Opinion ID: 1175539
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fourteen Day Grace Period

Text: Cowitz contends that under Alaska Appellate Rule 511.5(a), she was entitled to a 14-day grace period within which to file a brief before dismissal. Rule 511.5(a) states: If an appellant or his counsel fails to comply with these rules, the clerk shall notify the appellant and the appellant's counsel in writing that the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution unless the appellant remedies the default within 14 days after the date of notification, time to be computed in accordance with Rule 502(c). If the appellant fails to comply within the 14-day period, the clerk shall issue an order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution. In no case, except by order of the court on a motion to reinstate the appeal, shall the appellant be entitled to remedy the default after the appeal has been dismissed under this rule. ALP counters that under Rule 511.5(c) the superior court was authorized to dismiss the case without affording Cowitz the opportunity to remedy her failure to file a brief: The court may, upon motion of a party or its own motion, dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with these rules, whether or not prior notice of default has been given. There is no logical way to reconcile these two subsections. It seems apparent, however, that Cowitz was not entitled to a 14-day grace period here. If Rule 511.5(a) is interpreted as Cowitz suggests, as indefinitely granting a 14-day grace period, then the 30-day deadline for filing briefs is meaningless. Counsel could fail to file a brief for several years and still be granted fourteen extra days before dismissal. It is an appellant's responsibility to file an opening brief, and counsel cannot expect court supervision of this procedural rule. Cowitz does not claim to have relied upon Rule 511.5(a), so the contradictory nature of 511.5 does not render the dismissal unfair. Even after ALP filed the motion to dismiss, Cowitz took a month rather than fourteen days to file a brief. Cowitz's attorney did have an opportunity to explain his delay when he filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. He argued only the certification issue. The memorandum did not mention Rule 511.5(a). [1] Review of the record discloses that Cowitz simply did not have a valid reason for failing to file a brief for eighteen months. We therefore conclude that Cowitz was not entitled to a fourteen-day grace period after an eighteen-month delay. The superior court's dismissal is AFFIRMED. [2]