 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alexander v. Connelly Skis2/19/2002
he case could have been dismissed for other reasons. When a trial court considers dismissal for failure to comply with the civil rules, it must be apparent from the record that the trial court explicitly considered whether a lesser sanction would have sufficed, and whether the disobedient party's refusal to obey order was willful or deliberate and substantially prejudiced the opponent's ability to prepare for trial. See Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 494, 933 P.2d 1036 (1997).
Connelly relies on Luckett v. Boeing, 98 Wn. App. 307, 989 P.2d 1144 (1999) to support the trial court's order. In Luckett, the plaintiff's case was dismissed because a confirmation of joinder had not been filed and the court denied a motion to vacate. Unlike the plaintiff in Luckett, Alexander had complied with the May 25 order and filed a confirmation of joinder and an answer before entry of the August 3 order.
Connelly urges this court to affirm the court's ruling on the basis that the motion was not brought within a reasonable time. See LaMon v. Butler, 112 Wn.2d 193, 200-201, 770 P.2d 1027 (1989) (this court may affirm a trial court's order on any basis supported by the record). Under CR 60 (b), the motion to vacate had to be brought within a 'reasonable' time, and in any event, not more than one year after the entry of the final order.
CR60(b)(11). Alexander filed his motion approximately 3- months after the entry of the order dismissing his case. This is not an unreasonable amount of time for filing a motion to vacate.
We reverse the trial court's order denying plaintiff's motion to vacate the August 3 order of dismissal and remand for trial.
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|