Opinion ID: 2461960
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Monzulla's Challenge To Subject Matter Jurisdiction Was Timely.

Text: Monzulla contends that the Commission erred because it did not consider whether it had jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals. He asserts that his failure to object to the Commission's lack of subject matter jurisdiction [before reconsideration] is immaterial. The Commission refused to consider Monzulla's challenge to its subject matter jurisdiction because he did not raise it until he moved for reconsideration of its decision on the merits and had not established that there [were] grounds to distinguish or overturn Eagle Hardware & Garden v. Ammi. [6] The Commission stated that AS 23.30.180(f) [did] not permit [Monzulla] to raise a legal issue for the first time on reconsideration, especially one that [was] not closely related to any points raised or decided in the appeal. The question of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, [7] and a court can raise the issue of its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. [8] Therefore, we conclude that Monzulla's challenge was not untimely. [9] But any error was harmless, as set out below in Part IV.C.