Opinion ID: 1424395
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bickerstaff v. Denny's Restaurant, Inc.

Text: In the present case, the trial court found insufficient facts to justify relief under Rule 60(c)(6). The judge did not explain why the facts were insufficient; instead, he cited our opinion in Bickerstaff, which upheld a dismissal for failure to comply with Uniform Rule V(e) against a Rule 60(c)(6) challenge. In Bickerstaff, the plaintiff asserted three grounds for relief under Rule 60(c)(6). First, plaintiff argued that she would suffer extreme hardship if she were forced to pay her own medical bills. Second, plaintiff asserted that because there were ongoing settlement negotiations the case should not have been dismissed for lack of prosecution. Third, plaintiff argued that she was barred from refiling the action because the statute of limitations had run prior to dismissal. 141 Ariz. at 632, 688 P.2d at 640. The trial court found these factors insufficient and we affirmed. We rejected the plaintiff's first reason  extreme hardship resulting from having to bear the costs of her injuries  as unextraordinary because the same result would have been obtained if plaintiff had lost her claim on the merits. 141 Ariz. at 632, 688 P.2d at 640. As to the plaintiff's second factor  ongoing settlement negotiations  we found it impossible to conclude, from the record before us, whether settlement was being seriously discussed when the case was dismissed. We assumed, however, that at least plaintiff's counsel had not abandoned the case before it was dismissed. Id. As to the third factor, we agreed with plaintiff that the passing of the statutory limitations period may ... be considered as one of many factors in a determination of `extraordinary circumstances'.... We held, however, that passage of the limitations period standing alone does not justify relief under Rule 60(c)(6). 141 Ariz. at 633, 688 P.2d at 641.