Opinion ID: 2586441
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Procedural Errors by the Superior Court

Text: Mullins alleges that the superior court made a series of procedural errors while considering her administrative appeal: that the superior court ruled on the LBC's motion to dismiss the complaint without affording Mullins an opportunity to file an opposition; that the superior court delayed sending Mullins the order of dismissal and order of clarification; and that the superior court gave Mullins the wrong call-in number for the July 20 hearing. She argues that these claimed errors violated her constitutional rights and require us to reverse the dismissal of her appeal. Mullins first complains that the superior court failed to allow her adequate time to respond to the LBC's motion to dismiss. Her claim has merit  it was an abuse of discretion to rule on the LBC's motion only one week after it was served on Mullins, well before the eighteen days in which Mullins had to file her opposition had elapsed. [3] But the superior court's failure to allow Mullins adequate time to respond does not require a reversal of its decision because Mullins can show no resulting prejudice. [4] After the superior court made its initial ruling, Mullins filed an opposition to the LBC's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot and then a motion to vacate the superior court's dismissal of her lawsuit as moot. Thereafter, the court issued an order of clarification reaffirming the dismissal of the appeal. Because the superior court considered Mullins's position and arguments regarding why her appeal should not be dismissed as moot, Mullins was not prejudiced by the court's premature decision. [5] Moreover, we now apply our independent judgment in deciding the LBC's motion to dismiss the case on mootness grounds without reference to the opinion of the superior court. Our de novo review of the merits of the LBC's motion to dismiss will cure any prejudice that Mullins potentially suffered from the superior court's procedural error. [6] Mullins expresses further concern that the superior court did not mail its order of dismissal until four days after it was entered or its order of clarification until seven days after it was entered. This delay in distribution caused no prejudice to Mullins because the time for appeal, review, and reconsideration of the written order did not begin until the date shown in the clerk's certificate of distribution. [7] It therefore does not require us to reverse the dismissal of Mullins's appeal. Finally, Mullins complains that the superior court provided her with the wrong phone number for the July 20 hearing on her motion for a preliminary injunction. Even if the court accidentally provided Mullins with an incorrect number for the hearing, [8] such a mistake would not merit reversal of the court's decision. Mullins was able to join the hearing after a short delay and, after the court summarized the part of the hearing she missed, she was provided with an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the court made no substantive rulings at or based on the July 20 hearing but only set a briefing schedule. We thus conclude that none of the alleged procedural errors by the superior court support the reversal of its dismissal of Mullins's appeal.