Opinion ID: 1379151
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Was the State Defendants' Peremptory Challenge Timely?

Text: Karen contends that the State's peremptory challenge of Judge John Reese was untimely, because it was filed more than five days after the State was served with the summons showing that the case was assigned to him. The summons was served on the State on September 16. On October 5 the State defendants filed their entry of appearance, answer, and peremptory challenge. The court accepted the peremptory challenge and reassigned the case to another judge on October 11. Karen's timeliness objections were denied. Alaska Civil Rule 42(c)(3) provides in part: Where a party has been served or enters an action after the case has been assigned to a specific judge, a notice of a change of judge shall also be timely if filed by the party before the commencement of trial and within five days after a party appears or files a pleading in the action. Because no trial had commenced and the challenge was filed on the same day the State defendants entered an appearance, the presiding judge properly rejected Karen's argument that the State's peremptory challenge was untimely. [13]