Opinion ID: 2337629
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We Deny Motion to Dismiss for Untimeliness as Unnecessary for Resolution.

Text: According to Arnold's motion, the petition for the writ of mandamus was untimely filed; and Arnold claims we lack jurisdiction to consider it. Arnold contends that the Court of Appeals order confirms this point. But we find no language in the Court of Appeals' order indicating that it determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Rather, the Court of Appeals simply decided that the Estate had not shown entitlement to the writ and cited the apparent four-month delay between the issuance of the stay and filing of the petition for mandamus relief as a factor belying the Estate's claims of irreparable injury: Another fact serving to defeat petitioners' claim of irreparable injury is that the record shows that the last action taken by the trial court in this matter dates back to January[ ] 2007, while the original action was not filed until late May[ ] 2007, which also happened to be, at the time, less than one month before the scheduled trial date. [3] So, contrary to Arnold's argument, the Court of Appeals did not rule that it lacked jurisdiction nor did it suggest that the petition for mandamus was not timely filed. The Court of Appeals simply observed that the passage of time between the trial court's last actionpresumably referring to the stay order in the second caseand the filing of the petition suggested that the Estate's claimed injury was neither urgent nor irreparable. We reject Arnold's argument that even though [t]here is no set limitations period in Kentucky's Civil Rules for filing a petition for extraordinary relief, logic demands that the thirty-day limitations period for filing an appeal from a final judgment under CR 73.02(1)(a) must also apply to petitions for extraordinary relief. Such a limitations period for filing petitions for extraordinary relief has not been established in Kentucky by court rule or otherwise, [4] other states' authority to the contrary notwithstanding. And because we find no error in the Court of Appeals' determination that extraordinary relief is not warranted on the merits, except that we find the stay must be lifted, we do not find it necessary to address whether the time limits for appeals under CR 73.02 must also apply to petitions for extraordinary relief governed by CR 76.36. So we deny the motion to dismiss the appeal and the motion for leave to file a supporting memorandum of law.