Opinion ID: 2617820
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dismissal Pursuant to Alaska R.Civ.P. 41(e)

Text: The Borough argues that Civil Rule 41(e) required the superior court to dismiss this case for lack of prosecution exactly 33 days after it issued its Notice and Order of Dismissal and the superior court had no discretion to relax the 33 day rule. [8] Civil Rule 41(e) specifically states that [i]f good cause to the contrary is not shown at a call of the calendar or within 33 days of mailing of a notice to show cause in writing, the action shall be dismissed. (Emphasis added). Yet the superior court for some unknown reason completely disregarded the plain words of its own Notice and Order of Dismissal. The superior court's failure to abide by its own order clearly created considerable confusion between the parties. If the court's order did not mean what it said, then it should not have been issued in the first place. Consequently, in my view the case was dismissed by operation of law after 33 days. [9] See Champion Oil Co., Inc. v. Herbert, 552 P.2d 670, 672 (Alaska 1976) (automatic dismissal). Although it may have been proper for English Bay to move to reopen the case pursuant to Civil Rule 77, any other proceedings, including the court's entry of default judgment, that occurred in the absence of such a motion should have been declared null and void. However, because the Borough failed to appeal the trial court's entry of default judgment within the 30-day period, I agree with the majority that this error of law alone would not normally be a ground for relief.