All
cases which remain on the inactive calendar
for more than 60 days shall be dismissed,
unless within that period: (1) A proper
motion to set trial and certificate is filed;
or (2) the court on motion for good cause
orders a case continued on the inactive
calendar for a specified additional period of
time. Notwithstanding Civil Rule 41(b), the
dismissal does not operate as an adjudication
upon the merits unless a previous dismissal
has been entered by the court under this
rule, or by the plaintiff or parties under
Civil Rule 41(a)(1). If a case dismissed
under this rule is filed again, the court may
make such order for the payment of costs of
the case previously dismissed as it may deem
proper, and may stay the proceedings in the
case until the party has complied with the
order.
3 The appellees' other arguments lack merit. First,
because the procedures under Rule 16.1 are mandatory, Prazak is
not estopped from raising the rule as a defense. Second, because
the superior court addressed Prazak's motion for reconsideration
on the merits, and because the superior court has the discretion
to relax a civil procedure time limit, Alaskan Village, Inc. v.
Smalley, 720 P.2d 945, 950-51 (Alaska 1986), we consider that, if
Prazak's motion was one day late, the superior court relaxed the
time limit. Finally, because Prazak and the superior court both
generated documents after consolidation listing only one case
number, we deem Prazak's use of only one case number on his
motion for reconsideration as irrelevant. Foster v. Hannie, 841
P.2d 164, 170 n.6 (Alaska 1992) (failure to list all parties on
opposition does not constitute waiver of opposition when it is
obvious attorney intended opposition to include all parties).