BBFM Engineers, Inc. v. Eric McDonald, Architects Alaska, Inc. v. Eric McDonald, 530 P.3d 352

Eric McDonald (subcontractor employee) sued Architects Alaska, Inc. and BBFM Engineers for negligent design after a job-site injury; trial was set for August 2019.
Defense counsel engaged in email settlement negotiations in spring 2019; defense counsel proposed a "walk-away" dismissal and counsel for McDonald indicated she was "authorized to engage in discussions" and was awaiting client approval.
McDonald’s attorney moved to withdraw in June/July 2019; McDonald was pro se when defendants moved to enforce the alleged walk-away settlement; he filed a limited, late opposition and a continuance request that the court deemed insufficient.
Superior Court Judge Aarseth granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the case with prejudice in August 2019; McDonald did not appeal then.
Nearly a year later McDonald filed an extensive Rule 60(b) motion claiming he never authorized settlement; a different superior court judge (Matthews) granted relief under Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) and vacated the dismissal.
The Alaska Supreme Court reversed, holding McDonald’s Rule 60(b) motion was not filed within a reasonable time and that Rule 60(b)(6) relief was improper because an applicable Rule 60(b) subsection existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Rule 60(b)(1) motion	McDonald waited because he was pro se, confused about how to proceed, and needed time to research and draft; filed within one year	Defendants: nearly one-year delay was unreasonable; plaintiff knew or was alerted to need to act months earlier	Motion was untimely as a matter of discretion; filing nearly a year later was not a "reasonable time" and pro se status alone is not a compelling excuse
Availability of Rule 60(b)(6) relief	Extraordinary circumstances (pro se status, alleged court/counsel errors) justified equitable relief despite delay	Defendants: no extraordinary circumstances; alternate Rule 60(b) ground (1) existed so (6) unavailable	Rule 60(b)(6) relief was improper: no extraordinary circumstances justified relaxing the reasonable-time requirement and (6) cannot be used when another subsection applies
Whether enforcement order should have been decided on summary-judgment standard	McDonald argued there were factual disputes and no binding agreement; superior court erred by enforcing settlement without resolving facts	Defendants contended emails manifested offer/acceptance and enforceable settlement	Supreme Court assumed possible error below but did not reach merits because Rule 60(b) relief was untimely; merits left unresolved on appeal

Alaska Truck Transp., Inc. v. Berman Packing Co., 469 P.2d 697 (Alaska 1970) (establishes 30-day benchmark for timely Rule 60(b) motions and balances finality vs. correcting injustice)
Sandoval v. Sandoval, 915 P.2d 1222 (Alaska 1996) (pro se status does not automatically excuse long delays for Rule 60(b) relief)
Fernandez v. Fernandez, 358 P.3d 562 (Alaska 2015) (Rule 60(b) timing and excusable neglect principles)
Richard v. Boggs, 162 P.3d 629 (Alaska 2007) (substance-over-form test for final judgment triggering appeal/Rule 60 deadlines)
Chena Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C. v. Bridges, 502 P.3d 951 (Alaska 2022) (discusses scope of Rule 60(b) and court’s authority to grant relief)