Court Opinion

ID: 9854974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:17:37.994044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:37.863925
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice, Retired,
specially concurring.
I concur in the disposition of this appeal and in the affirmance of the district court’s order. I do not concur in that part of the court’s opinion which holds that a motion not determined within 90 days after filing is not deemed denied as provided in W.R.C.P. 6(e)(2) and does not require further pleading within ten days thereafter. Rule 6(c)(2) expressly so provides and for good reason. It has always been a consistent policy and purpose of our rules to move eases through the courts as expeditiously and at the least cost possible. Rule 6(c)(2) promotes that policy. It should be enforced as written.
Further, I cannot agree that any party should ever be required to affirmatively seek and obtain an order requiring another to answer. The answer to a complaint is always the burden of the answering party, and that obligation should never shift to the complaining party.
In summary, I would hold that at the expiration of 90 days the appellees’ pending motion was denied per Rule 6(c)(2). At that point, there was no responsive pleading in the case. Appellees had ten days thereafter to respond and, upon failure, were in default. I agree, nevertheless, in this case, for other proper reasons stated in the court’s opinion, the entry of default was properly vacated.