Opinion ID: 2637458
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: docketing statement

Text: ¶ 21 Parkinson also argues that the appeal should be dismissed because the docketing statement was not timely filed. Rule 9 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure deals with the docketing statement, and the subsections of rule 9 that are pertinent to this issue are 9(a), 9(b), and 9(g). ¶ 22 Rule 9(a) provides that a docketing statement shall be filed [w]ithin 21 days after a notice of appeal . . . is filed. Utah R.App.P. 9(a). Rule 9(b) states the purpose of the docketing statement: It is used by the appellate court in assigning cases to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeals when both have jurisdiction, in making certifications to the Supreme Court, in classifying cases for determining the priority to be accorded them, in making summary dispositions when appropriate, and in making calendar assignments. Utah R.App.P. 9(b); see also Nelson ex rel. Stuckman v. Salt Lake City, 919 P.2d 568, 572 (Utah 1996). Rule 9(g) provides the consequences for failure to comply: Docketing statements which fail to comply with this rule will not be accepted. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of the appeal or the petition. Utah R.App.P. 9(g) (emphasis added). ¶ 23 As stated above, the trial court clerk accepted a faxed copy of the notice of appeal on September 25, 1998. Therefore, pursuant to rule 9(b), the Gorostietas had twenty-one days, until October 16, to file their docketing statement. However, the Gorostietas did not file until October 29, making the docketing statement thirteen days late. ¶ 24 While timely filing is necessary, the record does not reflect, nor does Parkinson allege, any problems that arose within the appellate court as a result of the untimely filing of the docketing statement. Therefore, it appears that the purpose of the docketing statement, as set forth in rule 9(b), was still served. In addition, Parkinson does not allege any prejudice suffered as a result of the Gorostietas' untimely filing of the docketing statement. Finally, the plain language of rule 9(g) indicates that dismissal for failure to timely file the docketing statement is discretionary. ¶ 25 Even though compliance with the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure is critical, in view of the foregoing, we do not dismiss this appeal.