Opinion ID: 2582501
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Andrade/Barahona appeal was procedurally proper as a declaratory judgment action.

Text: The state contends that the Andrade family's appeal was procedurally flawed by its failure to file a notice of appeal or a statement of points on appeal in the superior court. [16] The state also argues that one action cannot be both an administrative appeal and a complaint for damages. It contends that the actions must be filed separately, after which the plaintiffs could have moved to consolidate if desired. Failure to file separately was a flouting of the rules of procedure. The Andrade family responds that it did file a timely appeal of the department's decision in the superior court. And the class contends that its action was a direct class action in which it sought declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of AS 43.23.005(a) and the statute's implementing regulations. Thus, both the Andrade family and the class argue that appellate procedures were unnecessary. The superior court record does not contain a notice of appeal or a statement of points on appeal. However, once the matter was before the court as an original class action challenging the constitutionality of a statute, the class was not required to submit these documents. As an appeal of an administrative decision, the case required a notice of appeal and points on appeal. But as a declaratory judgment action, this would be unnecessary. [17] Although the Andrade family's procedural path is somewhat irregular, we find that the failure to follow appellate rules does not render this action invalid because the appeal was combined with a declaratory judgment and class action.