Opinion ID: 2551099
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wickwire's Failure To Appeal Judge Hodges's Decision in a Timely Manner

Text: Sengupta's remaining claims involve Wickwire's failure to appeal Judge Hodges's decision in a timely manner. Sengupta argues that if Wickwire had filed the appeal on time, Sengupta could have won his appeal to this court on the questions whether his due process was violated at the pre-termination hearing and whether Rice improperly afforded collateral estoppel to the Parrish findings. [37] Sengupta argues that the superior court erred in granting summary judgment to Wickwire on the ground that Wickwire limited the scope of his representation to a single issue for the appeal of Judge Hodges's decision. [38] Sengupta argues that he wished to appeal the entirety of Judge Hodges's decision and that he understood that his appeal would include all of the points stated in Sengupta's September 2, 1996 letter to Wickwire. Sengupta also argues that he could have amended or supplemented his appeal to include more issues and that this court could have reviewed all issues of law presented to Judge Hodges, regardless of which issues Sengupta actually appealed. Sengupta did not present any evidence to the superior court indicating that he did not receive Wickwire's letter or that he did not agree to the terms of the representation at the time Wickwire sent the letter. In fact, Sengupta states in an affidavit that Wickwire signed an agreement with Sengupta on September 12, 1996. This acknowledgment of an agreement apparently refers to Wickwire's letter limiting the scope of his representation in the appeal to a single issue: that Judge Hodges erred in concluding that [Sengupta] had to accept the administrative hearing before Julian Rice, instead of an administrative determination by the tenured faculty of [Sengupta's] unit. Sengupta paid Wickwire $10,000, as the letter requested, and when Wickwire did file the late appeal, he only included the single issue identified in the letter. Sengupta failed to provide any evidence to the trial court to support his argument that he understood that all of the issues would be appealed, or that he would have personally appealed additional issues. All of the evidence points to the agreement that Wickwire would only appeal a single issue. The superior court did not address whether Sengupta was harmed by Wickwire's failure to file a timely appeal on the single issue that he did agree to appeal: whether Sengupta was entitled to a pre-termination hearing before a faculty panel. [39] This omission is harmless because Sengupta cannot establish that he was injured by Wickwire's failure to appeal this issue in a timely manner. In Sengupta v. University of Alaska, we concluded that Sengupta was not entitled to a pre-termination hearing before a faculty panel under the UAF regulations in effect at the time of his termination proceedings. [40] Sengupta therefore could not have prevailed on this claim even if Wickwire had filed his appeal on time. Because Wickwire and Sengupta agreed to limit the scope of Wickwire's representation to a single point on appeal, we affirm the superior court's grant of summary judgment to Wickwire. [41]