Opinion ID: 1181007
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: was the amended complaint filed on time?

Text: For purposes of discussion on this point, we consider the following events: A. January 17, 1978, appellants file suit for specific performance. B. January 24, appellees file motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Rules of Civil Procedure. C. February 8, motion to dismiss granted by minute entry, with leave to plaintiffs to amend within 20 days. D. February 10, copy of minute order granting motion to dismiss mailed to counsel. E. March 2, judgment of dismissal entered. F. March 7, plaintiffs-appellants file amended complaint. Appellants contend that since notice of the minute entry granting the motion to dismiss with leave to plaintiffs to amend within 20 days was mailed on February 10, the first day of the applicable period was February 11 under Rules 6(a) and 5(c) of Civil Procedure. In pertinent part these rules provide as follows: 6(a) Computation. In computing any period of time prescribed ... by order of court ... the day of the act, event or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. 5(c) Service; how made. Service by mail is complete upon mailing. We agree that the first day to be counted was February 11. In addition, appellants urge that Rule 6(e) permits five additional days to respond when service is effected by mail: 6(e) Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper upon him and the notice or paper is served upon him by mail, five days shall be added to the prescribed period. This rule has no application to the mailing of notice of entry of judgment required by Rule 77(g). (Emphasis added.) Thus, construing the foregoing rules together, appellant concludes that he had a total of twenty-five days, commencing from February 11, in which to file the amended complaint and that the amended complaint filed March 7 was timely. Appellees take the position that our holding in Union Interchange, Inc. v. Benton, 100 Ariz. 33, 410 P.2d 477 (1966), is dispositive of the question. That case involved an order of court giving plaintiff  a foreign corporation  fifteen days in which to file security for costs. When plaintiff failed to do so, the case was dismissed. On appeal, plaintiff asserted that his filing would have been timely if there had been allowance for notice by mail pursuant to Rule 6(e) [at that time Rule 6(e) allowed for three additional days]. We made the following observation: We do not think it was intended that Rule 6(e) apply in circumstances where the time is established with specificity by the trial court. The plaintiff was ordered to file the security for costs within 15 days which is not the same as an order to act within a period after receipt of notice. 100 Ariz. at 36, 410 P.2d at 479. Since Union Interchange, supra, we have amended both 6(e) and 77(g); the amendments became effective on October 1, 1976. Rule 6(e), supra, now provides for the addition of five days to the prescribed period when service is made by mail  as in this case. More significant, however, is the specific exclusion of notice of entry of judgment required in 77(g). There was no reference to 77(g) in the previous version of Rule 6(e). Bearing this in mind, we examine the relevant portions of Rule 77(g): Minute entries; notice of entry of judgments. The clerk shall mail copies of all minute entries to all parties. Immediately upon the entry of a judgment as defined in Rule 54(a), the clerk shall mail a notice of the entry of judgment . . in the manner provided for in Rule 5, .... (Emphasis added.) Former 77(g), titled Notice of orders or judgments, did not distinguish between minute entries and judgments as defined in Rule 54(a). Obviously not every minute entry order is a judgment under 54(a), which reads, in pertinent part: Definition; form. Judgment as used in these Rules includes a decree and an order from which an appeal lies. (Emphasis added.) Consequently, Rule 6(e) does allow an additional five days to reply after service by mail unless the mail notice is an entry of judgment as that term is defined in Rule 54(a), which is incorporated by specific reference in Rule 77(g). It is clear that the minute entry order of February 8, which was mailed February 10, was not an appealable order under any of the criteria of A.R.S. § 12-2101. Since it was not appealable, it was not a judgment within the contemplation of Rule 77(g) or 54(a). Considering that Rule 6(e) excludes only notice of entry of judgment required by Rule 77(g), we hold that appellant did have an additional five days in which to file an amended complaint and that the amended complaint was timely filed on March 7, the twenty-fifth day of the permissible period. We vacate the order of dismissal and remand to the Superior Court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. CAMERON, C.J., STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., HOLOHAN and GORDON, JJ., concurring.