Court Opinion

ID: 9627553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:47:41.752642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:46.844147
License: Public Domain

OPINION
Before MATTHEWS, C.J., and BURKE, COMPTON and MOORE, JJ.
*672PER CURIAM.
After a thorough examination of the record, giving due regard to the particular circumstances of this case, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the superior court erred in ruling that Footh’s request for attorney’s fees, filed 70 days after entry of judgment, was filed within a “reasonable time” under this court’s decisions in State v. University of Alaska, 624 P.2d 807, 817 (Alaska 1981) and Brunet v. Dresser Olympic Div. of Dresser Industries, 660 P.2d 846, 847 (Alaska 1988). Relevant in this regard is T & G’s failure to demonstrate any substantial prejudice as a result of the delay.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Footh attorney’s fees under Civil Rule 82. See Betz v. Chena Hot Springs Group, 742 P.2d 1346, 1348 (Alaska 1987); Peter Pan Seafoods v. Stepanoff 650 P.2d 375, 378-79 (Alaska 1982).
The decision of the superior court is AFFIRMED.1
RABINO WITZ, J., not participating.

. The question of an express deadline for the filing of requests for attorney's fees has been referred to the court's standing committee on Civil Rules for study.