 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
West v. Buchanan6/11/1999
es a pleading in the action."
West argues that because the amendment to her complaint related back to the time of its initial filing, Buchanan should not have been permitted to peremptorily challenge Judge Beistline. But West's contention rests on a false premise. West asserts that "Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 42(c)(1) aggregates both Bembry and Buchanan as a single party." This interpretation is incorrect. Civil Rule 42(c)(1) explains only that " wo or more parties aligned on the same side of an action . . . shall be treated as one side for purposes of the right to a change of Judge." (Emphasis added.) In its Discussion of the timeliness of peremptory challenges, Civil Rule 42(c)(3) explicitly refers to parties, not sides. Moreover, the position West advocates would require Buchanan to have peremptorily challenged Judge Beistline before she was made a party to the action. To adopt West's assertion would eliminate the right of persons in Buchanan's position to peremptorily challenge a Judge. The decision to allow Buchanan to peremptorily challenge Judge Beistline was correct.
B. Judge Steinkruger Did Not Err in Declining to Follow the Law of the Case.
Although Judge Beistline concluded that the statute of limitations did not bar amendment of the complaint because the amendment would properly relate back to the date the complaint was filed, the case was then reassigned to Judge Steinkruger, who viewed this issue differently. In granting Buchanan's motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, Judge Steinkruger implicitly held that West's amended complaint would not relate back to the date her complaint was originally filed, thus overruling Judge Beistline's earlier decision. West suggests that Judge Steinkruger erred by failing to follow the law of the case.
Stepanov v. Gavrilovich provides guidance on this issue. In Stepanov, we explained that the law of the case doctrine "expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided." This practice is not an absolute rule of law. Rather it is a matter of "sound judicial policy." We recognized the power of one trial court Judge to overrule another, in the proper exercise of judicial discretion. And, " hile this power is not to be used lightly," we observed that it is "entirely reasonable for a Judge whose responsibility it is to try a case to reconsider and reverse an earlier ruling if convinced that that ruling was erroneous." Judge Steinkruger was within her discretion to reconsider whether West's amended complaint would properly relate back to the date her complaint was originally filed.
C. West's Amendment Substituting Buchanan as Defendant Relates Back to the Initial Filing of the Complaint.
In order to determine whether West's amended complaint, which substituted Hiltrud Buchanan as the defendant, relates back to the original complaint, we must interpret the language of Alaska Civil Rule 15(c). This provision sets forth the criteria for an amendment to relate back to the filing of the original pleading. The rule states:
"Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if the foregoing provision is satisfied and, within the period provided by law for commencing the action against the party to be brought in by amendment, that party (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that the party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defen
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|